| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Apr 2003 : Column 43—continued
4.45 pm
For devolution to be restored, trust must first also be restored, and it must be restored sufficiently to enable all the parties to feel that they can come together, once again, in collective government. For that trust to be restored, we must first see that the paramilitaries are serious. We must see acts of completion. The Lords amendment would add another element to the judgment that the Secretary of State would have to make on whether it is appropriate to introduce the commencement order—whether the time is right.
In another place, the Government agreed that the amendment that we are considering would provide helpful clarification of the circumstances in which we might expect those clauses to become effective. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Quentin Davies : Clearly, the Opposition agree with the amendment in the sense that we will not oppose it—indeed, it was introduced in another place by my noble Friend Lord Glentoran—although that is not the end of the story. I have a number of problems with the situation that could result from the amendment, and no others, coming back from the House of Lords, so I want to express them to the Minister, if I may.
We had hoped that the amendment would be replaced by another, which we thought, as a result of the voting last week, would have considerable support in the Lords. Such an amendment would, of course, have removed the provisions in respect of allowing ex-terrorists to be independent members of district policing partnerships and the creation of the sub-groups in Belfast on the ground that it is quite wrong to hold out such concessions at present. We should wait and see whether Sinn Fein-IRA and other paramilitary organisations are indeed serious about decommissioning and disbanding.
On that basis, there was considerable consensus on both sides of the Gangway on this side of the House, but, characteristically and as one could have anticipated—indeed, we did—the Liberal Democrats, who were prepared to use brave language last week, were rapidly rolled over in the Lords. They did not support in another place the amendment that they had supported here.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): Surprise, surprise.
Mr. Davies: Of course, none of us in my party is in the least surprised at what happened, nor are Government Members. I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) that such behaviour simply reinforces a general impression that the Liberal Democrat party is essentially frivolous,
irresponsible and not prepared to stand up in one Chamber of this Parliament for the position that it has taken up in the other. Indeed, we know that in other cases it was not prepared to sustain the same position from one week to the next, even in this Chamber.
David Burnside (South Antrim): Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), if he is prepared to intervene, so that he can tell the House why the Liberal Democrats have gone back on their word?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. No doubt the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Lembit Öpik : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman wants to answer now, I shall give way.
Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. To clarify, I am happy to explain the position, although that would more appropriately be done in my speech, should I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Davies: Well, at least we now have an assurance that we will get some explanation. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will use the rest of the time that I take up, which will not be very long, to prepare his explanation. An explanation of such a shift is certainly required in any democratic Parliament. Most of us who are elected to this place like to think that we stand for something, and we are prepared to be accountable for it. Indeed, our words are recorded in Hansard, presumably so that we can be held to account. For responsible politicians to behave as the Liberal Democrats regularly behave in this place is to make a mockery of our proceedings. It is extremely sad that that should happen on a matter of such importance.
We do not, however, as a result of the Liberal Democrats' change of mind—that may be the politest way of putting it—have that amendment to consider; we have another one, which is not so satisfactory. It states that the Government would not bring forward a statutory instrument to give effect to the new provisions in the Bill in relation to disqualification of ex-terrorists and the sub-groups, while the devolved institutions have been suspended—while direct rule persists and while there is no Assembly and Executive in Belfast. At first sight, any restriction—which it is—on the Government giving force to those new provisions in present circumstances is welcome. I must say, however, that the restriction is extremely limited—[Interruption.] If I may, I shall explain to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) the main deficiency in the amendment, which will enable her to respond to my view of it as a whole. If I am wrong, perhaps she will want to intervene, and I shall be delighted to give way to her so that she can correct me.
The restraint is not very reassuring or adequate, because if the Government are to call elections, as they have said, on 29 May, they must, as I understand it, at least momentarily restore the institutions in order to dissolve the Assembly. If the Government were so
minded, therefore, they could take the opportunity at that moment to bring forward the statutory instrument giving effect to these new powers. When the new Assembly is elected, on 29 May, I presume that it will sit whatever happens in terms of the peace process. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is basically the constitution of Northern Ireland, the Assembly has six weeks to agree on an Executive. During that period of up to six weeks, in which the Assembly is sitting, the circumstances might be that the necessary acts of completion, decommissioning and disbandment have not been carried out, and no real chance would exist of bringing together a power-sharing Executive including Sinn Fein. The Assembly might therefore meet under a considerable cloud, with a general sense of doom.As I have said many times from this Dispatch Box, in those circumstances, unless all these matters can be resolved, and it is clear that, after a six-week period, no agreement will be reached on an Executive, the only alternatives provided in the 1998 Act would be new elections or the suspension of the institutions and restoration of direct rule. Either of those would be a farce, and would send a clear signal to everybody that the whole Belfast process had failed. That would be very sad. Nevertheless, during that six-week period, the institutions would be working, devolution would be in force, and, under the amendment, the Government, if they so wished, could without further let or hindrance introduce the statutory instrument to give effect to the new powers in the Bill, of which we strongly disapprove in all circumstances except those involving a comprehensive and definitive settlement. Indeed, we have great reservations about those powers even in those circumstances.
Two major lacunae therefore exist in the protections afforded by the Lords amendment, and it is right to draw attention to them.
Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so gracefully. It is a lovely and welcome change, as he is sometimes resistant to taking interventions, so he is in good form this afternoon.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to address one particular aspect of the proposals? I noticed the words that he used: he said that that he welcomed what he regarded as an additional restriction. If an order were made by the Government lifting suspension, those Ministers who are currently suspended—which is a wonderful description—would go back into office. Two Democratic Unionist party members, however, who are unfortunately not here to speak for themselves—far be it from me to speak for the DUP—resigned before suspension was brought into force in October last year, and would not go back into office. Does not the hon. Gentleman regard that as a problem with the restriction, as he sees it, that we are considering this afternoon?
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I try to give way whenever I can. I did not when she sought to intervene in the debate last week because I had already said that I could not take any more interventions. I know that she will agree that, when there are time constraints, it is important to stand by such a declaration. Rather more notably, I refused to give way to the Minister of State last week because she refused to
give way to me. As I said then, reciprocity must apply in these courtesies. It was important to make that point. However, I do not think that the hon. Member for North Down will find that I have ever been reluctant in principle to give way.The hon. Lady sets out the position with regard to the DUP Ministers. No doubt she is right but she would not expect me, the Opposition spokesman, to give her a legal ruling on that. Whether that adds to my concern about the inadequacies of the amendment I do not know, but it certainly does not detract from it. I think that she will agree that there are those two opportunities at least—others may come out of the debate this afternoon—for the Government to introduce the statutory instrument, without any constraint in the Bill.
As hon. Members know, the Opposition are very worried about that. We are worried about statutory instruments being used for that purpose anyway. The Government know that, with their massive majority, they can always get them through. The problem with a statutory instrument is that one cannot amend it, whatever the circumstances and however they may have changed. Therefore, it is, as I have said before, a blank cheque. Nevertheless, this is a restriction. It does not go very far but it would be illogical, if we oppose a measure, to oppose some restriction on the measure. Therefore, we will not oppose the amendment.
I have, however, two immediate concerns. One has been brought to the fore by some of the remarks by the Minister of State about acts of completion. She recognised, and I am glad that she did, that many of us in the Opposition and in Northern Ireland, which is perhaps even more important, have the gravest doubts about the use of that word and see considerable suspiciousness in the Government's determination to talk about an abstraction when a concrete act is what is required.
As I have pointed out, to talk about acts of completion is a contradiction in terms. It is an oxymoron. One cannot have several acts of completion. If one is completing a process, that is one act. One cannot complete it again a second time the next day, the following Tuesday and the following month. It has either been completed or it has not.
Why are the Government using that oxymoron? Again, that can only excite the gravest suspicions. My first concern is that the Government may still have in mind that they wish to settle for something less than full decommissioning and disbandment of the IRA and of other paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. We should not settle for anything less than that.
If the settlement that it is now widely anticipated will be reached on Thursday is based on anything less than full decommissioning and full disbandment, it will not be a definitive settlement. It will not be closure. It will not be completion. Why? Because there will have to be another round and perhaps another after that and another after that. Until the Government say, "We will not settle for anything less than full decommissioning and disbandment," there will always be a paramilitary organisation there that has weapons, there will always be a question of how to negotiate to persuade them to get rid of those weapons and there will always be paramilitary organisations involved in training, procurement, recruitment and all the other things that
paramilitary organisations do. There will be a continuing threat to peace in Northern Ireland and to democracy in Northern Ireland and we will continue to have political parties that have a private army at their back. Therefore, we will not have achieved anything.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |