| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.31 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham): I am sorry that I was unable to be present for the earlier part of the debate. My
absence was unavoidable, because I was serving on a Standing Committee. I wish, however, to say a few words in support of the extension of the measures set out in the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), I have always supported their extension.
I recognise and welcome the changing situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that, in the near future, the House will be able to make major changes to the legislation that bears on the Province.
The massive improvement in security in Northern Ireland is much to be welcomed, as is the impact that it has had on the mainland as well. Tremendous steps have been taken that even a few years ago would probably have been regarded as impossible in such a short period. Those steps are in everyone's interests. I am optimistic that there will be further dramatic improvements.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those on all sides who have made the dramatic improvement possible. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the lead which he has given. I congratulate him on the caution which he has rightly shown when dealing with Irish affairs. Unfortunately, killings are still being carried out. It is sad that there were more examples over the Christmas period. They are clearly linked in some way with terrorist organisations.
There is always a need to be cautious when dealing with terrorism because it is, to a great extent, unpredictable. There is always a danger of resurgence.
There are two particular reasons why I think it right to retain the array of measures that are set out in the Bill. First, it is necessary to maintain full ability to implement such measures in the event of an unfortunate breakdown in security. We would be foolish, even after 16 months, to imagine that such a breakdown is not a possibility. We must be prepared, although we hope for and are talking about a long-term peaceful settlement. That must be so while it is clear that terrorist organisations continue to exist, and retain their weapons and the ability to use them.
It would be foolish for the House to change the legal framework in which terrorism can be combated until we have seen clear progress in decommissioning.
We should, however, consider reducing proportionally the strength of the security measures as progress is made. I am aware that that has already happened in the workings of the military in Northern Ireland, where soldiers have come off the streets. Indeed, three major units have been relocated from Northern Ireland. Much greater reliance has been put on the police service operating in the same way as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Military action in support of the RUC has fallen by about three quarters over the relevant period. Practical steps have been taken in the right direction.
Mr. Devlin:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the flaw in the argument of some Opposition Members is that the situation in Northern Ireland, although much improved, is not as good as it is in Sheffield, for example, or in other parts of the United Kingdom? The security forces still have to be in Northern Ireland in case there is a resurgence of long-standing problems. The recent difficulties--for example, shootings that are claimed to be associated with drugs--show that we cannot afford to withdraw all the measures in the hope that, somehow, the peace process will result in a good end.
Mr. Merchant:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is not a matter of what the situation in Northern Ireland is
The second way in which recognition is given to the changes in Northern Ireland is in the reduction of the period covered by the Bill to two years. There is ample evidence that that is the right course. There is evidence also that my hon. Friend the Minister would like a further relaxation of the legislative framework if it is matched by action from the terrorist organisations that still exist. My hon. Friend said:
The guarantee is there. It is merely a question of timing.
It is right that the current legislation should be retained for the time being because it is entirely appropriate to wait for the results of the overall review of methods of combating terrorism. Once the legislation that relates to the battle against terrorism has been fully reviewed and set in a modern context, given the changing events in Northern Ireland, that will be the right moment for a proper and long-term settlement, which will bear on all the legislation that deals with terrorism.
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie):
I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friends and to Conservative Members for leaving sufficient time for my winding-up speech.
I shall deal first with a point that has arisen on a number of occasions during the debate. It concerns the bipartisan approach, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) reiterated, we would pursue. During the debate, I wrote down some synonyms for the word "bipartisan", and I came up with "mutual", "joint",
"collaborative", "integrated". I did not come up with "We decide, and you follow." I did not come up with what occurred on the last day before Christmas, when we had to table an amendment or response to a Bill that we had not seen. It was not published until the last day before the House shut down for Christmas. Whether we tabled an amendment depended on whether hon. Members managed to prolong a debate on the Humber bridge. We got this Bill only when there was a severe danger that the business of the House was about to collapse.
"Bipartisan" does not mean that. It does not mean that we have a Bill right at the end of the Session, where the Government, using the traditional tactics, smuggle something out, making no comment on it. Although we are committed to a bipartisan approach--it is far too
serious a business for anything else--we have to ask the Government, please, to respect the wishes of the Opposition and at least allow us to see the proposed legislation before the closing date for tabling an amendment. That is a very important point to make.
We would have welcomed the chance to sit down with the Government, to put points about the proposed legislation, not just in early June. We would have liked to continue that process and to ask what is in it that can meet our traditional objectives and the general objective that there should be in anti-terrorist legislation. The objections about the way in which the Bill was introduced have come not just from Opposition Members but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Government's own advisers. The Standing Advisory Committee on Human Relations has also objected to the fact that, although promises were given that it would be consulted on such legislation, it was not.
Much of the debate has featured the appalling killings and beatings, as paramilitary organisations enact their own brutality in their own areas. From the Labour party's viewpoint, let us make no mistake that that is terrorism of the most stark and literal kind. It is rule by terror. It is just as serious if it is rule by terror of nationalist areas as it would be if it was the terrorising of one's opponents. There has been no more unconvincing a sight--many hon. Members have referred to this--on our screens through December and the early part of January than Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin of Sinn Fein failing to condemn the killings and beatings. He was the only person on the box who was less credible than Mystic Meg. He knows that he cannot criticise Sinn Fein without losing his position as front man of that organisation.
The Government know, as do we, that the killings and beatings could be stopped if Sinn Fein and the IRA wanted it. The most clear-cut sign of that was during President Clinton's visit. Let us look at the figures that were given to me in a parliamentary answer by the Minister, who is present tonight. Between June and December, there were 126 punishment beatings. Between 22 November and 4 December--the fortnight around President Clinton's visit--no such attacks were carried out--none at all. The cynicism of that is chilling, but, unfortunately, when CBS's cameras were switched away, the killings and beatings were switched on again.
I do not know whether Sinn Fein and the IRA realise-- or whether they care--the extent to which their own democratic credibility is being destroyed by those actions. Confronted by that situation, the choice we all have to make is whether not to move until that appalling behaviour stops or to grasp the opportunity to show the way forward and away from inappropriate so-called
"emergency" legislation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House--people of good will--made passionate speeches tonight and reached different conclusions. The Labour party believes that this is the time to demonstrate our own democratic credentials to the full.
"As soon as the security situation permits the Government intends to ask Parliament to suspend individual provisions in the current Act or introduce them in a lapsed form on enactment of the Bill."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |