| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen): Can the hon. Gentleman be helpful to the House and tell us the specific wording in the amendment that led him to make those comments?
Mr. Maginnis: I was just about to do that and to suggest that all the hoo-ha about internment was verging on the hypocritical, because on enactment, if I read the Bill correctly, internment will be put into cold storage, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) indicated.
Mr. McNamara: The whole point of that part of my speech was that internment was not in cold storage and that the Secretary of State could introduce it tomorrow if he wanted to.
Mr. Maginnis: That is strange logic from the hon. Gentleman. Internment is in cold storage until such time as the Secretary of State introduces it, and then within 40 days--not after 40 days, as the hon. Gentleman suggested--the matter will be debated in the House.
Is there no understanding among Opposition Members who have railed against it that there could be an occasion when the 5 per cent., the terrorists who have 100 tonnes of weapons, go back to full-scale violence, and--perhaps I say this more in hope than in expectation--not only this Government but the Irish Government find that unacceptable? As was pointed out by a Conservative Member, what better way would there be to disrupt the command and control structure of IRA-Sinn Fein, or any other terrorist organisation, than to take into internment quickly and effectively those who command the operation?
In July 1994, seven weeks before the IRA ceasefire, my party prepared a paper, which, I believe, was given to the Prime Minister. We predicted a ceasefire and cautioned that the moment the Government got into debate or meetings with IRA-Sinn Fein, they would be tied to that process: Sinn Fein could walk away, but the Government would be unable to do so, because they would be accused of abandoning the so-called peace process. Now we find that a very clear division is being manufactured, which we predicted, between Sinn Fein and the IRA. It does not really exist. Martin McGuinness may, nominally, no longer be head of northern command of the IRA, but we know that in practice he is still the same powerful, ruthless killer he always was.
Can hon. Members see the situation that is being manufactured? More and more we shall hear people, like Mitchel McLaughlin, on television saying, "Of course we do not control the IRA. We do not have any say over what it does." Again, we predicted that in our paper of 11 July 1994, in which we pointed out that Sinn Fein would employ the tactic of regretting, while understanding, the violence of the IRA. That is happening now.
On 28 June 1995, we said that Martin McGuinness had ordered an end to the ceasefire--not an immediate end but a rolling resumption of violence. We were criticised
for doing so, because, apparently, if one tells the truth, one does not want the peace to succeed. What a load of rubbish. Look at what has happened since. Every effort was made to provoke people on to the streets in July and August to create confrontation. When, by and large, the people of the Ormeau road would not listen to the blandishments of people like Brian Gillan, who came across the city to try to provoke them, the next tactic was tried, which resulted in a spate of burnings and arson that was greater in intensity than has occurred for quite a number of years. When ordinary people refused to be provoked by such desecration to their churches, schools and homes, the killings started. They started in a way that is meant to be acceptable, because, allegedly, drug dealers were killed, and none of us likes drug dealers, but shall we see not eight but 80 or 100 of those petty criminals who have been labelled as drug dealers killed? It will not stop that trade--we all know that.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary has increased its efforts to bring the drugs trade under control, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to tell us that it is succeeding. It is a very difficult job to get the big players, but the amount of drugs that have been captured and the number of people who have been charged have risen dramatically over the past year. That is what the people on the ground want. They want the police, and they accept the police doing their job. What hypocrisy for Sinn Fein-IRA to say that part of the reason for the killing is that the police are not acceptable in certain areas in Northern Ireland. A fairly recent public opinion poll showed that the RUC is acceptable to more than 80 per cent. of the population, and, indeed, to 75 per cent. of the Roman Catholic population, in carrying out its day-to-day duties. I think that there is not a constabulary throughout the whole of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the Irish Republic that would not be proud of and pleased with that degree of acceptability.
From where does the criticism come? It comes from those who would put themselves in the place of the police and who are acceptable to only 5 per cent. of the entire population. It is no wonder that Mr. Gerry Adams has disappeared from our television screens. Perhaps he has gone to his holiday home--one, I assume, he purchased out of the savings from his social security benefits--down in Cooley in the Irish Republic.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South):
I hope that the House will excuse me if I drag the debate back to what it is supposed to be about--whether we need the Bill.
I am disappointed and perplexed by some of the opposition to the legislation. It seems to be common ground--certainly between Conservative Members, and, I understand, among Official Unionists, Liberal Democrats and others--that an Act of this nature is required. I had thought that the fresh, fragrant new Labour party held the
same view, and, having read the amendment, I hoped that the presence of a new team of Northern Ireland spokesmen might produce a fragrant new approach; but it did not.
Apparently, we are expected to accept the view that it is possible to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill-- against the principle of it--on specious grounds. If she examines her conscience, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) may agree that, although there may be an argument for it, the "certifying in" of scheduled offences is hardly fundamental to the Bill; nor, I should have thought, is the establishment of a full-time legal advice unit at holding centres. Again, there may be arguments for such a unit: it may be a splendid idea, although I have not yet thought of any such arguments. Surely, however, both proposals should be contained in amendments or new clauses tabled in Committee or on Report.
I assume that the "annual review" business has now disappeared from sight. What remains, in an allegedly reasoned amendment, is the question of internment without trial. I have never doubted the integrity of Labour's new Northern Ireland spokesman, and never will, but she justifies the view that such a review is fundamental on the basis that it was considered fundamental by the old, less fresh Labour party some years ago. She may wish to bear it in mind that a number of Labour politicians--the same is true of the Labour party as a whole--have moved away from more fundamental positions than that.
I understand that, at one stage, the Labour party was rather in favour of socialism, and other jolly ideas. Over the past year or so, it has moved rather rapidly away from such ideas. If the Labour party can drop something as fundamental as the belief that created the party itself, surely it can re-examine its view that internment without trial, although a benefit to the Act, should be put into cold storage.
The Opposition Members who had a slight argument about the meaning of "cold storage" were not really in dispute. If we want something to remain fresh and available, we put it into the refrigerator and take it out when we need it. That is exactly what would happen in this instance. Can any hon. Member imagine a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland waking up one morning and saying, "What shall I do today? I think that I will introduce internment without trial." The idea is ludicrous: the circumstances would have to be dire and dangerous. I hope that the Opposition will now realise that, far from being reasoned, their amendment is entirely unreasonable.
I do not want to engage in tedious repetition, but anyone who doubts the need for the Act had only to listen--at some length, if I may say so--to the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who speaks on security matters for the Ulster Unionists. He gave all the details that the House needed to hear about the armaments that exist, the murders that have been committed and the potential for further murders. Of course we need the Act, and of course we need a fundamental review of anti-terrorist legislation. That review should be carried out carefully. I am sure that everyone will have an opportunity to express his views, and I hope that the legislation will eventually apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |