Government of Province (Hansard, 11 July 1991)

§ 1. Mr. David Shaw
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in the current discussions on the future of the Province.

§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke)
As I said in my statement to the House on 3 July, although the talks that I announced on 26 March have now been brought to a conclusion, I believe that it is the clear wish of the people of the United Kingdom, and of the people of Northern Ireland in particular, that the process of dialogue should continue. I therefore hope that it will prove possible, in due course, to explore with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government whether terms for fresh discussions can be established.

§ Mr. Shaw
Will my right hon. Friend accept the support of the whole House for the tremendous way in which he has taken the talks so far? In the context of Northern Ireland's history, 10 weeks is too short a period for substantive talks; indeed, many would think that, given the background of recent years, 10 weeks is sufficient only to get the administrative and procedural matters out of the way. Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that in future there is an adequate timetable, spanning a considerable length of time, so that we can at long last defeat the evil terrorist, who would try to run Ireland to the detriment of its people and the people of the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Brooke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. Anyone who is involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and those of the island of Ireland, will be aware that the passage of 10 weeks, in the context of 400 years, is but a hiccup. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said about a timetable, but that is very much a matter for other participants in the talks. It would be wholly premature for me to predict their reactions at this stage.

Mr. John D. Taylor
Does the Secretary of State realise that, in this week alone, he has had to answer questions in the House about the location of a street light at Gransha presbyterian church and about when he intends to arrange for a pothole to be filled at Cairnshill in Castlereagh? Have we not reached the stage when the Secretary of State should look back at previous Conservative policy and, at least, begin to restore real local government powers to Northern Ireland? I believe that, talks or no talks, there is some scope to give local government control back to the people of Northern Ireland. Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that.

§ Mr. Brooke
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned subjects that have been drawn to my attention during the past few days. I recognise the force of what he says. However, the framework within which these matters would be looked at would be the one in which all the political parties in Northern Ireland have been involved during the past 18 months. I recognise the relevance of 1070 what the right hon. Gentleman says and I shall certainly bear it in mind as and when we look at these matters again in the reasonably near future.

§ Mr. Peter Robinson
Does the Secretary of State agree that a new talks process is more than simply a gap between conference meetings? Will he assure the House that he will not become susceptible to arguments being advanced in some quarters that he should attempt to impose a solution as a result of the breakdown of the talks process?

§ Mr. Brooke
I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough, as a result of the events of the past 18 months, to realise the importance that I attach to any arrangements that we might make in Northern Ireland being capable of commanding widespread support. The basis of the past 20 years does not lead one to suppose automatically that a proposal by Her Majesty's Government would necessarily enjoy such support.

§ Mr. McNamara
Can the Secretary of State enlighten the House about his use of the word "fresh"? Does he mean new or a continuation of the old? As all the parties to the talks expressed their sadness that they had to be discontinued and a willingness to talk in future, can he say when he expects to initiate his new round of bilateral talks?

§ Mr. Brooke
In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the word "fresh", I should remind the House that the talks that we concluded on 3 July, arising from my statement on 26 March, were concluded on the basis of the ground rules that were established in the statement of 26 March. Therefore, any new talks would be new talks, in the sense that we would establish fresh ground rules for them. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that I am sufficiently conservative to pay some attention to the past in looking forward to the future. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about initiation, he will recall that on 3 July I said to the House that I would be listening for noises in the undergrowth.

§ Mr. McGrady
In view of the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the first question, is he aware of the statement made by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)? As the Unionist parties have adopted a joint approach, it must be taken to be the approach of both parties that the talks process is now dead and that there is no point in pretending that it can survive. Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of Northern Ireland require the optimism and the hope that the talks will be revived? After the marching season, which we enter at midnight tonight, and the holiday period will he use his best offices to convince the Unionist parties that the future of Northern Ireland and its people will be best served by a revival of the talks, not from the start but based on the very useful exchanges that have already taken place? Could that not be a starting point in the autumn?

§ Mr. Brooke
The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the second question that I was asked. I was aware that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) had made a statement not only on 3 July but more recently. As always with pronouncements by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I read it with great care and I think that I detected what it was saying to me. As to the precise verb that we use to describe what the new talks may 1071 be, provided that I do not use the word "resume" I think that the House and, conceivably, the hon. Member for Antrim, North, would allow me to use other verbs.

§ Mr. Budgen
Since yet another initiative has suffered at least a temporary reverse, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Order in Council procedure, adopted as a temporary measure in 1972, ought to be abandoned so that, at the very least, important Northern Ireland legislation is properly discussed in detail and can be amendable? Is it not the case that Northern Ireland is at present a constitutional slum?

Mr. Brooks
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his use of the words "temporary reverse". The changes in the legislative proceedings of the House were the subject of observations by all parties during the talks—I do not think that I am infringing confidentiality when I say that. Therefore, I am confident that it is a subject to which we shall return. I am not in the habit of describing Northern Ireland as a slum under any conditions.