| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: In view of the lateness of the hour, and because I know others wish to speak, I shall be brief. I shall confine myself to four points--no, five.
I strongly support what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). He asked, rhetorically, what was the purpose of the Bill, and why it had been presented at this stage. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will forgive me if I say that I do not think that he advanced a good reason for the Bill's existence. He spoke--I listened to him carefully--of the warm relations between us and the Government of Ireland. There are such warm relations, and I am glad that
there are; but that is in no sense a sufficient justification for what we are doing. We have warm relations with the Governments of all European Union countries, but we are not considering giving those countries the rights that we are minded to give the citizens of Ireland.I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down and others that this is part of a deal that has been struck with Sinn Fein. I find that a great obstacle to giving the Bill any further consideration, because I am extremely cautious about giving any concessions to Sinn Fein. I ask myself "Why should I?", and I cannot reach a sensible conclusion. Sinn Fein has been an apologist for murder for many years.
Mr. Hogg: I am going to come on.
Mr. MacKay: It is a question of time.
Mr. Hogg: I am well aware of that, but, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me for a moment, I intend to make my points.
I am not in favour of making any concessions to Sinn Fein, and I regard that as a serious objection to what we are doing. Sinn Fein has not made concessions to democracy, and I am not in favour of making concessions to Sinn Fein.
That was my first point. My second is that there will be an inherent clash of loyalties. There is bound to be a division of loyalties between those who sit in the Dail and those who sit in this House. We need only look at the terms of the oath--they are in "Erskine May"; Members may wish to remind themselves of them--to see that they are incompatible with sitting in another legislature. [Interruption.]
I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) would stop interrupting. He spoke at considerable length himself. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and he must be able to make his speech without interruption.
Mr. Hogg: I am merely making my points, but I am being barracked by my own Front Bench, and I do not approve of it.
Mr. MacKay: Oh dear, dear, dear.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend may not like being barracked from behind, and I do not like being barracked from in front. It is discourteous, apart from anything else.
I was talking about the clash of loyalties that will be inherent if a member of another legislature is allowed to sit in this House.
Let me now make my third point, which relates to the Commonwealth. It is true that citizens of Commonwealth countries have long enjoyed the right that we are now minded to extend to citizens of Ireland, but, as the Under-Secretary of State rightly pointed out in an
intervention, it has not been exercised within the last 100 years. I am bound to say that, if I had to consider giving such a right to a Commonwealth citizen, I would not do so. That is not to say that we should use parliamentary time to take the right away, but the precedent is not satisfactory, and I would not base an argument on it.My fourth point is this. If we are to grant the right to citizens of the Republic, I see no distinction between that and granting it to a citizen of any European Union country. I would rather take the route of reciprocity by giving the right to all citizens of all European Union countries than give a distinctive right to citizens of the Republic.
That brings me to my last point--which I would have reached even sooner had I been given time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
Mr. Hogg: I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell.
My last point relates to the lack of reciprocity. A franchise generally implies the existence of reciprocal rights, but there are no effective reciprocal rights in the case of Ireland, because membership of the Dail is confined to citizens of Ireland. I think that a perfectly sensible requirement, but I do not see why we should give rights to the citizens of Ireland unless there is proper reciprocity between its citizens and the legislature here in Westminster.
Mr. John M. Taylor: First, as the Minister said at the outset, without clause 1, the Bill is meaningless; secondly, the whole discussion has nothing to do with the Good Friday agreement; and, thirdly, it was bogus from the outset to claim that the need for the Bill was ever urgent. We have had since 1949 to do something; moreover, the issue unaccountably disappeared for 10 months.
The parallels with the Commonwealth are no longer of any relevance, because no one has come here from a Commonwealth Parliament in the past 100 years. Moreover, no discernible party has any beneficial interest except Sinn Fein, whose interest is destabilising as far as Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole are concerned.
In another place, Lord Cope summarised the arguments with the greatest possible cogency and coherence. Had I been given a little longer, I might have quoted some extracts from what he had to say; but as I have not, I simply commend his remarks to the House.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) reminded us that, once upon a time--for that matter, it is still technically the case--Members here could be elected for more than one constituency. Of course, they always had to disclaim one. The hon. Gentleman also asked a question, which I also ask: what reciprocation will there be for the Government's largesse? The answer is none. Could we sit in the Dail? No.
I can bring personal experience to the arguments about the European Parliament. I had a dual mandate for 12 months between 1983 and 1984, but in both places my loyalty was to the United Kingdom and in particular to the English midlands, and in only one Parliament did I swear an oath.
I thought the speech of the hon. Member for East Londonderry was splendid, in that he agreed with me, not least about who the two beneficiaries were.
Mr. Corbyn: Is that why it was a splendid speech?
Mr. Taylor: I was not deliberately paying myself a compliment. I lack the vanity for that.
I enjoyed the entertaining speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who, I am led to believe, recently appeared even more entertainingly on television. He described his assessment of the Bill as "a judgment call". I think that that is a type of Liberal Democrat post-modernism, to be contrasted with the stern reminder about consequences from the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
3.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) gave us a very valuable, if disturbing insight into the Committee's consideration of the Bill. He also drew on yesterday's speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot also unburdened himself powerfully on the subject of the Saville inquiry. I shall not follow him down that road.
An article of good faith and a convention of the House is that, if an hon. Member inadvertently misleads another Member or other Members, he or she will put it right at the first opportunity. In his admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot was asked by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire if a "Conservative Government would repeal". Thinking that the hon. Gentleman was referring to this Bill, I nodded. However, when he completed his question, I realised that he was referring to Commonwealth entitlement. Had I known that, I would not have nodded.
Although the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was predictable, he was--to give him his due--consistent.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) felt that the Bill would be better described as a qualifications Bill. He also spoke of the missing 10 months in the life of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) claimed that he was reassured if he found himself at odds with the hon. Member for West Tyrone. I can reciprocate that sentiment in favour of him.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), by contrast, gave us an authentic Northern Ireland view, as well as a quote from Palmerston. For good measure, he also gave us a quote from Salisbury.
I have personally done my best, in rather difficult circumstances, to repair the winding-up speech convention between Front Benchers. I hope that the Minister will take that as a gesture of good faith on my part, which I do not extend to the legislation.
Mr. George Howarth: The good faith and generosity of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is always taken as read by Labour Members, and certainly by me. I would not in any way malign him for his speech.
I shall try to address some of the issues that have been raised in this quite good and interesting debate. When people have had legitimate concerns, they have expressed them.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), among other hon. Members, asked who wants the Bill. The Government want the Bill, or we would not have proposed it. However, that is not the whole story, because the Bill is worth while in its own terms. I have already given the reasons why I believe that, and I do not want to detain the House by repeating them, but there are compelling and persuasive reasons why the Bill should be passed.
Not only is the Bill supported by Sinn Fein, but it has been welcomed by people in the nationalist community in Northern Ireland--including members of the nationalist public who want the democratic principle to be widened and improved, and members of other political parties, notably the Social Democratic and Labour party. I admit that--for whatever reasons, although I am sure that they are good ones--SDLP Members are not here to express that support in person. However, I have had discussions with the Deputy First Minister, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and they have continuously reassured me that they very much support the Bill.
Two other parties represented in the Assembly--the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and the Alliance party--have expressed their support for the Bill. Although I do not pretend that their support for the Bill has always been ringing, they understand some of the precedents and compelling reasons behind it.
Last but not least, the Bill has been welcomed by the Irish Government. Because we are on such warm terms with the Irish Government, I believe that it is important that we continue that understanding. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) doubts those warm terms. I do not know what relationship he has with the Irish Government, but he should not confuse his feelings for them with the Government's relations with them.
The issue of reciprocity has been raised. An equivalent to the Disqualifications Bill does not exist in Irish law, which does not prevent someone from sitting in both the Irish and British legislatures. However, as has rightly been said, nationality is one criterion determining eligibility to stand for the Dail Eireann. Anyone with Irish nationality can stand for the Dail.
Although I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) would not want to take Irish nationality, it is available to him. For all I know, he may have taken it--although I suspect not.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |