| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): I am very concerned because I believe that the motion contains an indication of future Government policy. Only one crime is mentioned and that is that those people have not taken their seats.
People have told me that they are amazed by the IRA. I reply that if they had lived among the IRA as I and my people have done, they would not be surprised. Because they are elected Members, there is nothing now or even when we have passed the motion to bar them from coming to this place. They can do as they did in Stormont; they can take the Oath in whispers so that nobody can hear them. They can sign the book and walk out and our motion will be finished. Finished. There is only one crime—that they do not take their seats.
I fear that the motion is but a preparation to open the door again to the IRA in a year's time, or perhaps before. I am amazed that the Leader of the House said that we want to keep them in the democratic process. They have left the democratic process. Some of us came to the House and sat on these Benches, and as proper democrats made known our views on policy. For two and a half years, the Prime Minister of this country would not speak to me. Although I attended the House, he would not speak to me. Nobody in the House said, "That's a shame". When they want Government policy to go ahead, they do not worry about who is hurt.
I regret that this is probably the last time that we shall hear the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) in this place. On the last occasion he spoke, he mentioned side issues—only the people concerned know what they are getting, no one else knows. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many differences, as he knows, but we can at least come to the House and exchange views—
Sir Patrick Cormack: He is an honourable Member.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Indeed. If the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh had stayed in the House long enough, he might even have been a right hon. Member.
However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh's interpretation of history. As I understand Irish history, the nationalists were keen to come to the House in the old days. They were keen to take the Oath and to declare which side of the House they supported. It seems to me that it is the republican element that brought in boycotting and the refusal to take the Oath. But that is a question for another day.
I am greatly concerned about what will happen when we pass the motion. We are to wait a whole year, but in a year's time, nothing will change and eventually the door will open again to IRA-Sinn Fein.
I have worked all my pastoral life in the Short Strand area. I have been there for about 57 years and I know the area better than anybody in the House. I know the people of the area. Because of the terrible murder that took place, those people were prepared to come out into the open. I salute their heroism and determination, and
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1727
I hope that they achieve what they are after. If the IRA had shot the people who were named after that murder had taken place, would the House still be doing what it is doing today? Of course it would. The same arguments that we have heard today would be put—that we do not want to make martyrs of them and so on and so forth.
I do not know when all of this will end. I have before me a paper that was given to the Prime Minister and the chief of police. It gives information about what were known as the killing fields of Northern Ireland—south Armagh—and describes many incidents that took place. It is a plea from people whose friends were murdered that the police will do something about it.
The document lists the activities of Thomas Slab Murphy, who is well-known to people in Northern Ireland. It names Michael Carragher, who was an infamous IRA sniper, James McArdle, a leading IRA member, and Eddie Magill of Pointzpass and lists the accusations made against them. It also mentions John Gerard Hughes and his influence in the smuggling racket. It describes the system operated by Collins and Collins the estate agents. People in the area believe that it set up false companies to obtain VAT numbers for the criminal use of others.
Those matters have been placed in the hands of the Prime Minister and the police, yet no real action has been taken. Are those people beyond the bounds or does the writ of the law of the House run in that area? The law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland look at what goes on in the House. Over the past week, they have heard our debates and have heard the Government emphasise that there could be more terrorist activity, yet terrorist activity is going on and nothing is done about it. That is why the people of Northern Ireland feel that we must tell the Government that it is not peace at any price; it must be peace on the basis of democracy, fairness and justice. After all, those are the words coming from Short Strand: "Give us justice. We do not want indicative anger, and we refuse to take the IRA's guns and say, 'Use them to shoot people,' because who knows who is guilty until the right word is passed?"
One thing is certain: those who have already been dealt with by the IRA in order to get certain information out of them suffered in their bodies, and they cannot be produced so as to see what sufferings they endured, so do not think that it was easy for the IRA to get the information it has put out; it came the same way as violence comes, and the persons involved suffered.
This is the situation we face. What worries me is not only the money taken from the Northern bank, but the fact that there have been other terrible robberies, involving £10 million worth of tobacco and cigarettes. The Independent Monitoring Commission has noted that the IRA is responsible for those robberies. So, another £10 million is involved, as well as all the other pounds it lifts in levies throughout the country. The knock at the door comes and so much is levied. The IRA knows what people earn and where they work, and that is it.
When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I talked to a constituent who told me that at one election she had three visits from five men, who came to remind her that there was an election on and that she must vote.
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1728
That woman would not have been voting for them anyway, but she told me, "I saw them coming, I stood at the door with them, they gave me the message and they left." Ten days afterwards they were back again, as they were the day before the election.
Are we going to allow the people of Northern Ireland to suffer in that way? The House must take a strong stand. We have heard some strong words from the Government and from Labour Members, who say that we must deal with terrorism. They need to deal with terrorism now, in the backyard of our country. They must deal with it thoroughly and with all the strength they can muster.
I make a plea to the House, no matter how we vote on this weak motion, which should have mentioned the IRA. We are not putting these people out because they did not take their seats. Nobody believes that. They are being put out because of the happenings, their cruelty and their terrorism. Why not tell the people the truth?
I do not often agree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but even he admitted that the point I was making is valid. It is valid. Why do we not mention the sins of these people, for which they are to be punished, instead of clothing the issue with this motion? I regret that we are not going to have the two good amendments, to which some of us, along with others, put their name.
Also, we need to remind ourselves that these same people are Members of the Legislative Assembly; they will still get their money. These same people are councillors; they will still get their money. These same people have an MEP; she will get her full money from this House and the privilege given with it.
The Government are not dealing radically with this issue. Let us face up to all the elected representatives who are in this movement and deal with them. Only in that way will they see sense and see that the game is up: no longer will violence or murder and mayhem pay. We are going to take the democratic road to peace for the future for all the people of Ulster.
3.4 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North) (Lab): This is a difficult motion. It is difficult for some of the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), because it conceals a lot of issues and events that we are talking about. It is difficult also because I am not certain of its value. I do not believe, in the way that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) believes, that it will do a great deal of financial harm to Sinn Fein.
The motion is difficult for me for another reason: this is the first time on record that I can think of that I will differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), as I shall vote for the Government and against both amendments.
On the question of the Oath, I believe that people who do not accept that we should have a monarchy and people who perhaps challenge the right of this island to govern that part of the island of Ireland in which they live should not be expected to take an oath of loyalty to a Head of State who disagrees with their philosophical and national ideas. I believe that they should have the opportunity of coming here and affirming or affirming
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1729
an oath, saying they will carry out their duty to the best of their ability in the interests of their constituents. That should suffice.
For those of us who wish to take an oath of allegiance, that should still be an option, but I believe that nobody should be debarred from the House on the basis of an oath that they are expected to take. We did that in respect of Catholics, Jews, Quakers and others. I do not see why we should do it in respect of people who have a philosophical objection as republicans.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |