| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Cormack: A sunset clause.
Mr. Hain: No, actually, it is not a sunset clause in the sense that the Conservatives propose for the terrorism Bill, because that Bill would die with their sunset clause. It is much more akin to the Government's proposal to renew the order at the end of the year.
We will, of course, consider an extension to the suspension if circumstances do not change. That is an important point, which I want to underline and repeat: we will consider an extension to the suspension if circumstances do not change.
Mr. Trimble : I tried to intervene earlier when the Leader of the House was drawing a distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA in relation to his reference to the activities of Sinn Fein and, subsequently, to the criminality of the IRA. Will he take into account what the Independent Monitoring Commission said, in that it made clear that the criminal activities of republicans were known and approved by leading members of Sinn Fein? The distinction that he draws is therefore not upheld by the IMC, which is quite clear that leading Sinn Fein members knew and approved of the Northern bank raid. He is therefore wrong to draw the distinction, and that is highly important in relation to his point about Sinn Fein Members as persons who are elected as if they were normal politicians. That point has been lost.
Mr. Hain: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but as the Leader of the House of Commons I have a responsibility, with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to take a balanced view and to assert the principles of the House while bearing in mind the need for further progress to cement in the peace settlement.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): I am disappointed that the Leader of the House will not accept amendment (a). Can he tell the House what criteria will be used to judge whether these allowances will automatically be given back next year? Will a criterion be whether there is a move in the peace process, so called? How will he judge it? Alternatively, will it just be an automatic one-year suspension? It is important that we know what will determine whether this money is given back next year.
Mr. Hain:
First, we will want to take advice from the Independent Monitoring Commission. That is crucial. I am sure that my hon. Friend would regard verified evidence of an end to criminality, a commitment to an intensification of the peace process and an absolute commitment to the democratic process as reasonable.
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1711
I am sure that my hon. Friend and others who have properly pressed me on this matter will also understand that we are light years away from where we were. Last year, four people were killed as a result of terrorist activity. In the bad old days, 497 people were killed. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is now lower than it has been for 30 years. More tourists are going to Northern Ireland than there are residents there. The situation has been transformed. What we need to do, in part by keeping Sinn Fein in the democratic process and the whole republican movement committed to it, and in part by continuously seeking to work to achieve that, is to create a new future for Northern Ireland in which peace, stability and economic prosperity will be locked in for good.
David Winnick : Is there not a danger of losing the wider picture? While the IRA can claim that it was never defeated militarily, politically, it and Sinn Fein were defeated. Northern Ireland is as much part of the United Kingdom—of course, that is the wish of the majority—as it was before the IRA started its war of terror. Would not it be wise to recognise that, if anything, the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom has been strengthened by the Good Friday agreement and the right of consent that is recognised as such?
Mr. Hain: I would prefer to put it in a different way: the Good Friday agreement has locked in bitter opponents of the Union with those most fervent supporters of the Union in a common democratic endeavour in Northern Ireland. That is the prize as a result of the leadership that has been given by the Prime Minister, and we must continuously seek to regain that prize and make sure that it is fully implemented and cemented in.
In a place that cherishes the fundamental principles of democracy, it is deeply dispiriting to have to impose penalties on Members who have not lived up to those principles, but I believe that this motion is a just and proportionate response. By withdrawing public subsidy for Sinn Fein Members, it underscores the disapproval of all true democrats for what has happened. I commend it to the House.
1.55 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out 'for a period of suspension of one year commencing on' and insert the words 'as from', instead thereof.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss amendment (b), in line 5, leave out from 'effect' to end.
Mr. Heald: This debate is a direct result of the refusal by Sinn Fein-IRA to end all forms of paramilitary and criminal activity. Seven years after the Belfast agreement, they have still to commit themselves fully to what that agreement calls
That is why we have had no devolution in Northern Ireland since October 2002. It is why the Government have brought forward this motion today.
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1712
Last year, Sinn Fein Members claimed almost £500,000. They did not speak here, question Ministers, vote or table written questions on behalf of their constituents. Since the beginning of 2002, they have been able to use the facilities of the Commons that are available to right hon. and hon. Members who take their seats and do the job.
Mr. Barnes: The Leader of the House misunderstood the intervention that I made earlier. I was supporting the Government's position, which is quite unusual for me at the moment. My argument is that not only do Sinn Fein Members not do many of the things that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but they do not attend the Building so that the rest of us can have access to and discussions with them. I have talked to all leaders of Northern Ireland political parties, but only once in a great number of years of being interested in Northern Ireland have I had an opportunity to have a private conversation with Gerry Adams. That particular avenue led to some benefit.
The Sinn Fein Members should have been here. They have not made use of that opportunity, so it should now be removed from them.
Mr. Heald: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Sinn Fein Members have not lived up to their democratic responsibilities. In effect, we are granting them rent-free, taxpayer-funded, fully-staffed offices, which seem to be used for propaganda purposes.
The original motion put forward by the Government was always unacceptable to my party and to many others in the House. We have two objections: the first is on the issue of principle; the second is on whether the tactical concession was ever really right. The official Opposition have always believed that it is simply wrong to allow Members who refuse to take their seats to enjoy the same rights as Members who do. We echo the views of the then Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, who said:
"I feel certain that those who choose not to take their seats should not have access to the many benefits and facilities that are now available in the House without also taking up their responsibilities as Members.—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 35.]
Later that year, she met the Sinn Fein MPs and upheld her decision. She said:
"I pointed out that my decision does not discriminate against Sinn Fein: it applies equally to any Members not taking their seats for any reason. Those who do not take up their democratic responsibilities cannot have access to the facilities at Westminster that are made available to assist Members".—[Official Report, 4 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 487.]
Jeremy Corbyn
: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Members who have been elected have a duty to represent their constituents? The Sinn Fein Members always made it clear that they would not take their seats here, as they do not believe that the British Parliament should ultimately have jurisdiction, I suppose. They seek to represent their constituents at a local level, however, through letters and so on. By taking away the funding, we are punishing their constituents. The message to their constituents is that we are not prepared
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1713
to provide the financial wherewithal to employ staff to undertake the work that we all employ staff to undertake on behalf of our constituents.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |