You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Debate
Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): We have been dealing with two related questions: first, the parliamentary question of whether there should in effect be two classes of Member; and secondly, whether, if the conduct of Sinn Fein-IRA merits sanctions, the motion tabled by the Government is adequate and proportionate in addressing that.

However we vote this afternoon, the impact on Sinn Fein will not be much beyond the symbolic; we should be under no illusions about that. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said that the withdrawal of the financial allowances would hurt Sinn Fein, but I question whether an organisation that thrives on criminal enterprise will have to tighten its belt very much whichever way we vote.

Lembit Öpik: I agree that anything we may do is marginal, but it will have some limited effect. I believe that the primary impact will be to add to the public relations difficulties that the Sinn Fein organisation has generated for itself largely by its inability to rein in the excesses of the IRA.

Mr. Lidington: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is being incredibly naive in believing in this distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA. Neither the British
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1743
 
Government, nor the Irish Government, nor the police on either side of the border are prepared to share that belief with him.

I shall briefly spell out the effect of our amendments. Amendment (a) would make the 12-month suspension of allowances indefinite, while amendment (b) would extend the scope of the motion to cover other parliamentary privileges. Taken together, they would restore the position to that established by Speaker Boothroyd's ruling after the 1997 general election.

Let me come first to the parliamentary argument, which was dealt with particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). There should not be two classes of Member. We are sent here to represent our constituents—those who voted for us and those who did not alike. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the allowances, offices and staff passes are there to enable us to do our job of representing those constituents—they do not come to us as of right—and the same set of rules should apply to every Member of Parliament.

The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) acknowledged that Sinn Fein's policy of abstention goes beyond the Oath alone. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) observed, that policy amounts to a deliberate and calculated rejection of the existing constitutional and legal order in the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) commented that the Provisional IRA considers itself the legitimate Government of the whole island of Ireland. That is a theological and ideological belief that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) illustrated well when he reminded us that Mr. Mitchell McLoughlin recently denied that the abduction and subsequent murder of Mrs. McConville was a crime because, in Sinn Fein-IRA's view, it is for the IRA council to decide what constitutes legality and illegality anywhere on the island of Ireland.

The Government justified the change that they introduced in 2001 on the ground that it would help the political process. Despite the fact that it represented a break from the way in which the House of Commons had traditionally treated all Members alike, in the Government's judgment it was a necessary move to engage republicans more fully in the democratic process and to recognise the transition that the republican movement was making from terrorism to exclusively democratic politics. However, the motion is not an adequate or proportionate response to recent events.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Garda Siochana and the Independent Monitoring Commission all declare that Sinn Fein both knew and approved of not only the Northern bank robbery but a sequence of recent serious crimes. Those comments were made before the savage murder of Mr. Robert McCartney. As the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out, crime, violence and intimidation are still rife, especially in areas such as south Armagh and parts of Belfast, where paramilitary gangs prey on the people whom they claim to protect.
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1744
 

The action that the Government should take is not what the motion proposes; it is to stop giving Sinn Fein an effective veto over any political progress in Northern Ireland. We cannot wait indefinitely for the republican movement to make the transition. It is time for the Government to move forward with the democratic nationalist and Unionist parties. That is a subject for exploration and debate on another occasion.

The main argument against the Opposition amendments that Members on the Government side of the House, especially the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, present is that accepting them would allow republicans to pose as martyrs. Given that the hon. Gentleman has made the argument, I respect it and I reflected on it before reaching a judgment on the motion and amendments. Nevertheless, I believe it to be mistaken. Of course republicans will pose as martyrs and victims—it is part of their stock in trade. However, if we tie our hands by refusing to take action for fear that they will pose as martyrs, we end by granting them virtual immunity, however grave their actions or failure to deliver on democratic promises. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said, the history of recent years suggests that republicans move only when they are put under pressure—and then, I would add, only at the last practical moment.

Today, despite many years since the agreement during which the Government have bent over backwards to help republicans make the transition to democracy, we remain in a position whereby the Provisional IRA retains its active military structures, with the capacity for terrorism, uses crime to raise money and intimidate nationalist communities, and retains stocks of illegally held guns and explosives. The onus now should be on the republicans to end their involvement in crime, to stand down the IRA as an effective military force, to turn it into an old comrades association, and to decommission the weapons that they ought not to hold and which, given their repeated promises to be committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics, they have no reason to keep. It is just not enough to say, as the Government motion does, that we will suspend the allowances for 12 months, and then Parliament will consider the matter again and see whether the republicans' behaviour has improved.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): Is there not a parallel in the Government motion leaving the door open for Sinn Fein in the forlorn hope that it might reform itself? While the Government say that Sinn Fein and the IRA are doing wrong, they are still not prepared to say that democracy in Northern Ireland should proceed without them.

Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many different models of democratic progress could be explored, which the different democratic parties have put forward to the Government. While, in my view, the idea of a fully inclusive devolved Executive remains desirable, it is clear that that is not practical politics in anything but the longer term, given what has happened over recent months. We must declare in how we vote this evening our belief that it is now up to republicans to demonstrate that they have finally delivered on their oft-promised commitment to democracy. When they have done that, perhaps Parliament will revisit the issue. That
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1745
 
is why I prefer an amendment that insists that the suspension of parliamentary privileges and allowances should be indefinite.

Kate Hoey: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify for me his interpretation, as the Leader of the House was not able to do so, of

Does that mean that, automatically, from 1 April next year, without any debate or discussion, the current arrangements will come back?

Mr. Lidington: My interpretation of the Government's motion is that the resolution of 2001, which gave Sinn Fein Members privileges and allowances, remains in force, but by virtue of the Government motion would be suspended for 12 months, and that those allowances and privileges would therefore automatically be resumed in 12 months unless a new motion were brought forward deliberately to extend the period of suspension.

The Opposition's amendments clearly place the responsibility to act on the republican movement, and that is where the responsibility belongs. I hope that those amendments, which have the support of Members from many parties represented in the House, will command a majority of votes when we divide at the end of the debate.

4.13 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): This has been an informed and interesting debate. Obviously, that has resulted in different points of view being expressed.

Before I make my remarks, I want to reply to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) with regard to the nature of the whipping on this debate. I can do no better than refer to the points made by the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in the previous debate:

Next Section IndexHome Page