---

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): It is nice that a voice from Northern Ireland who represents a majority of Unionists can finally be heard. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) was not even here at the beginning of the debate, but I have been sitting here since the House commenced.

Is it not strange that the Leader of the House's reason for doing this, which he is explaining from the Dispatch Box, is not mentioned in his motion? The only description of these people is that they did not take their seats. Are the Government afraid of naming these
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1707
 
people and the crime that they committed, which has been verified by the Independent Monitoring Commission? A commission that the Government set up found this out and exposed it. Why is not that mentioned in the motion?

Mr. Hain: It is not for me, as Leader of the House of Commons, to name the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. It is a matter for the police, who are mounting an investigation in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Government, takes a close interest.

I must now make progress because many hon. Members wish to speak and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reply fully to the debate.

Hon. Members will recall that the Independent Monitoring Commission made clear in its report that, had it been reporting when the Assembly was sitting, it would have recommended the exclusion of Sinn Fein Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive. In the absence of an Assembly, the commission's power to make recommendations is more limited and it therefore recommended that the Secretary of State should consider taking financial measures against Sinn Fein in the context of the suspended Assembly. My right hon. Friend has made clear his intention to do just that.

The House will, in due course, have the opportunity to debate that issue further in the context of a direction made by my right hon. Friend to suspend the payment of Northern Ireland party grants for a further 12 months. The commission also mentioned in its report other public money paid to Sinn Fein. Although it was outside the commission's scope to make recommendations about that, its comments have nevertheless led the Government to conclude that it was right that the House should have the opportunity to consider imposing a similar restriction on allowances paid to Sinn Fein Members of this House.

The motion before us today is an expression of the House's profound disapproval of the activities of the Provisional IRA and the responsibility that Sinn Fein shares for those activities in the estimation—that is the important point—of the Independent Monitoring Commission. However, the motion also takes account of the fundamental right of citizens in constituencies that have returned Sinn Fein Members to be represented.

Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): The Leader of the House mentioned the sanctions to be taken against Sinn Fein as a party. He knows that, when the House passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we made an exception for Northern Ireland political parties on accountability and foreign funding on the ground that some were all-Ireland parties. We had Sinn Fein in mind at the time. The regulations in the Republic have now changed and
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1708
 
parties there are accountable. Will the Government therefore consider repealing the relevant provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act?

Mr. Hain: The House has just renewed the measure, but the Government are in discussion with the Republic of Ireland Government and we will continue to monitor the position.

The balance involved is difficult to strike and it gives me no pleasure to bring forward the motion because I believe that every Member elected to this House should take his or her seat in the Chamber. Not to do so is a denial of the representation that their constituents have a right to expect, whether those constituents voted for the elected Member or not—indeed, whether they voted at all. That is important. Those in the constituencies of the four affected Members, even those who did not vote Sinn Fein, have a right to normal parliamentary representation. That is why we are taking away the £430,000-odd but leaving in place those Members' right to help their constituents through the facilities of the House.

Although we all acknowledge the political position of Irish republicanism, the Government believe that Sinn Fein Members should take their seats and participate fully in the democratic process, partly because we want them to be committed to exclusively democratic means and partly because their constituents have a simple right to that representation.

When the House voted in 2001 to grant allowances to Members who chose not to take their seats, it did that in recognition of the importance of those Members' fulfilling their duty to constituents. It is important and fair to say that the House was also mindful of the progress along the path to democracy made by Sinn Fein at that time. We all want continuously to encourage that progress and the motion is designed to do that.

It is the view of the British and Irish Governments and of international opinion that the progress has faltered and slipped backwards because of the activities of the Provisional IRA. That is what has changed since the House made its decision in 2001. However, neither the duty of Sinn Fein Members to their constituents nor those constituents' rights have changed, which is why I believe that the motion achieves the right balance.

Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): The Leader of the House mentioned international opinion. Is he aware of an opinion poll that the Belfast Telegraph published today? It gives the Democratic Unionist party 28 per cent. and Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party 20 per cent., with the Ulster Unionist party down on 16 per cent. That marks a significant decline in popular support for Sinn Fein-IRA from 26.3 per cent. in the European elections—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is wide of the scope of the debate.

Mr. Hain: I did not see the opinion poll, but I should think that the hon. Gentleman, as a representative from Northern Ireland, wants Sinn Fein and the important
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1709
 
constituency that it represents, whatever its rating in the polls, to be involved in and committed to the political democratic process. That is in the interests of us all.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely it is the duty of those elected to the House to serve in it. Those who decline to fulfil their democratic duties do not deserve the sort of support that they will continue to have even after the motion has been passed.

Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but several factors must be carefully balanced. First, the four Members are elected just as he is and just as I am. Their constituents have a right to representation just as his do. He represents them well and I try to do that for my constituents. We are imposing an important sanction—withdrawing nearly £440,000-worth of expenses, which help those Members to represent their constituents. However, access to the House's facilities remains to enable them to perform their duties.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): Is not one of the problems that Gerry Adams and his colleagues have never made sufficient use of the opportunity to visit the House and enable the rest of us, who disagree with many of their positions, to contact them, nobble them and press differing views? They took the money and ran. There is therefore a case for removing the money, although the argument about the facilities for serving constituents—that does not always have to be done by them but could be done by people whom they appoint—is pertinent.

Mr. Hain: I understand that point, but my hon. Friend will understand the republican view on whether Members should take their seats in a United Kingdom Parliament, although we disagree with it. In the past few years, as a result of Government decisions and the leadership that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown, there has been, until recently, increasing political mainstreaming of Sinn Fein in the democratic process. It is important not to lose sight of the opportunity to re-engage with that.

I know that some will argue that we should go further than today's motion and deny Sinn Fein the use of facilities in the Palace of Westminster—indeed, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and others have done that. However much we may disapprove of the activities of Sinn Fein, and however much we disapprove of the recent criminality of especially the Provisional IRA, the Government's view is that we should not give the appearance of denying the rights of the electorate. Whether we like it or not, that is how a decision to deny them access to their offices would be perceived.

I also believe that a decision to deny Sinn Fein access to facilities here would put the House out of step with the devolved institutions that many Members have tried so hard to construct and sustain in Northern Ireland. The Government have signalled their intention to renew the financial penalties imposed on Sinn Fein in the suspended Northern Ireland Assembly, but all Members of the Legislative Assembly continue to have access to the building and its facilities, and neither Unionist nor nationalist parties have suggested that that should be withdrawn.
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1710
 

For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to reject amendment (b). I also urge the House to reject amendment (a). I can understand the argument for simply withdrawing the allowances and considering at a later date whether they should be reinstated, but the Government believe that imposing a suspension of one year sends a better message and a clear time frame, thus encouraging the republican movement to put its house in order rather than rejecting its Members from Westminster.

---