| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): Will my right hon. Friend make a security assessment? Now that we have a further interregnum, would it be sensible to look at the implications for the British Army in Northern Ireland and ensure that there is an understanding that there will be no further withdrawals? Clearly, we must have at the forefront of our thinking the need to achieve stability in this very difficult situation.
Mr. Murphy: I will, of course, keep the security situation under constant review—as we always do—on the advice of the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.
Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire): Amid all the recriminations and expressions of horror, perhaps some
of them more synthetic than real, can we at least all agree on one thing—that the blame for this lies fairly and squarely with Sinn Fein-IRA, who have procrastinated, used weasel words and brought this thing to the brink, hoping that the Government would bend over and meet their demands? As difficult as the Secretary of State's decision was and as regretful as we all recognise he is, he has made the right decision, because an election within a vacuum is not good for democracy.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. He is right that trust is ultimately what is important. That could not be restored, bearing in mind the lack of clarity over that final answer on paramilitary activity. I hope that, over the months ahead in the talks, we can get that clarity.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): Will the Secretary of State reflect more deeply that it is entirely inappropriate for the democratic process of Northern Ireland to be suspended because unreconstructed terrorists remain precisely that, and that it would be appropriate for devolved government to be restored, conducted by those Unionist and nationalist parties that are exclusively committed to the principles and practice of democracy?
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Assembly in Belfast is specifically constituted on the basis of what was agreed by vote among the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A referendum established that particular type of Assembly, which meant that there had to be Unionists and nationalists agreeing on how to go forward. That is why the Government have decided to postpone.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while this entirely predictable and indeed predicted U-turn reflects badly on the political processes in Northern Ireland, he has made the right decision? May I ask him to reflect on the Bill that he will introduce? Notwithstanding his office and his addressing the House of Commons, there is an election at the end of May until the law of the land is changed. Will he ensure that under that Bill he has power to recompense all the legitimate political parties in Northern Ireland for the legitimate expenses that they incur until the law of the land is changed? Incidentally, as a right hon. Member of the House, I do not appreciate learning from an Irish Minister about the intentions of the Government.
Mr. Murphy: I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I am grateful for his support and that of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) for the decision, although all of us regret it. Both of them were Northern Ireland Ministers—indeed the right hon. Gentleman is from Northern Ireland—and understand the difficulties that we face in the peace process. As I said earlier, I will, of course, look at the question of compensation.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I know that the Secretary of State has been striving hard for a just peace in Northern Ireland but we now know that a former
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to a known terrorist, Martin McGuinness, as "babe", which surely is an insult to the families of constituents who have been murdered by the IRA. Martin McGuinness was on the Provisional IRA council with the blood of British soldiers on his hands. When will the Government abide by their own Belfast agreement? When will they abide by their own deadlines and not give way to the IRA? Cancelling the elections is giving way to the IRA. When will the Government fulfil the Prime Minister's promise to take the weapons and violence out of politics in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Murphy: On the first point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear the other day that it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on matters of national security. All I will say is that Mo Mowlam used that phrase to many people, including me.
On the other matter, the hon. Gentleman will know that I disagree with him. Everything that I have said so far means that I disagree with him, although not on the issues that we face—he and I agree how important it is for the IRA to discontinue any sort of paramilitary activity. As I said earlier, I believe that the best way to solve this problem, particularly in the climate of an election, is to postpone the elections and to sit down and talk through the issues so that we can get better clarity on the very points about which he is concerned.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): Despite the Government's protestations to the contrary, we are all aware of the difficulties with the electoral register in Northern Ireland. If legislation is to be enacted within the next few weeks or days to postpone the elections, will the Secretary of State make it his business to have an urgent meeting with the electoral commissioner and the Electoral Commission and use this intervening period to keep the electoral register open, in order to spend the time clearing up some of the backlog and mess, so that the elections, when they come, will be fairer than they would have been had they been held at the time when they were intended to be held before this morning's announcement was made?
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He has my assurance that we will meet the chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission to discuss any difficulties that arise not only from the postponement of the elections but with regard to the register, to which he rightly referred.
Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise briefly a point of order of which I would have liked to give you notice a little earlier. As some hon. Members may know, and as you certainly will know, the debate that was due to take place in Westminster Hall on the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland had to be suspended because of the urgent statement on Northern Ireland. I do not argue with that decision, which was quite right. However, the House should surely have a better mechanism to deal with such events. Could you put in train ways of putting that right? Madam Deputy Speaker had no jurisdiction to suspend that debate until the statement had finished. It would have been sensible and rational if, 40 minutes later, we could have conducted our Westminster Hall
debate, which, alas, has had to be put off for another day. Parliament has lost a day's debate in Westminster Hall, so I ask you to consider whether a better way could be found of conducting our business.
Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but I alone do not have the powers to change the rules. Those who do have the power will have heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say and heard that I sympathise with his case.
Broadband
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
3.11 pm
Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East): I welcome the debate, which is important, as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said. I am the chairman of an organisation that brings together parliamentarians, civil servants, Ministers, the industry and the European informatics group, of which some hon. Members are members. The debate is timely. As an officer of the all-party internet group, I have had discussions with some internet companies, which should be useful for the debate. In common with other hon. Members, I shall also raise some constituency issues.
Milton Keynes is unusual because most of the rural areas are better off than the urban area. A few weeks ago, I attended the launch of the Olney exchange to enable broadband. In the city of Milton Keynes, 80,000 houses have cable and every exchange is enabled, but many people are unable to receive broadband because of technical difficulties surrounding the installation of cable. To be fair to British Telecom, it is aware of the technical problem and is trying to tackle it. The 80,000 households cannot receive broadband on the cable network because the cable is analogue. NTL is trying to deal with the problem, but views it in financial terms. The city is quite industrialised and many people want broadband, but they are frustrated because they cannot gain access. The problem still exists even where exchanges are enabled.
I know that the Minister is aware of the problem—I have browbeaten him on several occasions about it—but I want to be fair to NTL and BT, which are trying to deal with it. NTL is carrying out a pilot with the local authority to introduce wireless technology; and this summer it will launch another pilot to get 3,000 households online. The company will use its 10 GHz licence and, with the auction for 3.5 GHz licences coming up this month, it will improve the position further. The regional development agency, local authorities and Government agencies are aware of the problem, but we must ensure that they all work together to tackle problems that go beyond merely getting enough people to register for the exchange.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |