| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.55 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): I have some sympathy for the Minister. Introducing the Bill, he has been required to give a backdrop to the situation in Northern Ireland, and he has been constrained by the fact that the talks process is taking place. He certainly does not want to do anything that would jeopardise those talks, and neither do I. I, as much as he, want success in the talks process, but I cannot afford--and the Minister will be judged foolish by history if he tries to achieve--a virtual whitewash of the continuing problems that we face in relation to terrorism.
Terrorism is not peculiar to the republican movement. Serious terrorism has emanated from both traditions in Northern Ireland. Nobody tries to hide that fact. The better organised--not the more deadly, but the more sustainable--terrorism emanates from the republican movement and from the IRA, because it approaches its terrorism strategically. It is not reactive; it is not tactical; it is strategic and is based on the Armalite and ballot box philosophy which enables the IRA terrorist to use as much force as he considers necessary to make an impression on society in Northern Ireland and on the Government here in Westminster.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the factors that motivate terrorism. I know that he would be deeply offended if I suggested, and I will not for a moment suggest, that he is excusing terrorism on the basis of internment or Bloody Sunday or the hunger strike. When the hon. Gentleman talks about that, he should also mention Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Warrington, Regent's Park, Droppin' Well Inn and Warrenpoint. In those instances, there might have been an upsurge by the entire Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland, but that did not happen.
Despite the tragedy and suffering caused by those events, the greater number of people in the Unionist community said that violence was not the way forward. They want to support democracy and see it at work, but they expect their Government to provide adequate law and order enforcement measures.
I would like to be able to tell the Minister that he is not doing as well as the previous Government, but I think that he is probably doing just as badly. The previous Government did not meet their obligations in terms of the serious violence in Northern Ireland. The RUC and the Army are always expected to behave like a fire brigade: they rush out when something happens, but they do not have a strategy for dealing with terrorism, because successive Governments for the past 37 years have failed to provide that strategy and the political backcloth against which it can operate.
I return now to the IRA and its Armalite and ballot box philosophy. My party and I must judge the IRA on what it is doing today. Has it changed its strategy? Is it trying to adjust to the circumstances and opportunities that are presented through the talks process? The answer is clearly no. The IRA leaders, who are now sitting at the table
of democracy--the unreconstructed terrorists are sitting among those who, throughout their political lives, have been dedicated to democratic methods--have not told the rank and file, "You cannot achieve your objectives through violence."
The past 27 years have proved that decent people in both traditions in Northern Ireland are dedicated to a peaceful way forward, yet Gerry Adams stood in front of the city hall in Belfast and said, "The IRA hasn't gone away, you know." In Coalisland, Martin McGuinness said, "We intend to smash British rule in Northern Ireland." Only last weekend, a leading spokesman for IRA-Sinn Fein addressed a meeting of 150 IRA men in county Armagh. He referred to what would happen if the talks ended, and said:
If the IRA does not condition its rank and file to move away from reliance on the Armalite and towards a total commitment to democracy, it is saying that the ballot box and the ballot paper are valid only so long as the Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and members of the Government are prepared to pay a ransom to keep the IRA at the table of democracy.
I shall not delay the House by rehearsing the ransom that has been paid--the danegeld that is paid weekly--to keep Messrs Adams and McGuinness at the table of democracy. The Minister knows as well as I do the reality of the situation. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who has responsibility for education, is looking rather sceptical. I suggest that there will soon be an announcement regarding the creation of a university campus in west Belfast in order to provide jobs. Have hon. Members ever heard of creating a university in order to provide jobs?
Mr. Mallon:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maginnis:
No, I shall give way later.
I thought that university campuses were created to provide educational opportunities.
Mr. Maginnis:
I shall give way when I have finished this point. Will the Minister tell us whether that university will be created? We know that a large part of the capital funding for the project will come from a source outside
Mr. Maginnis:
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not be intimidated. This matter is relevant to how we deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister try to tell me that secondary education is sustained at an adequate level in Northern Ireland and that the record is good? Has he not decided on swingeing cuts for grammar schools? Does he claim that he and previous Governments have not underfunded colleges of further education? Will he tell me that our university students will not have to pay tuition fees--initially £1,000 a year, but increasingly more than that?
For political reasons, the Minister is going to put an extra campus in Northern Ireland. We have one at Queen's. We have one at Jordanstown. We have one at Coleraine. We have one at Magee. We have a teacher training college at Stranmillis; and one at St. Mary's; and there are 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland. What nonsense are we getting into to pay the danegeld to the terrorists in west Belfast? I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) if he wishes.
Mr. Mallon:
The hon. Gentleman posed a rhetorical question: did we ever hear of a university being set up to create jobs? Yes, it is called the university of Ulster, which was set up by a Unionist Government in the north of Ireland when, by any standard of justice, it should not have gone there. I thought it only right to remind the hon. Gentleman of his party's role in doing exactly that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. We should draw a line under that part of the discussion and come back within the terms of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will not respond further to that point.
Mr. Maginnis:
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not respond to it. I think that I have made my point.
I implore the Minister to make his own judgment based on three things. He can look at the signs. He can decide whether he sees any evidence, in terms of the future for terrorism in Northern Ireland, that terrorism has been abandoned. I want him to look at history and ask himself whether, in terms of predicting what is happening and is likely to happen in respect of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we on this Bench have not done our best to give substantive guidance to the best of our ability. I think that we have been justified. I put it no stronger than that. The third piece of advice that I would give him is that he has to start thinking like a terrorist. He has to get into the psyche of the terrorist, because if he believes all that he is told he will eat all he sees, as the saying goes.
I do not know why the Chief Constable continues to tell us that the ceasefire is holding, when every signal that we are getting throughout the whole of Northern Ireland suggests that it is holding only because there are one, two,
three, four--I do not know how many--further concessions that can be taken, which can be banked, before the terrorists return to the Armalite, as they have promised.
I shall deal now with loyalist terrorism. Their ceasefire is clearly becoming less stable, as much because of drugs and racketeering as of politics. Some horrible things are happening. The beatings and the intimidation are quite intolerable. I believe that it is happening because there is nothing to indicate to the people who organise such crime that the Government have real resolve. I say again that this Government are no different from previous Governments in that respect.
Having given the background to what we require, I shall look at one or two of the measures that we welcome in the Bill; one or two of the things that are missing; and one or two of the areas where I believe there has been an error.
I am delighted that the Minister has removed internal exile. It was an absolute insult to have internal exile within the United Kingdom. It is divisive and unnecessary.
As for the things that I believe are unwise, when video recording was introduced, we were told that it would protect those with responsibility for questioning terrorist suspects. Well, perhaps it protected the suspect and the person doing the questioning, but it was always dangerous for the police, because there are occasions, as history shows, when terrorists, faced with the reality of years--potentially--in prison, are willing to talk to those who interrogate them and become, to use the simple term, informers; to provide information and intelligence that is useful in the overall battle against terrorism.
Video recording makes that difficult, but it does not make it as difficult as audio recording. An audio recording can be sent for, I must assume, by the lawyer defending the accused person. That means that nothing can take place in the interrogation centre that will be of assistance to the police in the prevention of further terrorism. They cannot gain the confidence of perhaps relatively low-level terrorists, because, as soon as they are destined for court, they are told by their godfathers, "You must instruct your solicitor to get the audio recording." Knowing that, they will simply not be able to provide information that is of help.
Who is being helped by the audio recording--the terrorist or the ordinary member of society who depends on the police to do a very difficult job of bringing the villains to justice? If we are to have audio recording--the Minister tells us that we are--why does he stop at that? Why has he not considered the possibility of admitting telephone wiretaps as evidence? We know that if, as in the case of Adair, a policeman is wired for sound and has a tape recorder in his pocket, he can speak to a suspect and use the conversation as evidence in court. We know that he can bug a room and record what has been said in it and use the evidence in court, so why do we not give the police the opportunity to bring evidence that could be obtained through telephone wiretaps into court in the same way? It makes sense to me. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point.
Why has the Minister still failed to consider the issue of identity cards? He and I have identity cards--our driving licences. Most people who work for large companies have identity cards as part of the security of the company.
The Home Secretary has said that he will introduce a card to identify those who are old enough to buy cigarettes and alcohol. I am not sure of the details of his proposal but, given that such a card is apparently to be introduced, why is the Minister still failing to introduce an identity card that would help the security services to deal with terrorism?
Let me remind the Minister, in the words of Gerry Adams, that the IRA has not gone away. Let me add--in the context of the emergency provisions legislation and the way in which it works--the words of Mr. Rowe, who said in his report earlier this year:
"Whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best".
Will the Minister tell the House that that will not involve violence--shooting, bombing and holding the civilian population to ransom for as long as the IRA can sustain it in the face of inadequate reaction by Government, who do not have a comparable strategy? This man has called for IRA, Sinn Fein and republican prisoners to unite as a "clenched fist" to force an end to British rule in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister pretend that that is not a threat to shoot and bomb the civilian population in Northern Ireland? Mr. Molloy, who thought that he was talking to his own people and did not realise that two journalists were in the room, then said:
"Sinn Fein's political policy was a tactic rather than an end in itself".
It is the Armalite and the ballot box--I cannot emphasise that enough.
"Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year."
That is why we will support the Minister tonight, despite what we consider to be flaws in the legislation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |