---

Mr. McNamara: If that is the case--no one would disagree with what the Minister said about all the issues that he has mentioned--why can he not say, "If you declare a ceasefire at such a time, provided that those matters are dealt with, we will then allow you to enter the talks"?

Sir John Wheeler: If the Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein were to make an announcement in clear, unequivocal terms, and follow up its statement and its language with clear action on the ground--by, for example, giving an instruction to stand down the so-called active service units--and if the evidence were so plain that no Member of Parliament, including those present this evening, doubted the reality of the position, it would be

9 Dec 1996 : Column 87

comparatively easy for Sinn Fein to enter the talks process. If that were not the case, however, Her Majesty's Government would be obliged to take into account those circumstances, to look at events on the ground and to make a judgment. That is an inescapable burden that falls on the Government--a burden that the Government will not shirk.

In saying that, I make it clear to the House that the Government are not attempting to erect barriers to Sinn Fein's entry into the talks process. We want an inclusive process. But if that process is to succeed, and if other parties to the talks are to remain in the same room, what Sinn Fein says must be absolutely true and beyond any question of doubt. I hope that I have made our position clear.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) also raised the question--as he just did in his intervention--of Sinn Fein's entry into the talks. As I have made clear, and as the Government have made clear on many occasions, the exclusion from the present talks process is a self-exclusion. It could end today. It is in the hands of the Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein to take the action that would command confidence and permit it to enter the process: that is entirely a matter for it.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): The Minister used the word "action". He will recognise that there was a time when members of the IRA would never deny their membership. They changed that, and were prepared to challenge it at the time Daithi O'Connell was brought before the courts in Dublin. Does the Minister accept that words are not enough to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are genuine? References to a "resumed ceasefire" or to the "restoration of a ceasefire" are not enough either. That is not the ceasefire that the people of Northern Ireland want, because it was never real or genuine.

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that the previous ceasefire, which we all welcomed, was nevertheless fraudulent: it did not deliver the integrity that the House, the public and parties in Northern Ireland sought. We cannot make that mistake again. If there is to be another ceasefire, it must be genuine, and perceived to be genuine by all who have an interest in the process; otherwise it will not work.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also raised points about the scheme. The Government intend the scheme, or schemes, to be appropriate to Great Britain, taking into account the different circumstances that may apply in the two separate jurisdictions--England and Wales, and Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman asked about details of the scheme. Work on ways in which decommissioning take place in practice is certainly in hand, but it is not possible at this stage to finalise the detailed arrangements. Those are also matters in which the parties to the talks will have an interest. I can say, however, that the ways will encompass one or more of the decommissioning methods set out in paragraph 44 of the report of the international body.

I very much hope and expect that all parties in Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to examine any decommissioning schemes in draft. The House will also

9 Dec 1996 : Column 88

have the opportunity to scrutinise both the content and the length of such schemes at regular intervals. That is the purpose of clause 2, and the intention behind it.

The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) asked about the relevance of the Mitchell report following the events of 9 February. The Government's view is that the only basis on which the process can move forward to a position in which decommissioning is actually likely to occur is the compromise favoured by the international body, providing for some decommissioning during the negotiations. I recognise the sincerely and strongly held reservations of principle expressed by many hon. Members about aspects of this, but unless we can move the process forward under the Mitchell proposals, no progress will be made.

The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to the 100 concessions, to use his words. They were not concessions. They were moves, during the ceasefire period, towards normality. The Government made them in response to the decreased security threat, as was then the case. No one in Northern Ireland wants to live with all the security arrangements that then existed, but, in the wake of the resumption of violence, and under the advice of the Chief Constable, the Government have reversed some of those relaxations. We will take no risks with the security of people in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman also raised "The Cook Report" television programme and the involvement of Mr. Martin McGuinness. Any evidence that comes to the notice of the authorities will be properly examined, but it is for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether there is a case to take before the courts. There is no lack of willingness, however, to investigate such cases, if the evidence is there.

In Committee, we will consider in more detail the points raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. I think that I have answered some of them already, but the timing of the introduction of the Irish Bill is a matter for the Irish Government. I have no reason to believe, however, that their earlier intention to introduce their Bill shortly does not still stand. Both Governments have worked closely together to prepare legislation that is entirely complementary.

In the past few weeks, that detailed work has continued. The need for the two Bills to match each other closely has required the Irish side to take account of certain late changes to our Bill. They refer in particular to including Great Britain within the Bill's scope. The scheme in the Republic of Ireland requires a form of regulation that we do not need to have in our Bill, so there are those minor differences in the arrangements.

Ms Mowlam: I appreciate the Minister giving way. In terms of timing, would the Minister help to clarify an earlier intervention? Would it be possible for him to give a commitment that the publication of the North committee report will be timed with a statement in the House, so that the House can respond to the report immediately?

Sir John Wheeler: I cannot predict what the business managers may be willing to agree to at the end of January. I will, of course, take note of the hon. Lady's suggestion about a statement. She would agree, however, that it is important that, once it is available, the report should be carefully considered. If there is a need for any legislative

9 Dec 1996 : Column 89

changes, the House would want to consider those at the earliest practicable opportunity. To that extent, I acknowledge the hon. Lady's concern.

Mr. Trimble: I appreciate the Minister's caution about promising statements to the House, because I am sure that the business managers of the House would have an interest in that. I notice, however, that the Northern Ireland Office rarely makes statements to the House and that there are oodles of matters on which it should, including its statement tomorrow morning in Stormont--a place where we will not be.

Be that as it may, will the Minister give an undertaking that, as soon as he receives the North committee report, it will be published so that all parties in the House and the whole community in Northern Ireland can react to it and so that we have proper consultation before the legislation?

Sir John Wheeler: I will of course take into account the hon. Gentleman's advice and find out what can be done to meet his objectives.

I hope that I have dealt with some of the points of hon. Members. I look forward to pursuing those points in further detail in Standing Committee next week, when I hope we shall be able to make speedy progress with the Bill, which has received widespread support from the House as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

9 Dec 1996 : Column 90

NORTHERN IRELAND ARMS DECOMMISSIONING BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified--

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State--

(a) in connection with a scheme for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives, or
(b) in making payments to or in connection with a Commission established to facilitate decommissioning--[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

CONTRACT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)),

That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee--[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

---