| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): Will the Secretary of State clarify the specific point, paragraph or sentence in yesterday's speech by Mr. Adams that he regards as adding something to, or being different from, the position that Mr. Adams adopted last April and May? Is it not the case that the Provisionals' position remains that the Belfast agreement contains the potential to remove the causes of conflict, as they see them, and that unless those causes of conflict are removed there will be no final act of completion?
Mr. Murphy: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman read yesterday's speech by Mr. Adams. I mentioned it in my statement when I referred to the full and final closure of the conflict and said that the IRA endorsed those remarks. The significance of that, which the hon. Gentleman knows because he studies these matters carefully, is that the IRA's historical position over the years was that there would be no end to the conflict until
a united socialist republic of Ireland was created, but that has changed. The reason why there may now be final closure of the conflict is the implementation of the Good Friday agreement, which is a world away from what used to be the case. I believe that full and final closure of the conflict is the intention of Sinn Fein and the IRA.
Mr. Tony Clarke (Northampton, South): I wish my right hon. Friend success in future negotiations. Does he agree that the Good Friday agreement can be implemented only when all illegally held weapons, on all sides, and paramilitaries are removed? Do we not run the risk of over-concentrating on transparency and confidentiality, the terms of which, incidentally, were agreed by this House? Do we not run the risk of building trust in one community at the expense of diluting it in another? I echo what was said earlier about the need to move forward on the decommissioning of arms that are illegally held by loyalist paramilitaries that are not participating in allowing us to get the Good Friday agreement implemented in full.
Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is aware that the reason why there has been such heavy concentration on republican decommissioning is that Sinn Fein is a party of such a size in the Assembly that the d'Hondt system gives it an entitlement to Ministers. There is no such comparison with loyalist representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly. My hon. Friend is right that the Good Friday agreement contains a specific reference to decommissioning being essential. He touched on the fact that trust is at the bottom of everything. The balancing act is always to ensure that trust may be achieved right across the political spectrum.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): Reference has been made to the decommissioning of minds, and I wonder whether part of the problem is that minds have been decommissioned. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that 26 November is the date that is earmarked for state opening. Was a subliminal message being given to others in Ireland about Northern Ireland's relationship with this House, given that it would not be possible for some Members to be here for that if there were an election in Northern Ireland? May I press the Secretary of State a little further? I agree with the point about the decommissioning of weapons right across the division because not only loyalist groups, but other republican groups, exist. Surely it is in the psyche of the Northern Ireland people, which is fed by the media and intelligence reports, that although the Provisional IRA has been prepared to decommission some weapons, its current chief of staff has been purchasing new pistols that will be used to obviate a forensic trail and used once so that he may continue his extortion rackets.
Mr. Murphy: Obviously, I cannot comment on the last matter, but it is clearly of no use to decommission a quantity of weapons only to replace them. Everyone who was involved in the negotiations that led to the Good Friday agreement understands that decommissioning is a matter of trust as much as a
matter of decommissioning the weapons themselves. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the date of the state opening was not in anyone's mind when the election date was discussed.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): While Gerry Adams made an important statement yesterday, after things collapsed and he later answered questions asked by an assembled audience he said that there must be no humiliation of the Provisional IRA caused by giving details of its decommissioned arms. However, will not the real humiliation be that caused if it is discovered that insufficient arms have been put out of use and that we are not moving toward acts of completion? Could General de Chastelain at least give us an indication of how close to, or far away from, acts of completion we are, because that will show us all where we stand?
Mr. Murphy: The general indicated yesterday that he had taken inventories of all three acts of decommissioning and that the last act was much bigger than previous acts. He is in a difficult position because he is bound by legislation that includes provisions on confidentiality, although I believe that he said significant things in his statement. When my hon. Friend refers to the speech made by Mr. Gerry Adams and the humiliation of the IRA, I assume that he is referring to the IRA's historical position of not wanting to surrender, to use its terms, and especially not to the British Government. Things have changed dramatically since the Good Friday agreement, as has the way in which we look at each other—the world has changed. The peace process and its success must come first for the IRA and political parties in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Iris Robinson (Strangford): Is it not about time that the Government grasped reality and accepted that no deal—secret or otherwise—has any chance of working unless the majority of both Unionists and nationalists support the institutions and the Government value equally the views expressed by all people of Northern Ireland through the ballot box? Will he assure me that he will respect the will of the people after 26 November, especially if the Democratic Unionist party represents the majority of Unionists? Will he allow for new negotiations?
Mr. Murphy: Of course we will respect the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland, although we will all have to wait and see what that will be. Responsibility will then fall on the hon. Lady's party and other parties. Her party puts forward views on the renegotiation of the agreement. We know that we have to enter a review under the terms of the agreement, but the larger parties in Northern Ireland, especially, have a responsibility to bring back devolution to Northern Ireland so that local Ministers can make local decisions for local people. We can achieve that for Northern Ireland only if there is agreement between nationalists and Unionists.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): We welcome the announcement that there will be elections and that the election date is set in stone. In the light of the parts of the statement on the electoral register in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State describe the steps that will be
taken to ensure that voting in the elections, which might be based on an out-of-date register, will be as transparent and correct as possible? Further to points that have already been made, will he tell us the principles that he will use after the elections to ensure that devolved government begins once again in Northern Ireland as soon as possible?
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the electoral register and other changes that have taken place over the past few months. We will use the register published on 1 September 2003. He knows, as other hon. Members do, that many improvements have been made to the way in which people cast their votes in Northern Ireland to ensure probity. I sincerely hope that those measures will be effective.
As for devolution, as a fellow Welshman the hon. Gentleman will know that it can benefit the people of our different nations and regions. I hope that it will happen as quickly as possible in Northern Ireland so that I can shed my direct rule responsibilities and hand them back to people from that part of the UK.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(1)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Northern Ireland Grand Committee
- That the Order of the House [8th September] referring the matter of the future direction of community relations policy in Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for consideration on Thursday 23rd October be discharged.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Motorcycles (Bus Lanes)
1.30 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow motorcycles to use bus lanes.
The Government recognise the important role of motorcycling. A Treasury consultation document on vehicle excise duty for motorcycles stated in November 2001:
- "The Government believes that motorcycles should be encouraged where they replace car use . . . because of the lower environmental impact and the reduced congestion of travelling",
- "an affordable alternative to the car".
The Bill would introduce a national system of bus lane access for motorcyclists. It would require the Government to carry out their commitment to reduce congestion, improve safety and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by giving motorcycle users the extra incentive of traffic isolation, ease of access and life itself. With more than 1 million motorcyclists in Britain today, it is only correct and fair that, as citizens of a free society, we should have the right to ride where it is safest and most convenient. This is about civil liberties and the Government protecting the lives of a growing population of motorcyclists—a group whom they are promoting. By allowing motorcycles in bus lanes, we would be saving lives. Traffic isolation is the key to motorcyclist safety and accident reduction, which pedal cyclists have been afforded through schemes of segregation and access to bus lanes.
Such schemes have proved successful, with pedal cyclist casualty rates decreasing by 22 per cent. since 1997, which is likely to be a direct consequence of road isolation schemes. Most motorcyclist casualties arise from collisions with cars. Allowing motorcycles to travel independently of those vehicles would minimise potential collisions. Thus, motorcyclists nationwide want a share of the benefits of traffic isolation that are currently enjoyed by pedal cyclists across the country. Surely the correct position to adopt is a net safety benefit that takes the casualties of all road users, motorcyclists as well as pedal cyclists, into account.
I understand that access to bus lanes would mean motorcyclists overtaking in the inside lane. That is a risk, but it would be their choice and decision to do so. Obviously, riders who chose not to do so would travel in other lanes. The point is that motorcyclists should be able to ride where they feel safest. For a great many, including me, that may well be in the segregated bus lane.
The Bill aims to make available nationwide a policy that has been successfully tried and tested in nine places across the country: London, Bristol, Reading, Swindon, Bath, Hull, Colchester, Birmingham and the M4 bus lane. I ask the House to consider the experience of those trials, which have successfully admitted motorcycles to bus lanes. The Government welcomed the pilot studies in their 1998 transport White Paper in order to:
- "help inform decisions on whether there is a proper case for motorcyclists to be allowed in bus lanes".
In my role as shadow Environment Minister I can highlight the positive environmental impact that results from the replacement of cars by motorcycles. A typical scooter consumes up to 81 per cent. less fuel than a car on the same journey. We should be doing everything we can to have a low-carbon economy, targeting transport as one of the worst climate change offenders. Providing motorcyclists with the option of travelling safely and more conveniently in bus lanes is likely to act as an
added incentive to travel in that much more environmentally friendly way. Motorbikes do not create demand for new roads and they occupy efficient parking and garaging space. Indeed, five motorcycles can be parked in the space occupied by one car.It is a simple equation. First, motorcycle admittance to bus lanes would improve motorcycle safety, which equals accident reduction. Secondly, giving people the incentive to filter past the traffic gridlock without the risks they currently face will encourage more to switch from their car, which will alleviate traffic congestion. Thirdly, encouraging people to use a motorcycle benefits the environment, potentially helping the UK to achieve its ambitious commitment of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.
I am grateful for the help of the British Motorcycle Federation in introducing the Bill. It has campaigned widely for freedom of motorcycle travel in bus lanes in the UK. I hope that the Bill will be approved because it can only mean fewer people in cars, the alleviation of traffic gridlock, more lives saved through traffic isolation, a reduction in environmental damage and a fulfilment of people's rights. It is a fair deal for motorcyclists. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Wiggin, Mr. Don Foster, Angela Watkinson, Mr. Mark Todd, Mr. Stephen Pound, Peter Bottomley, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Adrian Flook, Mr. Bill Tynan, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence and Mr. Roger Gale.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |