Inter-party Talks (Hansard, 21 October 1993)

§ 7. Mr. Barnes
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning inter-party talks.

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
The Government remain determined to promote further political dialogue towards a comprehensive settlement involving the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government and ourselves. We are engaged in private bilateral discussions, exploring the basis on which further dialogue can take place.

§ Mr. Barnes
Would not talks be facilitated by moves in the Republic of Ireland to make its practices more acceptable to Protestants in Northern Ireland, and moves in Northern Ireland to make its practices more acceptable to 377 its Catholic minority? The Opsahl commission has made a number of proposals that may be of considerable benefit. Its report has been discussed throughout the island of Ireland, but discussed little in Britain. Will the Secretary of State ensure that it forms part of the backcloth to tomorrow's debate on Northern Ireland issues, as it may be relevant to the development of talks?

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman will need to be more particular in his complaints about practices both north and south of the border before I can answer that part of his question. If I am lucky enough to catch the Speaker's eye, I will refer to the Opsahl report in a speech. That is how I prefer to answer the hon. Gentleman's question today.

§ Sir James Kilfedder
In a recent television interview, the president of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, declared in regard to any possible settlement that the British people and the Government would have to sue for peace, and, moreover, that the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland would not have a decisive say in the future of the Province. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
I generally do not comment, in the House or elsewhere, on what other people have said. However, I re-emphasise that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear in his speech at Blackpool that the Government will continue to stand behind the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. There has been much very understandable and proper talk about self-determination. Whether the present status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is confirmed or changed will depend—and depend alone—on an act of self-determination by the people of Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. William Ross
Surely the talks that took place betwen the two Governments last year have clarified the parties' position for everyone concerned. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman go on talking about further talks when the position is absolutely clear? Is he aware that whenever the word "speculation" appears in denials, the people of Northern Ireland have learnt by bitter experience that usually the speculation is accurate? Is he further aware that the proposals made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Adams are nothing less than an IRA demand for total surrender to the violence, and the threat of further violence, from the IRA? Will the Government make it clear that they will not surrender to those demands, no matter how much blarney is wrapped around them?

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
I have not had the advantage of a copy of the text to which the hon. Gentleman refers. At the end of the talks process on 9 November last year, all parties agreed that there was a need for further dialogue. The hon. Gentleman referred to the talks process, but it is further dialogue that everyone agreed should continue, and it is that formulation which I used in my answer. I believe that the people of the Province as a whole share the view that it is important that politicians should sit down and see whether there is any further progress to be made towards the objectives that they all signed up to as long ago as March 1991.
I need not go further in answering the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question than to reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) a 378 moment ago: that the people of Northern Ireland have a basic democratic right to decide their future. The Government will continue to back the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Peter Robinson
Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to read, in yesterday's The Irish Times, what is purported to be the outcome of the so-called Hume-Adams initiative? Are the proposals outlined acceptable to the Secretary of State, or does he still stand by his often-repeated remark that self-determination by the people of Northern Ireland will decide the political destiny of the Province?

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
The latest repetition of my often-repeated remark occurred about 10 seconds ago, just before the hon. Gentleman asked his question, so naturally I stand by it. I think that it is unwise to speculate on a matter that has not been communicated to the British Government. I agree with the four church leaders who said recently, in a joint statement, that they regarded speculation as unhelpful and dangerous.

§ Mr. Mallon
The Secretary of State is obviously aware of the discussions taking place between my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the president of Sinn Fein, in a sincere attempt to end violence and bring peace to the north of Ireland. Will he assure the House that if there is even the slightest chance of peace, he will take the opportunity and not let it slip? Will he assure us that he, as Secretary of State, will not allow short-sighted intransigence, feigned self-righteousness or his Government's deal with the Ulster Unionists to stay in power to stand in the way of the peace that the people of the north of Ireland crave and deserve so much?

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
One thing is needed to secure the peace desired by everyone in Northern Ireland—and much more widely, I may say. That is a declaration by the Provisional IRA and other terrorists—a declaration that those people mean—that the perpetration of violence is over, and over for good. It is not a question of ceasefires, with the threat of only a temporary relief. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that peace in his terms—at any price—should be pursued.
As I have said many times in the House and outside, if that message is given, and if enough time elapses for the fact that it is for real to be established in sceptical minds, we shall be at the beginning of a new phase.

§ Mr. Garnier
Has my right hon. and learned Friend found the apparent embracing of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Republic by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, through the agency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), to be of any assistance whatever in the conduct of the inter-party talks?

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
I believe that it is generally understood that there is much of a constitutional character to be discussed by the two Governments. It is as well understood by the Government of the Republic as it is by us that articles 2 and 3 have a central part to play in those discussions, and also in the discussions on all three strands with which we were concerned last year.
I am bound to say that I thought the tone of the speech made in Cork by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, 379 North (Mr. McNamara)—as it was reported—rather more supportive of no change in articles 2 and 3 than I would have expected him to be, if he was being realistic.

§ Mr. McNamara
I was interested to note that the Secretary of State was able to question the tone only of a report of the speech. At his request and that of his office, a copy was sent to him yesterday. If he had read it, he would have seen it clearly stated that both articles 2 and 3 and the Government of Ireland Act 1920—which have been bones of contention between the two different communities in Northern Ireland—should be on the table for discussion.
Talking of matters being on the table for discussion, does the Secretary of State still believe that, as a basis for the inter-party dialogues, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
I think that it is entirely for the participants in the process to decide by what rule they should proceed. For my part, I believe that it is clear that to assemble around the table again immediately would be counter-productive; I believe that the right process now is to explore, in bilateral discussions with the other parties, how we can best take matters forward.
I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman has retained his position, at least for this afternoon, and I hope that he will still be there tomorrow morning. I hope that he will then be able to tell us whether the recent publication of the views of some of his closest advisers on Northern Ireland represent the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition. They state: We also recognise that critics will claim that our model of shared authority is undemocratic because it will initially have to be imposed against the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland's citizens. We reply first of all that Northern Ireland, at present, is not a legitimate unit of democratic decision-making and rests on coercion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm whether that is his view, as a spokesman for the Opposition.