The Northern Ireland Secretary, Mr Paul Murphy, has said it is "very important" that talks on restoring power-sharing devolution to Stormont should now "reach a conclusion" although it remains unclear what he and the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, intend and think should happen if they do not.
Speaking in the House of Commons yesterday, Mr Murphy remained confident that the parties central to the negotiation have "the will" to resolve the outstanding issues and reach agreement.
However, speculation about the British government's intentions was building afresh last night as senior Sinn Féin and Democratic Unionist Party sources played down suggestions that the restoration of devolved government is likely ahead of the British general election expected next summer.
Downing Street again refused to be drawn on rumoured plans to bring the negotiation to an end within "the next few weeks", or on earlier reports that Mr Blair was prepared to define the terms of the deal required by the British and Irish governments, and put it to the test of a vote on the floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr Murphy and the North's Security Minister, Mr Ian Pearson, came under sustained Conservative pressure in the Commons to confirm that any further IRA decommissioning would need to be "visible" and completed within "a finite timetable".
The opposition spokesman, Mr David Lidington, asked Mr Pearson: "Will you confirm and put beyond any doubt, on the record, that decommissioning, in order to ensure the enduring peace we all want, must be visible and that it must be conducted according to a clear and finite timetable?"
Although he agreed that "decommissioning is a vital part of the Good Friday agreement", Mr Pearson sidestepped Mr Lidington's invitation to endorse the demand of both the DUP and Ulster Unionists for "visible" verification of a future decommissioning process.
"Transparency is required as part of that process," he said in response. "And we do also want to see a definite timescale. He's absolutely right about that."
Pressed by Conservative MP Mr Micha el Mates to define "the government's minimum requirements for visibility in the process", Mr Murphy insisted that details could not be divulged while talks were ongoing.
The Secretary of State added: "What I think is right to say to him is that, unless there is sufficient transparency to induce confidence amongst people in Northern Ireland, whether they be unionist or nationalist, then frankly we won't progress."
The SDLP's Mr Eddie McGrady also reminded Mr Pearson of the demand in last year's British/Irish Joint Declaration for an end to all paramilitary activity across the board.
"Does government intend to apply that to parties involved in the process of decommissioning, and on peace, in view of the fact that paramilitaries associated with political parties, with whom he is in dialogue, are increasingly involved in drugs, extortion and protection rackets? Or has the government simply changed its mind?"
In response, Mr Pearson said: "We're very clear, as a government, that what we want to see is an end to all paramilitary activity." He countered Ulster Unionist Lady Sylvia Hermon's claimed "deficit of confidence" amongst unionists in Gen John de Chastelain's suitability to verify any further IRA decommissioning. He insisted the British government had "total confidence" in his integrity and abilities. Mr Pearson also told the SDLP's Mr Séamus Mallon he would "consider very seriously" his suggestion that the Police Oversight Commissioner's term in office should be extended.
Meanwhile, former SDLP leader Mr John Hume reminded Mr Murphy that the Belfast Agreement had been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic. He insisted it was "the duty of every democrat" to see the agreement fully implemented, and warned it would be "totally undemocratic for any renegotiation of that agreement to take place".
Mr Murphy agreed that "the principles underlying the agreement" could not be altered while stressing that the agreed review mechanism gave the governments and parties the opportunity to examine how the agreement could "work better".