| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Canavan: Surely the Opposition's job is to be constructively critical of the Government rather than just to support them supinely. Using the word "bipartisanship" is an insult to hon. Members in other parties in the House, many of whom, like me, have grave reservations about what the Government are doing and are opposed, root and branch, to such oppressive legislation.
Ms Mowlam: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, for the past six minutes, I have been constructively critical of precisely the legislation that he finds distasteful. As I make additional points, he will realise that I share many of his doubts about its nature. We should be constructively critical--as we have been about the transfer of prisoners. We should be
constructively critical about emergency legislation and policing but, in the end, if our principled stance is enshrined in one of the options in the Downing street declaration and the framework document, it would be unprincipled suddenly to oppose the Government for the sake of it simply because that is our job.
We will oppose the Government when we believe that they are making mistakes. Indeed, as I am making clear, I do not support the Government's Bill, but that in no way changes our principled stance. The attempts to gain the consent of the people, north and south, freely and concurrently given, in which the Government are indulging, are exactly what we would be doing if we were in government.
I see no way--I am being absolutely straight with the Secretary of State--in which I and my colleagues could have behaved differently over the efforts made by him and his colleagues during the past couple of months. If and when I believe that the Government are acting in bad faith, I shall certainly say so. When I want to be critical, as I do this afternoon, I shall be very critical, but that does not mean that, in terms of the peace process, we will criticise the Government when they are not acting in bad faith. It is central to the proceedings of the House in the coming months that we must be straight and honest with each other and do not allow arithmetic to play a role in the peace process. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne):
I am sure that all hon. Members will be very pleased to hear the hon. Lady's reassurance on the bipartisan approach to the peace process. Will she be equally clear on whether there is still a bipartisan approach to the effective response to continuing terrorism, since we are discussing that, rather than the peace process, today?
Ms Mowlam:
I would argue that there is a very clear and effective response to the continuing intimidation and violence on the streets of Northern Ireland. I am arguing very clearly that it was essential not to be caught in the position that we are in today. If, as I am arguing, the Secretary of State and the shadow Home Secretary had started a review eight months ago, they could have finished it by now. We would not be starting it; we would be finishing it. If that had happened, we would not hear, as some will say, that the Bill should not be introduced, or, as others will say, that it should be reinforced or stay as it is.
We could have been discussing a Bill that was not temporary and provisions that were not emergency provisions. We could have had a permanent Bill which responded to changing terrorism--new technology has become part of the terrorists' armoury. The Bill could have responded not only to terrorism in the United Kingdom, but to changing terrorism worldwide. That would have been an effective counter-terrorist response rather than a rehash of the 1991 Act.
I shall give a couple of examples to illustrate why I say that the Bill is a rehash of the 1991 Act. Clause 9--this is a minor point, but it demonstrates the slipshod approach and the apparent decision to regurgitate, in part, the 1991 Act--refers to section 8. The subsections of section 8 to which clause 9 refers are from the 1991 Act. They have been pasted into the Bill. I do not think that that is defensible; it is slipshod. It is not as if the Government have a large legislative programme--it is rather slim. One
would think that, as it deals with important matters that are central to the future stability and maintenance of the rule of law in Northern Ireland, the Bill would have been drafted with much more care.
Clause 15 is another minor example of the slipshod approach. It refers to the remission of prisoners, which was discussed during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995. It, too, has been pasted in from the 1991 Act, leading to a slipshod and messy schedule 5. Those two examples show that not only did we not need such a Bill, but that it is unacceptable because it is shoddily put together.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery):
The hon. Lady is giving her view straightforwardly and it is quite clear from what she has said that she believes that emergency provisions powers are still needed. If that is the case, why is she proposing to advise the Labour party to vote in a way which would remove emergency powers legislation? It is incomprehensible as a political approach.
Ms Mowlam:
I am arguing that there must be effective counter-terrorist legislation. I do not believe that--
Ms Mowlam:
Let me finish my point.
I do not believe, as was argued even by the Secretary of State in his Coleraine speech in 1992 and again today, that we need to keep emergency powers on the statute book when we do not have an emergency all the time. I am arguing a different point. Britain lacks effective counter-terrorist legislation. We have lived with a mish-mash of annual renewals of the EPA and the PTA, but it could have been different.
Another point which the Liberal Democrats always raise relates to the way in which the Opposition vote on counter-terrorist legislation. I shall give the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) a straight answer and allow him to intervene later. I should like to continue to develop the arguments and to give the reasons why we find the Bill unacceptable.
I am not alone in criticising the eight-month delay in starting the review. Hon. Members will bear in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that the Government were always difficult to get on the dance floor--that they were reticent and always hung back. In the debate in June, the hon. Member for Upper Bann said that he saw no reason for the delay in the review.
The Opposition would like to see new and innovative laws, but we face a Bill that we feel unable to support. I shall give some of the reasons. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I have made it clear that we would support sensible new legislation in response to terrorism. We do not oppose counter-terrorism legislation; we oppose the nature of the Bill.
We recognise that, while violence and intimidation continue on the streets of Northern Ireland, certain procedures under the existing system cannot be changed overnight or without introducing new legislation. That is a criticism that the Liberal Democrats always make of us. They say that we vote against a measure because we disagree with it in principle, but that in practice we do not leave anything on the books. If a review had been carried out during the past eight months, we could have had before us different legislation that we might have felt able to support.
We have consistently maintained that the EPA is unacceptable. Our opposition to one of its central tenets-- the power of imprisonment without trial--is well established, yet it remains in the Bill.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South):
Is not the hon. Lady just a mite worried about the signal that she and her party may be sending over the water to Northern Ireland? I have news for her. I do not believe that many people in Northern Ireland, certainly in terrorist organisations, will read the details of the Opposition's reasoned amendment, even with the errors put right. The headline will be,
"Labour party votes against anti-terrorist legislation". If that does not worry her, it should.
Ms Mowlam:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have a clear message for any member of the IRA or any Loyalist paramilitary group. Perhaps, if they do not hear the debate, they will read it. My message is that they should not doubt that a Labour Government would act as strongly to bring to justice those involved in acts of terror as the present Government. I have made it clear on numerous occasions in the past 12 months that no paramilitary group on either side would receive succour from the Opposition. That is straightforward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |