| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 Feb 2003 : Column 672—continued
Mr. Mallon: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment; I know that he has much more to say.
What is the difference between negotiating at Weston Park at the invitation of the Government, at Hillsborough castle at the invitation of the Government, in Downing street at the invitation of the Prime Minister or in Castle buildings at the invitation of the two Governments? I am proud that our party went to Weston Park and told the Government: "You have made a legislative hash of this: now start to change it, because if you don't you will not solve the policing problem".
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He had a smile on his face when he was making the remarks that he directed at me, but as the readers of Hansard will not know that I want to set the record straight. In no way did I intend to imply—nor did I imply—that there was something wrong with the SDLP going to Weston Park and negotiating with the Government. Indeed, far from committing a heinous crime, the hon. Gentleman did a very good day's work. As I said earlier, the Opposition do not want to be party to depriving the hon. Gentleman of the fruits of that occasion. There are many much less deserving parties in Northern Ireland and he can be pleased with the good negotiations that he conducted.
I was in fact criticising the Government for having conducted a series of partial deals and concessions. One or two of those concessions were thrown at the hon. Gentleman, but bigger ones were made elsewhere. Given the hon. Gentleman's analysis, I think that he would agree that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is starting to make another speech.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening—I know the point that he tries to make—but the reality is that there were no side deals. What happened at Weston Park was put in the public domain—not by us, but by others—within a month of the Weston Park agreement. There was no sideshow; there were negotiations between ourselves, as a political
party, the British Government and the Irish Government, whom we demanded should be the guarantor of what was agreed at Weston Park. That was what we sought to negotiate, and it has resulted in the Bill.Of course hon. Members will recognise some of the flannel that has been thrown in to cover up the legislation—for example, the financial provisions, which cover a number of pages. We all recognise flannel when we see it—we are long enough about the political process—but, in the context of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I did not apologise for anything that we did at Weston Park. I have a great sense of sadness that it took the Government a year—they wasted a year—to get to Weston Park and that it took a very considerable period to redress the administrative damage that was done.
I am sad that we all lost a year in terms of the Policing Board and in developments in policing. We lost that time because some found it difficult to face up to the facts. There were those who knew better than Patten or than others, such as myself, who live in the north of Ireland, and they thought that they would be able to pull a fast stroke that would solve the problem. However, when it comes to fundamentals such as this, no fast stroke or sleight of hand will work, and this is the classic example of a stroke going wrong. That is why we are debating it today.
Lady Hermon: When the hon. Gentleman's party took the very courageous decision, for which I warmly commend it, to join the Policing Board in the autumn of 2001, the Irish, British and American Governments and the Catholic Church all said that what had been agreed was in the spirit and letter of Patten. I think that my memory serves me well. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that his party has been undermined by further Government concessions to Sinn Fein, which did not take its seats and have the courage of his party?
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Lady for asking that very valid question. That is the humiliation referred to by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. Let me deal with it. Before hon. Members cast their vote on the Bill, I would like all of them to go through it to find the changes that were not negotiated by the SDLP and that were not publicly stated before we went to Weston Park. The public were told, "Here's what we are going for. If we get it, we'll go on the board. If we don't get it, we can't." I ask the hon. Lady whether she can identify those things in the Bill that result from negotiations that were not done by the SDLP. She can let me know if she finds them and perhaps then I can answer her question more accurately. I leave that as an offer to the hon. Lady and, no doubt, she will reply to it later.
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman knows that the concessions that are to be made to Sinn Fein are not contained in the Bill, but were set out in what the Government described as texts for consideration. The reality is that we will be dealt yet another blow if the Government must persuade Sinn Fein to join the Policing Board by offering further amendments and concessions that go beyond the Patten recommendations
and what is in the Bill. Is not that the reality to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) refers?
Mr. Mallon: I hope that I do not detect a scepticism bordering on cynicism in what the hon. Gentleman says. If he is asking me to put my hand on my heart and say that I know that this matter has been dealt with properly, fully and adequately, I will do so when it gets Royal Assent. I have every confidence that, in this instance, the Secretary of State will deal honourably with our party in negotiations as the Bill passes through the House. I have every confidence that, as a man of integrity, he will stick by the word of the Government. I have every confidence that the legislative process in this House will solve the problem of policing, not little deals done wherever they were done in the past at one minute to midnight. I am confident of that, but, for my answer to be definitive, I shall give it when the Bill receives Royal Assent. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) for the point that he makes.
I want to make several other crucial points. I have heard the debates about what will be given to this, that and the other party. I am no longer at the heart of negotiations, so I do not know what has gone on under the counter with Sinn Fein. I do not know what has gone on under the counter with the Ulster Unionist party. I do not know what has gone on under the counter with the Democratic Unionist party. What I do know is that we have negotiated with integrity and honour and that the decisions in respect of the Policing Board were taken with integrity and that our members are applying them. We will continue to do that in relation to policing. I trust that everyone will take that approach to this matter.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim): I regret that I was late in arriving for this debate, but the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), who is my party's spokesman on this issue, has been taken seriously ill, and I only came here today on a call from the hospital. I hope that the House will give me that indulgence.
It is very unlikely that the Democratic Unionist party that I lead could give anything at the table, as we are never called to the table. We are not there. I have written to the Prime Minister to ask him why he does not call all parties to make representations. As we take an anti-agreement stand, we are not even called to the table to put our views. In those circumstances, it is hardly likely that we have had such a chance. All that I would say to the hon. Gentleman is this: what does he think was the reason that the other paper was produced giving the IRA-Sinn Fein demands? Will the Government not do something—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had a good innings.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and offer my sympathy to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on his mother's illness.I am not sure what paper he means. Is it the
Weston Park paper, which I can talk about with confidence because I know what is in it? [Interruption.] Yes, it has been published.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I mean this paper.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are debating the Second Reading of a Bill.
Mr. Mallon: I think that the hon. Gentleman means part of the Bill that is not in legislative form: in other words, the text that is added on depending on how the card game goes between now and the end of the month. The Social Democratic and Labour party does not negotiate that, and he would not ask me to stand over something that we did not negotiate. I agree that independent members of the district policing partnerships should not be disbarred. There is no logic to a situation in which one ex-paramilitary can sit on a DPP because he has been a district councillor but another who served his time in the next cell cannot because he was not elected to the district council. I want to be clear that that is not part of the Bill. The text on that may, or may not, see its way into legislation, which is why some of the debates in Standing Committee could be interesting.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |