---

David Winnick : I would be opposed to Sinn Fein, even if the organisation were not so closely linked with the IRA. I consider it a totalitarian organisation, and heaven forbid if it were ever to rule in Ireland. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a danger, particularly when Sinn Fein is rightly on the defensive over the brutal murder of Robert McCartney, of giving the organisation a sort of martyr status? It makes it easier for Sinn Fein Members to portray themselves to the electors of Northern Ireland as having been penalised by British parliamentarians and all the rest of it. In that light, is not the Leader of the House achieving the right balance in the motion?

Mr. Heald: It is certainly important to strike the right balance, but I believe that amendments (a) and (b) are required in order to send out the right message. Since the general election of 2001 and the time when the changes were made, we have not seen the full commitment that we expected to see from Sinn Fein-IRA, but experienced the problems that I have already outlined. In those circumstances, simply saying that some of the allowances will be removed for a short period is not the firm response that we would expect from the House. If we were to accept the amendments to the motion, it would highlight for the benefit of Northern Ireland voters what the House thinks about the response to the concessions that were made in the 2001 resolution.

Mr. Gummer: Is not one of the main problems the fact that the Government have not named the organisation that we are talking about? Is not the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) right that it would be much better if we said that we are making these changes in response to the actions of Sinn Fein-IRA? I believe that it would be much easier if we did that. Because we are not saying that, we have to deal with a very difficult lacuna. What do we do about people who do not want to come to the House for reasons that might, at some future time, be acceptable? I cannot think of an occasion at the moment, but some people have taken that view in the past. Should we not have pressed for the motion to be viewed as a specific response to what Sinn Fein-IRA has done?

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. There are two points here. First, all Members should be treated equally, and they are—or they were—in the sense that elected Members who take their seats receive
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1717
 
the benefits and those who do not take their seats do not get the benefits. That is why we opposed the original resolution in 2001, which we felt was creating two classes of Members. My right hon. Friend's suggestion would interfere with the principle that we want to maintain—that all Members are to be treated in the same way. Secondly, however, there is a strong case for a clear condemnation of the way in which Sinn Fein-IRA has behaved. I certainly agree with all the Members who have made that point. We have been very clear about that at all stages of the proceedings.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, it is a matter of principle for him that those who are either unable or choose not to take their seats in the House should not have office access. I presume that if it really is a matter of principle for him, those who are suspended from the House should also be denied access to their offices. [Hon. Members: "They are."] Is my understanding of his position correct?

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman may not realise it, but that is already the case. It is right that Members who take up their seats in this place should have all the facilities available to them, but it is a different matter if a Member is disciplined by the House.

I urge all right hon. and hon. Members who care about the traditions of the House and who are committed to peaceful and democratic politics in these islands to support the amendments.

2.15 pm

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) (SDLP): I want to make my position on this matter as clear as I did at the last Northern Ireland questions—I am not in favour of the motion. I have never been in favour of it for a number of reasons that I hope to explain. I am not going to vote in favour of it today. I come from a long tradition in relation to where I live and also to my family, which recognised the refusal to take or affirm an oath of allegiance as part of the nationalist or republican tradition. That is something that goes way back into Irish history and it runs very deeply in people that come from that tradition.

I immediately recognise two sets of principles, which have already been enunciated. It is an absolutely legitimate principle to say that anyone in this House or any democratic forum should have equality and that there should be only one set of rules by which people abide. I recognise that principle and I respect it as absolutely legitimate.

I am also aware of the other principle, as I have already mentioned. There is a curious pristine legitimacy about it. However, I see no pristine legitimacy in justifying a set of actions on the basis of principle, while saying, "Those are my principles; I am not breaking them; but, by the way, can I have the money on the side?" In many ways, that is what is happening here. The nationalist-republican tradition is the principle on which some Members justify not attending Parliament, yet that principle does not seem to get in the way of the allowances or advantages—financial and otherwise—that stem from Parliament.
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1718
 

It is difficult to have respect for a principled position—the shadow Leader of the House touched on it—when that principled position, in terms of its own definition, contaminates itself by having a hand out sideways for the money, while the principle is maintained in public. That is one of the reasons why I look upon the matter with a jaundiced eye.

There will be a lot of righteous indignation about the motion before the House. I recognise and respect that, but there will probably be little recognition of what lies at the heart of the issue—a disrespect for the institutions of Parliament shown by those who will take the money, but not come to put their case on the Floor of the House. People may have different political persuasions, but they must not disrespect our political institutions. In the Northern Ireland arrangement, that disrespect means that there can be little respect between political adversaries.

I want to make several minor points. We all know the value of publicity in the run-up to a general election. How much publicity could the Labour, Conservative, Democratic Unionist, Ulster Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour parties buy for £400,000? Could they buy as much as has been secured today, in this debate, by the party at which the motion is aimed? In my view, they most certainly could not. That party will milk today's debate, making it another grievance to add the list. It seems to thrive on the grievance culture, in which this motion will become another element. Every statement and interview by that party is permeated by a sense of victimhood, and many people will consider the unprincipled decision in this matter to have been taken by this House. For that reason, too, I regard the motion with a jaundiced eye.

Secondly, I want to look beyond today's debate. I do not want to talk about bank raids or recent murders or developments in Northern Ireland. The motion is part of the process by which negotiations are progressed through deals on the side. I do not accept that a shaft of light struck the Government, individually or collectively—but including the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—and that as a result they decided to propose this motion. That decision was made in negotiations with a political party, as a side deal to the other negotiations in hand at the time.

When was the issue discussed with the Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour parties? It was never discussed, as it belongs in the category of side deals. It is part of the goodies and sweeteners used to get and keep people on board. What effect does such a deal have on the real negotiations about very serious issues, or on the future? What will be its effect on those parties that negotiate in good faith? The harsh reality is that negotiations on Northern Ireland over the past seven years could provide a template, usable by any country in the world, for resolving conflicts by removing all the middle ground. Until the fault line in the negotiating process is recognised, the difficulties will continue and increase.

I was interested to hear various hon. Members say that the political process and mandate required that the party at which the motion is aimed has some presence at Westminster. I am one of those who have fought elections in which men with guns have stood at the
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1719
 
polling station door, telling people that they could not, and should not, vote. I have had the same guns thrust in my face and put to my head, and been told that it was disloyal of me to seek a mandate in an election, regardless of whether that election was for Westminster or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some people may consider such a mandate sacrosanct; my approach is different.

As I said, two sets of principles are at work. One is demeaned by the very people who pretend and maintain that they uphold it, but do today's debate and the crucible that is the recent past show that there is a need to re-examine the process of negotiation? There is a huge difference between the process of negotiation and its subject. The Good Friday agreement is the basis for the future, but the process of negotiation has served only to diminish its chances of success.

I have one final question, which I cannot answer. Like many other hon. Members, I will not be in the House when it is answered. The motion will be reconsidered in a year: what will happen then, if the money is still required by those who claim to uphold the principle on which the motion is based? What line will the Government of the day take? What will be the criteria governing the reintroduction of the provisions? Will they remain unchanged? Will they be reintroduced in a different form? Will Parliament say that a principle is involved and that it will stick to it?

In many ways, the debate will retain an element of schizophrenia. Beyond a certain point, the Government's position lacks logic. The same is true of my position, or of the position espoused by many of the people involved, and that is because the motion is based on an inherent illogicality. The feelings aroused are deep and legitimate—

---