| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I appreciate the exigencies that require him to return home, but will he say whether he would have voted against the motion and other measures if he had remained?
Mr. Maginnis: Sometimes I regret giving way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The sophistry that he brings to the debate is typical of him.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down): I very much welcome the Bill as amended by the other place. The number of amendments reflects the undertakings of the Minister and his colleagues to consult widely in Northern Ireland, among both the political parties and the many other community bodies. I am pleased that he has consulted so widely and so well that the Bill, as amended, will correctly interpret the Good Friday agreement not only in words, but in spirit.
The Bill is not a dog's dinner, but a beano; it is a feast to replace the democratic deficit that has existed in Northern Ireland for many years. The Unionist parties constantly acknowledged that democratic deficit, but now that we have the opportunity to establish the most democratic, most consultative and most all-inclusive Assembly, the Bill is rejected. That is a great pity.
The many amendments, some of them substantive, relate to matters that were signalled to the Minister by the House; the Minister has responded to those concerns over
the summer. One or two items require attention, especially the procedures of the Equality Commission and the powers and attributes of the Human Rights Commission. The issue of security certificates is a particular concern for me--the Tinnelly company, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned, was based in my constituency, and suffered between 1988 and last summer in trying to achieve justice.
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down):
The Bill is probably the most important piece of constitutional legislation on Northern Ireland for almost 80 years. It is placed before the House this evening with more than 400 amendments--curiously enough, those amendments were made by the other place, that much derided Chamber that people think acts undemocratically. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has described the Bill as a dog's breakfast, and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has called it a beano. The Beano is a comic, and the Bill certainly has many comic features.
I want to deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Bill is built on the Belfast agreement. That agreement was endorsed in a referendum that was conducted in a manner that would not have met Lord Neill's requirements and would have been declared illegal in the Republic of Ireland, which has its own legislation on such matters. However, the agreement was endorsed largely because it was believed that, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, pledges given by the Prime Minister would be reflected in the legislation.
None of those pledges has been honoured. People who have committed the most hideous and serious crimes have been released. Promises have been made to the political wings of terror--to parties that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland described as inextricably entwined with terrorism. That includes a party that may be allotted two seats on the Executive under the d'Hondt principles.
The Bill will create allegedly democratic institutions for Northern Ireland by placing on the Executive political representatives of an organisation that declares: "Unless the demands of our political representatives are met, we reserve the right to use political violence to achieve their objectives. We are determined to retain the weaponry that will enable us to do so."
Against that background, it is vital that all aspects of the Bill can be debated in the greatest possible detail. However, we have been allowed only four hours. Given my professional experience in reading legal documents, I have no hesitation in saying--I think that all hon. Members would agree, if they were truly honest with themselves--that it is impossible to have any real discussion or analysis of the amendments in that time.
We should not dismiss the amendments as purely technical, or say that they are only about housekeeping. Many of them are central to the future of democratic and constitutional government in Northern Ireland. They are about the government of two communities and, if they are to be successful, they need to be treated with great sensitivity and wisdom. The fact that they are being dispatched in four hours is a democratic and constitutional disgrace.
In Northern Ireland, we are familiar with being treated as people in no other part of the United Kingdom would be treated. In some of our prisons, it is as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum. A recent report by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons highlighted the totally unacceptable way in which those prisons were organised. The Maze prison was Northern Ireland in microcosm.
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley):
I am perplexed by Unionist Members' arguments. We are here to discuss amendments to a Bill that seeks to implement an agreement that was discussed at length and endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. The question before us is whether the Bill properly implements that agreement.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we are discussing whether the time to debate the matter should be limited. We are not dealing with the matter itself, and the hon. Lady should know that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the hon. Lady will have heard him.
Judy Mallaber:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that the debate is much narrower than was apparent from Unionist Members' contributions.
I have been incredibly impressed by the way in which the Minister has been prepared to listen to everybody and has been extremely patient in considering amendments arising from our previous debates. He has sought to take on board people's views on whether the agreement is properly implemented in the legislation. There has been considerable discussion, and I do not know of anyone who has sought a meeting with him to discuss the amendments who has not been heard. To suggest that there has not been proper discussion of the agreement, the Bill and all the amendments is simply not correct.
The four hours before us are not meant to be a time in which to raise yet again a whole lot of issues that are not in the Bill and not covered in the amendments. The question before us is, narrowly, whether four hours is sufficient time to discuss amendments that have already been considered in great detail.
People on all sides of the argument have had the opportunity to make their views known to the Minister, and I want to place on record my appreciation of the time that has been given to discussing the parts about which I
have been concerned; if my hon. Friend has given so much time to those areas that I know of, I am sure that he must have given considerable time to all the other areas.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I, too, offer my compliments to Ministers.
Representatives of voluntary associations have put the point to me over and over again that the civic forum will need to be given adequate resources if it is not to become a talking shop--
It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to the Order [17 July].
Question put:--
The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 6.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |