| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 am
I ask the Committee to put those considerations aside and treat the matter in a more straightforward manner. The Irish Government could deliver reciprocity if they wished. They have shown that in recent referendums on similar matters. We know that the United Kingdom Government can deliver because of their huge majority in the House and their part-reform of another place. We need not dwell excessively on nuances and differences; although they may seem important, they do not undermine the essential thrust of the amendment.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) asked a question that the Minister failed to answer. He asked whether the Government had requested any quid pro quo from those with whom they had held discussions, namely, the Irish Government and, as we now know, Sinn
Fein. I suspect that the answer is no. The Government have offered an enormous concession, which is a breach of our nationhood, sovereignty and legislative arrangements, in return for nothing. I have been unable to detect any quid pro quo. From the Minister's complacent demeanour, I suspect that I am right. He is trying not to look ashamed, but he should be ashamed.
Mr. William Ross:
Despite the existence of many parties in Ireland, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, the only party--apart from the Irish Government--that the Government have consulted appears to be Sinn Fein. Why have the Government consulted them alone?
Mr. Forth:
We all know the answer to that question. The Government have persuaded themselves that the only way to make the peace arrangements work is to grant concession after concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. That pattern is consistent; there is nothing new or surprising about it--it goes on and on. We are forced to take the view that the measure is yet another example of that process, which includes the release of prisoners, and the ability of terrorist sympathisers to participate in our constitutional arrangements. The Bill is another step in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) made pertinent points about the potential role of European law, the European Court of Justice, the European convention on human rights and, consequently, the European Court of Human Rights in the matter that we are considering. He persuaded me of the possibility, if not the likelihood, of running foul of one of those bodies of law or one of the institutions that are charged with interpreting that law.
It has been pointed out that the Home Secretary--surprise, surprise--has given an assurance that the Bill is fully in line with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary is unlikely to say, "I've got a neat little Bill that I've negotiated with Sinn Fein and I want to slip it through quietly because it may not comply with the European convention on human rights." It is much more likely that, in his anxiety to please Sinn Fein, he has decided to slip the Bill through quickly, complete with nods and winks, and hope that it will not fall foul of the convention on human rights.
Some of my hon. Friends, whose knowledge is far superior to mine--that is not difficult--suspect that we could be in severe trouble with the convention and the European Court of Human Rights, and European law and the European Court of Justice. It would be worse to fall foul of the latter, because its decisions are more binding. It would be supremely ironic if the Government, with their slavish adherence to all matters European, suddenly found that a measure designed to please Sinn Fein-IRA ran foul of their friends in the European institutions. We can only speculate at this stage, but there is sufficient evidence and a feeling in the Committee that such may be the case. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for bringing that matter to the attention of the Committee.
My hon. Friend also questioned whether the fact that the UK is a considerable net contributor to the European Union, whereas the Republic of Ireland is a considerable
net beneficiary, would impinge on the evenhandedness or reciprocity that my amendment seeks. Having listened to my hon. Friend, I am not yet able to make that connection, but it may arise in a form that I have not foreseen. I ask my hon. Friends not to be excessively anxious at this stage about that detail but to support my amendment, because it says something important about evenhandedness and reciprocity.
I accept that the amendment may have drafting faults. I am not persuaded, but many people seem to see such difficulties. The role of an amendment debate in Committee is to identify ways of improving a Bill and impress them on the Government, in the hope that Ministers here or in the other place will be prepared to re-examine the Bill in light of debate and the vote that may now be imminent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked whether the Irish Government are considering making reciprocal arrangements. We have not spent much time on that interesting matter and may want to return to it. The excellent Library brief makes tantalising allusions to some sort of consideration being given in Dublin: "Don't worry too much that something may happen", and so on. I doubt whether that can be interpreted as the Irish Government considering making anything that could be remotely described as reciprocal arrangements. The Library brief was much more vague and much less encouraging, so I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, "Don't hold your breath. Don't expect that if we agree to this, we will get a corresponding concession." It must surely be the opposite. If the Irish Government and Sinn Fein-IRA think that they can get this concession for nothing, there is no incentive for them to do anything. This whole thing is the wrong way around. It should be them saying to us, "We're prepared to make this change. What are you prepared to do in return?"
Mr. Swayne:
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not sit down without dealing with the substantive point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and me in various interventions. If my right hon. Friend's amendment is successful and achieves the reciprocity that he desires, he multiplies at a stroke the opportunities for implementing the Bill's offensive principle--to serve two sovereign Parliaments at one time.
Mr. Forth:
I was hoping that my hon. Friend would not notice that I had failed to deal with that point. Sharp as ever, even at this hour, he has pulled me up and is right to do so. Anyone in my position has to make a difficult judgment. It is a matter of record that I voted against Second Reading and, generally speaking, I remain of that view. I am now in the business of seeking to improve the Bill. That is the whole point of Committee stage and my amendment. The House has expressed its view--which I reluctantly accept--and our role is to find ways of improving the Bill.
At first blush, my amendment may seem at odds with my voting against Second Reading on principle. Some right hon. and hon. Friends do not want to concern themselves with amendments in Committee. They are
anxious, as I am, to get on to Third Reading and vote against the Bill in principle again. And if my amendment is brushed aside by the Government, in cavalier fashion--
Mr. Swayne:
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth:
I shall finish my point. I may be forced to reconsider, but right now I am in a very positive mood. I am looking to improve the Bill and trying to make it work better, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that. I give way to him once more.
Mr. Swayne:
I understand and entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says, but he must accept that the amendment should be greeted with equanimity, if not alacrity, by Labour rather than Conservative Members.
Mr. Forth:
That may be, but I have to gather support where I can. When I embarked on this venture, I thought that I might receive more support from my hon. Friends, although some have kindly said that they are still prepared to support my amendment, in spite of everything. We shall put that to the test shortly.
Mr. Bercow:
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth:
Yes, but then I really must conclude.
Mr. Bercow:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reference by the Minister to the likelihood of early Irish reciprocity would have been necessary, though not sufficient, to reassure Conservative Members? Despite trawling through the genuinely riveting 32-minute oration that he delivered yesterday, I cannot find such a reference, though I feel sure that if there was such he would speedily point to it.
Mr. Forth:
I am sure that the Minister would bound to his feet, wave Hansard in the air with an air of triumph, mutter a column number and sit down thinking that he had done the job. Along with my hon. Friend, I suspect that that will not happen, although encouragingly he is leafing through a document even now. I shall stay on my feet just long enough to get a feeling of whether he will oblige.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth:
Yes, but this must be the last time, as I am very anxious to press on.
Mr. Bruce:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because the Minister did not deal with this point. In most Parliaments, those who stand have also to be voters. Citizens of the Irish Republic automatically receive the right to vote in this country, which is beyond what European Union citizens receive. Is there the same reciprocity in their voting system, which would allow us to stand for the Parliament of the Republic?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |