Political Talks (Hansard, 20 January 1994)

§ 5. Mr. Corbyn
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent contact with political parties in Northern Ireland.

§ 9. Mr. Canavan
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent meetings that have been held with representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Ancram
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the four party leaders together on 22 December. All the parties were subsequently invited to continue the private 1029 bilateral discussions that I have been having with the parties since the autumn and these discussions are now in progress.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Will the Minister assure us that he will continue contacts with all political parties, including Sinn Fein, with which there have been meetings for a considerable period? Will he also assure the House that as the Government are privy to discussions with Sinn Fein, it is time to lift the broadcasting ban on that organisation's leadership and to lift the exclusion order against the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, so that the possibilities of promoting peace and a ceasefire in Northern Ireland can be further advanced? That would put an end to the 25 years of bloodthirsty conflict.

§ Mr. Ancram
It is a matter of great regret that today, as earlier this week, the hon. Gentleman has sought to divert attention, and assist Sinn Fein in diverting attention, from the need to renounce violence under the joint declaration and to come to the peace table on that basis. He would be far better served in trying to achieve peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland if he were to say to his friends in Sinn Fein that they should renounce violence today, enter exploratory talks with the Government and come to the table as a full democratic member of the talks, having renounced violence fully and for ever.

§ Mr. Canavan
On the clarification of the Downing street declaration, does the Minister accept that there is a big difference between clarification and negotiation or renegotiation? Bearing in mind the fact that the Government are supposed to believe in open government and the fact that parts of the declaration are ambiguous, will the Government respond positively to genuine requests for clarification, even if it means consulting the Irish Government about a joint statement of clarification?

§ Mr. Ancram
I can only effectively reiterate what my right hon. and learned Friend said. The joint declaration was the result of an enormous amount of careful and long-standing work to produce a document that was self-standing and clear. It would not be in the interests of using that document as a framework for peace now to respond to what purport to be requests for clarification, but which would qualify and renegotiate the document That would not be in the interests of the peace process or of achieving an acceptable political settlement to the problems of Northern Ireland in the longer term.

§ Mr. Matthew Banks
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment and ask him to make it clear to the House that Britain will not be following the lead of the Irish Government in relaxing the ban on broadcasting on Sinn Fein, unless and until Sinn Fein and the IRA renounce violence or give a clear indication that they intend so to do?

§ Mr. Ancram
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He will have heard what my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier about the broadcasting ban. If Sinn Fein were to renounce violence permanently, become a constitutional party within Northern Ireland and become part of the democratic process, the implications would have to he considered in that context.

§ Mr. Molyneaux
As it is abundantly clear that the IRA intends to treat with contempt worldwide appeals for peace, may we assume that the Government will now 1030 proceed, having first taken the necessary steps to extirpate terrorism, to use the words of the Foreign Secretary, to speed up consultations with the constitutional parties, ignoring the sheer nonsense of leaving an empty chair at the table for Sinn Fein to occupy one of these days? In my view, it will be a worm-eaten piece of furniture by the time they arrive there.

§ Mr. Ancram
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the remarks that my right hon. and learned Friend made earlier. The talks process is not awaiting anything; it is continuing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear soon after the joint declaration that the talks process would be intensified. It is our intention to move forward with the talks in a more focused way to move the process towards an agreement. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that his party has been participating fully in those talks and will continue to do so.

§ Mr. Dickens
Accepting that both Governments support 100 per cent. the Anglo-Irish Agreement, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that it is perfectly possible that a new, more broadly based agreement and perhaps a new structure could be considered, but not a moment before Sinn Fein denounces violence and the IRA stop violence?

§ Mr. Ancram
We have made it clear that if Sinn Fein wishes to be a part of the process that is designed to achieve a political settlement, it must renounce violence to become part of that process. But the process will continue nevertheless. It will continue on the three strands which cover the three sets of relationships within Northern Ireland, between the north and south of Ireland and between the Irish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. It is the hope of the British Government that those talks will eventually achieve an acceptable settlement that will lead to lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. McGrady
Will the Minister confirm that the inter-party talks are clearly and unequivocally based on the agreement made by his right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on 26 September 1991? If there is a three-strand approach to the overall problem, and taking cognisance of the fact that, up to October 1992, the talks indicated the complexity between them—the interweaving between strands one and two—does he intend to engage all six parties, the two Governments and the four democratic parties, in inter-party talks?

§ Mr. Ancram
On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I should stress that, at the moment, I am talking to only three parties and that the door is open to that fourth constitutional party in Northern Ireland to join the talks process at any time. I am referring to the Ulster Democratic Unionist party. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the talks that are taking place at the moment are based on the three strands set out on 26 March 1991. That has been the basis of the talks from the time that they were initiated and continues to be so.