---

Lembit Öpik: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, that paragraph 13 of the declaration does not include organised crime? However, it has been frustrating that at every step the paramilitaries have done the minimum necessary to satisfy the Government. Hopefully, today's debate will create a clearer picture for the IRA and the other paramilitaries so that they understand that conditions concerning bombing and shooting are not the only ones that have to be met for the normalisation of the Province.

Mr. Trimble: It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to hang his hat on paragraph 13. If one looks at speeches made by the Prime Minister in 1998 one can see that his language is clearly broad enough to include criminality. Individuals who have recently made much of those comments should bear in mind the fact that he said at the time that the criteria and their application would necessarily become more stringent over time. In a transition, it is perfectly natural to expect criteria to be applied more stringently, and six or seven years into that period there is no basis whatever for failing to do so. In 2001, I considered that the motion was a mistake that would undermine the process: it would send republicans the signal that they could get away with it. Likewise, the activities of previous Secretaries of State, with their
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1733
 
rather unpleasant references to internal housekeeping when there was brutality of a not dissimilar nature to the McCartney murder, undermined the process.

The Government's failure to insist rigorously on the basic principles of the agreement is not helping at all, and is likely to reinforce among republicans the view that if they hunker down and wait, after a short and not even decent interval the Government, the Irish Government and others will return to negotiations with them. It will just be a matter of rehashing the usual steps. I suspect that even today, officials are trying to cobble together yet another deal on policing to entice republicans back to the process. To do so, against the background of the republican statements this week, is simply nauseating.

Having made clear my view of the motion, I shall go a little further. Reference has been made to the individuals who were returned to represent certain constituencies and their activities. I am not sure of the exact composition of the IRA army council today—changes are made to it from time to time for the convenience of the organisation—but three Members who were returned to serve in the House are or have in the recent past been members of that body. There is no serious doubt about that. The more significant question is what they have been doing, both now and in the recent past.

I have referred to the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) read out the text, which clearly says that senior members of Sinn Fein who were also senior members of the IRA—there are very few senior Sinn Fein members who are not senior members of the IRA—approved the robberies that were taking place. There is no doubt that some of the individuals involved in the execution of the robbery were very close indeed to the leadership of the republican movement. We do not know, but it is probable that the leadership knew exactly what was happening and thought that they could and would get away with it.

The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee, and actions that have been taken from time to time to suspend Members, reprimand them and so on. Occasionally, the House has gone further and expelled Members. That has been the case in comparatively recent times. A Member was expelled for telling a lie in Committee. He attributed dishonest motives to other Members when he himself was acting dishonestly. Another Member was expelled when he was convicted of the crime of forgery. He would have been disqualified because of the length of his prison sentence, but the House was not content to wait for that provision to take effect and expelled him. If the persons returned to serve in the House have not taken their seats and if they have been accessories to this crime, as the IMC report hinted, surely we should go further and follow those precedents. It would be proper to expel those persons from the House.

That is the reasoning behind my amendment, and I am glad that it has received the support of other hon. Members. It is entirely reasonable in the present circumstances to see what further information can be obtained about the activities of Members, for that information to be presented to the House and for the House to take the appropriate action.
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1734
 

Earlier, I said that at the time of the agreement republicans were locked into an arrangement that they did not like. I said that we could move them under pressure, and we did so to a significant extent. As a result, the situation in Northern Ireland is now quite different, so I make no apology for the decisions that we made in 1998, 1999 and 2000. It has become clear, however, that persons who were prepared to engage in politics are prepared to do so only up to a certain point. They are not willing to complete the transition and do what the Prime Minister has called for since October 2002. Their recent behaviour and statements give no indication that they are likely to change at all in future. We must therefore reassess the matter more fundamentally, and those who are now buying into the process must be careful not to become too eager.

3.29 pm

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I was one of those miscreants, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who informed your Office during the debate that I would like to speak. I apologise for that, and will speak as briefly as I can. I did so because I was loth to speak in the debate until I had heard what other hon. Members had said. I know that it is unusual to listen to other hon. Members—[Interruption]—indeed, it is unprecedented, but I thought that that would be best.

I want to raise three issues. First, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised a matter of principle and I respect him for that. It was the straightforward view that if someone is elected to this House and expects to receive the full privileges and income, they should be a full participant. That is a principled position, but there is a contrary argument that some people stand for election on a specific platform with a specific manifesto and tell their electorate that they will stand for election but not take office in the Chamber or swear the Oath. That mandate, whether we like it or not, has been given to a number of Sinn Fein Members by a majority vote, and we must respect the mandate of that electorate. That overrides the issue of whether they are full Members. We must respect the view of the people who elected them by a majority.

I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that a side issue is taxpayers' money. I accept that, but those who voted for Sinn Fein also pay taxes and may want some of it spent on their Members of Parliament—[Interruption.] I do not want to start a separate discussion on income tax and collection in Northern Ireland. A valid issue of principle has been raised, but there is a valid argument to the contrary.

The second, more important issue is whether sanctions should be applied when events affect the standing of individual Members. We heard from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the normal processes by which we apply sanctions against Members. I refer now to the bank robbery, and I shall refer later to the tragedy of Robert McCartney. Under the rule of law, the normal process is that innocence is presumed until someone is found guilty beyond all doubt. In the bank robbery case, if individuals had been brought to trial, found guilty and had a direct involvement with Members of this House, or if Members had been involved, the normal sanctions
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1735
 
would apply and the appropriate Committees of the House would have applied those sanctions. That has not happened.

Too many allegations in the past—for example, spy rings in Stormont and so on—were founded on intelligence that did not prove satisfactory in ensuring a prosecution. There is an argument, whether hon. Members like it or not—

David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McDonnell: I would rather not take interventions because I am subject to a time sanction, but I am happy to do so on this occasion.

David Burnside: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland there has been no investigation into the illegal fund raising or criminal activities of any member of the IRA's army council? Does he realise that in the history of the IRA's campaign no one has ever had the courage to stand up in a court of law and give evidence against those criminals?

John McDonnell: Let me respond by referring specifically to the bank raid. On numerous occasions in the House I have heard hon. Members say that evidence exists that leads conclusively to the fact that certain individuals were involved in the bank robbery, but since the Iraq war I no longer take such information on trust. If there is evidence, it should be brought forward in a court of law. Hon. Members have been arguing about that principle, and terrorism generally, for almost a week. I maintain that a matter of principle is involved in how we adhere to the traditions of this House and British justice.

The Robert McCartney tragedy moves us beyond any specific case that we have debated before. We would expect anyone with information about the murder to come forward and provide that information to the relevant authorities. We would expect any Member of the House to exercise responsibility in urging any witnesses to come forward. We are discussing the application of sanctions against Sinn Fein Members in connection with the Robert McCartney case, but during the past week or so they have been prominent in urging witnesses to come forward and give any information to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

There is an argument that witnesses should go directly to the police, but we have third-party reporting in my constituency because there has been a lack of confidence in the Metropolitan police among the black and ethnic minority community, and we have made arrangements, with the agreement of the police, for third-party reporting to other agencies. That has worked successfully. We are discussing sanctions in the Robert McCartney case, but Sinn Fein Members who were elected to the House have acted as we would have expected in terms of urgent co-operation with the relevant authorities in bringing information forward.

The third issue is even more important. The motion today is not significant in its financial consequences; it concerns the way in which the peace process can be
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1736
 
moved forward and where we go from here. Will the motion assist in moving the peace process forward to the ultimate conclusion that we want, of peace and justice, or will it impede that aim? I do not believe that it will have a dramatic effect. It might impede the process slightly for a number of reasons that have been given, in that there will be feelings of victimisation and some people may feel that it does not help to increase the dialogue that takes place informally here.

I am concerned that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has not had the opportunity to meet Sinn Fein Members here. Some of us have had that opportunity at open meetings. I am also concerned that the hon. Member for Upper Bann—I am sorry, I mean the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—has not had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister regularly. The Prime Minister does not talk to me much either, but I urge him to talk to the hon. Gentleman, because he may be the future First Minister in Northern Ireland.

---