Northern Ireland (Hansard, 30 June 1997)

§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam)
I beg to move, That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1997, Which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved. The order will extend for a further 12 months the so-called interim period during which the government of Northern Ireland is carried out under "the direction and control" of the Secretary of State. So far, that temporary arrangement has lasted for 23 years. I regard that as a sorry state of affairs.
The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve political structures that are more accountable to them and more responsive to their needs. The Government are determined to put power back into the hands of the people throughout the United Kingdom. Our approach is based on principles of openness and local accountability and those hold true in Northern Ireland too.
Quite apart from those general arguments, bringing power closer to people in Northern Ireland could play a significant part in healing divisions and encouraging people to work together. It is widely acknowledged that any new arrangements for Northern Ireland must involve power and responsibility sharing among representatives of all main sections of the community there. Devolution of power on that basis could be an important symbol of partnership and working together, giving positive leadership in the interests of all in Northern Ireland.
It has long been recognised that any successful settlement must address the totality of relationships within these islands. We want to move to a situation in which real power is exercised in a co-operative spirit by and for the people of Northern Ireland; a positive and constructive relationship between the two parts of the island of Ireland produces mutual benefit; a consensus on constitutional issues settles old fears and further enables Britain and Ireland to work closely together; and both main parts of the community in Northern Ireland can express their different national identities without appearing to threaten the other.
Such a political settlement is possible, and I am determined to facilitate progress in that direction. That will be our goal in the months ahead. Is it possible that, by this time next year, I shall be able to tell the House, with confidence, that the interim period which has lasted since 1974 is coming to an end? I look to hon. Members from Northern Ireland for encouragement, but, like them, I know that achieving that goal will be far from easy.
At least the machinery for making progress is in place. The multi-party negotiations have a further year to run. Nine of the 10 elected parties are there. Independent chairmen have been appointed to facilitate relevant aspects of the negotiation and have won the respect and confidence of both Governments and of the Northern Ireland parties. We are grateful to those independent chairmen. Rules of procedure have also been drawn up and agreed. The time has now come to use that machinery intensively to make real progress over the coming months.
The Government are determined to do all that we can to aid that progress. Obviously, we want the talks to take place in a peaceful atmosphere. We want Sinn Fein to be there, representing its electorate, but, as my right hon. Friend the 52 Prime Minister has made clear, a political settlement of the kind that I have described is an urgent necessity—whether or not Sinn Fein is involved in negotiating it. As we have said so many times in the past couple of weeks, the ball is in Sinn Fein's court. We have been straight with Sinn Fein, as the published aide memoire shows, but the republican movement now has to make up its mind. The whole world knows that. If its representatives cannot rise to the challenges of democracy, they can have no place in shaping the future arrangements for Northern Ireland.
The issue now under consideration in the talks is the difficult and sensitive one of decommissioning illegal arms. It is a complex and emotive subject; however, it has been under detailed discussion since mid-October last year and, in my view, the time has come to bring the issue to a determination and move on. I told the talks on 3 June that we wanted to see the matter resolved to the satisfaction of the participants "within weeks". The British and Irish Governments have, in an effort to facilitate agreement, tabled a joint paper setting out a series of "possible conclusions".
Agreement would enable us to set a firm date for the launch of substantive political negotiations—a date on which the settlement train could definitely leave the station, whether or not Sinn Fein was on board. I shall not now go into the detail of the paper as it remains under consideration in the talks, but I can say that the two Governments' proposals are entirely consistent with Senator Mitchell's report and its "compromise approach" under which some decommissioning would take place during the negotiations, rather than before or after". The two Governments, in the joint paper, commit themselves to working to achieve progress on decommissioning alongside progress in the substantive political negotiations.
Positive movement in the talks towards a political settlement would help us make progress in other highly contentious area, such as the parades. In the run-up to this year's marching season, I have been trying to make progress, talking with representatives of both the marching orders and the residents' associations. I and my officials have been trying to identify areas of common ground and explore the extent to which local accommodation might be reached—the only approach whereby we can ensure that violence will not be part of the scene in the next two weeks.
I cannot say yet whether those efforts will have a successful outcome, and we are continuing this week to try to achieve further progress, but I can assure the House that we shall continue to do all that we can to avoid a repetition of last year's appalling events. However, the task of everyone involved in working for a peaceful resolution of the parades issue would be made significantly easier if it were being discussed in a climate of peace and political stability.
Before inviting hon. Members to support the order, I shall set out briefly some of the ways in which we intend to discharge our responsibilities for Northern Ireland. On public spending, all Government Departments will live within the totals announced for this year and the plans published for 1998–99. That provides an opportunity to conduct a root-and-branch review of public expenditure to ensure that it aligns with the Government's objectives and secures value for money. That comprehensive spending 53 review will apply to public expenditure in Northern Ireland. We shall examine all areas of spending to ensure that resources line up with our priorities.

§ Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)
When will hon. Members have an opportunity to discuss public expenditure in Northern Ireland?

§ Marjorie Mowlam
Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to discuss that matter in the months ahead, because we have made an effort this year to ensure that negotiations and priority setting are not only questions for Ministers. We shall go out to consultation with all the political parties.

§ Mr. Taylor
So that I fully understand that reply, does that mean that, as in the case of the Welsh Grand Committee which is meeting today in Wales, the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will have an opportunity to discuss public expenditure? The previous Government never gave us the opportunity to discuss the issue in any proper forum.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
Let me elaborate on my previous answer and then I shall answer that question directly.
What the approach that we are adopting will achieve is that Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland will be able to have an input, before the decision is taken, in creating the whole picture of how the spending review will take place. That is a useful and valuable input for all Northern Ireland Members.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question relating to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, as he is well aware, days before Parliament was dissolved for the election, the previous Government introduced several changes to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. We are still reviewing those changes and I look forward to discussing and reviewing them—not in a negative way, so hon. Members need not panic, but in terms of what they cover. As there were changes to the Scottish and the Welsh Grand Committees, I have been looking at how arrangements differ across the Union. The issue is still on the table and we look forward to discussing it with the Northern Ireland parties in the weeks ahead.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)
My right hon. Friend will probably be aware of current press speculation that there will be a shift of funds in the Department of Education that will gravely affect those schools in Northern Ireland that are the most deprived. That would seem to go contrary to the PAFT—policy appraisal and fair treatment—approach. Will she take this opportunity to deny that?

§ Marjorie Mowlam
There are no plans to shift money from deprived schools to other schools in Northern Ireland. The PAFT criteria are there and we have repeatedly said that we support them. All we have done is shift £4 million from within budget to ensure we get class sizes to less than 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds and to help many schools avoid sacking teachers. As a result of the cuts introduced by the Tories over the past two years, many schools—both those in deprived areas and others—are hurting badly, so that money has been reallocated. However, there are no plans to deprive deprived schools more than others. We are looking at what we can do to help all schools in Northern Ireland, because they are facing 54 severe financial stringency as a result of the plans put in place by the Tories last year, which are coming forward into this year.
It may help to answer those questions about education if I mention some proposals that we are trying to move into policy as quickly as possible to tackle unemployment and get young school leavers off benefit and into work.
I am pleased to say that figures for unemployment in Northern Ireland are decreasing and that unemployment is at one of its lowest levels for almost 17 years, but we are having trouble getting into work young people who have been unemployed for more than six months. That is an appalling waste of the young people's talents and skills, which they have never been able to develop. We look forward very much to the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who will announce this week a comprehensive welfare-to-work strategy, funded from the one-off windfall levy on the privatised utilities. We want to use that in Northern Ireland to break down barriers to the long-term unemployed.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Have we an assurance that, in the Budget, a designated proportion of the windfall tax, if it comes through, will go specifically to Northern Ireland—or must we continue to look for crumbs?

§ Marjorie Mowlam
We certainly will not be looking for crumbs. I guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that we shall get nothing less than our fair share—our fair proportion—of the windfall tax. We want to ensure that it is used effectively on training schemes so that young people get a good training.
I know that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have lobbied in the past in support of training schemes that were being closed down. We shall consider those carefully, but we want to be sure of the quality and standards of training schemes that operate in Northern Ireland.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth
I welcome that answer and encourage the Secretary of State to go down that road, so that we are training not just to keep people off the streets, but to prepare them for jobs that are needed in this modern age—not for some of the things that we have trained people for in the past.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I am sure that he will agree that the one way to get young people into work, once we have trained them, is to ensure that the investment that comes to Northern Ireland stays there. An unequivocal IRA ceasefire would be the best way to achieve that, because that would give us the stability to allow peace to develop and jobs to stay and survive.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
I wish the Secretary of State well in her task, because, when the Northern Ireland Act 1974 was introduced, she was just taking over the job that I had done in another life.
During the short period of the most recent ceasefire, the increase that took place in Northern Ireland's tourism industry, with tourists coming from outside Northern Ireland, was an especially encouraging source of employment; it is, and will be, denied to the Northern Ireland until, at long last, a lasting ceasefire can be established.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He is right: despite the hard work of the 55 Northern Ireland tourist board, which has been exceptional as usual, the tourist figures are reducing, solely as a result of the instability and the fact that the worrying time of the parades is coming up. People will not visit Northern Ireland at that time. We call on all parties involved to do all that they can to reach an accommodation, because if they do not, they harm the very culture and country that they are trying to protect. We must work together to surmount that obstacle.

§ Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)
I wonder whether, when the Secretary of State talks about parades, she will recognise the fact that people will fail to come to Northern Ireland, not because of parades, but because they fear the violence that is threatened by Sinn Fein-IRA in the selected cases where they hope to create trouble and encourage the actions that the IRA showed on the streets of Lurgan a couple of weeks ago. Is it not the case that, by pandering to, and believing in, the possibility that the IRA will declare a ceasefire, against all the evidence that is available to the Secretary of State, we encourage that unease to continue?

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I assure the hon. Gentleman that no Labour Member panders to any group in relation to the position in Northern Ireland. I agree that the situation in Lurgan and the violence that was evidenced by the shooting of two policemen in the back of the neck are exactly the situations that give Northern Ireland a bad name. I agree that the violence arising from the present circumstances related to the parades causes the problem.
However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, until we answer the fundamental difficulty of two competing rights, the violence win not go away? People have a right to march, which I fully acknowledge is a fundamental right to which they are entitled. Equally, people have a fundamental right to live without fear or intimidation. The contradiction between the two, and the way in which we accommodate the two, is the question that we must answer.
All that we have at the moment, with those competing rights, is a growth in fear and tension on all sides. As the hon. Gentleman knows better than most hon. Members, that fear is very obvious now; that is what we must deal with in relation to this problem.

§ Mr. Maginnis
rose—

§ Mr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)
rose—

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I give way to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).

§ Mr. Maginnis
Insofar as the Secretary of State poses me the question, I must argue that, as long as we deal with the parades issue on a case-by-case basis, we leave ourselves hostage to fortune and to the wiles of Sinn Fein-IRA. Is it not time that the Government established a proper definition of the fundamental right to assemble and parade, and codes of behaviour against which judgments might be made? On such a basis, it would be much more difficult for those who wish to disrupt to do so.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but will check Hansard to be sure, because I 56 hear him say that, if there are a set of guidelines and a code of practice which include the cultures of both communities, those are what we must find an accommodation between.
However, I say to the hon. Gentleman, only by an accommodation shall we avoid violence, because, if a local agreement is not reached, inevitably one side will feel that it has surrendered, lost its respect and had its culture denied and that its members have been treated as second-class citizens. That will lead to situations such as those that arose last year, depending on which group perceives itself as the "loser" or the "winner". That is why only by accommodation and common sense shall we avoid situations such as those that we have witnessed.
I will take one more intervention.

§ Mr. Godman
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very alert on Northern Ireland.
On tourism, may I say that I hope that a couple of hundred tourists arrived in Ballycastle today on the passenger ferry vessel which left Campbeltown this morning, waved off by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Regarding the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), is the Secretary of State in a position to say when the Government will publish their response to the report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland on under-achievement in schools in Northern Ireland? The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), promised such a response; is the Secretary of State in a position to say when the House can catch sight of it?

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and I, too, welcome the fact that the ferry left from Campbeltown this morning. It was waved off by the Secretary of State for Scotland; it was welcomed by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who happens to be a Scot, but I am sure that his thoughts were with Northern Ireland when it arrived.
I do not know when my colleague will give a response to the report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland on under-achievement, but we are studying the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights report, which is a very full report, and I shall do all that I can to get a response to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland so that the two points are answered simultaneously.
We believe that social and environmental changes, which we discussed during the exchange of questions, are crucial to creating a peaceful environment in Northern Ireland. Settlement and economic growth and training are two sides of the same coin. Further violence and disturbance can only put at risk all the economic progress that people have worked so hard to achieve. Civil unrest would jeopardise the future prosperity that people in Northern Ireland rightly expect.
In the coming year, the Government will do all that we can to combat terrorism and the threat of terrorism; to help build confidence in areas such as policing; to tackle the sources of tension between the communities; and to bring about a fair political settlement. If we are to succeed, we shall need the positive support of all political and community leaders in Northern Ireland—particularly in the days and weeks immediately ahead.
57 I take this opportunity to acknowledge, and to welcome, the new shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I thank him and his colleagues for the support that they have given us during their short time in office. Fur the time being, the structure of direct rule must remain in place. I commend the order to the House.

§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)
I thank the Secretary of State for her kind remarks. I am pleased to be at the Dispatch Box, having spent a little more than five years doing good by stealth in the Government Whips Office. I am glad that there is solidarity among Whips on this occasion, and that the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household is in his place to ensure that his predecessor behaves properly. I am delighted to be directly involved with life in the Province again, having spent three and a half happy years in the late 1980s as the parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
On behalf of the official Opposition, I confirm that we entirely support the draft interim period extension order. Like the Secretary of State, I acknowledge that, although direct rule was intended to be temporary, it has now had to be renewed 22 times. Few observers dispute the claim that it has provided Northern Ireland with fair, efficient and effective government. Yet the fundamental weaknesses of the current arrangements are clear and acknowledged.
Since 1972, no Minister who has served in the Northern Ireland Office has represented a Northern Ireland constituency. That has effectively excluded all locally elected representatives—particularly Members of Parliament—from being responsible for decisions about local services and priorities such as education, health and industrial development. It means that Northern Ireland suffers from a democratic deficit: the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues exercise powers that, anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would be carried out at a local level.
The situation is compounded by the fact that the Province's 26 district councils have limited responsibilities compared with equivalent bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us be honest: most local government functions remain the responsibility of Departments in the Northern Ireland Office. As a result, and within the context of a comprehensive political settlement, we must be determined to re-establish political institutions in Northern Ireland that not only allow local politicians to exercise greater powers and responsibilities, but enable both sides of the community to work together. To this end, we should be prepared to consider any proposals that pass two key tests: they must be workable and, crucially, command widespread acceptance throughout both parts of the community.
In the meantime, improvements to direct rule are essential. Although I hope that the overriding objective on both sides of the House is to bring about a comprehensive political settlement, that in no way precludes improving the way in which Northern Ireland is governed under direct rule. I believe that my colleagues in the last Parliament made progress in several significant areas, not least in setting up the Northern Ireland Select and Grand Committees. I hope that the Secretary of State or the 58 Minister of State—who I assume will wind up the debate—will provide an assurance that those Committees will be re-established shortly.

§ Mr. John D. Taylor
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. MacKay
I have always failed to see—I know that my view is shared by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), whom I heard supporting me—why Wales and Scotland should be treated differently from Northern Ireland. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland, through their democratically elected representatives in this place, should be consulted about policy decisions. They should have the right to question and cross-examine Ministers in the same manner as our Welsh and Scottish colleagues. The Northern Ireland Office should be more accountable to the House. The best way to achieve greater accountability is through the Grand Committee, and I look forward to its establishment shortly. I hope that it will be vigorous in cross-examining the right hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues.
I reiterate the comments about the peace process made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the Dispatch Box last week. The bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland is very much in place, because we believe that the new Government's proposals are a logical extension of the process initiated by the Prime Minister in the last Administration. However, I wish to emphasise a few points and seek some reassurances.
It is essential that there be parallel decommissioning and that the talks process should proceed at roughly the same pace as decommissioning. It concerns many people that it will take some time to establish the decommissioning mechanism, whereas, if a ceasefire is achieved—we all hope and pray that it is—the talks will commence in September. We believe that the talks process must be halted regularly so that the parties and the two Governments involved in the talks will be able to assess progress not only with the talks but with decommissioning. If need be, any party could withdraw from the talks because decommissioning was not proceeding. It seems essential that those activities occur in parallel.
I echo the words of the Secretary of State and of the Prime Minister in saying that this must be the final chance for Sinn Fein-IRA. I respectfully suggest that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend must mean it: it really must be Sinn Fein-IRA's last chance. I assure the right hon. Lady that she will have the support of the whole House if the talks process proceeds without Sinn Fein-IRA. They must lay down their arms and start a genuine, deep and lasting ceasefire.
We wish the Secretary of State well in the very difficult weeks ahead—not only in dealing with the marching season but, I hope, in securing a ceasefire and beginning the talks. We shall speak much more about those subjects at the Dispatch Box in future. Meanwhile, on behalf of my colleagues, I wish the right hon. Lady every possible success.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her efforts in the past few weeks to try to reach an accommodation on the question of marches in Drumcree and elsewhere. 59 She is—to use the cliche—between a rock and a hard place: she faces some very difficult decisions. I do not accept—as has been argued in some places—that the matter may be left to the police. It is a highly political and highly sensitive issue. At present, we are seeing the re-emergence in Northern Ireland of the same tactics as were applied in 1968, 1969 and 1970: one group says that it will have a march, so another group says that it will stage a counter-march, which places the police in a difficult position. My right hon. Friend faces a harsh problem. I wish her well in her attempts to accommodate those who will not sit down together.
I hope that, whatever decision is made, there will be no acceptance of the view that the right to march and the right not to suffer or fear intimidation are equal. All people have the right to feel safe and secure in their own homes, communities and societies. That has been recognised in, for instance, the passage of trade union law limiting picket numbers so that people are not intimidated. The right to picket is important and proper, as is the right to march; but the greatest right that a person can have is the right to feel secure rather than threatened. Both principles are important, but the right to safety is more important.
I also hope that, following the making of a decision, a bone will not be thrown to whichever side feels aggrieved by that decision, whatever it may be. It has been suggested, for example, that if it is decided to proceed with the march, the quid pro quo will be that the streets are kept clear, the ports and the airport are still in operation and people can use the roads in safety. That is not a quid pro quo; people should have those basic rights in any event.
It has been argued in some quarters that it will be decided that the march should proceed because that will place less of a strain on the security forces and it will be possible to contain rioting in nationalist areas. Such a decision would, however, be bad and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not thinking in those terms. It has also been suggested that the quid pro quo for allowing the march will be the announcement of a judicial inquiry to re-examine the evidence surrounding the events of Bloody Sunday. I hope that that will not happen either.
In connection with maintaining security on the streets, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Government intend to move extra troops into Northern Ireland in the next fortnight?
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are to be congratulated on injecting a touch of urgency into the protracted talks process. I understand that we now have a timetable. Sinn Fein is to enter the talks at the end of July, matters that are holding up the agenda at present must be wrapped up in September—issues relating to decommissioning—and, following the discussion of substantive agenda items, the process must end in May.
I think that the two Governments have gone as far as they could have to ease the way for Sinn Fein to enter the talks and that the ball is now in Sinn Fein's court. I did not accept that decommissioning should be a prior condition—I still think that that is a load of rubbish—but both Governments were in a difficult position. It was 60 certainly difficult for Her Majesty's Government—then the Opposition—to retreat from their stance, having adopted it. I believe, however, that they have arrived at an arrangement that will enable Sinn Fein to enter the talks feeling reasonably certain that it will not be ambushed.
Let us consider the worries that Sinn Fein had and the conditions that it wanted. It now has a fixed date on which to enter the talks, which it did not have under the last Administration. It has a timetable within which to finish the talks, which it demanded. It can feel reasonably certain that no further obstacles will be placed in its way—although I did wonder what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was on about in Balmoral when he suggested the condition, almost a precedent, that the Government of the Republic should give up articles 2 and 3 of their constitution, with no quid pro quo.
I consider the decommissioning proposals and the document produced by the two Governments very sensible. I think that they can meet the concerns of both Sinn Fein and the Unionist people. I do not, however, agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay)—whom I congratulate on his appointment; I remember his being an assiduous parliamentary private secretary in Northern Ireland—that political progress must always be measured against decommissioning. That is what the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, but I do not think that it is in the spirit of the demand for some decommissioning during the talks. No timetable was laid down, and no grade specified against which events should be measured as they happened.
Sinn Fein now has an opportunity to accept the offer that has been made to it and to enter the talks. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will answer some questions when he replies. What will happen if, when Sinn Fein has entered the talks at the plenary in July—subject to an unequivocal undertaking to establish a proper ceasefire and so on—the Ulster Unionists still have not agreed on the decommissioning proposals? As yet, they have not accepted them completely. If Sinn Fein, which is worried about that issue, has not entered the talks by July and there has been no ceasefire, will it be allowed to join at a later date? What if Sinn Fein joins in good faith and there is a Unionist walk-out? What will happen to the talks then? Will a settlement be made without the Unionists?
In setting out his timetable, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the outlines for the settlement were there for all to see. Those outlines have been there for 20 years or more; the problem, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, lies in the detail. The devil is for ever in the detail. What if no agreement has been reached by May, when my right hon. Friend thinks that everything should be wrapped up and if there appears to be no possibility of the talks continuing?
What if we experience the same protracted process that we experienced during the Brooke and Mayhew talks? Will the triple lock still apply, or will my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—hopefully with the Irish Government, but perhaps alone—decide what settlement is to be imposed? Those are not hypothetical questions.

§ Mr. John D. Taylor
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. McNamara
I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
61 The Government must have examined and thought about all those possibilities because they are in the agenda and the timetable. Parties should know what is likely to happen if some events work out.

§ Mr. Taylor
I was getting alarmed, because the hon. Gentleman spoke about imposing solutions. Will he confirm that he supports and accepts the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland for any solution?

§ Mr. McNamara
I am asking what will happen if Northern Ireland representatives cannot come to an agreement. I understand that the Unionists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Basically, they are quite happy about that. That being the case, what will be the situation? The Government cannot sit down and twiddle their thumbs. As the Secretary of State said, they have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to try to get the best deal for them. Presumably that was the policy that was outlined in the framework document, the Downing street declaration and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. One would like to see those principles contained in any system that emerges.
What happens if there is not the agreement that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are looking for at the end of July and there is an adjournment without agreement on the decommissioning paper? Is that the end? Will it be wrapped up then? Those are key questions for the Secretary of State. One of the difficulties of establishing a timetable is that, if it slips, it is said that the Government are weak. If it is adhered to and the Government act rather abruptly, they are told that they are obdurate and lacking in tact and diplomacy; it is said, "If things had been allowed to go on for a little longer, we might have got somewhere."
I readily understand why the Prime Minister thinks that matters have dragged on for far too long. I also believe that, but while I accept the basis and the nature of a timetable—for which there has been real need over the years—I hope that it will not be so rigid that every little date has to be met immediately because that could prevent what I hope will be achieved; peace and a sensible settlement within the island of Ireland.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. As the Chair is now aware that more hon. Members are hoping to speak than was hitherto apparent, and as the time of the debate is limited, may I appeal for brief speeches?

§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)
I apologise for my late arrival in the Chamber. It was caused by transport difficulties on the way over. I shall try to keep within the terms that you have mentioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall eschew the temptation to pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke with his characteristic disregard for democracy. It is a pity that the House has had to endure—

§ Mr. McNamara
On a gerrymandered basis.

§ Mr. Trimble
I shall ignore that sedentary comment and treat it with the contempt that it deserves. The hon. 62 Gentleman spoke about some of the proposals for the disarmament of terrorist organisations. I shall not pursue that matter in detail because it will be discussed in another place in some detail tomorrow. I wish to underline some points that are in the paper that was tabled by the British Government and, I understand, the Irish Government last week. I refer in particular to the opening sentence in that paper, which states: The two Governments are resolutely committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. A later paragraph states that this will involve adequate mechanisms to ensure that the modalities of decommissioning envisaged in the report"— the Mitchell report— can be implemented as needed and that no delay or obstacle is caused by any lack of Government preparation or provision in this respect. I trust that, over the next few weeks, the Secretary of State will be able to assure those involved in the talks that that commitment to ensuring that there is no delay or obstacle to the disarming of terrorist organisations will be implemented in fact. That is crucial to the attitude of my party and others to the Government's proposals. If there are to be substantive negotiations, there must be substantive disarmament in parallel; otherwise, the necessary confidence for the process will not be created or sustained.
We are debating the renewal of what is called direct rule. It is atrocious that only 90 minutes are available to consider the imposition for yet another year on part of the United Kingdom an utterly sub-standard system of government, legislation and administration which continues to involve the United Kingdom in a breach of its obligations under international law. It is intolerable that what was originally temporary has continued for 25 years.
Over the last year—indeed, with the arrival of this Government and Parliament—the arrangements for administration and legislation for Northern Ireland and scrutiny of the Government on those matters have deteriorated further. They deteriorated with the implementation of the so-called Jopling reforms, which mean that Northern Ireland legislation—hitherto considered on the Floor of the House for a few hours, but at least considered in the House—now generally goes upstairs where, usually, only one or two Northern Ireland Members are able to debate it. That legislation is enacted not only without the normal parliamentary procedures but with most Northern Ireland Members excluded from the debate on it.
The effect of the Jopling reforms on Northern Ireland legislation is quite unacceptable. Added to that in this Parliament is the significant reduction of the time for Northern Ireland questions, which provide one of the few opportunities for Northern Ireland Members to hold the Administration to account. At the most recent Northern Ireland questions, there was the farce of only four or, if one is generous in enumeration, six questions being answered. That is quite unacceptable, and action must be taken, if not to end direct rule, at least to ensure adequate opportunities for proper scrutiny of legislation and for the Administration to be held to account.
The Government claim that they are committed to open government and to transparency in government. It is time that those commitments were implemented. I was most disturbed to note, when my right hon. Friend the Member 63 for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) intervened to query when the Northern Ireland Grand Committee would be running, that there was no clear answer by the Secretary of State. I trust that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will make it clear that the Government are not deliberately dragging their feet. The Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees are up and running and there is no excuse for continued prevarication on this issue.

§ Mr. Maginnis
My hon. Friend speaks about accountability and openness in government. We in the party who have to make judgments have, of course, seen the aide-memoire that the Government have provided to Sinn Fein-IRA to enable them to enter the talks process. We have not heard whether there has been any response from Sinn Fein-IRA. How they respond may be a matter of confidence between them and the Government, but the Government have at least a right to tell us all exactly what is going on between them and Sinn Fein-IRA.
After the murder of two policemen in Lurgan, it was said that contacts with Sinn Fein-IRA would cease, but I have reason to believe that contacts have continued. I do not intend to make a judgment on who initiated those contacts, but it would be interesting if the Secretary of State would let us know who is in contact with Sinn Fein-IRA and the mode of contact that has taken place.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
rose—

§ Mr. Trimble
I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State so that she may respond.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I should like to clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that, after the killings in Lurgan, we would not have relationships between our officials and Sinn Fein in relation to the peace process. That has not changed. We have not made any approach. On the second point, so that I am clear about this—I believe in being honest and open—Sinn Fein has telephoned twice the officials that it talked with, asking for further meetings and the answer was no. That is the state of play.

§ Mr. Trimble
I hope that that exchange is a clear reflection of the situation and that the phrase "not have relationships" is as comprehensive as it appears, because briefings that were given by Northern Ireland Office officials to the press last week seemed to imply that they were open to some form of further communication with Sinn Fein, which of course is contrary to the spirit of the Prime Minister's statement, to the exact letter of the assurance given by Lord Richard and to what the Secretary of State has said.
I hope that she will ensure that what she has said is carried out in practice—but then, of course, we have had such assurances before. We had assurances that, in the talks between officials and Sinn Fein, there would be no negotiations yet, when the aide-memoire was published, it was clear that a very strange interpretation of the word "negotiations" was being used.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I am not trying to be obtuse; I am trying to be clear and helpful. The Prime Minister said after 64 Lurgan that there would be no contact. There has been no contact. Two telephone calls were made. We said no to both. That is the state of play. Could the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he talks about relationships, because I am not clear and I want to be helpful?

§ Mr. Trimble
I used the term "have no relationships" merely because that was the phrase that was used by the Secretary of State. I am not clear what that phrase means either; that is why I spoke a little further on it. Does having no relationships mean having no contact and no communication—nothing? I am happy with that and I hope that that is the case. I see the Secretary of State giving me a thumbs-up. We shall interpret that as an affirmative response to my question.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth
There is a whisper going around in Northern Ireland that someone has initiated video conferencing. We appreciate the response from the Secretary of State, but, ultimately, she would be responsible. Is it possible that someone else in the security services is doing something?

§ Mr. Trimble
My hon. Friend refers to a real concern that has existed in Northern Ireland for a long time—that people not responsible to the Secretary of State are following an agenda of their own.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
rose—

§ Mr. Trimble
If the Secretary of State is going to clarify that matter also, I will be glad to hear it.

§ Marjorie Mowlam
I should like to give further clarification to the hon. Gentleman. There has been no video cassette recorder contact between ourselves and Sinn Fein. The rumour may come from the time—to be absolutely straight with people—when we were trying, in the context of the marching season, to get different groups together that would not sit down and talk to each other. We suggested the VCR as one mechanism whereby people would not have to be in the same room but there could be direct communication with them so that there could be some discussion. I do not think that I have revealed any private discussions that we have had with the different groups in the Parades Commission, but I presume that that is where—as with so much in Northern Ireland—that rumour has sprung from.

§ Mr. Trimble
That does not entirely resolve the matter, because some of the groups to which the Secretary of State refers include individuals who we believe are part of Sinn Fein-IRA and, to a significant degree, those groups are subject to Sinn Fein-IRA's influence, but in any event there would be no concern in Northern Ireland about such matters if assurances that were given at the Dispatch Box were honoured; too often, they have not been. That is true not just of the previous Government or of other Governments; after the publication of the aide-memoire, clearly it is also true of this Government. There has not been the honesty that one would have hoped for.
Before that excursus, we were talking about the need for action to be taken to end this squalid, inadequate system of administration called direct rule and for the Grand Committee to be developed to give some 65 opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland, including Northern Ireland legislation, and to hold the Government to account. We could also refer to the clear need to make progress where it can be made and where we know that it can be made successfully.
The Secretary of State referred to that in her opening speech: she mentioned the development of partnerships in local government and how the experience of giving local government additional powers has been positive. I note the comments made by Lord Dubs on the issue. Admittedly they are of a general nature, but I hope they show that there will be progress in relation to local government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
My next point relates to the inter-party talks and the point that was welcomed by the hon. Member for Hull, North. Last week's statement referred to a timetable for the talks. Of course we all hope that those talks will be able to proceed successfully and that, at their conclusion, we will have what the Prime Minister indicated: a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland with sensible arrangements for north-south dialogue. That would not cause problems to my party. We hope that such an assembly will be established and that those elements in the talks that want to prevent that from happening are not able to obstruct progress in the talks.
The timetable in itself is not a problem for us because, as the Secretary of State knows, under the legislation, the forum has only a two-year existence and will cease to exist by May next year. Of course, it has been a fixed position of the Unionist parties that, without a forum, there should be no negotiations, so, unless the legislation were changed, negotiations would never in any event have lasted beyond May next year. However, let us hope that the Government mean it when they say that there is going to be a timetable for the talks. As evidence that they do, are they prepared to commit themselves to a timetable for the ending of direct rule and to give a clear undertaking today that this will be the last time that direct rule is extended?
There will be time between the end of the talks and the expiry of direct rule for the reinstatement, perhaps in an amended form, of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [Interruption.] Yes, it would have to be in an amended form. Therefore, if the Government are serious about their timetable, let them commit themselves to a timetable. If they are not prepared to commit themselves to a timetable for the ending of direct rule, we may be permitted to doubt their attachment to the timetable for talks.

§ Mr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)
I will be brief because I know that hon. Members from Northern Ireland wish to speak, and time is running on.
May I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for her remarkable endeavours in a post that she has occupied for only two months? Despite the fact that he claimed that I was asleep earlier, I also offer my compliments to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). He made a judicious speech and was right to call for the setting up of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I believe that I am right in saying that the Welsh Grand Committee met today and the Scottish Grand Committee will meet upstairs on 8 July.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell that more autonomy should be given to local authorities in Northern Ireland. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister 66 of State, Northern Ireland Office will recall that, last week, I said that, in their quest for a modus vivendi, the representatives of the Orange Order and of the Garvaghy Road residents association could do worse than to follow the remarkable example of Canon Sean Connolly, who has suspended Saturday evening masses in Harryville until, I believe, September. Whatever our religious affiliation, we all have readily to acknowledge that that was a remarkable and magnanimous gesture. Others should seek to emulate his public-spiritedness.

§ Mr. Maginnis
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Godman
I said that I would be brief, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very brief.

§ Mr. Maginnis
Indeed. The great majority of people from the tradition to which I belong regarded what was happening at Harryville as an obscenity. We had no sympathy for the protests made outside the church. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take no satisfaction from what happened; nor would we have encouraged anyone to cease holding services in Harryville at any time. I believe that part of the reason why the services were brought to an end is that attendance often falls in summer when people go on holiday. We would defend the right of people in Harryville to go to their church, and many of our party members have done so with their presence and support.

§ Mr. Godman
I was about to thank the hon. Gentleman for a remarkably gracious intervention, but then he mentioned the falling off of attendance at services. I think that that could have been omitted from his otherwise fine intervention. Seriously, though, I am grateful for his comments.
I promised that I would be brief, and I have two questions to put to the Minister of State. First, have he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any plans to strengthen the powers of the Police Authority? Secondly, what initial responses have my right hon. Friend and her ministerial colleagues received concerning the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly? In addition to the opinions offered by the Northern Ireland political parties, has any interim observation been made by representatives of the new Government south of the border in the Irish Republic?
If an Assembly is to be established. I sincerely hope that it will not be based on the system by which we are elected to this place. It has to be by a system of proportional representation—perish the thought that my right hon. Friend would ever dream of introducing the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. I suspect that most Deputies in the Dail would rather have a different system.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the system agreed by members of the Constitutional Convention in Scotland which is akin to the German system—a system which I have favoured all my adult life. Certainly, the first-past-the-post system would be wholly inappropriate for an Assembly in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)
The House should not consider it a slight that so few Northern Ireland Members are here. It is not simply a matter of the 67 inadequacy of the time available to consider the motion; there have been serious difficulties in getting flights to London from Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and some Ulster Unionists attempted to get flights, but were unable to do so.
I wish the shadow Secretary of State well as he takes on his new responsibility. This is probably the first time that the current Secretary of State has been at the Dispatch Box dealing with a constitutional motion. I hope that she has some more experience of that during her time in office and I hope that any such motion that comes here is capable of gaining the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I have been taking part in this ritual since 1979. I remember the early debates when it was intended that such orders were supposed to be a temporary measure. It was to be only one or two years before we had some permanent structures in Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland would have responsibility for a wide range of functions through their elected representatives. That has not been the case. Given the first year of the talks process that I witnessed, I have to say that, if it depends on agreement arising from that process, we might be coming back to renew the motion for many years to come.
The Secretary of State referred to the talks process. Many people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the initiative, if one can call it that, of the Prime Minister when he released the aide-memoire of the discussions that had been taking place under his authority with Sinn Fein-IRA. My understanding was that the Prime Minister had made it clear that the purpose of the discussions with Sinn Fein-IRA was to clarify the Government's position to them so that there would be no misunderstanding.
I thought that, when one clarifies one's position, one clarifies the position as it is; but it is abundantly clear from the aide-memoire that the Prime Minister has developed the Government's position. He has extended it and produced new initiatives in the aide-memoire. I should like the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, to clarify one or two points in the statement.
The first element of the statement relates to the first IRA demand that it needs a clear time scale within which it would be part of the talks process. There has been much talk in the media, and the abbreviation of this condition is that IRA-Sinn Fein will enter the talks six weeks after what is termed an unequivocal cessation of violence. That, however, is not what the document says.
The document says that it will be six weeks before the IRA will be at a plenary meeting in the talks process, but goes on to say that in the period immediately following a ceasefire, for which I must read that same day or the next day, it will have entry to Castle buildings, access to meetings with the chairman, access to meetings with the Government and the opportunity to engage in bilateral meetings with other political parties at Stormont castle. Are we clear that these contacts are to take place not after six weeks but, as the aide-memoire says, immediately a ceasefire is declared? The Secretary of State has not 68 jumped to her feet with her characteristic promptness, but I presume that the Minister of State will attempt to answer at the end of the debate.
The Minister might also like to grapple with the issue of explaining to the people of Northern Ireland how, overnight, or—at best—in six weeks, it will be possible for the Government to assess the genuineness of any ceasefire that the IRA may declare.
The second issue that requires some clarification relates to the time frame. Is the Prime Minister saying in the aide-memoire that there will be no further extension of the talks process and that the process ends in May 1998? I should like to know the Government's view on that.
The third matter that requires clarification relates to decommissioning. It is on this issue that I do not believe the Government have fully clarified their position, perhaps deliberately. To suggest that they embrace the Mitchell report in its entirety is not the same as saying that they believe in parallel decommissioning where decommissioning would be completed by the end of the process.
All that Mitchell requires is that some decommissioning shall take place during the talks process; it does not require all decommissioning to take place and does not specify when it can start. Is it to be simultaneous? Is it to start on the first day? Are guns going to be deposited on the first day that the three-stranded talks begin? Or is it to be left to a body that is subject to an SDLP and Dublin veto to determine the rate at which the handing over of illegal weapons is to take place? If it is the latter, clearly the IRA would be in the process and would not have to hand over any guns during the entire process. The Northern Ireland public deserve a response from the Secretary of State on that issue.
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I do not believe that the Government have to wait until they see the outcome of the process to make further changes, particularly in local government. I listened with some interest to the remarks made by Lord Dubs at the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives conference about how Ministers are examining changes that they might make in local government. One must, therefore, assume that they are examining the issue, regardless of whether they are doing so within or without the context of a settlement in a wider area. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government will do and what their time scale will be in changing local government.
I should also like to ask the Secretary of State about the life of the Northern Ireland Forum—a body which was established by the House under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 and has a specific responsibility. The body was established because Parliament deemed that that was appropriate. I hoped that the Secretary of State and her Ministers would respond more favourably to meeting members of that forum and its committees.
Such meetings have not taken place. I urge the Secretary of State—who seems to be very prepared to go round the country to meet all sorts of people—to spend some time meeting those who have been elected under an Act of Parliament to represent the people of Northern Ireland in that forum. It is important that she should realise that members of that forum feel that she has snubbed and slighted them by thus far not being prepared to meet them.
69 The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—I think that that is still the name of his constituency—seemed to be a bit concerned about the Prime Minister's remarks about articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution. He should not be concerned, because I did not find anything very positive in the Prime Minister's remarks. The remarks indicated not that the Republic had to abandon its territorial claim but that the principle of consent should be enshrined in its constitution. It is, of course, quite possible for the Republic to enshrine the principle of consent within its constitution and still to maintain a jurisdictional claim.
The hon. Member for Hull, North should therefore not be too concerned about the remarks. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has gone the distance that would be required of him on articles 2 and 3, and I certainly do not believe that the Government of the Irish Republic are ready to move in that direction. A fudge by inserting the principle of consent into the Irish constitution would not be satisfactory for the Unionist community.
I should also tell the hon. Member for Hull, North that the triple lock was a device by which agreement would have to be approved by the parties and people of Northern Ireland and by the United Kingdom Parliament. Although he did not say it, I hope that he meant to tell the House that—if he envisages the fall of the talks process, and even if the issue of Northern Ireland's parties' support is not dealt with—he still believes that an agreement must have the consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the principle of consent which was enshrined in the Prime Minister's speech.

§ Mr. McNamara
rose—

§ Mr. Robinson
I think that the hon. Member for Hull, North wants to intervene to say that he believes only in the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. If that is what he wants to say, I will be happy to give him an opportunity to do so.

§ Mr. McNamara
I believe that an agreement will have to have the consent of the United Kingdom Parliament. I believe also that the people of Northern Ireland, while they are members of the United Kingdom and wish to remain so, must accept the wishes of Parliament, even if they sometimes go against their wishes.

§ Mr. Robinson
The hon. Gentleman does not believe in the Labour party's policy that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland will be required to make any change. I think that he would much more quickly voice his agreement if it were a matter of attaining the consent of all the people of Ireland.
Like everyone in Northern Ireland, I should like there to be a peaceful marching season. There is absolutely no reason why that should not happen. There have already been indications that, left to themselves, the loyal orders are capable of conducting dignified parades in a responsible and law-abiding manner. As the hon. Member for Hull, North said, there are two sets of rights—the right to assemble and parade, and the right to feel safe and secure in one's own home.
The only outcome of the process has been to demonstrate that there are responsibilities on both sides. The first responsibility is placed on those who participate 70 in parades, which they must do in a sensitive and dignified manner, offering no offence to those through whose areas they may pass.
Secondly and equally, responsibilities are placed on those who live in areas through which parades may pass, to recognise people's right to exercise their cultural rights to demonstrate their own traditions. If people on both sides were prepared to do those things, I do not think that there would be a problem during the marching season. People's right to march is a basic part of our British constitution, and it should not be lost because the IRA designs and works for years to ensure that it is used as a means of conflict.
In the next days, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable will undoubtedly have to make a difficult decision. If they will take some advice from me, they will allow the parade in Drumcree to proceed. They should also ensure that the parade is held in a manner that does not cause offence or insult to anyone. If they do that, any action that might flow in subsequent days or weeks will be clearly seen to originate with those whose only intention in the entire process is to cause tension, division and turmoil in our society.

§ The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy)
I begin by apologising on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who, of course, cannot intervene in my speech. She had intended to offer apologies for hon. Members from Northern Ireland who were unable, because of air traffic delays in Belfast, to get to the House for this debate.
The debate was short, but, none the less, it was constructive and informed. The hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) both mentioned the fact that it has been almost a quarter of a century since Great Britain has had direct rule over the affairs of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bracknell also asked why an hon. Member such as myself, who represents a south Wales constituency, or himself, who represents a constituency in England, should be dealing with the daily matters of government of Northern Ireland. I believe that Northern Ireland deserves a proper, good and balanced constitutional settlement and, in this debate, many hon. Members have said the same.
The hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Bracknell mentioned problems with the Select Committee, with the Grand Committee and with local government. I should tell them that members of the Select Committee will soon be appointed and that the exact nature and details of the Grand Committee is being reviewed. Only this afternoon, for example, we discussed the Scottish Grand Committee. There is, therefore, no question but that we will soon deal with a Grand Committee.

§ Mr. Trimble
Will the Minister explain what he means by the word "reviewed"? A Grand Committee has been established and rules of procedure have been agreed and are in the Order Paper. What is preventing the Government from establishing a Grand Committee and referring matters to it, as has been done for Scotland and Wales? Week after week, at business questions, my hon. 71 Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has been asking for Government action on the matter. What need is there for another review?

§ Mr. Murphy
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are no problems in principle with the Grand Committee. As he knows, the previous Government made changes at the very end of the last Session. The present Government are examining the details of those changes, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Grand Committee will be established.
Let me also refer to the problems involving local government and Orders in Council. We regret those constitutional difficulties. They arise because a proper settlement has not yet been reached in Northern Ireland. When that occurs, the British Parliament will be able to say that the people of Northern Ireland will have their own arrangements. That is what the talks in Belfast that resume tomorrow are all about.
The Government's programme includes constitutional developments in Scotland and Wales, where there are to be referendums for the Parliament and the Assembly. Although the pace of constitutional settlement should allow for the inclusion of Northern Ireland, as all hon. Members know, that pace depends on what happens in the talks and in Castle buildings in the weeks ahead. We must move on to substantive issues as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the problems of decommissioning, which will be examined in the talks in the next few weeks. At the end of the day, it will be for the participants in those talks—including all the parties represented—to resolve those matters. The proposals put forward by the two Governments offer the way ahead.

§ Mr. Maginnis
The Minister oversimplifies matters when he says that it will be for the parties to the talks to decide how we proceed. It is necessary that the disarmament commission should be put in place. That is the responsibility of the British Government in consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic. Can the Minister tell us now whether we have reached the stage of identifying a single member of that commission or whether, in fact, he is contravening article 4(e) of his own decommissioning paper by not having taken a decision on that?

§ Mr. Murphy
I agree that there has to be swift action regarding appointments to such bodies. That is vital. I also agree that there should be regular two-monthly assessments in the review procedure that we are discussing tomorrow and that all those matters should be speedily resolved. However, all that will depend on the participants in the talks in Belfast. I hope and pray that those decisions will be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made many interesting points. I pay tribute to all his commitment and dedication over the years on Northern Ireland matters. On the specific points he raised, obviously the triple lock applies and the principle of consent is vital to all matters involving Northern Ireland. Consent is vital and the triple lock is built in. They are the essential building blocks of any settlement that we reach.
72 We want Sinn Fein to be involved in the talks, and Sinn Fein knows what to do in order to be there. It needs to renounce violence and unequivocally restore the ceasefire of 1994.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth
The Minister was responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who referred to a quid pro quo arising out of the Prime Minister's speech on articles 2 and 3. Is there a suggestion, for example, that the United Kingdom should give up any claim on Rockall? There does not seem to be another quid pro quo, as there is no other claim by this nation on the territory of the Republic.

§ Mr. Murphy
The issue of east-west relations has to be examined properly. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that has to be carried out in all seriousness. I am sure that the issues will be addressed in the weeks and months ahead.
All hon. Members agree that the bomb and the ballot box do not mix. The talks will continue—if necessary, without Sinn Fein. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has shown remarkable energy and courage in trying to make progress in regard to the parades. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) said what many of us think—that we should pay tribute to the parish priest of Harryville. I was delighted that he was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We urge restraint on those who think that disorder will resolve the issue. We urge dialogue so that a local accommodation can be achieved and we urge all those who wield influence in Northern Ireland—whether it is economic, political or religious—to use all their skills to prevent confrontation in the weeks ahead.
Our comprehensive spending review provides the opportunity for people in Northern Ireland from all walks of life to let us know where their spending priorities lie. I am hopeful that this week's Budget will contain proposals to take thousands of young people in Northern Ireland from welfare to work.
The next few weeks will be testing ones for everyone in Northern Ireland. They will also be crucial for our country. Although there have been few Members in the Chamber, the world will be watching what occurs in Northern Ireland in the next two or three weeks.
We hope that the talks will move ahead quickly, that they will include all parties in Northern Ireland and that, by this time next year, we shall be well on our way to achieving a lasting and balanced constitutional settlement for everyone in Northern Ireland. I understand the problems of hon. Members on both sides of the House in coming to terms with the difficulties that we all face, but when we meet in Castle buildings tomorrow, and doubtless meet again between now and the recess, there will be a responsibility for everyone at the talks, including the two Governments, to ensure that we reach a resolution on the decommissioning project. Only then will we be able to move on to the substantive constitutional issues that exercise the minds of all who are interested in the future good governance of Northern Ireland. To that end, I commend the order to the House.