| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.40 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): I thank the Secretary of State for her kind remarks. I am pleased to be at the Dispatch Box, having spent a little more than five years doing good by stealth in the Government Whips Office. I am glad that there is solidarity among Whips on this occasion, and that the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household is in his place to ensure that his predecessor behaves properly. I am delighted to be directly involved with life in the Province again, having spent three and a half happy years in the late 1980s as the parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
On behalf of the official Opposition, I confirm that we entirely support the draft interim period extension order. Like the Secretary of State, I acknowledge that, although direct rule was intended to be temporary, it has now had to be renewed 22 times. Few observers dispute the claim that it has provided Northern Ireland with fair, efficient and effective government. Yet the fundamental weaknesses of the current arrangements are clear and acknowledged.
Since 1972, no Minister who has served in the Northern Ireland Office has represented a Northern Ireland constituency. That has effectively excluded all locally elected representatives--particularly Members of Parliament--from being responsible for decisions about local services and priorities such as education, health and industrial development. It means that Northern Ireland suffers from a democratic deficit: the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues exercise powers that, anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would be carried out at a local level.
The situation is compounded by the fact that the Province's 26 district councils have limited responsibilities compared with equivalent bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us be honest: most local government functions remain the responsibility of Departments in the Northern Ireland Office. As a result, and within the context of a comprehensive political settlement, we must be determined to re-establish political institutions in Northern Ireland that not only allow local politicians to exercise greater powers and responsibilities, but enable both sides of the community to work together. To this end, we should be prepared to consider any proposals that pass two key tests: they must be workable and, crucially, command widespread acceptance throughout both parts of the community.
In the meantime, improvements to direct rule are essential. Although I hope that the overriding objective on both sides of the House is to bring about a comprehensive political settlement, that in no way precludes improving the way in which Northern Ireland is governed under direct rule. I believe that my colleagues in the last Parliament made progress in several significant areas, not least in setting up the Northern Ireland Select and Grand Committees. I hope that the Secretary of State or the
Minister of State--who I assume will wind up the debate--will provide an assurance that those Committees will be re-established shortly.
Mr. John D. Taylor:
Hear, hear.
Mr. MacKay:
I have always failed to see--I know that my view is shared by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), whom I heard supporting me--why Wales and Scotland should be treated differently from Northern Ireland. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland, through their democratically elected representatives in this place, should be consulted about policy decisions. They should have the right to question and cross-examine Ministers in the same manner as our Welsh and Scottish colleagues. The Northern Ireland Office should be more accountable to the House. The best way to achieve greater accountability is through the Grand Committee, and I look forward to its establishment shortly. I hope that it will be vigorous in cross-examining the right hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues.
I reiterate the comments about the peace process made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the Dispatch Box last week. The bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland is very much in place, because we believe that the new Government's proposals are a logical extension of the process initiated by the Prime Minister in the last Administration. However, I wish to emphasise a few points and seek some reassurances.
It is essential that there be parallel decommissioning and that the talks process should proceed at roughly the same pace as decommissioning. It concerns many people that it will take some time to establish the decommissioning mechanism, whereas, if a ceasefire is achieved--we all hope and pray that it is--the talks will commence in September. We believe that the talks process must be halted regularly so that the parties and the two Governments involved in the talks will be able to assess progress not only with the talks but with decommissioning. If need be, any party could withdraw from the talks because decommissioning was not proceeding. It seems essential that those activities occur in parallel.
I echo the words of the Secretary of State and of the Prime Minister in saying that this must be the final chance for Sinn Fein-IRA. I respectfully suggest that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend must mean it: it really must be Sinn Fein-IRA's last chance. I assure the right hon. Lady that she will have the support of the whole House if the talks process proceeds without Sinn Fein-IRA. They must lay down their arms and start a genuine, deep and lasting ceasefire.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her efforts in the past few weeks to try to reach an accommodation on the question of marches in Drumcree and elsewhere.
I hope that, whatever decision is made, there will be no acceptance of the view that the right to march and the right not to suffer or fear intimidation are equal. All people have the right to feel safe and secure in their own homes, communities and societies. That has been recognised in, for instance, the passage of trade union law limiting picket numbers so that people are not intimidated. The right to picket is important and proper, as is the right to march; but the greatest right that a person can have is the right to feel secure rather than threatened. Both principles are important, but the right to safety is more important.
I also hope that, following the making of a decision, a bone will not be thrown to whichever side feels aggrieved by that decision, whatever it may be. It has been suggested, for example, that if it is decided to proceed with the march, the quid pro quo will be that the streets are kept clear, the ports and the airport are still in operation and people can use the roads in safety. That is not a quid pro quo; people should have those basic rights in any event.
It has been argued in some quarters that it will be decided that the march should proceed because that will place less of a strain on the security forces and it will be possible to contain rioting in nationalist areas. Such a decision would, however, be bad and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not thinking in those terms. It has also been suggested that the quid pro quo for allowing the march will be the announcement of a judicial inquiry to re-examine the evidence surrounding the events of Bloody Sunday. I hope that that will not happen either.
In connection with maintaining security on the streets, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Government intend to move extra troops into Northern Ireland in the next fortnight?
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are to be congratulated on injecting a touch of urgency into the protracted talks process. I understand that we now have a timetable. Sinn Fein is to enter the talks at the end of July, matters that are holding up the agenda at present must be wrapped up in September--issues relating to decommissioning--and, following the discussion of substantive agenda items, the process must end in May.
I think that the two Governments have gone as far as they could have to ease the way for Sinn Fein to enter the talks and that the ball is now in Sinn Fein's court. I did not accept that decommissioning should be a prior condition--I still think that that is a load of rubbish--but both Governments were in a difficult position. It was
certainly difficult for Her Majesty's Government--then the Opposition--to retreat from their stance, having adopted it. I believe, however, that they have arrived at an arrangement that will enable Sinn Fein to enter the talks feeling reasonably certain that it will not be ambushed.
Let us consider the worries that Sinn Fein had and the conditions that it wanted. It now has a fixed date on which to enter the talks, which it did not have under the last Administration. It has a timetable within which to finish the talks, which it demanded. It can feel reasonably certain that no further obstacles will be placed in its way--although I did wonder what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was on about in Balmoral when he suggested the condition, almost a precedent, that the Government of the Republic should give up articles 2 and 3 of their constitution, with no quid pro quo.
I consider the decommissioning proposals and the document produced by the two Governments very sensible. I think that they can meet the concerns of both Sinn Fein and the Unionist people. I do not, however, agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay)--whom I congratulate on his appointment; I remember his being an assiduous parliamentary private secretary in Northern Ireland--that political progress must always be measured against decommissioning. That is what the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, but I do not think that it is in the spirit of the demand for some decommissioning during the talks. No timetable was laid down, and no grade specified against which events should be measured as they happened.
Sinn Fein now has an opportunity to accept the offer that has been made to it and to enter the talks. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will answer some questions when he replies. What will happen if, when Sinn Fein has entered the talks at the plenary in July--subject to an unequivocal undertaking to establish a proper ceasefire and so on--the Ulster Unionists still have not agreed on the decommissioning proposals? As yet, they have not accepted them completely. If Sinn Fein, which is worried about that issue, has not entered the talks by July and there has been no ceasefire, will it be allowed to join at a later date? What if Sinn Fein joins in good faith and there is a Unionist walk-out? What will happen to the talks then? Will a settlement be made without the Unionists?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |