| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.45 pm
After the Canary wharf bomb, I could see that it made sense to wait and see; but after three bombs I no longer think that adequate. We have to respond. It is Sinn Fein-IRA who have pulled the plug on the ceasefire and ended the peace process as we knew it two weeks ago. The challenge facing us tonight is to decide how to respond and what changes we need to make to the Bill.
Before deciding whether the new clause constitutes the right response, we ought to put the renewed bombing in its true context, to see whether it justifies a change of the
sort that I am proposing. The ceasefire was only partial in any case. It was only the bombing on the mainland and the sectarian killings in the Province that had stopped. Murder, torture, intimidation and extortion all continued while we discussed the Bill in Committee. I draw the attention of the House to a written answer that I received from the Minister of State on 14 February this year. In it, he confirmed that between 1 September 1994 and7 February 1996, there were 12 murders in the Province ascribed to one or other of the terrorist organisations, and 287 people were injured in punishment beatings.
Another relevant part of the context is the fact that the resumption of the bombings on the mainland was not, I believe, a spontaneous reaction to the Mitchell report or to the proposed elections. From my reading of Irish history I would say that Sinn Fein-IRA never act out of frustration. They only ever act because they have planned a way of achieving their objectives. What they do is calculated; what they have started in London these past few days was clearly decided some months ago.
Despite the protestations of people such as Adams and McGuinness, and although they may not have known the place and the time, I cannot accept that they were not parties to the change of policy some months ago. Sinn Fein-IRA never, in my view, had any intention of allowing the majority in Northern Ireland to choose to remain in the United Kingdom. The resumption of the terrorist campaign in London signals to me the fact that they have now accepted that even all-party talks would not have delivered what they wanted: a united socialist republic on the island of Ireland.
The resumption of the terror campaign in Great Britain makes it clear that we have now to respond to the challenge of the IRA. It has spelt out for us that it is not interested in compromise. It is not willing to make concessions or to sign up to the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. The resumption of bombing in London spells out what Adams and others have always hinted--that Sinn Fein-IRA hold democratic debate and democratic agreement in total and utter contempt. That makes the Bill for real, not a holding measure, and it makes the new clause essential.
I shall now deal with the details of my new clause and the amendments. New clause 1 would allow the Secretary of State to extend the application of the Bill for a further period if he judged that necessary in the security circumstances. Amendment No. 1 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the approval of both Houses for an extension. Amendment No. 3, alternatively, would extend the Bill for one year by action of the House rather than the Secretary of State.
I shall listen very carefully to the response to the debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that he will accept that a firm and urgent response is now vital. I hope that he can tell us that steps will be taken to protect the innocent and to catch those evil terrorists. If my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to persuade me against the course that I am advocating, I ask him to tell the House what the Government intend to do as an alternative to new clause 1.
I wish to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a series of specific questions. His answers, I believe, will decide what happens to the new clause. First, will the Government press ahead with the peace process despite what Sinn Fein-IRA say? Sinn Fein-IRA's actions make
the peace process more urgent and important than it was before. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he still accepts that all-party talks--between parties that subscribe wholly and exclusively to democratic means--are the only way to bring a permanent and lasting peace to the Province? Will he, if necessary, work for that with the other parties even if Sinn Fein-IRA refuse to do so?
Secondly, will the Government continue to urge the loyalist terrorists to show restraint? If my right hon. and learned Friend does that, and I believe that he must, does he accept that firm action against those terrorists who have resumed their campaign is one way to encourage others to show that restraint?
Thirdly, will the Government demand similar resolute action from the Dublin Government? Will my right hon. and learned. Friend insist that the Dublin Government redouble their efforts to search out terrorists? I hear from the rumour mill that the Canary wharf bombers started out from the Republic. Will we insist that the Dublin Government redouble their efforts to find the arms and explosives that are undoubtedly hidden south of the border? Will we press the Dublin Government even harder to hand over wanted people without delay and without equivocation?
Mr. Maginnis:
Will the hon. Gentleman take into account in his questions to the Government that, after sitting in the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation for about a year, all the nationalist parties in Ireland produced a report that acknowledged the right of consent of the people of Northern Ireland and that the only party dissenting from that was Sinn Fein-IRA? Rather than placing the onus on the Dublin Government, will the hon. Gentleman place the onus--as a matter of honour--on each individual nationalist party in Ireland not only to repudiate the violence of the IRA, but to work actively to purge the activities of the IRA from our midst?
Mr. Mallon:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), by implication, to suggest that my party and the other parties that were involved in the forum which spent 18 months trying to achieve what he suggests was not achieved--no one regrets that more than I do, because nobody put more effort in--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members are responsible for their speeches.
Mr. Wilshire:
I heard the comments of thehon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone(Mr. Maginnis). We must try to avoid apportioning blame. It is perfectly reasonable for the House to say what it hopes that the Dublin Government will do.
If by some chance this debate should finish at a reasonable hour, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and I are supposed to be meeting with members of the Dail before the night is out. That will be an admirable opportunity to reaffirm--as I believe to be the case--that all the democratic parties of whatever persuasion in the island of Ireland are opposed to terrorism and in favour of all-party talks. I have no doubt about that, but we may have the chance tonight to confirm that.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West):
The hon. Gentleman has asked whether the Government intend to
Mr. Wilshire:
No, I am not. I am suggesting that the parties in Northern Ireland that are committed exclusively to democratic solutions should set up the means to have all-party talks and then we can review the situation vis-o-vis those who will not denounce violence.
Mr. Mallon:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your earlier direction to me.
Does the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) agree, as someone who has some experience of visiting Ireland, that all the parties that are party to the forum have--without any ambiguity--condemned violence this week, last week and for the first 25 years and that there should be no doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that that is the case? He has a duty to the House to amend or withdraw the implication of what he said.
Mr. Wilshire:
The last thing that I wish to do is to get involved in an argument between two other people. I have not attended a meeting of the forum and I have not read the transcripts, so it would be quite unfair of me to try to adjudicate on what may have happened there.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that Sinn Fein was a member of the forum. How can the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh(Mr. Mallon) say that all members of the forum repudiate violence? Gerry Adams has blood fresh on his hands and he refuses to call what happened an outrage. He may be sorry because one of his IRA colleagues has died. We all regret any deaths, but I must say that I would rather a terrorist died than an innocent victim.
Mr. Wilshire:
I suspect that the House would rather move on from that issue, so I will not accept any more interventions on that subject. Perhaps we can make progress.
The fourth question that I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will answer is whether the Government will ask the Government of the United States to withdraw Gerry Adams' visa. Will they be asking the United States Government to take steps to end Sinn Fein-IRA fund raising, and to ban the export of money back to the island of Ireland for the time being? The feting of Adams as a man of peace must stop. The blood of the victims of recent bombs is on his hands, and there can be no place for him in a process such as this until he condemns what has happened.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |