§ 'This Act shall lapse at the end of twelve months from the date on which it is passed.'.—[Mr. Winnick.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. WinnickI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. WinnickThe new clause accepts that the Bill will be passed. I oppose the measure and I believe that it should have as short a life as possible.
The reason why the Bill was introduced has been touched on many times in our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee. But for the by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, there would have been no Bill. It was never suggested that such a Bill should come before the House and the Home Secretary never suggested that a glaring anomaly existed that allowed prisoners to be elected to Parliament. In effect, we are saying that the Bill is necessary because a prisoner won the by-election. In that case, if the situation changes the Bill should come to an end.
I do not see any reason why the Bill should continue on the statute book if circumstances change, if the hunger strike comes to an end and if there is no question of another by-election of the type seen a few months ago. I accept that there might be a case for a different measure. Although a person in prison should be able, if he so wishes, to stand for election, I accept that there is a case whereby that person would not be able to sit in the House of Commons. That could be made clear in a different sort of measure from that now being introduced.
My main objection to the Bill is the manner in which a person is disqualified from standing for election. It is not 472 concerned with the question whether a prisoner should sit in the House of Commons, There seem to be reservations on the Conservative Benches among hon. Members who rationalise the position by saying that although they have reservations there in no alternative to the Bill. That is not my view. If, however, hon. Members have reservations, I hope that they will support the new clause standing in my name, which says that the life of the Bill should come to an end after 12 months.
§ Mr. WhitelawThe hon. Gentleman makes the point clearly and fairly that he is basically against the whole principle of the Bill but that if it goes through it should be limited to 12 months. My case, based on my belief that the Bill is right and necessary, rests on two points. The disqualification that was removed by the Criminal Law Act 1967 was a mistake, as I believe the House has come to accept. The disqualification that existed before 1967 was not subject to any 12 months' limit.
I accept that the disqualification for nomination is a new point. I believe that it stands with the other. It is right that the disqualification should be kept permanently. I do not believe that the principle of a review after a year is consistent with the views of those who believe in the principle of the Bill. I cannot accept the new clause.
§ Question put and negatived.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Bill reported, with an amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
10.28 pm§ Mr. McNamaraI have only a few words to say. I think that the Bill is wrongly titled. We would not have had the Bill if Bobby Sands had not won the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election. What we have before us is the Bobby Sands Memorial Bill. That is what it amounts to. We have succeeded in giving the Provisional IRA its biggest propaganda victory since internment. This is a sad day for democracy and a sad day for the House.
§ Mr. WinnickThis is undoubtedly a panic measure. When the by-election takes place in the near future in Fermanagh and South Tyrone one will find that those who supported Mr. Sands and proposed him as a candidate will find other means to express their views despite the Bill's becoming an Act of Parliament.
It would be foolish and naive of us to take the view that because this measure will become law the supporters of the Provisional IRA will not be able to find some other way of causing the maximum embarrassment to the Government. When the House rushes in with a panic measure—the Second Reading was taken on Monday and we are completing the remaining stages today—it tends to make a mistake. I should prefer the Government's energies to be devoted to trying to settle the hunger strike. It is far more important to defuse the crisis in Northern Ireland and to try to bring an end to the hunger strike that is taking place in the Province.
It has been reported in the press that there is a possibility that the late Mr. Sands' agent will be a candidate in the forthcoming by-election. If that is to be so he will hardly be affected by this measure. It is unfortunate that, arising from what occurred in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the Government have responded in such a manner.
473 At the end of the day, Mr. Sands won the by-election. It is no good saying "What about the people who did not vote for him or who abstained?" The system that we have, which I support, whereby the person who receives the greater number of votes is duly elected, led to Mr. Sands winning in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Of course we did not like the result, but that was the choice of the people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. However dishonest the argument, the Provisional IRA will say in Northern Ireland, and certainly abroad, in countries such as France and the United States, that the electoral law has been changed by the Brits because of the success of the late Mr. Sands in winning a by-election. I am convinced that what we are doing is wrong and I shall be happy to vote against the Bill.
§ Sir John Biggs-DavisonUnlike the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I shall support Her Majesty's Government when the House divides. This is not a panic measure. There is no panic on the Government Benches, or in Her Majesty's Government. Instead of giving advice to the Provisional IRA on how it may best continue its propaganda campaign, the hon. Gentleman might have said to it "Here are young men being sacrificed by the godfathers of terrorism in a cruel and callous manner for a propaganda exercise." Then he might have said "There will be no giving way on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There will not be any favouring of political terrorists in Her Majesty's prisons, but there is democracy in the United Kingdom and there is democracy in the Irish Republic. It is open to these people who hold this view to contest their cause democratically and to submit themselves to argument. We would be willing for them to do that." He would be much better advised to give that sort of counsel to such people than to suggest ways in which they might continue their agitation.
§ Mr. WinnickEarlier on, when the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) was not in the Chamber, I made it clear that I was totally opposed to terrorism. I am opposed to the hunger strike. I am opposed to political status being given. However, like the Catholic bishops in Ireland, in the statement that they issued last weekend, I believe that ways and means could be found, without the granting of political status, to settle the hunger strike. The hon. Gentleman should not try to smear me and my hon. Friends as supporters of the IRA. We are not. We are totally opposed to their methods and to their terrorism. We are concerned with finding a peaceful solution to the present crisis and to securing the future of the Six Counties.
§ Mr. James A. DunnI regret that Third Reading has moved towards a discussion of the general problems of Northern Ireland which, while they have an association with some of the consequences of the Bill, are not contained within it.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)Order. I hope that the debate will not take that direction.
§ Mr. DunnI was not intending to go that way. I regret, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you intervened during my remarks rather than earlier. It is a matter of opinion. I say that in good humour.
474 I give an unqualified welcome to the Bill. It fulfils a need that has been expressed by many in recent times and was instanced by the by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. While I do not share some of the strictures passed by my hon. Friends, I understand their position. I do not take away from them the sincerity that I hope they would afford to me—as, indeed, they have done during the debate.
When we talk of terrorists gaining advantage from the Bill, we are talking of all forms of terrorism. It appears that some hon. Members think that there is only one category of terrorist. There are many. If the Bill deals with them all, so much the better. I think that it does. What happened in Fermanagh and South Tyrone was an offence to most people. The way that it has been dealt with, with the reservations that have been expressed across the Chamber—the Home Secretary has agreed to consider them, while not making a commitment about the results of the considerations, should they come to fruition—will enable the Bill to meet all needs and should satisfy most hon. Members. It will give some consolation to those watching our proceedings carefully to see what we will do.
I hope that the Bill will be improved in another place. I hope that further protections can be made. I hope that some of the doubts and fears that have been expressed will be satisfactorily dealt with in another place. Until such time as the Bill returns to the House, I give it a fair welcome.
§ Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely); I made my opposition to the Bill clear on Second Reading. It is for very much the same reasons as those expresssed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It should be made clear that the Bill is not about terrorism, although it may have been triggered off by that. It is a fundamental Bill which ignores the rights of the electorate and allows the Government to decide something that the electorate should be allowed to decide.
I want to say one thing to the Home Secretary, and I ask him to refer to it when he replies to the debate. If he is as passionate for people to be represented at parliamentary level as he says he is, will he give his word that, in future, writs for parliamentary by-elections will not be used for party political effect but will be served within a given number of weeks of the death, ennoblement or resignation of a Member?
§ Mr. WellbelovedI shall be brief. I supported the Bill om Second Reading. I am proud to support it on Third reading. I hope that it reaches the statute book with the utmost speed. We have listened to debates in which, quite properly, legal considerations have been put forward and constitutional matters sincerely discussed. When we have finished with all the nice, cosy debates on constitutional niceties and legalities, it comes down to the fact that there are those in Northern Ireland who have decided, notwithstanding all the constitutional niceties or legalities, that they will change the law and the destiny of their people by the use of the gun and the bomb and by the murder of their fellow citizens.
We have an absolute and overriding responsibility, however much hon. Members say that that may have nothing to do with it. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), along with every other hon. Member in the 475 House, bears the joint responsibility for the forces of law and order which have been committed in the name of this Parliament—not this Government, but this Parliament—to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland.
I believe that there should be a different answer to the problem in Northern Ireland. While the House considers the present policy to be the right one and sends the soldiers there to uphold that policy, I cannot share the views that it would be right for those who have turned to the bomb, to the gun and to murder to hold sway.
We have to do only one thing in our consideration of the Bill—that is, to honour the sacrifice of those we have sent to Northern Ireland to die in upholding our requirements. That is why I support the Bill. I believe that it is indefensible that anyone associated with the murder of a member of the security forces carrying out the duties imposed upon him by this Parliament should have the right to stand for election to this House of Commons. That is a travesty of democracy. It is a denial of all the constitutional niceties. I would be ashamed to be associated with anything which would make it easy for that sort of murdering people to sit in the House.
§ Mr. HattersleyWhen we debated, the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday I said that I was deeply opposed to it on the principle of practice. Everything that I have heard over the past four days has intensified my opposition.
I repeat now what I said on Monday—that in my view the decision as to who should be elected to this place is a decision for the electorate of individual constituencies, and not for the House of Commons. In saying that, I confess that if there was one vote about which I have had doubts during this afternoon and this evening it was the vote on amendment No. 16. Whilst on balance I went into the Lobby to support that amendment, I thought that there was great strength in the Minister of State's argument that if we are to have general rules about who should sit here, the House of Commons should not be given the ability and power to override those general rules.
Perhaps I was wrong to vote in the way that I did. I say again that my view is that the decision about who should sit in this place is a decision for electorates and not for the House of Commons itself. On those grounds alone I would vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
I feel that in Committee we discussed the Bill in terms of its principles—to which I object, and which I reject—but not sufficiently in terms of its practice. To be more precise, the only discussion of the Bill's practice has come from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who assumed that they were speaking for the British people, which I think is an assumption that we should all make with a little humility and, therefore, some qualification. They said on behalf of the British people that the British people believe that the Bill is right in terms of the attack on terrorism in Northern Ireland.
I repeat what I said on Second Reading. If I believed that this was a blow against terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland I might even be prepared to vote for the Bill, notwithstanding my strong principles concerning the 476 theory on which it is based. However, many people believe that far from defeating terrorism the Bill will help the propaganda cause on which terrorism is based.
It is easy for my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford to denigrate those of us who oppose the Bill by talking about nice, cosy debates in the Chamber. It is even easier for him to announce that he is against the gun, the bomb and the murderer. I do not know any hon. Member who is not against the gun, the bomb and the murderer in Northern Ireland.
What I do know is that my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who have spent much of the past five years not in nice, cosy debates in the House of Commons but in fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland and taking substantial risks as they did so, believe, as I believe, that the Bill will not further the cause that we support, which is the suppression and end of terrorism, but will positively help terrorism. I tell the Home Secretary that I shall vote against the Bill tonight, not least because of what I fear will be its practical applications.
These are my last words to the Home Secretary. He asked earlier—rhetorically, I suspect—why I complained so much that he had got it wrong and confessed to getting it wrong. Why was I not taking the normal Opposition attitude? One of my great complaints about the Bill is that, although he has got it wrong, I do not feel entitled to rejoice. When a Minister makes a mistake I normally express delight and hope that the mistake will be multiplied, but I fear that the mistake made in introducing the Bill, and the mistake over its contents, will result only in serving an interest that both the Home Secretary and I oppose. The Government's shortcomings in the Bill cause me no pleasure whatever. They will help a propaganda campaign to which I am deeply opposed and help to give success to an organisation that I am desperately anxious to see brought to the speediest possible end.
I shall therefore vote against the Bill, partly because of my strong views on the principle involved, but also because I share the views of all who have spoken. We want to see the IRA and all that it stands for replaced by genuine democratic debate and political discussion in Northern Ireland. My fear is that the Bill will not bring about that end.
§ Mr. WhitelawThe right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made clear his opposition to the Bill in principle. Although I do not agree with him, I fully understand that, feeling that way, he will vote against the Bill.
However, when it comes to making a judgment that the Bill will give a propaganda weapon to the IRA—which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) also makes—I can only say that there are two views on the issue. I have not been in Northern Ireland since my responsibility for the Province ceased at the end of 1973. But, with whatever knowledge that I may have of conditions there, I discount that judgment absolutely.
Although I am eight years out of date and am not prepared to back my judgment on issues in Northern Ireland, I am prepared to back the judgment of those who have the responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and right hon. and hon. Members who are closer to the Northern Ireland scene than I have been for some time take the view that the Bill will 477 deny a propaganda weapon to the IRA. They regard this as of considerable importance. That view may be disputed, but it is a view held strongly by my right hon. Friend, who has the major responsibility for Northern Ireland on behalf of the Government and the House. That is his view, and I am prepared to back it.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) says that when we pass the Bill the IRA will find another candidate. Perhaps it will, but it will not be able to use a convicted terrorist, in prison for his terrorist activities. The IRA wants the propaganda value of such a man, and it is wise to deny it that. That is the purpose of the Bill.
I want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who expressed what I feel much better than I am likely to express it. The only other hon. Member who has spoken whom I want to mention is the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who made his position on the Bill clear on Second Reading but did not make his views one way or the other heard very much in Committee. However, that is his affair.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about writs. The question of moving writs does not come within the purview of the Bill and, therefore, is not strictly relevant. Indeed, I doubt whether it is in order on Third Reading. If the hon. Gentleman looked at my record on the moving of writs when I had responsibility of that kind, a long time ago, he would find that I acted very much as he now suggests. However, that is even longer ago than my experience of Northern Ireland, so I do not rely too heavily on it.
I believe that by passing the Bill we shall deny the IRA a major propaganda weapon. It has sought, by using convicted terrorists in prison, to distort our democratic system for its own publicity and propaganda purposes. There is no doubt that that was the IRA's object. I believe that the Bill will deny it that propaganda weapon.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes that doing that will be in the best interests of Northern Ireland at this time. Beyond that, I agree with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that there is a profound feeling in the country at large that it is an outrage that terrorists who have been convicted of serious offences should seek by our democratic process to become Members of the House. I believe that the British people are profoundly against that. That is another strong justification for the Bill, and I hope that it will be passed.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 36.
479| Division No. 234] | [10.51 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Brinton, Tim |
| Ancram, Michael | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Arnold, Tom | Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) | Browne, John (Winchester) |
| Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone) | Bruce-Gardyne, John |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Buck, Antony |
| Beith, A. J. | Budgen, Nick |
| Best, Keith | Butcher, John |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Carlisle, John (Luton West) |
| Blackburn, John | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Chapman, Sydney |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
| Bright, Graham | Colvin, Michael |
| Cope, John | Morgan, Geraint |
| Costain, Sir Albert | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Dean, Paul (North Somerset) | Murphy, Christopher |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Neale, Gerrard |
| Dover, Denshore | Needham, Richard |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Nelson, Anthony |
| Dunlop, John | Newton, Tony |
| Dunn, James A. | Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Page, Richard (SW Herts) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Paisley, Rev Ian |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Percival, Sir Ian |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles | Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) |
| Fraser, Peter (South Angus) | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Renton, Tim |
| Goodhew, Victor | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Roper, John |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Greenway, Harry | Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) |
| Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Hamilton, Hon A. | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Hannam,John | Shersby, Michael |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Sims, Roger |
| Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Speller, Tony |
| Hawkins, Paul | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Hawksley, Warren | Sproat, Iain |
| Heddle, John | Squire, Robin |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Stanley, John |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Stevens, Martin |
| Kilfedder, James A. | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Tapsell, Peter |
| Kitson, Sir Timothy | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Lang, Ian | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Langford-Holt, Sir John | Thompson, Donald |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Viggers, Peter |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Waddington, David |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Wakeham, John |
| McCrindle, Robert | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| MacGregor, John | Watson, John |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) | Wellbeloved, James |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Wells, Bowen |
| Major, John | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Marlow, Tony | Wickenden, Keith |
| Mates, Michael | Wilkinson, John |
| Mather, Carol | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Wolfson, Mark |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | |
| Moate, Roger | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Molyneaux, James | Mr. Anthony Berry and |
| Moore, John | Mr. Selwyn Gummer. |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | Howells, Geraint |
| Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Canavan, Dennis | McKelvey, William |
| Cook, Robin F. | Mikardo, Ian |
| Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) | Morton, George |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Penhaligon, David |
| Dixon, Donald | Richardson, Jo |
| Dobson, Frank | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) |
| Dormand, Jack | Sheerman, Barry |
| English, Michael | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Foster, Derek | Skinner, Dennis |
| Freud, Clement | Snape, Peter |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Soley, Clive |
| Haynes, Frank | Stallard, A. W. |
| Hooley, Frank | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Woolmer, Kenneth | Mr. Kevin McNamara and |
| Mr. David Winnick. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time and passed.