| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): Much as I would like to believe that conversations that the hon. Gentleman or I or any other Opposition politician have had with Sinn Fein have led to the sort of differences that he thinks he has seen, does not he really believe that what has persuaded Sinn Fein to come up with some of the mealy-mouthed expressions of regret and condemnation of recent weeks has been nothing to do with that, but rather with the drive by the criminal enforcement agencies in the Irish Republic against its operations, and the unmitigated anger of Irish nationalists and republicans at the brutality of the murder of Robert McCartney?
Lembit Öpik: In part, I agree, but I have also had conversations with Sinn Fein and I personally judged that it is hurt—in a financial sense and a very real sense—by the sanctions that we are discussing today. If the hon. Gentleman has a different view, he has obviously had different conversations from mine with Sinn Fein and drawn different conclusions. One of the great things about democracy is that we are allowed to hold different views and I look forward to hearing his further views later in the debate, but what I find particularly confusing is the apparently contradictory position taken by the Conservatives when in opposition in comparison with the kind of things that they did when in government.
Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten, for example, that John Major was in communication with the IRA when it had not even instituted a ceasefire? Was he an apologist for the IRA? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting? I do not think so. I think that, despite my many criticisms of the Conservative Government at the time, one thing that they can be proud of is the risk that they took to initiate what went on to become the peace process. Taking the hon. Gentleman's absolutist view,
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1723
one can only condemn John Major as having taken an unreasonable step in giving Sinn Fein and the IRA succour by talking to them while they were still killing people.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman think that, possibly, his argument is founded on naivety, and that that is what astounds the House?
Lembit Öpik: Which would be more naive, I ask the hon. Gentleman: what I have been saying, which is founded on the basis of judgment, or allowing an amnesty for weapons, as was done—once again, under Prime Minister John Major—so that terrorists could give in their guns without any fear of legal cost? Once again, that was a courageous move by John Major and the then Government. Once again, there are those who now seem to criticise the resistance of some of us to removing the offices. That could be regarded by them as further kowtowing and playing into the hands of Sinn Fein and the IRA. Had it not been for the fact that John Major and other Conservatives were willing to take such risks at the time, it is possible that we would not have gone as far as we have.
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman said that he recognised, in his terms, that Sinn Fein had made progress, but is he aware of the comments made by Mitchel McLoughlin—a leading member of Sinn Fein—on RTE television after the Northern bank raid, when he said that the murder of Jean McConville, the mother of 10 children, was not a crime?
Lembit Öpik: Yes, I am. My judgment is that Sinn Fein has a terribly long way to go. Apropos of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it is little short of breathtaking to me that those in the IRA can conduct themselves as they have regarding the killing of Robert McCartney, go on to suggest that the murder of the murderers is in some way a just response to that and then expect that there will be no sanction against Sinn Fein as a result. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Sinn Fein and the IRA are still making astonishing and appalling mistakes and that they have managed in just a few months to harm significantly the public relations progress that they had made over many years, I agree with him, but the decision that we must make today is how best to maintain the pressure on Sinn Fein to try to do right in a very wrong situation.
It is my judgment that to take away the financial resource is an appropriate and measured response to what we have seen—£400,000, even to Sinn Fein, is a significant sum—and it illustrates that we are not satisfied with the performance of Sinn Fein and the IRA of late. Furthermore, I am encouraged that, at long last, it seems that the Government have done what the Liberal Democrats have been requesting for a long time by imposing the conditions of paragraph 13. Many times, Ministers have sought to avoid the inescapable fact that serious and organised crime in many ways constitutes a breach of the ceasefire. I hope therefore that today's debate is an indication that the Government will take more seriously the complaints
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1724
that many of us have made that the troubles are not simply confined to bombing and shooting, but include organised crime.
Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that organised crime is not specified in paragraph 13?
Lembit Öpik: I think that paragraph 13 makes it pretty clear that organised crime is included. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman held that view. I would have assumed that he agreed that it is quite a simple matter for Ministers to interpret serious and organised crime as part of the terms of that paragraph. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say about that point.
In conclusion, it is my judgment that we are right to impose the financial sanctions. Despite the Conservatives' apparent scepticism, about which I am surprised, the financial sanction will cause pain to Sinn Fein. In fact, I am surprised more than anything that the Conservatives feel that we are so ineffectual in the House that such measures are not taken seriously by others. However, it is appropriate to allow Sinn Fein to retain the office space for the reasons that I have given before. Furthermore, that allows us a further opportunity to return to increased sanctions if that is required.
I find the whole issue of sanctions against Sinn Fein manifestly vexing and emotive, as we have heard in our recent exchanges, but one must maintain a level head when dealing with Sinn Fein. One must ask what is objectively the most effective means to control the excesses of the IRA and what limited impact we can have through Sinn Fein. As a result, I will encourage my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats to vote for the motion and against amendments (a) and (b). I ask other hon. Members, including those who sit on the Conservative Front Bench, to subjugate their feelings to their values and to do what they think is right, rather than what they think is expedient.
2.46 pm
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). Usually, we are in agreement, but I am not in agreement with his views today, although I understand his reasons for saying what he said. I noticed that he said that the Liberal Democrats would have a free vote. I do not think that the Labour party will have a free vote. [Hon. Members: "We will."] We will have a free vote—good—because I put my name to amendments (a) and (b) anyway. Clearly, this is a parliamentary matter, and it should be decided on a free vote for all hon. Members. That allows myself and perhaps a couple of my colleagues whom I have sometimes supported and been involved with over the past couple of days to be on different sides on this issue.
I listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and what he talked about and the way that he said it were well worth listening to, even though we may come to a different view about how we vote. However, the clear issue is the huge hypocrisy of Sinn Fein-IRA. They do not respect Parliament. They do not respect you, Madam Deputy Speaker. They do not respect anything about this British institution, yet they are prepared to take British
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1725
taxpayers' money from my constituents to fund their political activity. That is rank hypocrisy. Of course, it is one of the reasons why, initially, I and many of my colleagues, even those on the Labour Benches, opposed the original decision—this precedent—to change the way that Members who do not take their seats are treated in the House. I said at the time that that would come back to haunt us. It is coming back to haunt us, and we are now having to go back and the Government are having to move to abolish the £400,000-odd that those Members get, but I do not think that that goes far enough.
The money, the offices and the facilities of the House are linked. When we go down the road of taking away the extra privileges—not a sanction—let us consider that those changes were made specifically as part of a genuine attempt by some Members to help the peace process. That attempt has clearly failed, so we should go back to square one. Square one means that those who are not prepared to take their seats should accept, as many nationalist Members have done over the years, that if they are elected to Parliament while Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, they have to take the good with the bad. The good means that they receive payment and facilities. The bad means that they have to take their seats, as some Members who feel very passionate about the future of Northern Ireland have done over the years.
I know that those people will plead martyrdom. Some Members have used that as a reason why we should not rescind what was agreed, but the reality is that those people will plead martyrdom whatever we do today. It seems rather strange that they will not plead martyrdom if we take away their money, but they will if we take away their offices.
Those Members do not come here very often and in any case they do not try to engage in dialogue, but I find it distasteful to have to sit at a table in Portcullis House, as I did last week, next to someone who, as I and everyone in the House know, is a terrorist and a member of the army council. I do not know quite what he was eating as I did not look that closely, but he was eating subsidised food. That is outrageous at a time when, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) pointed out, we are passing a measure that will take away the liberties of many, many people merely on suspicion—although I shall continue to oppose it if the House of Lords continues to maintain its position. We have more than a suspicion about the Sinn Fein Members of the House, certainly two of them.
I find it amazing that, once again, the Government are prepared to do nothing but hold out this carrot, when time after time their hand is bitten off and we still allow these things to continue. Today, there was an opportunity for the Government, backed by all the parties, to move forward and say once and for all that until Sinn Fein-IRA decides that it is a proper political party that will use democratic means and give up criminal activity and organised criminality, its members cannot be treated as normal politicians.
I shall obviously vote for the Government's motion, but I hope that in this free vote Members will realise that the motion does not go far enough. It will not be the
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1726
martyrdom of Sinn Fein; it will just make them feel that once again they have got away with whatever they want. We must not allow that to happen any longer.
2.52 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |