| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.11 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): It is worth remembering that we are discussing the allocation of time, rather than the substantive amendments. The fact that so many hon. Members feel tempted to discuss the content of the motion shows how important it is to move to the main debate as quickly as possible.
When we last discussed an allocation of time motion on Northern Ireland, I was optimistic and the Liberal Democrats supported the Government. With the benefit of
hindsight, we know that, for understandable reasons and despite the generous amount of time that the Government allocated, we did not have enough time to discuss the matters before us.I am confused by the position taken by the official Opposition. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) seemed to say that he does not see the need for discussion at all, yet Conservative Back Benchers said that we need even more time than has been allocated. I am sure that there is logic in that argument somewhere.
The ideal solution would have been a programme motion agreed among all the parties. Sadly, we do not have that. Whether the time allocated will be enough is, therefore, a matter of judgment. Perhaps we could use a little more than we have been given, but we must remember that our destiny is, to some extent, in our hands. As long as we focus on making new points and do not use the debate as an opportunity to rehearse arguments with which we have finished and over which we now have no control, we can probably make reasonable progress, even in the time--which is slightly too short--that the Government have allocated.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) described this as beastly legislation. I am not sure about that, but it is important legislation, and for that reason we must debate it fully. Let us also remember that there must be an end point--we cannot go on discussing it for the next few weeks. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect some programming for a subject on which debates have often become very long, and not always because value is being added to the points already made.
Everyone has a right to express an opinion on the time allocation motion, but as some speakers have already expressed their opinions on what will happen after the motion it makes sense for us to move on. Although I respect the right of all of us to discuss the clock, I hope that we shall now move on quickly to discuss the Bill.
4.14 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): The beauty of following the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is that the Liberal Democrats always say, "Let's get a move on--but not until I've spoken." That is the situation that we are in.
I was interested in what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said--that the Government have discovered some new and unusual parliamentary procedure that was never used between 1979 and 1997. I recall the right hon. and learned Gentleman being present--perhaps he was asleep--for guillotine after guillotine on Bill after Bill. He was happy to be a member of the Government when that was happening. Given his experience, we can treat his comments as humbug.
On the previous occasion when we debated the Bill, we could not debate many major motions and issues. I was heartened by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that most of the amendments that we are to debate are trivial and consequential. On that basis, I am sure that the Government will accept all the amendments that I have tabled, which have the support of various hon. Members.
I must emphasise to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that the decision on the Bill and its content and passing are, in one sense, unimportant. What is important is what will come after the Bill--what comes of the decisions on flags and emblems, on the contents of the implementation plan and on the Hamill case. When the coroner was unable to decide what had happened in that case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent for the papers. We do not know what he has decided since, and it would be helpful if we could have a statement on that. One thing is certain: that the confidence that we are trying to achieve--
Mr. MacKay: What has this to do with the timetable motion?
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman is twittering from the Opposition Front Bench. I am pointing out that the timetable is of little relevance because many of the important matters will be decided outside of it. It would therefore be helpful to know about particular matters. As the right hon. Gentleman talked a lot about what happened in another place, which had little to do with the timetable, and as his comments on amendments moved there had little to do with it, he is the last person who should comment from a sedentary position on these matters.
Decisions that will be taken after the passage of the Bill will be far more important than some of the amendments that we have to consider. On those decisions will depend the acceptability of the Northern Ireland police service to both communities. That is certainly a subject that should be worrying those on the Treasury Bench considerably.
4.18 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim): I am sure that the House listened with interest to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). In the previous debate on the Bill, he made it clear that his party would not call on its supporters to support the new police service as it is set out in the Bill. At his party conference, as leader of his party, he said that one does not proceed by ultimatums and that the trouble with the Unionists is that we are always making ultimatums. We have heard the ultimatum from the Social Democratic and Labour party--it is a list of matters that the hon. Gentleman has said must be clarified tonight by the Secretary of State.
I oppose the timetable because there should be time. I want to discuss the issues. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)--they should be discussed. Each representative, representing his constituents, should have the opportunity to discuss them, but we will not have that opportunity. We will not even reach some of the matters in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. It is only right that we put that on record. If we do not do so, at some point the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a speech and point out that we were all in the House of Commons but said nothing on the matter--as though we approved it.
We do not approve; we are wholly against the idea that Ulster representatives should not have adequate time to discuss the measure. Indeed, more time has been granted in another--unelected--place; more people from Northern Ireland who are not elected have had more time to discuss the measure than we shall have tonight.
Certain important matters need to be discussed; those that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh concern us. I do not understand why, in part of the UK, the buildings that house the police service cannot fly the national flag. A member of the Patten commission told us that, in future, when one enters a police station in Northern Ireland--or a police house or whatever it is to be called--one will not know whether one is in Africa, India, America or Australia. It will be so neutral that people will blink and ask, "Where am I?" Is that a form of policing that will gain acceptance from the people of Northern Ireland?
Basic principles of human rights should be prominent. I do not understand why a portrait in a police station of Her Majesty the Queen is a threat to anyone. I do not understand why a flag constitutes a threat. If it does, why do not those who oppose it being flown say that it should be removed from this building? After all, they walk under it every time they enter Parliament. Those matters are important.
The uniform of the RUC is important too. Surely, if we are trying to institute a form of policing in Northern Ireland that will be acceptable to those who believe in law and order--those who do not believe in law and order will not accept it anyway--we should not outrage the citizens of Northern Ireland who do not agree with the measures. I was assured that the Patten commission was to find a means whereby the majority of the majority and the majority of the minority could agree. The majority of the majority do not agree with the Bill; it seems that the majority of the minority do not agree with it either. The Patten report is a failure by its own standards; no amount of doctoring it will change that.
The Government have spun the idea that the report is in its implementation stage and that all will be well--
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is putting a case that could be put when the amendments are before the House, rather than during the timetable motion--[Interruption.] Order. I am calling the hon. Gentleman to order. Hon. Members should not point across the Chamber.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am arguing why we should discuss these matters. I am sorry that I did not make that clear to you, Mr. Speaker. I am arguing not the rights or wrongs of the issues but that we should be able to discuss them. As an hon. Gentleman has argued that the flag should be removed from police stations, and that was completely in order, I should be in order when I point out that I do not agree and should like to discuss such matters. That is my argument. When we come to the marrow, I am sure that you will be under no misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, about which side we are coming from.
The length of time spent on the current debate does not matter; it will not change the fact that vital issues will not be touched on tonight and that elected representatives from Northern Ireland--whatever their views--will not be heard. What is more, there will be no opportunity for Members to vote on the issues, so we cannot express our democratic right to show what we think about them. The right of the representatives of Northern Ireland to have their say on the Bill is being taken away, because the Northern Ireland devolved powers do not cover security or the police.
My plea to the House is that it should give the elected representatives of Northern Ireland the right to move their amendments, to discuss them, to divide the House on them and to record their stand on the issue. That is all we ask, but we shall not get it. Even if I were to talk for the rest of the allocated hour--I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not do so--it would make no difference; the guillotine will come down and that will be that.
I have been a Member for about 30 years, and one has only to lift the mutilated Order Paper to find nearly three pages that seek to explain the ins and outs that the Government have used to ensure that there is no loophole and that everything is fine-tuned to prevent representatives of Northern Ireland from being able to express their views--no matter what they are--on the vital issue of policing.
Policing is vital to every individual. It might interest the House to know that, in the past four weeks, more of Northern Ireland's prominent citizens have been visited by the police and told that they and their families are in grave danger. The security threat is greater than ever. Therefore, that threat should be met by the House acting democratically, and the voices from that community should be given the right to have their say and vote for what they think is right for the Province.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |