| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend will understand, because he was deeply involved in the negotiations in the run-up to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, that the idea of an inclusive Executive—based, as it must be, on non-violent, peaceful and democratic means—was the objective of everyone in Ireland, north and south. That is what people voted for. The problem that we now face is that decommissioning has not happened in the way in which we all thought that it should, over a period of just two years, as we agreed.
My hon. Friend is also right about criminality. In 1998, everyone thought that there would be a transitional period in which there would be a withering away, as it were, of criminality and all the other activities that paramilitaries get up to. However, the reality is that the robbery of the Northern bank and other activities show that it has not gone away. Unless we address that issue, the trust necessary to restore the Executive will never be there. We must therefore emphasise to the Provisional IRA—and, indeed, to loyalist groups—that, unless criminality is abandoned, we shall not make any progress towards the political stability that we want in Northern Ireland.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): We will, of course, support the sanctions that the Secretary of State has mentioned, but I have to say to him that he could have, and should have, gone much further. Perhaps he recalls the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), saying at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government in September 2003 that
that is, the power to exclude from an Executive—
"in a manner consistent with the IMC recommendations."—[Official Report, 17 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 982.]
Yet all that is saving Sinn Fein from exclusion from office in an Assembly now is the Government's decision to continue suspension. I regard that as a failure to comply with that undertaking, and I urge the Secretary of State to look again at the matter.
Does the Secretary of State also realise that his failure to act on this matter reinforces the suspicion that all that the Government want to do is to let a little time pass by before they reheat the DUP-Sinn Fein deal of last December? He must realise that that will not work. It probably would not have worked then, and it certainly will not work now. It is possible to establish a cross-community Executive, but not one including the republican movement. Consequently, if he will not recall the Assembly, we are left with the only realistic course, which is to try to democratise direct rule as soon as possible.
Mr. Murphy:
On that last point, I am sure that there is a lot of opportunity for debate on what democratising direct rule would mean. The earlier point represents the
22 Feb 2005 : Column 180
right hon. Gentleman's view, which he has held very sincerely over the last couple of weeks in particular, that there should an end to the suspension, that the Assembly should be recalled and that an attempt should be made, having excluded Sinn Fein, to set up a cross-community Executive. If I thought that was workable, I would think there was some merit in the point, but, as he knows, there must be cross-community support on that particular issue. Obviously, work has to be done with regard to that matter.
As I said in my statement, we are not going to rule anything out or anything in. We must not have closed minds to any particular suggestions, because, whatever happens, it seems to me, direct rule is the worst of all options. There should be an attempt to plug that democratic deficit in whatever the best way possible. We will continue to consider different options in that respect.
Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): May I welcome in particular the part of my right hon. Friend's statement that sets out further strengthening of the Garda in the Republic and of the Northern Ireland police, especially as this phase can be brought to an end only when the perpetrators of the Northern bank robbery, and indeed of the recent murder in west Belfast, are identified, brought to trial and put behind bars? As the evidence for who those people are almost certainly rests with the Sinn Fein political party and the republican communities, is it not time for the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister to make it absolutely clear that now, any elected representative in either state will be expected to co-operate with the police in either country to bring those criminals to justice and put them behind bars? Is it not time to insist that elected political representatives take their full responsibility within their communities and do not pick and choose, saying, "We can manage to avoid co-operating with the police against criminality"?
Mr. Murphy: On co-operation, my hon. Friend is right on two counts. The first is the question of co-operation between the two police services. It has never been better, and there was evidence for that yesterday in the signing of the protocols at Hillsborough castle. The success of the different police investigations over the last few weeks is also evidence of that close co-operation. Secondly, she is of course right that everybody in Northern Ireland, whatever their political or religious background, should be co-operating with the police to find the perpetrators of murder and of robbery.
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): The Secretary of State might have read the line in this morning's Irish Independent:
"Perhaps the only thing the Provos do better than knee-capping, drug-dealing and gutting people from navel to sternum is wounded indignation".
He mentioned his meeting yesterday with Michael McDowell, the Irish Justice Minister, who has been unequivocal in saying that Sinn Fein and the IRA are the same organisation, and has named their leadership as Adams, McGuinness and the Irish Sinn Fein TD Martin Ferris.
In the context of the fact that five men were jailed in Dublin yesterday simply for membership of the IRA, can the Secretary of State tell us what the Home
22 Feb 2005 : Column 181
Secretary meant when, during the earlier statement, he answered several questions about the application of his prevention of terrorism measures to Northern Ireland by saying that he would defer to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was about to make his statement?
Mr. Murphy: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was not here and that I did not hear that statement, but I will discuss those matters with my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman is also right to point out again the linkage between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. That is why we are in the Chamber today, dealing with the issues that we have to deal with.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Is membership of this House compatible with membership of the army council? If not, what action does the Secretary of State propose to take against those individuals who have a dual mandate?
Mr. Murphy: Any action against individuals on membership of illegal organisations is obviously a matter for the police. The Chief Constable will deal with any illegality.
Mr. Murphy: As far as the House is concerned, that is a matter for the House itself. It will have an opportunity to debate those issues in a couple of weeks when the Government table their motion.
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): Will the Secretary of State confirm that the comprehensive agreement, unlike the previous dispensation under the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), which allowed Sinn Fein to be in government while it continued its criminal enterprises and terrorist activities, required of Sinn Fein-IRA that they decommission all their weapons verifiably and transparently, that they end all criminal and paramilitary activity before ever being in government, and that there would be a testing period so that the assessment could be made as to whether that was indeed so?
Does the Secretary of State stand by the man whom he said in his statement he has some admiration for—the Justice Minister of the Irish Republic—who clearly, with the same information at his disposal as the Secretary of State, named Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris as members of the IRA army council? Does not the Secretary of State fear naming those people in those positions because of the impact that that would have on the Government's policy of inclusivity? Does he not accept that many people in Northern Ireland are somewhat embarrassed that there is more robust action from the Government of the Irish Republic than from our own Government?
In terms of the financial penalties that the Government are considering, will they consider also the fact that this Government regulate payments to the European Parliament and whether Sinn Fein's MEP
22 Feb 2005 : Column 182
should be punished in like manner? Will they also look at those who are in local government and the benefits they accrue?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |