| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman refers to internationalisation of matters relating to Northern Ireland. Can he tell me who agreed to the ground rules and the basic concept of the three-stranded talks back in the early 1990s?
Mr. Robinson: I hope that everyone agreed to the ground rules for the three strands, which clearly said that only the parties in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom Government should be party to any discussion relating to the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. The Government of the Irish Republic were to be involved in those matters only where the relationship was between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It seems good common sense that if one wants a relationship with the Irish Republic, one should talk to the Irish Republic. That was the argument. That is why we were round the table with the Irish Republic at that strand. It is not internationalising the Northern Ireland situation. It is having a relationship with your neighbour, not bringing them in to take decisions on the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. Sadly, the right hon. Gentleman and his party, or half of it at least, have been responsible for that.
Other amendments, of which amendment No. 55 is perhaps the most significant, deal with the responsibility of the monitoring commission. Should it have the broad sweep of responsibility—dealing with monitoring behaviour in relation to the pledge to keep politics exclusively peaceful and democratic—or should it be expanded to deal with normalisation, which is a Government matter, and indeed with political issues relating to the pledge of office? Clearly, the latter two are included only because the Government do not want Sinn Fein to be standing out there on its own. That is no good reason to try to bring other people into the process and to expand the role of the monitoring commission.
Amendment No. 55 would restrict any role that the Government might give a commission to determining whether people are exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means, which seems appropriate. We would like to vote on all the amendments in the list, but clearly the key issue is encapsulated by amendment No. 1.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It would be interesting for the Committee to remember that those of us on the Unionist side who were in at the early talks all agreed that strand 1 was a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom Parliament and Government alone to decide. The south of Ireland had no say in strand 1—we won that, only because we took a determined stand—although when we went to strand 2, which dealt with issues of neighbourliness between the two parts of Ireland, the Irish Government were there. However, the Irish Government did not like that situation. On every occasion that they could, they insisted that they were the spokesmen for the nationalist people of Northern Ireland.
Only one body can speak for the people of Northern Ireland, democratically speaking, and that is this Parliament. The Irish Government did not say that they were speaking in the interests of the Irish Republic. They said that they were the spokesmen for the nationalist community. One cannot have that sort of carry-on at such talks. There must be people who speak officially for each of the parties. The time has come to revisit this issue. We must insist that the southern Government have no say in strand 1. It is not their bailiwick: it is that of this Parliament, this Government and the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Molyneaux reminded the other place of what a great Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party and the British people, Mr. Wilson, had to say on the subject: that the governance of Northern Ireland is for the people and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We hold to that.
9.30 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): During the early part of this debate, I found myself in some agreement with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but I have recovered.
I am not entirely sure which amendments will be dealt with, so I shall try to encompass all of them in my remarks, as several of the issues that were raised overlap. Amendment No. 55 would limit the role of the IMC to reporting on paramilitary activity. It would remove references in clause 1 to normalisation and the pledge of office. That is not acceptable in policy terms, as it undermines the purpose of the Bill; nor does it acknowledge the realities of the situation.
The agreement carefully provides for reports on three specific matters. The need for reports on paramilitary activity is certainly not in question, but we want and need to go further in order to ensure that there are independent reports on matters that are at the heart of implementing the Belfast agreement. Those reports will help to rebuild trust and confidence. That is our aim.
Normalisation reports are a crucial part of that process, as is the stability of the democratic institutions. To those who are concerned that the joint declaration
sets out a normalisation programme, I point out that it will not begin until the right security environment is achieved. The IMC will have no role in monitoring the programme until notified under article 15 of the agreement.Hon. Members have focused on amendment No. 1, which concerns the membership of the commission. The commission will be established by the international agreement published on 5 September and will take effect once it has been signed and ratified by both the British and Irish Governments. It is that agreement, not the Bill, which establishes the commission's membership and functions.
The international agreement gives effect to the proposals agreed between the Governments at Hillsborough earlier this year, as set out in the monitoring and compliance document published on 1 May. Specifically, the scheme that we are considering today has always envisaged a commission of four members: two appointed by the UK, one appointed by Ireland and one appointed by the two Governments on a nomination from the United States. That flows from the fact that the commission forms part of the arrangements that we are establishing for monitoring and promoting compliance on a range of commitments relating to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement and the restoration of stable and inclusive institutions. That remains the Government's position, so we are unable to agree to the amendment, as it would be incompatible with the requirements of the agreement.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 would make the monitoring commission purely a UK body. They would put the setting up of the commission and the making of appointments to it solely in the hands of the Secretary of State. They would not of themselves amend the provisions of the agreement published on 5 September.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) said that the amendments were not intended as wrecking. In part, I take his point. However, they would have an effect on the Bill: namely, the creation of a parallel commission. It would be established by the Secretary of State and appointments would be made by him. Later references in the Bill would thus be to that body and not to the one that would be established by the agreement—the Government policy to which the measure gives effect.
The amendments would seriously undermine our purpose of helping to restore trust and confidence through independent monitoring of paramilitary activity, normalisation and political breaches, so we cannot accept them.
New clause 3 is unnecessary. We believe that the IMC should be constituted under the international agreement that we propose. That is the purpose of the legislation. Article 6 of the agreement already permits the commission to consider a claim by any party represented in the Assembly that a Minister or any other party in the Assembly is not committed to non-violence or exclusively democratic or peaceful means. That is in line with the terms of the proposed new clause.
I am aware of the time and realise that the Committee wants to deal with some of the other amendments, so, in summary, we believe that it is right that the commission
is constituted on an international basis, for many of the reasons eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
Mr. Peter Robinson: Before the Minister strays too far from new clause 3, he might like to comment on timetabling, which is one of its elements. Many of us are concerned that the Bill would allow considerable delay and that weeks or months could pass while a serious issue confronted the Assembly. What is the Government's view as to the length of time that the commission should take when considering such matters?
Mr. Spellar: I am sorry—I had hoped to make progress, but I will now have to refer to new clause 3 in slightly more detail.
The current provisions permit the consideration of claims where the allegation is that a Minister has failed to observe any pledge of office set out in the agreement or that a party has not committed its members who are or may be Ministers to doing so. Those in favour of the amendments and new clause 3 would not allow the commission such a remit. We believe that it is essential to cover such matters. [Interruption.] I shall deal with timing in a second. The operation of lawfully constituted democratic institutions in good faith is essential to partnership government, and so to peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
The international agreement puts the commission on a fixed time scale. It has to report at six-monthly intervals. The two Governments jointly may also ask it to make other reports. In principle, we believe that the reporting cycle envisaged by the agreement is correct. Consideration of paramilitary activity across the board, as opposed to the affairs of individuals or a political party, may require a great deal of evidence to be considered.
New clause 3 would render proper reporting impractical, by giving any party the right to commission such reports as often as it saw fit. We believe that a workable, practical timetable has been outlined that will not lead to endless delay. Equally, the commission will not be pressed into ducking and diving between a number of different issues, so it will be able to put in the sustained work that is necessary.
On whether the commission should be placed on an international basis, we believe that it should have a remit to consider not only the commitment to non-violence—absolutely vital though that is, for all the reasons that have been given by hon. Members tonight—but other threats to the stable operation of the institutions.
The commission should report regularly on paramilitary activity. Subject to that, we believe that it is for the commission itself to judge how long it is necessary to take to evaluate properly and to reach conclusions, and it will obviously want to do so as expeditiously as possible to maintain trust and confidence. Obviously, undue delay would militate against that. For the same reasons, the commission must not produce superficial or insufficiently investigated reports. It must be able to judge in those matters. Accordingly, we believe that new clause 3 is
misconceived, and we cannot support it. If Opposition Members persist in wishing to press the matter to a Division, I will ask my hon. Friends to oppose them in the Lobby.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |