| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.54 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): I listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said about voting according to his conscience. I have spoken consistently and voted conscientiously against such oppressive measures over a considerable period because I honestly believe that such legislation does little, if anything, to defeat terrorism. It might even be counter-productive, by alienating some sections of the community from the forces of law and order. Nothing in recent experience has convinced me to change my mind. Even before the ceasefire, I voted consistently against such emergency provisions and I believe that the case for voting against them is even stronger now that the ceasefire has been, thankfully, in operation for more than 16 months.
I realise that the explanatory and financial memorandum states that the Bill takes account of the developments since the paramilitary ceasefires, and supporters of the Bill might argue that it is not as bad as its predecessors. Nevertheless, on looking through the Bill, any reasonable hon. Member would have to admit that it contains some draconian measures and does not even incorporate the modest recommendations of Mr. John Rowe QC. Internment without trial is still on the statute book. The Diplock courts remain, and the police and the armed forces will still have draconian powers of search, arrest and detention which should be anathema to any civilised democracy.
I am amazed to hear that the Liberal Democrats will vote with the Government. I always thought the Liberal Democrats had at least some respect for civil rights, yet even that seems to have evaporated, judging from what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said.
I realise that we cannot afford to be complacent about the continuation of the ceasefire. We can see that that is true from recent events, such as the recent convictions in the High Court in Scotland of loyalist paramilitaries involved in attempted arms smuggling to Northern Ireland. The fact that they were successfully caught and convicted had nothing whatsoever to do with the Northern Ireland emergency provisions legislation, because such legislation does not apply to Scotland. The convictions came about because of good detective work, especially by the Central Scotland police force. I pay tribute to them for their hard work.
Reference has been made by several speakers to the murders in Northern Ireland over the Christmas and new year period. There is widespread concern in Northern Ireland and elsewhere about them. I absolutely deplore such killings. Whatever the victims have done, or are alleged to have done, no person or group of persons has a right to set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner. However, it would be unwise to interpret those tragic deaths as an end to the ceasefire and a justification for abandoning the peace process. Most, if not all, of the
recent murders would be appear to be drugs-related rather than sectarian or politically motivated. That is not in any way to condone them, but we should not allow ourselves to be swayed from the peace process. I fail to see how the Bill will help to trace and convict those responsible for such heinous crimes.
Part of the problem in certain communities in Northern Ireland is the lack of trust between the communities and the police. I urge the Government to take seriously the need for police reform, so that the police become truly representative of, and accountable to, the communities that they serve. That would prove far more effective than this legislation in the campaign against crime--whether it be drug trafficking, terrorism, punishment beating or any other criminal activity.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen):
I approach the situation by judging the Government's attitudes, behaviour and track record. I have said before that I am concerned about the almost complete lack of recognition by Government Front Benchers of the co-operation and bipartisan support of Opposition Front Benchers. Conservative Members may dispute it all they like, but the general election is first and foremost in their minds. I believe that we must watch them like hawks to ensure that they do not use the Northern Ireland issue to their party political advantage.
I accept that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has a reasonably good record of not using the issue for party political purposes. However, as we approach the general election, he will be subject to the same pressures from his Prime Minister and his party as any other Secretary of State. Our suspicions are reinforced by the way in which the Bill was introduced. Opposition Front Benchers were not able to consider it properly, and there was no consultation. If the Labour party's bipartisan approach to the issue had been appreciated by the Government, there would have been full consultation with the House about the Northern Ireland situation. I am concerned about the Government's real intentions in introducing the legislation.
The parliamentary arithmetic must also be a factor in the Government's mind--not only this year but as we approach the general election. As soon as potential difficulties arose for the Government with the death of a sitting Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)--he has been present in the Chamber for the entire debate but has now left temporarily--issued a vote of confidence in the Government, seemingly without the authorisation of his leader. He assured them that the Ulster Unionist party was right behind them.
The hon. Gentleman has criticised the tactics of the Labour party, but his leadership quickly recognised his bad tactics in giving the Government a blank cheque. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) quickly announced publicly that the Ulster Unionist party would give no blank cheques to the Government and that any support for them would be determined according to the best interests of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Many Labour Members suspect that the Government will use the Northern Ireland issue for party political purposes. Opposition Front Benchers have an excellent record of clear-cut support for the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) today reiterated Labour's support for the Government's Northern Ireland initiative, and I believe that that co-operation and support should be valued properly.
I accept the rationale advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who has consistently expressed reservations about this type of legislation. In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, I believe that we must move forward from our present position. It is a pointless and a futile exercise to consider what may or may not have happened in different circumstances. We should not say, "If such and such had happened at a particular time, we would not be here now." We are in this position, and we must do the best possible job in the current circumstances.
I accept that events are see-sawing, but Labour Front Benchers are moving positively to make the best of a situation that is not ideal. We will not change things overnight, but we must send signals that we are willing to move away from the present mindset about this type of emergency legislation. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government. No doubt we will make mistakes; we will get things wrong here and there. However, the Labour party is trying to create an atmosphere of change and to maintain the momentum of the peace process. Although I understand the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, I believe that Opposition Front Benchers must move forward from the present position.
Like my hon. Friend, I am absolutely astonished by the attitude adopted by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who unfortunately is not in the Chamber. His attitude clearly reflected the criticism levelled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He described the make-up of the Committee that considered the original legislation, which he said was a lawyers' delight. The Committee must have been bored to death by all the clauses, subsections and legal jargon in it.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman demonstrated the capacity of the legal profession--I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar referred to them as the
"fraternity"--to discuss matters among themselves, assuming that they are better trained and a wee bit more intelligent than the rest of us. They believe that they are better able to deal with such matters and that we are simply nuisances.
It is generally accepted--I do not agree with it myself--that the Liberal Democrats have a long tradition of support for civil liberties. However, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery supported Diplock
courts and, in fact, he advocated their extension to the rest of the United Kingdom. He went on to say that the Liberals would support the Government tonight.
I received a letter from the local branch of the Liberal party in my constituency which I have kept for quite a while. In the letter, the Liberals demand that I take each and every opportunity to vote against the Government to bring them down, as it is the duty of all non-Tory Members of Parliament to bring down the Government. I wrote back to the Liberals asking, "Should we play party politics over Northern Ireland and bring down the Government, even though we think that they are right?" The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has put the opposite view tonight. That proves once again the variable behaviour of the Liberal Party, and I think that it stinks.
The Liberal Democrats' sister party in Northern Ireland is the Alliance party. I shall be extreme and say that I do not have any time for the Conservative party. However, I accept that it is consistent: it represents its supporters and a particular class interest quite strongly. I do not like it, but I accept it. I think that Conservative Members will agree that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all people everywhere. Therefore, I have absolutely no respect for the Liberal Democrat position tonight.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was quite scathing about the Labour party's position on internment. Internment is not acceptable. It is said that it involves only a small point of principle, that it is in cold storage and that it was never intended to be used. If it has existed for 21 years or longer without ever being used, why should it remain? Its existence sends out all sorts of signals about 1971 which reverberate through the nationalist communities in Northern Ireland.
The Irish immigrant communities in the United Kingdom use the issue as a stick with which to beat the United Kingdom and its reputation on civil liberties. A line in the nationalist song "The Men Behind the Wire" goes:
That relates directly to the United Kingdom's policy of internment in Northern Ireland, which has caused great problems. The continuation of that policy on the statute book causes more problems than it is worth. It is a stain on our record as a democratic society, and we should get rid of it.
It is an understatement to say that it is not easy to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. Its affairs must be handled carefully, and we must conduct ourselves responsibly. With this legislation, however, there have been delays and a lack of consultation, which suggests to me that the Government are dancing to the tune of their hardliners, to keep them on side in parliamentary votes. In doing so, they are pandering to all sorts of prejudices and hardline positions. The Government have been doing this for quite a while and are now well on the road to decay, which is less than this country deserves.
I hope I am not doing my Unionist friends an injustice when I say that it seems to me that where they are is where they are going to stay: there will be no movement of any kind. I am fortunate enough to be on the mailing list of the Ulster Unionist party; some of the papers I am sent show considerable movement by some of the party's members, but that is not reflected by their parliamentary
representatives. I know that we all have to account for ourselves to our constituents back home, but I do not think sometimes that enough attention is paid to how we arrived at this predicament in the first place.
I do not want to go down memory lane this evening-- this is not the time to do so--but most of us here do know why we are where we are in Northern Ireland. The Unionists perhaps do not recognise sufficiently the fears and doubts of the other section of society in Northern Ireland, The Unionist community is dominant there--I do not use the word maliciously--and is undoubtedly the stronger of the two communities. I repeat, therefore, that there does not seem to be enough willingness on the part of Unionist representatives in this Chamber to move forward.
I do not live in Northern Ireland; I have never lived in a society where a person can be killed at a moment's notice for his political or religious beliefs or because he happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I fully recognise the pressures that have been brought to bear in Northern Ireland for the past 25 years, but the Unionist community needs to remember that it is not just a question of the past 25 years--it is also important to remember how the problems began and to think about where we are heading in the future.
I think it daft to authorise only silent video recordings, although the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made one or two worthwhile points about the operational difficulties. I think that silent videos will make Britain once again a laughing stock, just as we were when the spokesmen for the paramilitary organisations were not allowed to speak on television. That just made us look stupid, and we were ridiculed throughout the world. To their credit, the Government eventually got off that hook. Silent videos would be disastrous, and would not help at all.
"Cromwell's men are here again".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |