| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): As always, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in giving us advance knowledge of the contents of his statement.
The IMC report of 10 December could not have been clearer. It backed the opinion of both the British and Irish Governments, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana in attributing
22 Feb 2005 : Column 173
responsibility for the biggest bank robbery in British history and for other serious crimes to the Provisional IRA. The IMC went further:
"senior members, who are also senior members of PIRA, were involved in sanctioning the series of robberies".
Does the Secretary of State share that grim assessment? Does he endorse the IMC's judgment that Sinn Fein leaders were personally responsible for those crimes? Does he agree with the Republic of Ireland's Defence Minister, who said at the weekend:
"We are no longer prepared to accept the farce that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. They are 'indivisible'"?
The Secretary of State will have noted Mr. Adams's remarks at the weekend, when he denied once again that republicans are involved in criminality. We know from the recent comments of Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin that the republican movement still decides for itself what constitutes a crime, in the bizarre belief that it constitutes the legitimate Government of the whole island of Ireland. Does the Secretary of State recall how republicans initially denied responsibility for the murder of Garda officer McCabe, for the abduction and murder of Mrs. Jean McConville, for the Enniskillen bombing and for a catalogue of murders and other violent crimes? In the light of that record, does he agree that we should treat Mr. Adams's weekend comments with utter disbelief?
We shall support the sanctions announced by the Secretary of State today. Those of us who have advocated the suspension of parliamentary allowances for some time are glad that the Government have come round to our point of view, but it should not have taken Ministers so long to acknowledge that their decision to grant those allowances was badly misjudged. There is no statutory limit on the period for which parliamentary allowances, rather than Assembly allowances, can be suspended, so why does the Secretary of State propose to restrict that period to 12 months only? Many hon. Members, particularly, but not only, on this side of the House, have consistently taken the view that Members who refuse to take their seats and accept responsibility for representing all their constituents should not be entitled to claim the allowances that go with the discharge of those responsibilities.
Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government's proposals mean that Sinn Fein MPs will still be entitled to offices at the Palace of Westminster and whether Sinn Fein MPs will still be able to give House of Commons passes to their staff, even if those staff salaries have to be met from Sinn Fein's alternative sources of funding?
The reality is that the inclusive, power-sharing devolution envisaged in the Belfast agreement is sadly no longer practical politics until the republican movement has clearly and permanently put an end to its involvement in crime and its paramilitary structure. Does the Secretary of State agree that direct rule is now set to last for years rather than months? Given that time scale, is it not time for the Government to end the effective veto that they appear to have given Sinn Fein
22 Feb 2005 : Column 174
over any political progress and to try to move forward with those parties that are committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics, so the people of Northern Ireland can get a greater say over the major public services on which they rely? Last autumn at Leeds castle, the Prime Minister said that if that attempt at a comprehensive settlement failed, the Government would look for a different way forward. He made a promise, and it is time for the Government to deliver on it.
Finally, the Secretary of State will be aware of the Irish Justice Minister's description of Sinn Fein-IRA as a "criminal conspiracy". In recent days, we have probably seen only the tip of a criminal underworld of mafia-type dimensions that threatens the rule of law in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I warmly welcome yesterday's announcement of enhanced co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda, and I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the Secretary of State and Justice Minister Michael McDowell to strengthen the effort by the two Governments to combat organised crime in both jurisdictions. Will the Secretary of State give the House an absolute guarantee that the police and all other agencies will have his and the entire Government's unreserved support in their efforts to root out paramilitary crime, and that there will be no holding back in that effort wherever or to whomever those investigations might lead?
Mr. Murphy: On the final point, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government will expend all their attention and effort on making sure that we root out organised crime in Northern Ireland, not only in the republican movement but elsewhere. Yesterday's co-operation at Hillsborough is important, because it is the best example for many years of co-operation in dealing with criminality.
The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions about the political process in Northern Ireland. I am not in a position to say that direct rule will go on for years, which is not something that I want to happen—far from it. The people of Northern Ireland deserve their own Government and Assembly and to run their own affairs. To that end, different political parties and others in Northern Ireland make suggestions that the Government must examine carefully. However, if there is to be local Administration—whatever form it takes—it cannot happen without cross-community agreement about how it occurs. That depends especially on the SDLP's position and views on the matter.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the IMC and referred to the link between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. I have no reason to disbelieve the IMC report. We have always maintained that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked and part of the same movement. Yesterday, the Taoiseach described them as two sides of the same coin. The Government believe that that is exactly the case.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise what constitutes crime and criminality. In answer to a question that he posed at Northern Ireland questions, I believe that the idea that individual parties can define what they believe crime and criminality to be is preposterous. The Government share his view on the definition of crime
22 Feb 2005 : Column 175
and criminality. We will root out paramilitary activity and criminality, wherever it might be, in Northern Ireland.
The Organised Crime Task Force, to which I referred earlier, takes into account all the agencies in Northern Ireland, such as the Assets Recovery Agency, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the police and Departments, all working together to ensure that, at whatever level and wherever it may happen, criminality is rooted out and tackled.
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) (SDLP): I do not intend to waste much time on financial penalties. We opposed them in the negotiations before the joint declaration. We spoke against them in the House of Commons when the legislation that set up the Independent Monitoring Commission was considered and we will do so again today. The IRA and Sinn Fein thrive on victimhood and grievances. The House should not facilitate that by handing them any more.
On a matter of substance, the Secretary of State may recall that in the IMC debate on 17 September 2003, I repeatedly asked why "organised crime" was omitted from the list of activities that article 4 of the draft agreement and paragraph 17 of the joint declaration specified. I did not get an answer. I shall try again. Why have not the two Governments specifically included "organised crime" as one of the issues to be monitored in the legislation that set up the IMC, in the joint declaration of 2003 or in the so-called comprehensive agreement of 2004? When the Secretary of State answers that question—I hope I will get an answer this time—will he speculate on the effect it might have had on recent events if the two Governments had made it clear on those three occasions that organised crime was to be targeted in the same way as other matters?
Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's position on sanctions, but the time has come for the House of Commons and the Government to show their disapproval, especially of the events of past weeks. However, I agree that the onus and emphasis in any debate on such matters should be on the criminality and the criminal activity of the IRA. He rightly says that he has pressed that on more than one occasion, in Hillsborough and in the Chamber.
Earlier, I quoted from paragraph 12 of the joint declaration of April 2003. It states that
"ongoing paramilitary activity, sectarian violence and criminality masquerading as a political cause are all corrosive of the trust and the confidence that are necessary to sustain a durable political process."
Paragraph 13 referred to, for example, so-called punishment beatings, which are criminal activities. All add up to a collapse of trust and confidence among parties in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 17 also refers to such activities.
However, I stress to my hon. Friend that today is an opportunity for the House of Commons to express its disapproval of what has occurred and also for us to reflect on the fact that only way in which we can make progress is through the end of criminality in all its forms.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |