HC Deb 30 June 1994 vol 245 cc958-80

4.5 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew)

I beg to move, That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved. The draft Order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, under which the government is carried out by direct rule for a further 12 months. Believing strongly, as I do, in the virtues of local democratic responsibility I regret intensely that it should be necessary to renew it yet again. I know that, however, to be the case, and I accordingly shall follow precedent by referring the House to some aspects of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland during the past year. My speech must be appropriately brief.

Security matters remain in the forefront of our minds, particularly after the recent disgusting atrocity in Loughinisland. But the House has taken a recent opportunity, in our debate on the emergency powers provisions, to discuss this topic. There has been progress by the security forces in many areas, but terrorist crimes, both loyalist and republican, continue to deny the people of Northern Ireland what they most desire—the enjoyment of their right to live their lives in peace.

The House will recall all too vividly some of the revolting things the people of Northern Ireland have been forced to suffer during the past year. For example, in the latter part of 1993, in the space of seven days in October, 23 people lost their lives. None of us will forget the bombing on the Shankill road, in which 10 people were killed, or the equally ruthless massacre of seven people at Greysteel.

No matter how vainly repetitious it may seem, it is necessary for the House once more to condemn, without qualification, all those and the other attacks which have taken place. There is no acceptable level of violence, and we must never give the impression that there is. I admire immensely the steadfastness and resolution of Northern Ireland's people. I also wish to pay a special tribute to the disciplined courage and professionalism of the security forces who protect the people. Last year, 14 police officers and soldiers were killed while carrying out their role of protecting the community. Five have been killed this year.

Nor do we forget the arduous work of the prison service. What we are sometimes in danger of forgetting is the successes continually achieved by the security forces in the fight against terrorism. In 1993, more than 350 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including more than 50 with murder and attempted murder. So far this year, 233 people have been charged with terrorist offences. Only this week, seven people have been charged, including two with murder.

The Chief Constable estimates that four out of five attempted attacks are thwarted. Much of the work of the security forces, by its nature, can receive little publicity, but the Royal Ulster' Constabulary never gives up. We give it the fullest practical support and backing, and I salute its work, and the work of those who support it, today.

Today, we will also have in mind those who so tragically died in the helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June. The deaths of so many first class police officers, Army officers, civil servants and air crew constituted a grievous loss. Our sympathy for those bereaved unites us all. I have received many touching letters. But the work of those fine people continues.

From the particular issue of security, I turn now to our co-ordinated approach to the political, economic and social problems that confront the people of Northern Ireland. Adverse economic and social conditions—which affect both sides of the community—can be used to suggest an ostensible, although always a spurious, pretext for terrorism. There is therefore a particular need for the promotion of a buoyant economy, increased job opportunities, and greater prosperity, and a need for all in the community of Northern Ireland to have equal opportunity to enjoy those benefits.

I shall refer to our progress in those matters in a moment, but first we must remember that terrorism abhors harmony and thrives on discord. There is therefore a particular need for the promotion of a political settlement —one that is broad in character and will attract widespread support, by reason of its characteristics, right across the community of Northern Ireland. It is to this area of patient and often frustrating endeavour in the past year that I now turn.

It remains the Government's firm belief that any settlement likely to achieve such acceptance and support must address all the main relationships: those within Northern Ireland; those within the island of Ireland; and those between the two Governments in Dublin and London. It was for that reason that, with the other participants, we agreed in 1991 that the political talks should be structured in three strands, reflecting those sets of relationships. Nothing would be finally agreed in any strand until everything was agreed in the talks as a whole.

Some have claimed, and continue to claim, that seeking an overall settlement in this way is far too ambitious, and that the process should move forward one step at a time. It is quite clear to us, however, that, because of the differing ideals and differing ultimate objectives of those who have participated in the talks, agreement on one set of relationships is only likely to be reached if the context for it is provided by agreement on the three sets of relationships as a whole. We believe that to be a political reality which cannot be wished away, and one which all of us involved in the process must recognise and work with.

Since September 1993, the Government have been conducting bilateral discussions with three of the four main constitutional parties. We should like to see all four involved. Our purpose has been to explore the basis upon which we might all together sit down again for further dialogue. The present aim is to establish areas of common agreement; explore areas of continued apprehension or disagreement and to try to identify the degree of flexibility that may be needed on all sides to resolve those difficulties.

We have been discussing the Government's ideas for giving direction and renewed impetus to the talks process. For our part, it is my hon. Friend the Minister of State who has been principally engaged, but the Prime Minister and I have also participated. We are each of us grateful for the sincere participation of our colleagues in this process.

On the basis of the talks that occurred in 1992, and those that are going on now, there is a good measure of contingent agreement on strand 1 on the nature of new democratic institutions for Northern Ireland.

Strand 1 is especially significant today, because, if, as I believe is achievable, final agreement is reached among the main parties on the exercise of local democratic responsibilities, then, in the context of an overall settlement, the Government would implement the new arrangements agreed, and today's order would need no successor. But to be lasting, any such local democratic institutions must be widely acceptable throughout the community of Northern Ireland and must therefore give a genuine and fair share of democratic responsibilities to both sides of the community.

It is clear, however, that what common ground exists among the parties on strand 1 is contingent on a satisfactory outcome to the process as a whole, including strands 2 and 3. To help progress to be made in those two strands, in both of which all the main parties accepted that the two Governments should each be involved, we are currently working with the Irish Government on a framework document. As always, that has given rise to apprehensions about what may be afoot.

First, therefore, I repeat without equivocation that the future of Northern Ireland lies in the hands of its own people. There will be no change in its constitutional status as an integral part of the United Kingdom save in accordance with the democratic wishes of its people, and no political settlement without the participation of the main political parties in arriving at it, and the widespread acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland to the outcome.

Secondly, let me address fears about what is spoken of as "joint authority". I think that that means that the British and Irish Governments would jointly run the affairs of Northern Ireland over the heads of the people. It is feared that the two Governments seek or plan to impose that. There is no truth in that at all. To impose such a structure against the will of the people of Northern Ireland would be incompatible with the principle of consent. For that reason, it would, in my belief, be unacceptable to this House. Additionally, however, it is not sought by the Irish Government, let alone our own. As Mr. Spring said on 25 April, Joint authority is not being considered". It is quite a different matter to examine, as the four parties and the Governments all did in 1992, ways in which, without impinging in any manner on sovereignty, some north-south body could enable common cause to be made in areas of common interest. That would be to the general good of both parts of the island of Ireland.

However, acceptability remains the key test. I believe that such a body would be acceptable, not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic as well, only if it operated in areas clearly delegated to it by the appropriate legislatures in each jurisdiction. For the same reason, it would have to be accountable to democratic institutions in Belfast and Dublin, with decisions taken on the basis of agreement between the representatives of both parts of the island.

Provided, of course, that there is widespread agreement in Northern Ireland, there is no reason why a body constructed in that way should not assume a variety of delegated functions and responsibilities, including executive functions. That does not confer joint authority on the Dublin Government over Northern Ireland or anything like it, any more than Stormont conferred such authority when, in 1952, it set up the Foyle Fisheries Commission to regulate the river that is bisected by the border. All that falls squarely within the ambit of strand 2.

Nor is there any question of us working on a deal to be imposed on the political parties or Northern Ireland people. That would be incompatible with the foundation principle of consent. Our aim is to help the process forward through discussion and agreement with the parties and, ultimately, the people. As the Taoiseach clearly put it on 24 May: We recognise that the only agreement which will last is one that the Unionist and Loyalist community have freely participated in making". It is, of course, possible to work upon some people's natural fears by making unfounded assertions about the discussions known to be taking place between our own and the Irish Government. It is not only possible; it is easy. To some, it seems irresistibly tempting. But it is also irresponsible. What we are about is endeavouring to achieve a shared understanding between us of the elements of a political settlement which, in our view, is most likely to command widespread support across the community in Northern Ireland.

We wish to do that, not to give Dublin a role in running the internal affairs of the north but to help all the participants reach an overall agreement in the knowledge of the two Governments' views, where those may be relevant and only where those may be relevant.

I would expect any outcome to include the following elements: a shared and mutually acceptable understanding of those important constitutional matters known to be in issue; the establishment of locally accountable democratic institutions in Northern Ireland which provide an appropriate and worthy role for representatives of both main parts of the community; new arrangements for contact, co-operation and working together within the island of Ireland; and new arrangements between the two Governments. I believe that, with reality and good will, all those should be attainable.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Does the Secretary of State agree that those objectives are desirable, and would be so to any fair-minded person in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or the Republic? Does he further agree that, if we want the support of the international community in the fight against terrorism—and I believe that we have that support—it is important for the international community to understand the willingness of the British Government and the Irish Government to work together jointly, and to recognise that there are certain responsibilities in the island of Ireland on which, from a purely common-sense point of view, it is right and proper that Northern Ireland and the Republic should be working together? If the international community understands what is desired by both Governments, all the more reason for us to have their continued support.

Sir Patrick Mayhew

I agree that there is support in the international community for the fight against terrorism, and I think that much heart has been taken in the international community by reason of the evidence afforded by the joint declaration that the two Governments stand side by side on such important matters. I think that there is a genuine understanding that, in aspects where there is common interest, it makes good sense to make common cause. It is also widely understood that it would not be acceptable for that process to impinge on sovereignty. That is a matter which must be determined by the consent of the people involved.

In the broader field, practical co-operation on a range of economic and social issues has continued in the past year. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana work closely together, facing as they do a common terrorist threat. That has, unquestionably, saved lives on both sides of the border.

In the past year, considerable progress has been made towards tackling deficiencies in the extradition arrange-ments between our two countries. The two Governments are resolute and stand shoulder to shoulder in their rejection of violence.

By far the most significant development in the past year has, of course, been the joint declaration. That represents a public commitment by the two Governments to a shared understanding of the political realities in Ireland today, and to a common approach to the problems of Northern Ireland, based on the principles of democracy and consent. It has the overwhelming endorsement of the people of Ireland, north and south, and the strong support of the British public.

The joint declaration has put the spotlight on the terrorists and their apologists. It must now be clear to everyone that there can be no excuse—no justification whatsoever—for political violence in this democracy. The joint declaration acknowledges and safeguards the interests of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, according parity of esteem to each. There is no compromise on any issue of principle that is essential to the position of either tradition.

I return to the performance of the economy in Northern Ireland in the past year. Once again, there is good news to report. The economy has come through the recession well, and is performing strongly in the recovery. A few statistics serve to illustrate the picture.

Manufacturing output continued the strong performance of the previous year, growing by 3.6 per cent. during 1993 compared with growth of 1.6 per cent. for the entire United Kingdom. In the year to May 1994, unemployment fell by 5.2 per cent. and, at 13.1 per cent., is the lowest for three years. Of course, those levels are still far too high, and we shall continue our efforts to reduce them further.

The Industrial Development Board had one of its most successful years in 1993–94, promoting a record 2,309 inward investment jobs. Since April, two further major projects have been announced—the offer by TransTec from Great Britain of 181 new jobs in Londonderry, and the proposal of Hualon from Taiwan to create 1,800 new jobs near Belfast, with another 500 or so jobs associated with the construction.

I can also report some impressive results from the small business sector, for which the Local Enterprise Development Unit is responsible. The year 1993–94 was a record year, with more than 1,300 new businesses established. The continuing success of Northern Ireland Electricity Plc, and news of another record-breaking year for tourism in Northern Ireland, add to the general atmosphere of optimism on the economy.

Finally, on social development, the "making Belfast work" initiative, which began in 1988 as a direct response on the part of the Government to the deep-rooted deprivation in parts of Belfast on both sides of the community, has continued to provide many employment and training opportunities. Parts of Belfast and of the rest of the Province face high levels of long-term unemployment; 60 per cent. of those who are unemployed have been so for at least one year, compared with 35 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. Such unemployment is a blight, affecting the hopes of the people on both sides of the community, and we are actively taking steps to deal with it wherever it occurs.

For all its initiatives, "making Belfast work" has, in this financial year alone, received a further £24.6 million. That represents an increase of £1 million on the allocation for 1993–94. On 26 April, I gave a commitment that the initiative would run for at least another three years.

I conclude by looking to the future. I have faith in a better future for Northern Ireland. I think that we now have an unparalleled opportunity for peace and stability. The joint declaration created a new context for political progress and has met with support across the community in Northern Ireland, and nationally and internationally. Sinn Fein now knows how it can enter the political process. It should renounce violence now and join in the political process. But whatever it decides, we shall carry on, with or without Sinn Fein.

We shall carry on working with the Irish Government for the shared understanding about which I have spoken, which is most likely to produce a settlement. We shall continue to talk to the main Northern Ireland constitutional parties, with a view to securing an agreed settlement. We shall maintain the political momentum. We shall, with the Irish Government, resolutely continue to fight terrorism.

This is a different picture from that of a year ago. We have further rational grounds for hope that, through consent and democracy, a settlement will be reached. Until that happens, however, Northern Ireland should remain under direct rule, so I commend the order to the House.

4.26 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I join the Secretary of State in extending our support to the security forces and to all who are engaged in impartially upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. They deserve our support; too often they deserve and receive our sympathy when they suffer casualties and bereavements.

Like the Secretary of State, I regret the fact that we are again debating an extension of direct rule in Northern Ireland. It is a palpable sign of failure on the part of politicians that we have been unable to address and, if not solve the problem, at least arrive at a settlement that would be acceptable to the peoples of Ireland, Northern Ireland and all these islands.

No party in this House or in Ireland views direct rule as a solution to the problem in Northern Ireland. The fact that we are again renewing the status quo merely serves to underline our collective failure in Britain and Ireland to find a constitutional settlement that has widespread support in both communities.

We regret the need to renew the Northern Ireland Act, but we must also object to the ridiculously short time that we have to debate it today. The lack of time granted by the Government for this debate represents their failure to acknowledge the gravity of the political situation in Northern Ireland. The recent spate of killings, and especially the atrocities at Loughinisland, highlight the urgent need to find a political settlement.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want correctly to describe why we have this amount of time. We had assumed that we would be given three hours—in other words, half a day—for the debate, but owing to a misunderstanding, and because the agenda was switched at least three times towards the end of last week, I was given to understand that the official Opposition wanted a vote on the second motion, which is why the debate was truncated. I am not accusing the Labour party; I am just explaining what happened. It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, regrettable.

Mr. McNamara

I am glad that our wish to have a vote on the second order, which we regard as most important, has been met. It was, however, foisted on the Opposition and on the House with no warning, and after the shadow Cabinet had discussed the business for the week. I need not pursue that matter further other than to say that as we have only a short time for the debate I shall seek to keep my remarks relatively brief so that all those hon. Members who wish to speak may do so.

The British and the Irish Governments must continue to work together to agree a joint framework document to put to the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Under article 2 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the two Governments have pledged to make determined efforts to resolve any differences. It is vital that both Governments remain united in pursuit of a settlement which grants parity of esteem to the aspirations and beliefs of both communities in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will be able to give the House the timetable for the joint framework document and say whether the date of the proposed Prime Ministerial summit has been put back to the end of July or is still on course for about the third week of July. Will he also say whether the nub of the disagreement between the two Governments is the nature and powers of cross-border institutions and whether any framework document which is agreed will be published so that the people of Britain and Ireland can also judge the proposals? I realise, of course, that they will have to go to the parties first, but it should be possible for the people most concerned, the people in Northern Ireland, to see what the two Governments are discussing.

The Labour party's policy is to support the concept of a united Ireland by consent. That policy has been endorsed by successive party conferences since 1981. However, the Labour party would not seek to impose that policy preference on the peoples of Ireland. The Labour party would and should accept any agreement which has the support of the people of Ireland, north and south.

Therefore, we welcomed the British Government's commitment in the joint declaration to give legislative effect to any measure of agreement on the future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland themselves freely determine without external impediment.

We hope that the inter-party talks can be resumed at the earliest possible date, based upon the principles contained in the joint declaration. We particularly welcome the Secretary of State's statement, in relation to Sinn Fein's questions, that the only condition to be met in order to arrive at any discussion of the future of Ireland and Northern Ireland is a permanent cessation of violence. That is of the utmost importance.

I welcome also the fact that the Secretary of State said today that the talks should maintain the three-strand structure agreed in 1991 covering the relationships between the communities within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between Britain and Ireland. The principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed must be maintained. Agreement must be reached on each of the strands before any strand is implemented.

In particular, strand 1, dealing with relations within Northern Ireland, cannot be decoupled from strands 2 and 3. The Secretary of State made that clear today. Each strand is interlocked and interrelated. The establishment of a Northern Ireland Assembly without agreed cross-border institutions would not be a viable option.

We are in favour of the establishment of a devolved power-sharing Assembly for Northern Ireland in the context of the wider constitutional settlement. It would ensure greater direct accountability for the peoples of Northern Ireland and a more democratic decision-making process. A power-sharing Assembly should help to improve relations between the communities as parties would be encouraged to work together co-operatively to improve the conditions of all Northern Ireland citizens.

An Assembly with genuine power-sharing mechanisms can guarantee that the voice of the minority community will be heard. As the Secretary of State has asserted in the past, there can be no return to simple majoritarian rule. That excludes both the Stormont-type regime and a system which is based on pure proportionality. A Northern Ireland Assembly cannot be successfully established in isolation. It must be part of a settlement that grants parity of esteem to the nationalist community and includes an institution-nalised Irish dimension.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I do not know whether I caught the hon. Gentleman's words right, but did he say that there can be no majority rule and no proportional majority rule?

Mr. McNamara

The point that I am making is that there has to be power sharing; that majority rule such as there was in the old Stormont is not acceptable. I do not think that anyone expects to see that return. A system based on pure proportionality, which would not mean equality between the communities, would also not be acceptable.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara

No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because I saw the way that he behaved the other night.

There can be no purely internal settlement because the Northern Ireland conflict is not primarily internal to Northern Ireland—it has an external dimension. Presently, a majority in Northern Ireland define themselves as British citizens and want to remain within the United Kingdom, while a large and growing minority see themselves as Irish and want to be constitutionally and institutionally linked to the Republic of Ireland.

Almost 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland electorate voted for nationalist parties in the European election. If we are to have peace in these islands, the British and Irish dimensions of the conflict must be recognised. Northern Ireland is the site of two competing sovereignty claims. Both Britain and Ireland have conflicting title deeds. Under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as amended, the British Government claim unqualified sovereignty over Northern Ireland. On the basis of that claim, the Secretary of State is allegedly still pressing for amendment of article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement explicitly to define Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Under articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, the Republic claims Northern Ireland as part of its natural territory. Those articles do not represent an aggressive territorial claim on another nation state because article 29 of the Irish constitution specifically commits the Irish state to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes". Articles 2 and 3 represent a symbolic expression of the legitimate aspirations of 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland electorate, while section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 expresses the national allegiances of 60 per cent. of the electorate. The British and Irish territorial claims mirror and entrench the divided allegiances in Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara

No, I will not give way. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, for which only one and a half hours is allowed. If they are lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will have an opportunity to make their observations on my remarks.

Articles 2 and 3 of the 1920 Act as amended are now on the negotiating table. That represents a major breakthrough in British-Irish relations, because both Governments appear to recognise the need for balanced constitutional settlement. Both territorial claims must be addressed if we are to seek to resolve the conflicting national aspirations of the peoples of Northern Ireland.

It must be recognised that amending articles 2 and 3 is a decision for the Irish people and is not within the gift of the Irish Government, and that a referendum on articles 2 and 3 is unlikely to be passed except as part of a wider settlement that the people of the Republic believe is acceptable to northern nationalists.

The right of the Unionist community to remain in the United Kingdom while they form the majority in Northern Ireland has been recognised by the British and Irish in the Anglo-Irish Agreement—a binding international treaty—and, recently, in the joint declaration. The Unionist population have a cast-iron guarantee that Northern Ireland will not be united with the rest of Ireland without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. In return for the security that that guarantee grants, the Unionist population, both Governments and the nationalist population of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect some flexibility from Unionist. politicians, and recognition of the nationalist identity and the aspirations that they believe should be given institutional expression.

A no-surrender mentality can never bring reconciliation. We will see a resolution of the conflict only when all parties recognise that we are not playing a zero sum game. It is possible to compromise without losing one's cause or beliefs. All sides gain if there is a permanent cessation of violence and an accommodation of differences.

The Labour party believes that there must be some form of institutionalised Irish dimension in any political settlement. Formal and institutional recognition must be given to the sense of Irish identity held in the nationalist community. Institutions must be established that allow authority, power and responsibility to be shared between the peoples of Northern Ireland in full co-operation with the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There should be no transfer of sovereignty without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland, but the British and Irish Governments must share responsibil-ity for developing a constitutional framework for a political settlement in the absence of agreement in Northern Ireland.

The joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments contains principles that should form the basis of a just and durable settlement for the peoples of Northern Ireland. The Labour party would prefer the agreement to be made between the parties in Northern Ireland on a constitutional settlement that secures widespread support; but no party or organisation has the right to hinder political progress. As the Secretary of State said in his reply to the Sinn Fein questionnaire, no party has a veto.

If the constitutional parties are unable to resolve their differences, the two Governments have a duty to the citizens of these islands to address the underlying causes of the conflict and agree a settlement that grants both communities rights and aspirations, parity of esteem and practical expression. We believe that those should be the principles underlying the discussions that will take place between the parties, and the underlying and underpinning matters contained in the framework document that the two Governments will present.

Following the expressions of hope that we have heard from the Secretary of State, I myself hope that this may yet be the last time we have to ask the House—regretfully—to renew the legislation.

4.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)

I shall be brief. The main themes of the argument have been well rehearsed and do not require detailed re-presentation, and other hon. Members wish to speak.

There is no viable or responsible alternative to endorsing the extension order; to do otherwise would be to plunge the government of Northern Ireland into chaos. That is not to say that we warmly welcome and embrace the continuation of direct rule. There are many manifestations of its defects—of the democratic deficit—and we look to the creation of circumstances in which the order can be consigned to history. That is a major objective of Government policy.

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is fully aware of the strength and depth of Conservative support for the policy that he is pursuing. That policy has three main pillars, all of which deserve the plaudits that they are receiving. The first is the constitutional guarantee that Northern Ireland is de facto and de jure part of the United Kingdom, because that is the democratically expressed wish of the majority, and will remain so as long as that is the case. On the other hand, we accept the entire legitimacy of nationalist politicians who seek a united Ireland. Let that debate be resolved through the democratic process.

The constitutional guarantee, endorsed by the Republic of Ireland, is therefore the first pillar of Government policy that deserves support. The second is the strong emphasis on seeking agreement on the structures of government in Northern Ireland, and related matters, through consent. There is no room for coercion. In the not very recent past, we had three-strand talks: there were three strands because there are three relevant sets of relations. We welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to recreate a climate in which meaningful talks can take place between the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and we especially welcome the Minister of State's quoted statement that Nothing will emerge as a result of the talks process that will fail the fundamental test of widespread agreement. Consent is the only way forward. We interpret that as a statement in crude shorthand that both sides of the major political divide in Northern Ireland have the right to object to, or accept, whatever may emerge from the talks process.

Mr. Winnick

No one disputes the right of the majority in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made that perfectly clear: in no way does he dispute the right of the majority not to be forced into a united Ireland.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there can be no veto on other matters either when two Governments can reach agreement—as is quite likely, and as we hope that they will—on various questions, including joint bodies, and when sovereignty is not an issue? As with the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, the two Governments should be in a position to decide on matters where there is no question of sovereignty being taken from the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hunter

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is directing that question to the right person; I think that it should probably be fielded by the Secretary of State or a Minister of State. As I see it, the principle is clear, having been agreed by the Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There is no room for coercion on any matter: widespread agreement is the only way forward. It is perhaps simplistic to speak in terms of a veto, although I acknowledge that I did so briefly a moment ago. We must look for a consensus of constitutional, responsible feeling and thought, emerging from a meaningful negotiation. We are not predetermining anything: nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out, as the saying goes.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunter

I will, but I must then proceed with my speech.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Would the hon. Gentleman care to answer a simple question that many people in Northern Ireland are asking today? What consent was sought from the majority in Northern Ireland to the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. Hunter

I will not answer that question, because I regard it as irrelevant to the debate. The Anglo-Irish Agreement exists, and many of us—not least Lady Thatcher—are on record as expressing some misgivings about that. For many reasons, would that we were not starting where we are, but we cannot do other than seek a meaningful debate on the basis of our present position. I shall therefore deliberately turn my back on the hon. Gentleman's question.

I have spoken of two pillars of policy that I strongly applaud—the constitutional guarantee, and the search for a meaningful dialogue and settlement of the structures in Northern Ireland. The third pillar is the uncompromising and uncompromised pursuit of the fight against terrorism. That involves a constant process of revaluation: are we really sure that we are devoting enough resources to the task, and are they being used in the optimum manner? Are the structures of intelligence-gathering right, and are they properly co-ordinated?

Then there is the question of the involvement of the Republic. We seek ever greater commitment and co-operation, while acknowledging the real progress that has been made in recent years. Those are questions that must be asked, and the Government are asking them.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for all parties in the House fully to support the fight against terrorism? Is it not very disappointing that Opposition Members—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—have hosted a meeting with Sinn Fein members in the Houses of Parliament? That is the very body that promotes bloody terrorism. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must all work with one mind?

Mr. Hunter

I certainly agree with the last point. I repeat that I have no doubt whatever that all hon. Members are dedicated to the fight against terrorism. My quarrel with the Labour party is that its reasoning is wrong. I do not for a moment doubt its opposition to terrorism, but I believe that its assessment of how the fight should be conducted is inadequate.

I make one final point about dealing with terrorism. We have recently been presented with what I choose to call the Annesley-Trimble proposals, referring to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Serious questions have been posed about the admissibility of hearsay and electronically gathered evidence, redefining the right to silence, re-examining the supergrass syndrome and considering greater protection for witnesses. Those are important points. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Upper Bann has necessarily got everything entirely right, but many Conservative Members listened carefully to what he said and look forward to the on-going debate under those headings.

As I have said, there is no alternative other than to endorse the extension order. I believe that the Government should receive, deservedly, applause for the overall strategy that they are pursuing in Northern Ireland matters.

4.50 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

I know that some will take the view that Unionist representatives were wrong to decide to open up discussions after the general election in 1987 with the freshly re-elected Government to see if it would be possible to find an alternative to and replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 which, as has already been said, is now recognised as one of the great miscalculations in British history.

On balance, but only on balance, I think that we were right to try the path of discussion and negotiation, particularly since, as a pro-Union community—the greater proportion of people in Northern Ireland—we had solidly made manifest our opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

In the five years from 1987 to 1992, it looked for a while as though we were assured of a fair and honourable response, but by mid-1992 it was apparent that our willingness to talk had been construed in some quarters as weakness. The final disappointment came in November 1992 when the two Governments decided to terminate—that was the word—the three-strand talks. In the three weeks before Christmas 1992, agents established contact with terrorist leaders. That was common knowledge in the early part of last year and was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in the House on 13 July last year.

The three weeks before Christmas 1992 were an important reference point, proving conclusively that muscle men were to be placed on a par with democratically elected parties. The signal was clearly understood by the greater number of people in Northern Ireland and it became—and remains—a major obstacle to the launch of new high-level talks and it casts a shadow over the low-key discussions, patiently and ably steered and chaired since September last year by the Minister responsible for political development, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I cannot help feeling that the Minister is not being helped by Dublin's insistence that new talks must be the same high profile, high wire act which was such a monumental failure before.

Irish Ministers also insist that the guidelines to which we all submitted and subscribed on 26 March 1991 be rigidly observed, particularly the three-strand structure. Some hon. Members have taken the same line. Very well. But that formula specified a sequence, commencing with strand 1, which dealt with an internal structure for the better governance of Northern Ireland. It was always agreed that such an internal structure would be broadly approved and banked—that was the word—before moving on to the strand 2 discussions, concerning relations between the new Stormont structure and an Irish Government.

Now, Dublin Ministers are ignoring the fact that they are breaching the agreed guidelines by ignoring the sequence pattern and by making unhelpful public pronouncements on all three strands at once. Worse still, they seem determined to devise an alternative framework that is presumably designed to be a different agenda from that which was approved and agreed in 1991 by all prospective participants.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

I must quarrel with the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. In the last negotiations, which, as he said, centred on the strand 1 section, the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) presented a paper on the same type of north-south arrangements about which the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking. There was no arbitrary division between the discussions on strand 1 and the other elements of discussion, as was proved by the right hon. Gentleman's party in its presentation of that paper.

Mr. Molyneaux

I will be charitable to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), as his memory is at fault. He will recall that a team from his party —authorised by its leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—engaged with representatives of the other parties in the working party which drew up a model for a devolved internal government.

Mr. John Hume (Foyle)

Not true.

Mr. Molyneaux

I shall go further in a minute.

The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party entered certain reservations that he declined to remove until he could see the shape of the strand 2 agenda. Other party leaders will remember that we rescued the talks from a complete breakdown at the end of the strand 1 discussions. In the Queen Elizabeth II building across the road we suggested that we jump prematurely into strand 2 so that at least the hon. Member for Foyle—I do not know whether the other members of his party took the same view—could see the shape of the agenda. At the end of strand 2 discussions, in an effort to breathe life into the negotiations, papers were submitted on the last day of the session. That was a different operation.

Mr. Mallon

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so that we can test both our memories. In effect, there was no such thing as an agreed paper by any section of those involved in the talks. A discussion paper was presented to the plenary session, but it was never adopted. It was noted, but it had no more status than that.

Mr. Molyneaux

The records will show that agreement was reached by representatives of the hon. Gentleman's party on the shape and structure of the new Stormont assembly. It was held up and we did not press it because the hon. Member for Foyle had entered reservations which he did not withdraw.

The new agenda—what the Irish Government seemed to be proposing—steered the discussions away from the priority of finding agreement on an internal arrangement for co-operation between legitimate constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the administration of the affairs of the people of the Province towards an altogether different objective of joint sovereignty, within which framework the internal governance of Northern Ireland would be allocated a place, presumably given assurances of good behaviour on our part. As was made clear in the authentic Irish Government paper of 19 November 1993, the internal government structure could be demolished at any time by the said joint authority.

The way was paved for all this in the SDLP submission to what we might call, if the Secretary of State will forgive me, the Mayhew talks in 1992. That submission confirmed that equality or civil rights were not the main concern. In reference to the Unionist proposals, the SDLP said: While in general terms, such proposals might be both acceptable and sufficient in a society in which equality of treatment for minorities was the only issue, they are not sufficient in a society in which allegiance is a central problem. It would appear that the central problem of allegiance can be resolved only by some form of joint authority. The House should be aware of the implications of this because the House will be involved. Joint authority must extend to a greater land mass than the six counties of Northern Ireland because there are many millions of Irish citizens living and working in England who, in various ways, owe allegiance to the Irish Republic.

It follows, in pure logic, that joint authority must have common application to the entire British Isles, so it seems that we are back to the Act of Union as a model of common citizenship and shared sovereignty. That will not only put a stopper on any form of devolution anywhere in the United Kingdom; it will remove at a stroke what is essentially a home rule structure in Dublin, retracing its steps to resume its honoured place in the British nation. However presented, packaged or devised, any form of joint authority must terminate in British Isles unity, because there is no halfway house.

I am indebted to the Cadogan Group of academics for the list of solid reasons why the Reynolds ambition of a joint authority would be unworkable. They state, first: It is impracticable. There is no modern precedent for it, and most schemes put forward for Northern Ireland look unworkably complex. It is impermanent. Many proposals are either explicitly or implicitly put forward as transitional stages towards a greater degree of Irish unity. It is unbalanced. Fundamental to the concept is the supposition that the British Government has the same relationship with unionists as Dublin has with nationalists. This is not so. It is undemocratic. It tends to isolate the governors from the governed, leaving the administration remote from and unrepresentative of the people of Northern Ireland. It is almost impossible to finance on a permanent basis. All schemes assume that the very high costs involved would be paid by Britain or by external sources. No proposal suggests that British financial support would necessarily prove permanent. We would add merely that joint authority, however it is disguised, amounts to a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. It is even contrary to the principle stated in the Downing street declaration. The principle of consent for the people of Northern Ireland, of all faiths and none, is the single most important element in the declaration. That consent is the governing principle in all future arrangements for governing Northern Ireland. That is made clear by the fact that the American Government have underwritten the importance of consent.

It has been common ground among the Northern Ireland parties, at least since 1975, that there should be a Bill of Rights based on the European convention, yet it has also been recognised that, because the convention refers only to individual human rights, which are necessarily qualified, the convention does not fully meet the need. In particular, it does not refer to the rights of communities or minorities.

In recent years, those collective rights have been addressed by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe through the development of the human dimension in the Vienna accord and the charter of Paris. The latter states the principle, which has been worked out in some detail and is mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the charter. It states: We affirm that the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of national minorities will be protected and that persons belonging to national minorities have the right to freely express, preserve and develop that identity without any discrimination and in full equality before the law. Those standards should regulate the relationship between Britain and Ireland and should safeguard the rights of minorities in each state. Any new agreement between the British and Irish Government to replace the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement or any new institutions of government in Northern Ireland should conform to those standards.

The way in which those standards would be implemented or enforced presents problems. The standards are not really justiciable and would not be suitable for court-type procedures as in many cases they represent the best administrative practice. Regard should also be paid to the first steps taken by the CSCE on implementation, which have taken the form of intergovernmental administrative procedures rather than court-enforced legal procedures. It may be considered appropriate to ensure that any implementation provisions in any new agreement are compatible with those that the two Governments have agreed should apply throughout Europe.

Her Majesty's Government have a clear duty urgently to tackle the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. In "Blueprint for Stability", we have set out what we and many others regard as a fair and practical method of doing that. The second motion on the Order Paper deals with a change in the structure of the governance of Northern Ireland, which appears not to have been subject to the formula nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". The Government are just getting on with it.

I say, with great respect, that Ministers must go further and faster down the road to the restoration of accountable democracy in the Province, where about a third of the population—Protestants and Roman Catholic—fall into the middle-class category. Last weekend, a Sunday newspaper of repute reported rumours of middle-class financial assistance to Loyalist paramilitaries. I warned precisely of that problem during the Queen's Speech debate last November. It is vital that the middle classes do not fall prey to the same disenchantment that has become the norm in so-called working-class Ulster. The House cannot pretend that suspicion does not exist. It must be removed by action, and the time for action is now.

5.6 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

On Monday in the House, I asked the Prime Minister a question that was relevant to the constitutional talks in Northern Ireland. It appears in column 561 of Monday's Hansard. The thrust of my question was how was it that, if strand 1 talks were to take place again in the same sense as they had taken place in the past, after his talks with the Prime Minister of the Dublin Government, the Prime Minister announced that they had discussed strands 1, 2 and 3. The Prime Minister replied: No, my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister were not about strand 1, which has been the subject of discussions between the British Government and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. My discussions with the Irish Prime Minister related to political strands 2 and 3. We still have not achieved agreement, but we are making progress. We have commissioned further work."—[Official Report, 27 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 561–62.] I went to the BBC and obtained a transcript of what the Prime Minister said in Corfu. He stated that there was an impediment to progress for a very long time. The question of joint authority is not on the table, what is on the table is a series of things in strand one, strand two and strand three". At the talks with the Prime Minister of the Dublin Government, the Prime Minister discussed strand 1, 2 and 3, but he said in the House that they had not discussed strand 1.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a plea for people in Northern Ireland to believe in him; to believe in the Government and to believe in the credibility, integrity and honesty of what they state. When the people of Northern Ireland see night after night the Dublin Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs reiterating the very opposite of what the Secretary of State seems to be saying, and what the Prime Minister at times is saying, how can they trust?

My next quotation comes from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who was also speaking on Monday, discussing joint authority. I shall quote from the transcript: Joint authority for Northern Ireland—in other words flying the tricolour and the union jack over Belfast city hall. The Secretary of State is going to agree to something even worse; he is going to agree that Northern Ireland and the Republic will be controlled by all-Ireland authorities which will have executive powers over the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. So the man is trying to deceive the Unionist community, and it is time he was exposed. My attitude, the attitude of my party and the attitude of the majority of unionist electors at the recent elections endorsed that view—that something was afoot.

When he was in America, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic could not hold himself in; he made a statement that was carried in the Irish Times and that formed the basis of a news editorial in the Daily Telegraph on 23 June. The Daily Telegraph's editorials do not often say things with which I agree, but on that occasion it said: Speaking in the United States, he"— that is, the Taoiseach— indicated that Dublin would contemplate dropping Articles II and III of its constitution, which lay claim to the North, only in return for a North-South body that would exercise "executive powers" over aspects of Northern Ireland's government… This is a dangerous pretence. The Unionists are entitled to reject Mr. Reynolds's notions out of hand. If such a plan was ever implemented, the Loyalists of the Shankill Road would perceive it as a Republican victory won by terrorism, and probably respond in kind. The IRA, meanwhile, would perceive it as an encouraging halfway house, endorsing their legitimacy. Only John Hume's Nationalist SDLP would wholeheartedly welcome such an arrangement. That would be scant consolation indeed for the British Government, which would have to pick up the pieces as yet another constitutional experiment ended in bloodshed and tears across the province… But in the meantime, it is deeply irresponsible of Dublin to allow the tail to wag the dog. Articles II and III are at the root of the Irish problem. They embody and perpetuate Unionist distrust of the South. Their removal should be viewed by Dublin not as the culmination of any peace process, but as its starting point." And that is where we need to start today. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), leading for Her Majesty's Opposition, put forward at the Dispatch Box a defence of something that is not only illegal under international law and criminal under practical law, but immoral—the defence of articles 2 and 3. The hon. Gentleman knows well that those articles have no standing in any international court, and no standing in law. If the southern Government thought that they had any standing in an international court, they would have taken them there long ago.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the only people who will be delighted by the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) at the Dispatch Box—especially the part about the rigged democracy that he suggests for the people of Northern Ireland and the part about sovereignty—will be the terrorists and the republican propagandists.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Yes, I was coming to that.

First we find the Labour party spokesman attacking any concept of majority rule in Northern Ireland. He says, "You cannot have majority rule." That is very different from the Taoiseach's concept of majority rule. At his meeting with the Irish Association in Dublin on 10 January, Albert Reynolds was asked if he would consider a 51 per cent. majority in favour of Irish unity as sufficient consent for change. He replied: not 51 per cent.—50 per cent. plus one". So there are two standards. The standard for the south is a majority, but Northern Ireland cannot have majority rule—

Mr. Mallon

rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley

I cannot give way, because of the time. I have made a promise and I shall try to keep to it.

Mr. Mallon

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that particular point?

Rev. Ian Paisley

No. I made a promise and I have to keep to it. I regret not being able to give way. We should have had plenty of time to discuss the matter.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North went further. I intervened and he graciously gave way to me, although he may be sorry that he did so. Now he says that we cannot have proportional majority rule either. If certain segments of a Northern Ireland assembly formed a coalition and achieved a majority, that would not be allowed either. The hon. Gentleman's idea is to elevate a minority into the same area of equality as the real majority. That is what this is all about. How can there be a settlement on those terms? It is absolutely impossible.

Of course, the Secretary of State talks about consent. I find that revolting to the people of Northern Ireland. What consent was asked of the people of Northern Ireland for the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley

I shall not give way. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland presided over that awful situation, that he knew in practical values what consent was achieved. There was no consent to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We were not asked to give consent. He himself said that, although people had resigned their seats, the Government did not care what the results of the elections were—the result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was here to stay. That is what he thinks of democracy. We have been through all that.

What sort of assembly shall we have if we cannot have majority rule, or even proportional majority rule? It is a system that cannot work. And of course, people have a vested interest in seeing that it does not work.

What about the matter of consent? The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) told us that there was a great pillar—

Mr. Mallon

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley

No.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the pillar of that wonderful consent was something about which we should be very glad. I would like to think that the people of Northern Ireland alone would have the opportunity to give their consent. But while the Secretary of State stands up in the House and tells us, "Oh yes, it is the people of Northern Ireland alone who will have the right to give consent," out in America, the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic says something entirely different. He says: We will use all our resources to persuade both communities in Northern Ireland into new arrangements which are honourable in terms of their past, just and fair in terms of the present, and equally open in terms of the future to whatever political model commands consent across the entire spectrum of the Irish people. He makes it absolutely clear that it is nothing to do with the people of Northern Ireland.

That view was tested by me at Hillsborough house when the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionists, was present, as were the leader of the Alliance party and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I said, "You can have a settlement in Northern Ireland, Prime Minister, by going to the people now and asking the question that is asked in the border poll legislation, and let the people settle it." The other three leaders all agreed with the Prime Minister that there should be no going to people on the border poll legislation, so the people will not have that opportunity.

I was not in the House after the election when the Secretary of State said that the people had given their consent because in the election, the majority of people voted for the Downing street declaration and the peace process, or at least were to some extent quiescent about it. One can see how ridiculous that is by reading the manifestos of those standing, as I did. I heard the hon. Member for Foyle say that the election had nothing to do with the peace process and that I should not even be permitted to bring in the matter because it had nothing to do with the election, which was about Europe. What is more, the Ulster Unionist party took a similar attitude on the matter.

One candidate did not take that attitude—the Conservative candidate. Let us look at the vote that was recorded for the Conservative candidate, who was ably canvassed for by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She got 5,583 votes—0.99 per cent. of the entire vote of the Province. Yet the Government then say that there is consent. There is no consent in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley

No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman knows that because I have already told him.

Mr. Mallon

The hon. Gentleman knows what I want to ask. That is why he will not give way.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I do not.

Rev. William McCrea

You never made him afraid before, Seamus, and you will not do it now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The matter today is all-important to the people of Northern Ireland because if we are not to have the solid rock of democratic principles as a base, we will not have this shamrock of a Downing street declaration. If we do not have the solid rock of democratic principles, we shall not proceed very far.

Is there any House in the world where the main Opposition spokesman would get up and talk as we have heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North talk today? He said that we could not have even proportional representation. He should tell South Africa that it should not have proportional representation because it is not democratic. He says that we cannot have majority rule and, therefore, that we cannot have proportional representation.

The issue will have to be decided by the choice of the people. Mr. Churchill used to say, "Trust the people." Why will the people of Northern Ireland not have the opportunity to decide their own future by the ballot box? I know the reason why. It was given by Garret Fitzgerald in his book, "All in a Life". He says that joint sovereignty is simply a method that the British Government might choose to adopt in the exercise of its sovereignty in order to regulate the affairs of one part of the Kingdom. That is what has happened. Joint sovereignty has come in because the British Government are prepared now to share with the Government of the Irish Republic the way in which our country is to be governed and the way in which its future is to be decided. That spells disaster for our Province.

Many people in Northern Ireland are deeply troubled about what happened in the coroner's court concerning the Teban accident. I would like an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will have a careful look at the matter because many hearts that have already been broken will be rent asunder again by what happened in that court, as he knows. I trust that something will be done to mend that.

5.26 pm
Mr. John Hume (Foyle)

I will not indulge in the ranting to which we have just listened and which we are fed up with listening to in Northern Ireland. We have heard in today's rant, once again, everything that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is against and, once again, we have not heard what he is for in dealing with the problem.

As the Secretary of State has pointed out, the order is a reminder that the very first principle of democracy does not exist in Northern Ireland—agreement on how the people are governed. In fact, it has never existed in Northern Ireland. Such agreement is the basis of order in any society. It is self-evident that anyone who wanted to provide the basis for lasting stability would be totally committed to reaching agreement among our divided people.

I very much welcome the fact, therefore, that the Secretary of State and the Government have committed themselves totally to such agreement, together with the Irish Government. It is the duty of all parties to commit themselves to such agreement. Surely at the end of the day, agreement threatens no section of the people. No one doubts that, given the attitudes that exist, such agreement might be difficult to reach, but at least we should give people on the ground hope by being at the table and staying there until we reach agreement. I hope that that will happen soon, that the challenge that has been thrown down by both Governments in the Downing street declaration will be faced up to by everyone and that we can come to the table in an atmosphere where the gun and the bomb have gone for ever.

5.28 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram)

I say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that we all share his desire to see a settlement reached and an agreement reached between the parties and, indeed, between the two Governments. That is very much the background to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, and it is certainly very much central to the Government's policy in relation to the political situation in Northern Ireland.

I do not have a great deal of time in which to deal with all the points raised in this short, but very interesting and constructive debate. I shall deal with a few of the specific questions and with one or two of the points which should either be corrected or put into perspective.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked a number of specific questions. He asked first whether I could give an idea of the timetable of the framework document. There are no artificial time constraints in putting together a framework document, and it is important that there are not, because obviously it is a complex matter and we need to take the time needed to achieve agreement, if agreement is possible. So, it would be wrong to say that the document would be ready by a certain date or not ready by another date. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North appreciates that that is the most responsible position we can take on that difficult matter at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman asked again about what he saw to be the nub of disagreement. There are a number of difficult areas, as he would expect, which the two Governments are discussing. It would be totally wrong to try to conduct those discussions in the full glare of publicity. Indeed, to try to do so, I suspect, would make it even more difficult to achieve a meeting of minds. I am therefore sure that, again, he will understand if I do not go into the details of what is being discussed in the talks on the framework document beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening remarks.

As to the publication of the framework document, it is obvious that, if we are to achieve the widespread or broad-spread agreement of the people of Northern Ireland at some time, they will have to see and be able to take a view of what is being proposed. Again, it must be a matter for political judgment of when the right time for that to happen is reached.

I very much appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Once again, he has shown not only his great interest but his knowledge of the political situation in the Province, and I thought that his speech was both reasoned and sensible. He underlined, as I shall again, that the bottom line to everything taking place is the need to achieve widespread agreement. That is the practical reality. Our history is littered with the wreckage of imposed solutions.

Mr. Trimble

On that point, may I refer the Minister to the intervention made in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), in which the latter drew the utterly false distinction between changes which relate only to sovereignty and those which relate to cross-border institutions of a merely administrative nature, which he said would not require consent?

In his reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the Minister's hon. Friend appeared to endorse that view, and confined the requirement of consent to so-called sovereignty changes, and not to the sort of cross-border institutions to which he was referring. I give the Minister the opportunity to correct that, and make it clear that there would be no question of any cross-border institution being created without the freely given consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram

We have made it clear, and I make it clear again, that the political settlement, which includes all three strands, not only strand 2, will require the widespread or broad-spread agreement of the people of Northern Ireland. The quotation cited by my right hon. and learned Friend of the Taoiseach's speech at Oxford made it clear that that is also the view of the Irish Government. I can only reiterate that to the hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to the history of the talks up to November 1992. There is a difference of view about the nature of those talks. In my understanding of what he said, he suggested that there had been a sequential basis to those talks.

I have looked up the original statement in 1991, and it is clear that there was not a sequential system proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the then Secretary of State. In fact, he was saying at that time that, although the parties would start with strand 1, at a moment which he judged to be appropriate, it would launch into the other two strands.

In a sense, that is rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. May I say to him again that, when we talk of strand 1 being banked and then looking at strand 2, we are not talking in theory. We have to talk about the practical realities. The practical realities of the situation, as I have learned in the talks over the past year, is that we shall not achieve agreement on strand 1 without achieving agreement on strand 2 as well. There is an inevitable and unavoidable interlocking of all the strands, and it is for that reason—the political reality of the situation—that all those strands have to, and will, be looked at together.

The right hon. Gentleman also called again for us to tackle the democratic deficit. He will understand from what my right hon. and learned Friend said that that is also very much the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government. However, the way in which that democratic deficit can be tackled and met is by moving the process of dialogue forward, until we reach a situation in which we can achieve a political settlement and within which those institutions can be provided again for the Province.

I shall turn briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I am afraid that, again, he made a number of assertions which bear little connection with reality. He first spoke about joint authority and joint sovereignty. I can only say to him, again, that it is the stated position of both the British and Irish Governments that joint authority is not being considered.

The hon. Gentleman may find that he would have a closer and a better understanding of how the process of dialogue is proceeding if he were to accept my invitation, which I renew today, to come to the talks that I am having with the constitutional parties. He would then begin to see the type of structures that we are discussing to try to achieve a political settlement.

In particular, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of strand 1 and whether that was part of the discussions with the Irish Government. The discussions with the Irish Government, as with the parties, are about the overall package, which includes, by its nature, all three strands. However, we have made it absolutely clear that the specifics of strand 1 are matters for the British Government and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That has been the position, and it remains the position.

I say again to the hon. Gentleman that he can set up as many Aunt Sallys as he likes, he may draw as many black scenarios as he wishes, but, at the end of the day, they all have to be subjected to the test of acceptability to the people of Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the House"] And this House. It is for that reason that many of the suggestions which he makes will be shown up for what they are: scare tactics and unhelpful to any settlement being achieved.

I believe that we are moving to a situation in which there is a genuine hope that peace can be achieved and a political settlement can be arrived at. But it will not be advanced by shouted slogans, by wild assertions, by blazing headlines or by megaphone diplomacy. It will be taken forward only by steady progress, careful language and the will among all those who participate to achieve a settlement. We have that goal in mind—not only to achieve the rightful, peaceful life for people in Northern Ireland, but so that we never again have to come back to the House to ask for the order to continue once more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.