Tenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Spellar: May I suggest that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann is in danger of misleading the Committee by saying that the Government forced the hours through? As a member of the Government, I clearly recall voting against the hours, which I was perfectly free to do because it was a frank vote on House business. The Chairman: Order. Although hon. Members may be amusing themselves, they will appreciate that their remarks are not within the ambit of the Committee’s consideration of the order. Mr. Trimble: There is no better thing to do with the Minister’s point than to leave it on the record for people to read and to realise that he actually said that. The record will not show, however, that he did not even manage to keep a straight face while he said it. But that is another matter entirely. Lembit Öpik: On a point that is pertinent to the renewal of the order, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, for example, am increasingly having to compromise meetings with Ministers and others because of the short notice that we are given under the order system? I apologise in advance to members of the Committee that I have a ministerial meeting at 3.30 pm. These meetings are very hard to organise and not easily changed when we are given short notice to attend Committee sittings on orders. Column Number: 12 Mr. Trimble: I agree. I found the Minister’s comments a little strange in that, rather than sticking to the straightforward issue of the possible extension of direct rule for another six months, he seemed to believe it appropriate to give us a brief account of the Administration and what it was trying to do. I would be delighted if there was a proper debate on the issues that he mentioned, but it was a little strange to introduce those into our very limited proceedings today. We get to debate some of those issues in the Grand Committee, but it is worth reminding hon. Members that it is now more than 10 years since we had a general debate on Northern Ireland on the Floor of the House in Government time on general Northern Ireland issues, although we have had debates in Opposition time, sometimes on specific issues and sometimes on general ones. There would be merit in having such a debate rather than the statements on Northern Ireland that are made on the Floor of the House. Those statements are frequent, but they are on specific issues and tend to be about the “peace process” and related matters. That does not give Members a proper opportunity to air points or to debate the sorts of issues that the Minister touched on quickly in passing. There are huge issues relating to the matters to which the Minister referred. He was making claims about public services in Northern Ireland that are not sustainable. Had he attended the appropriate part of the Grand Committee sitting yesterday, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) giving a description of the huge cuts that are being made in the education services in Northern Ireland. In my education board area, some eight or nine schools are being forced to close this year as a direct result of this year’s financial settlement. Whatever seems to have been happening in the past year or two, the education service is going through a major financial crisis. That matter did not feature in what the Minister said, but it is important. My colleague mentioned it yesterday in the debate on the Northern Ireland budget, but did not receive an appropriate response because the Minister who was replying to that debate was not, I believe, in a position to deal with it. He is not the Minister with responsibility for education and might have felt that he did not have the necessary expertise. I mention that as an example. We could also talk about the hospital service in Northern Ireland, and the fact that the health service outputs are very poor. The Minister knows that the expenditure per capita in health in Northern Ireland is higher than in England and Wales, but outputs are worse. We have huge waiting lists, which are growing, not shrinking. Incidentally, the same is happening in Scotland. When the Government boast about the health service, it would be worth while if they gave figures for the whole United Kingdom. It would be interesting to see whether the aggregate figures for waiting lists are going up or down. The Government certainly choose to give the figures that suit them, namely those for England. It is a different picture in Scotland, Wales
The Minister said that the Government’s objective is that the devolved Administration should be restored on a stable and inclusive basis, but he must know that that is not possible in the foreseeable future. The Administration collapsed in October 2002 because of the behaviour of republicans. On the three occasions since, on which attempts were made to restore the Administration—in March 2003, autumn 2003 and towards the end of last year—those attempts collapsed primarily because of the failure of republicans to deliver the end of paramilitary activity and the winding up and decommissioning of their private army. Yesterday’s statement put the matter very starkly indeed. The organisation is supposed to be on a ceasefire. If we believe what was said in the run-up to last December, it was preparing to cease to be a private army. The Irish Justice Minister, however, has given a different and slightly more credible explanation of what was intended to happen. None the less, during negotiations, the republicans held out to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) the prospect of their private army being wound up, just as in 2003 they held out to us the prospect that they would wind up their private army within a short time. On both those occasions the republicans claimed to be preparing to wind up their private army, but in yesterday’s statement the private army made clear its attitude that it considers itself to have the right to resort to violence whenever it chooses, that it would conduct its own inquiries and judicial processes and execute its own sentences, and that it regards them to be superior to those of the courts and the police. That is the only way in which one can explain its refusal to assist the police and courts even though its statement clearly reveals that it possesses evidence that would enable proceedings to take place regarding the murder of Mr. McCartney. The organisation is clearly saying that it still considers itself to be above the law and able to operate its own legal system and to impose and enforce its own sentences whenever it likes. That reinforces the view that I came to after the events in December that there is no realistic prospect of republicans completing the transition in which they said that they were engaged. We were always operating on the basis that there was a transition and that it would be carried through to fruition, but that premise no longer has any credibility. Until then the prospect of that transition being carried through had some credibility. I do not reproach the party of the hon. Member for Belfast, North for endeavouring, as it did last autumn, to see whether it could make progress on the transition. I have come to the conclusion, looking at the collapse of the negotiations and comparing it to the similar
With regard to the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire about certain persons returned to serve for constituencies in Northern Ireland, people bandy about terms about who is on what. No one knows for certain. As the Taoiseach said when questioned, he was not at any of the meetings and does not know for certain who was there. However, I am told that it is the practice for that organisation, whenever its so-called army council meets, always to have the president of Sinn Fein in attendance. It is certainly the case that the Member for Mid-Ulster has been and may still be a member of the IRA’s army council. He was in the past its chief of staff, although he is not and has not been for some time. One must not forget, too, that the Member returned to serve West Tyrone (Mr. Doherty) was, at one time, a member of the army council. Three of the four persons returned to serve have been at the leadership of the republican movement at that level. Whatever the technicalities about who is and is not on that particular structure at any one time, there is absolutely no doubt that those three persons are in the leadership of the republican movement. There is one republican movement. It is organised into two structures, but both are controlled by the republican movement, irrespective of what posts people hold. It was the republican movement that issued the statement yesterday. I am absolutely certain that the statement would not have been issued without the knowledge and approval of the Members to whom I have referred. When the Prime Minister stands in the House of Commons, as he did today, and utters his condemnation of that and almost in the same breath declares his willingness to enter into negotiations with those gentlemen for the purpose of producing an inclusive Executive, he is getting close to being hypocritical. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has it clear in his mind when he makes such statements that the persons whom he is condemning in one breath are the same as those he is declaring his desire to enter into discussions with. It is time that we stopped pretending. The comments of the Irish Defence Minister are certainly to the point; we all ought to follow his advice and stop pretending. We should maybe stop pretending that we have, in the foreseeable future, any prospect of an inclusive Administration. If the Minister sticks to the point of saying that the objective is an inclusive Administration, he is saying that he hands to the republican movement and its leadership—to the people who issued the statement yesterday—the power to decide how Northern Ireland is governed. It is quite wrong to give the group who got 23 or 24 per cent. of the first preference votes in November 2003 a veto, and to ignore the votes and mandate of those for whom the other 75 or 76 per cent. of the electorate voted. That is not democratic; it is not right. Although Labour Members might not want to confront that reality today, they will have to confront
I hate to say this to the Minister, but his introduction smacked a little of complacency, in terms of both the administration of Northern Ireland—there is nothing to be complacent about in that regard, as I have tried to suggest—and the political situation in general. I hope that that is not his actual frame of mind. I know that he is reflective about these matters, and I hope that he will reflect further on them. He will not want to be the person who is left presiding over the administration of Northern Ireland while things gradually fall apart, as they are likely to do. The Government must start to do some serious thinking about what will happen with regard to the political process in Northern Ireland—the administration of it, and how it is legislated for—instead of just free-wheeling onward and hoping that something will turn up. We cannot just carry on in that way. 3.11 pmMr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): We are meeting to debate the renewal for a further six months of direct rule. A number of serious events have happened since we last debated renewal. At that time, we were looking forward to the Leeds castle discussions. They have now come and gone. Since then, there has been the Northern bank robbery, for which the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland now says he is 99.9 per cent. certain that the IRA is responsible. No one seriously doubts that that is the case. We have also seen the uncovering of major money-laundering operations carried out by the provisional republican movement in the Irish Republic. There has also been the murder of Robert McCartney and the subsequent horrendous, cynical and appalling efforts of Sinn Fein-IRA to spin their way out of responsibility for it and to divert the political consequences of their members’ actions in the incident and in trying to cover it up. Therefore, the context in which we now meet is very serious. Yesterday, the IRA issued a statement about that murder. It was an official statement, and therefore, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann rightly said, it could not have been issued without the knowledge and acquiescence of the Members returned
As a result of the pressure from the McCartney family and from the republican community, the organisation has been saying for weeks now that the IRA and republicans have nothing to do with criminality, even though for the last 30 years they have done nothing but be involved in criminality, gangsterism and terrorism. They have been trying to say that they have nothing to do with any of those types of activities, and that anyone who does will be expelled from Sinn Fein and the IRA. One Sunday recently, Gerry Adams stood up in Strabane, in front of members of the republican movement in paramilitary dress, and said that there would be no criminality in their organisation. Then, last night, they issued a statement that they were prepared to shoot people—to take justice into their own hands. What clearer example could there be of the criminality and mafia-style execution policy of Sinn Fein-IRA? Many victims in Northern Ireland and their families rightly point out that although Sinn Fein-IRA are saying a lot about the McCartney killing and are being forced to address it—rightly so—the IRA is responsible for the murder of thousands of people and has done absolutely nothing about those cases. In fact, they have done their very best to cover up their involvement and say that they had nothing to do with them. In that context, we debate the renewal of direct rule. I listened carefully to the Minister when he said that the current situation was a setback in the time scale for the re-establishment of inclusive government. My party received an overwhelming mandate at the last Assembly elections, at the European elections that followed, and at the local government elections. We may also receive such a mandate at the general election that will be held shortly, when the people will have the opportunity to deliver their verdict. We believe that Sinn Fein-IRA—the provisional movement—have failed the democratic test. They had the opportunity to move into democratic politics, to give up the IRA, to disband it, and to commit themselves exclusively to peaceful and democratic means. However, they failed the test that was set in December, and are failing the test today. In our view, there is no prospect of their passing it, so we now need to be realistic. We need to accept that so far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned, there is no prospect of involving members of the IRA army council any more in the government of Northern Ireland. It is clear that they have decided that they are prepared to continue down the road of being democrats by day and paramilitary leaders by night. That simply cannot go on. We have had years of constructive ambiguity, which those on the Government side and the parties who supported the Belfast agreement have openly admitted
I am glad that there now seems to be a consensus on the position that my party adopted from day one—that there can be no compromise on this issue, and that people are committed exclusively to peaceful and democratic means or they are not. If they are not, they should not be brought into government through fudging, through turning a blind eye, and through constructive ambiguity as a means of weaning them off violence. We knew that that policy would not work. The people have shown through their votes that they no longer want that approach to be taken, and we will continue to abide by that view. So what should happen now? There is clearly no reason why devolution should be put on hold. We should move ahead with the restoration of devolution. Our preference is that it should be based on a voluntary coalition. We believe that that offers the prospect of a stable form of local and accountable democracy, but if that is not possible in the short term, the Northern Ireland Assembly should at the very least be granted the sorts of scrutiny role mentioned by previous speakers to give the elected representatives of Northern Ireland a real say in calling Ministers to account; the opportunity to have their contributions heard and to represent the people who elected them on the great issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland. Some of those major issues, such as the review of public administration and the future of our education system and our health service, have been mentioned briefly in this very short debate. All of them need to be debated in detail by the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. The policy previously enunciated by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party—that if we cannot have Sinn Fein excluded, we should proceed to the closure of the Assembly—is not the right approach. There is a role for the Assembly in the absence of full-blooded devolution, but the Minister needs to take on board the message that there can be no prospect of the Unionist population in Northern Ireland accepting Sinn Fein as legitimate partners or participants in Government in Northern Ireland for as long as I can reasonably foresee. There may come a day when Sinn Fein will prove to the people of Northern Ireland that it is transformed and has changed. However, I do not see much sign of that at the moment. The fact that Sinn Fein is prepared to issue the sort of statement that it did last night, in the midst of such intense scrutiny of everything that it does and says, says an awful lot about its contempt for reasonable, decent people in Northern Ireland. It is worth referring to what Mitchel McLaughlin, the so-called national chairperson of Sinn Fein, said
The Chairman: Order. Members who have been elected but have not taken the oath, should still be referred to by their parliamentary division, rather than by name. Mr. Dodds: Thank you, Mr. Hurst. That crime was committed when the Member returned for Belfast, West was officer commanding of the Belfast Brigade of the IRA. When Mitchel McLaughlin was asked whether he classified the shooting of Jean McConville, a mother of 10, as a crime, he said:
Asked again whether he thought it was a crime, he replied, “No, I do not”. The Justice Minister of the Irish Republic, to whom the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred, has unambiguously stated what I wish many members of her Majesty’s Government would be prepared to say on the record. He said:
Mitchel McLaughlin, a candidate for the House in the forthcoming general election and major spokesperson of the organisation that the Minister holds out a hope of including in the Government of Northern Ireland replied,
war. That is the mentality of these people. They do not believe that such activities, incidents and actions are crimes. They can say that they are against criminality because such actions are legitimised by the fact that they regard the IRA army council as the legitimate Government of Ireland. That is the warped mental process that operates here and there is no sense—especially given last night’s statement—that there is any change in it. We must focus on how to get democratic, accountable government restored without these people and, if we cannot do it in the short or medium term, we have to focus on improving means of scrutinising and bringing to account direct rule Ministers in this place and through the elected Northern Ireland Assembly. The Minister and the Government now need to focus on that. My party wants to engage with the other democratic parties in Northern Ireland to that end, and we go into the forthcoming election on that basis. There is growing consensus that that must be the right approach. I hope that, as a result of this debate, the Minister will be left
3.25 pmMr. Spellar: As ever, we have had a wide-ranging discussion. I shall start with the points raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who has to go and see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work, who is a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. The hon. Gentleman talked about the frustration with the process, which I think is shared fairly between both sides of the House. However, even with that frustration, we should not underestimate the considerable improvements that are still taking place in Northern Ireland. A journalist castigated me for complacency when I pointed out that, at the peak of the troubles, 497 people were killed in one year by terrorist activity, whereas last year the figure was four. That is still four too many, but there is a dramatic change from the previous position. There have also been significant changes in respect of inward investment, visitor numbers and employment levels in Northern Ireland, which we should all welcome. The hon. Gentleman then talked about the process of making legislation and the lack of ability to amend it, but there has been considerable consultation on many matters. Indeed, some of the measures that I have brought to Committee were changed from the original design beforehand, precisely because points had been raised by various political parties. I am sure that we could improve that process, but we do endeavour to take on board opinions on such matters. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of a Minister in the House of Lords. Far be it from me to trespass on the dispensation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to where Ministers sit, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that Members in the other place have raised that point—not in a critical way, I hasten to add, but drawing attention to the amount of business and therefore the considerable pressures on the Minister concerned. That will need to be examined. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked us to consider new procedures. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has indicated quite strongly that he is interested in receiving, and indeed is receiving, suggestions from a variety of quarters as to ways in which we can improve local accountability in the current situation. The reason is, as I stressed at the outset, that we do not regard the current position as satisfactory. We hope that it will be as short-lived as possible, but we recognise that there must be greater local accountability, and mechanisms have been suggested to provide that. The comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire were slightly unfair. Lembit Öpik: I feel that the Minister is listening and I intuitively feel that we probably will find an accommodation to improve access. However, will he
Mr. Spellar: As to notice of upcoming business, quite a bit of business is going through the House in a fairly compressed time scale before the Easter recess. I take the point about longer notice; but many items that are considered here have been the subject of prolonged consultation. An aspect of the matter that we may need to consider—and I have said this, for example, in the context of many of the electoral measures—is that while we consult, properly and extensively, with parties in Northern Ireland, we may need to improve consultation with the main parties that are represented in the Commons as well, before presenting completed measures to the House. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 11 March 2005 |