§ 3. Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)What progress he has made towards the re-establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland. [121145]
§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson)As I explained in my statement to the House on 8 May, devolved government will be restored on 22 May, subject to a positive response to the proposals set out in the joint statement issued by the British and Irish Governments on 5 May, and the statement then made by the Provisional IRA.
§ Mr. WilkinsonDoes the Secretary of State understand that the cornerstone and sure foundation of any democratic government, be it devolved or national, is the impartial and universal application of the rule of law? In that connection, rather than condoning the maintenance of terrorist weapons, will he insist on their elimination from society at the earliest possible date—because that elimination is infinitely more important than the institution of a Government who are subject to the threats and intimidation that the maintenance of stockpiles of weapons provides? Foreign visitors and inspectors are all very well, but the maintenance of that threat to democracy is deeply perturbing.
§ Mr. MandelsonI need no encouragement from the hon. Gentleman to restate my firm commitment to the rule of law throughout the United Kingdom. I agree that the aim must be for democracy to flourish in all parts of the UK. We need all paramilitary organisations to stand down and all arms—wherever they are held—to be completely and verifiably put beyond use. What is unprecedented about the situation now is that we have the real prospect of returning power to Northern Ireland and of making real and substantive progress on arms. Both objectives are ones for which Unionists have rightly held out. They should seize the credit for the progress that has been made.
§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)Can the Secretary of State clarify his intention about a name for the police force in Northern Ireland, as that is a matter of considerable dispute? The longer there is without clarity, the greater the problems are likely to be. It would help if we knew what it is to be.
§ Mr. MandelsonTwo of Patten's stated objectives were that the RUC should not be disbanded and that the police service in future must be capable of attracting recruits from all parts of the community. We need to judge the future name against both those objectives. The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill requires me to consult the policing board before reaching a final decision on the name. I believe that the sensible way forward is to provide a legal description in the Bill which incorporates the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in effect the title deeds of the new service, while introducing a new name that will be used for all working and operational purposes. The Police 320 Service of Northern Ireland is the best suggestion so far. In that way we should be able to meet both of Patten's correct objectives.
§ Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)In view of the further unhelpful intervention this morning from the south of Ireland Foreign Minister, Mr. Cowen, when he condemned the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill which is before the House, does the Secretary of State think that he would enjoy less harassment if, instead of struggling to restore devolution, we continued with direct rule?
§ Mr. MandelsonNo, I do not think that it would be in the interest of Northern Ireland or all those in every part the community there for direct rule to continue. For politics to flourish, locally elected and accountable politicians, taking responsibility for local decisions, is by far the best course for Northern Ireland's government in the future. I believe that we now have the prospect of reinstituting the devolved Administration and making real, lasting and permanent progress in the removal for ever of arms from Northern Ireland politics. We should seize that opportunity for fear that, if it slips from our grasp now, we may not be able to recreate it in the future.
§ Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)Does the Secretary of State agree that the only true and lasting basis for the re-establishment of devolution in Northern Ireland would be on the basis of the accord reached between the two Governments and the parties participating? Does he agree that the only accord in existence is that obtained at Hillsborough on 5 May, and that that is the basis upon which re-establishment should take place? Does he also agree that a Government entering into further unilateral negotiations with a single party is creating an element of distrust which is diametrically opposed to the possibility of that accord being sustained in the immediate future?
§ Mr. MandelsonNo. I think that it is as well for all politicians, political leaders and parties in Northern Ireland to clarify to the maximum extent exactly what the two Government statements meant and what actions and progress would ensue from the agreement. The Government intend to implement the Good Friday agreement in full. That is what is at the heart of the accord and the joint statements made by the two Governments. It is the essential political context in which we can restore the devolved institutions and make the necessary progress on arms. Implementation of the Good Friday agreement is essential and it is what the Government will press on with come what may.
§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)As the Secretary of State is aware, we hope that there will be circumstances that allow for the setting up of the devolved Executive next week. On the assumption that that happens, the House needs to be clear about the right hon. Gentleman's position on suspension. He will be aware that there have been numerous reports in the Dublin press that some deal has been done with the Irish Government so that if there is default, he cannot suspend the Executive, as he rightly did a couple of months ago.
§ Mr. MandelsonI congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his good news, which we have learned 321 today. It would be churlish of me to say that I am looking forward to his paternity leave. We wait to see what decision he makes.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I can say emphatically that no such undertaking has been given. Obviously, I am planning for success, not failure, following the restoration of the institutions next Monday. I am not planning to suspend the institutions and I do not want to do so, but the power is there if, in the last resort, I have to.
§ Mr. MacKayMay I press the Secretary of State further? We want an assurance that he has given no private undertaking that, in the unhappy circumstance of there having been breaches of the arrangements, he will not suspend? May we have a categorical assurance that Dublin has no veto on this or any other matter, and that if it is necessary he will be prepared to suspend the Executive as he rightly did some two months ago?
§ Mr. MandelsonThere has been absolutely no agreement or understanding with the Irish Government of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman has described. Obviously, if the worst comes to the worst, I will want to consult all the parties and the Irish Government—I do not intend to act unilaterally, without consulting people, or in a precipitate way—but at the end of the day, if the institutions are collapsing, I must ensure the good governance of Northern Ireland, and I will do so.