Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Sammy Wilson (Democratic Unionist Party) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 26 April 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Northern Ireland Bill.


Northern Ireland Bill

I, too, will seek to abide by the time-sharing arrangements that have all-party support here today. I suppose that there has not been a great deal of rancour, or difference, in the debate, although I suspect that in some speeches there was an underlying tendency to point the finger at Unionists as if they were still the obstacle to devolution. We have had the Secretary of State talking about people needing to act maturely. We have had the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) talking, I think specifically to our party, about taking leaps of faith. We have seen other parties take leaps time and again with Sinn Fein. They jumped into the darkness and they paid for it. We have no intention of taking such a leap of faith with people who we believe to be untrustworthy. However, although some may argue that we of all parties least need devolution, having 40 per cent. of the representation at council level in Northern Ireland and 50 per cent. of representation here at Westminster, we have been to the forefront of promoting devolution. The fact that the Bill is before us is probably a result of the pressure that this party has put on the Government to recognise that in a situation where, as has been described very adequately in today’s debate, one party does not have respect for law and order—indeed, breaks the rules of society on a frequent basis—and yet wishes to be included in Government, it is impossible to move directly into a situation where people like that are included in Executive positions. Facing that reality—our document was called ““Facing Reality””—we put to the Government ideas by which we could move towards devolution, in circumstances where there would be a useful job of work for people who are elected in Northern Ireland to take decisions and make representations on the things that affect their constituents daily, and ease our way towards the position where, eventually, full-blown devolution would be possible. ““Facing Reality”” also made it clear that there had to be changes to the Belfast agreement. We have a mandate for those changes. I know that the SDLP does not like the fact that the political landscape has changed in Northern Ireland, that the mandate that may have been given to pro-agreement parties in 1998 no longer exists, certainly on the Unionist side, and that there has to be a recognition that changes are needed; not just to satisfy the Unionist population but to ensure that there is a system of devolution that does not stumble from crisis to crisis and that does Unionists, nationalists or anyone some good. Some of our suggestions were included in the comprehensive agreement. I know that the members of the SDLP did not like that because they were not involved in the comprehensive agreement, but I believe that many of those changes will be essential to the good working of any Assembly if and when it is up and running.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
445 c663-4 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Crimes of violence Decommissioning Devolution Belfast Agreement Elections Education IRA Local government Northern Ireland Powers Public appointments Northern Ireland Assembly Members Political parties Rates and rating Politics and government Ministers Northern Ireland Executive Water charges Reform Timetables Standing orders First Minister (NIE) Assembly Statutory instruments
Legislation
Northern Ireland Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk