| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
The Government must have examined and thought about all those possibilities because they are in the agenda and the timetable. Parties should know what is likely to happen if some events work out.
Mr. Taylor:
I was getting alarmed, because the hon. Gentleman spoke about imposing solutions. Will he confirm that he supports and accepts the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland for any solution?
Mr. McNamara:
I am asking what will happen if Northern Ireland representatives cannot come to an agreement. I understand that the Unionists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Basically, they are quite happy about that. That being the case, what will be the situation? The Government cannot sit down and twiddle their thumbs. As the Secretary of State said, they have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to try to get the best deal for them. Presumably that was the policy that was outlined in the framework document, the Downing street declaration and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. One would like to see those principles contained in any system that emerges.
What happens if there is not the agreement that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are looking for at the end of July and there is an adjournment without agreement on the decommissioning paper? Is that the end? Will it be wrapped up then? Those are key questions for the Secretary of State. One of the difficulties of establishing a timetable is that, if it slips, it is said that the Government are weak. If it is adhered to and the Government act rather abruptly, they are told that they are obdurate and lacking in tact and diplomacy; it is said, "If things had been allowed to go on for a little longer, we might have got somewhere."
I readily understand why the Prime Minister thinks that matters have dragged on for far too long. I also believe that, but while I accept the basis and the nature of a timetable--for which there has been real need over the years--I hope that it will not be so rigid that every little date has to be met immediately because that could prevent what I hope will be achieved; peace and a sensible settlement within the island of Ireland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. As the Chair is now aware that more hon. Members are hoping to speak than was hitherto apparent, and as the time of the debate is limited, may I appeal for brief speeches?
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann):
I apologise for my late arrival in the Chamber. It was caused by transport difficulties on the way over. I shall try to keep within the terms that you have mentioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall eschew the temptation to pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke with his characteristic disregard for democracy. It is a pity that the House has had to endure--
Mr. McNamara:
On a gerrymandered basis.
Mr. Trimble:
I shall ignore that sedentary comment and treat it with the contempt that it deserves. The hon.
We are debating the renewal of what is called direct rule. It is atrocious that only 90 minutes are available to consider the imposition for yet another year on part of the United Kingdom an utterly sub-standard system of government, legislation and administration which continues to involve the United Kingdom in a breach of its obligations under international law. It is intolerable that what was originally temporary has continued for 25 years.
Over the last year--indeed, with the arrival of this Government and Parliament--the arrangements for administration and legislation for Northern Ireland and scrutiny of the Government on those matters have deteriorated further. They deteriorated with the implementation of the so-called Jopling reforms, which mean that Northern Ireland legislation--hitherto considered on the Floor of the House for a few hours, but at least considered in the House--now generally goes upstairs where, usually, only one or two Northern Ireland Members are able to debate it. That legislation is enacted not only without the normal parliamentary procedures but with most Northern Ireland Members excluded from the debate on it.
The effect of the Jopling reforms on Northern Ireland legislation is quite unacceptable. Added to that in this Parliament is the significant reduction of the time for Northern Ireland questions, which provide one of the few opportunities for Northern Ireland Members to hold the Administration to account. At the most recent Northern Ireland questions, there was the farce of only four or, if one is generous in enumeration, six questions being answered. That is quite unacceptable, and action must be taken, if not to end direct rule, at least to ensure adequate opportunities for proper scrutiny of legislation and for the Administration to be held to account.
The Government claim that they are committed to open government and to transparency in government. It is time that those commitments were implemented. I was most disturbed to note, when my right hon. Friend the Member
for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) intervened to query when the Northern Ireland Grand Committee would be running, that there was no clear answer by the Secretary of State. I trust that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will make it clear that the Government are not deliberately dragging their feet. The Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees are up and running and there is no excuse for continued prevarication on this issue.
Mr. Maginnis:
My hon. Friend speaks about accountability and openness in government. We in the party who have to make judgments have, of course, seen the aide-memoire that the Government have provided to Sinn Fein-IRA to enable them to enter the talks process. We have not heard whether there has been any response from Sinn Fein-IRA. How they respond may be a matter of confidence between them and the Government, but the Government have at least a right to tell us all exactly what is going on between them and Sinn Fein-IRA.
After the murder of two policemen in Lurgan, it was said that contacts with Sinn Fein-IRA would cease, but I have reason to believe that contacts have continued. I do not intend to make a judgment on who initiated those contacts, but it would be interesting if the Secretary of State would let us know who is in contact with Sinn Fein-IRA and the mode of contact that has taken place.
Mr. Trimble:
I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State so that she may respond.
Marjorie Mowlam:
I should like to clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that, after the killings in Lurgan, we would not have relationships between our officials and Sinn Fein in relation to the peace process. That has not changed. We have not made any approach. On the second point, so that I am clear about this--I believe in being honest and open--Sinn Fein has telephoned twice the officials that it talked with, asking for further meetings and the answer was no. That is the state of play.
Mr. Trimble:
I hope that that exchange is a clear reflection of the situation and that the phrase "not have relationships" is as comprehensive as it appears, because briefings that were given by Northern Ireland Office officials to the press last week seemed to imply that they were open to some form of further communication with Sinn Fein, which of course is contrary to the spirit of the Prime Minister's statement, to the exact letter of the assurance given by Lord Richard and to what the Secretary of State has said.
6.2 pm
"The two Governments are resolutely committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations."
A later paragraph states that this will involve
"adequate mechanisms to ensure that the modalities of decommissioning envisaged in the report"--
the Mitchell report--
"can be implemented as needed and that no delay or obstacle is caused by any lack of Government preparation or provision in this respect."
I trust that, over the next few weeks, the Secretary of State will be able to assure those involved in the talks that that commitment to ensuring that there is no delay or obstacle to the disarming of terrorist organisations will be implemented in fact. That is crucial to the attitude of my party and others to the Government's proposals. If there are to be substantive negotiations, there must be substantive disarmament in parallel; otherwise, the necessary confidence for the process will not be created or sustained.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |