Miscellaneous (Hansard, 13 July 1999)

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
The House surely cannot let the occasion pass without at least recording considerable disquiet at the way in which the Government propose to deal with the legislation. It surely must be the case that any legislation should be given proper scrutiny by the House, and that there should be a proper opportunity for Members to consider it, time in which Members can consult those who they think have an interest, time to consider amendments and time for a due process.
That would be the case in any circumstance, but, in this of all circumstances, on this subject and at this time, all those matters become yet more important. However, we are faced with what I can describe only as a completely arbitrary and artificial deadline—one of many.
We have had a number of deadlines on the matter. Who knows—there may even be more, but, because of the artificial deadline that is being imposed on us, on the House of Commons and on the parliamentary process by the Government, we are being forced to consider vital legislation, on which so much rests, in the most indecent haste.
That would be bad enough in itself, but there is a risk in forcing to us consider the legislation in such undue haste. Hon. Members did not know even what was in the Bill until yesterday evening. You have just announced, Madam Speaker, that the latest set of amendments was available in a revised amendment paper at 2.30. What kind of way is that to make law? What kind of way is that to ask the House of Commons to make decisions?
The risks that we run now are considerable. I find it shocking that we are apparently being forced to consider the legislation at the timetable in the motion. I hope just that we are able to do a proper job of scrutiny—although, for the life of me, I cannot see how—that we do not make some dreadful mistake by processing the legislation at the speed with which we are obliged to do it, and that it will not be seen as a precedent. It is bad enough doing that where there is a real requirement for speed. Where the deadline is totally arbitrary and artificial, the whole process is unacceptable.
174 I want to record my disquiet and my opposition to this method of legislating. I hope that we never do it again.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, wish to protest at the manner in which the legislation is being dealt with, not least because it is basically an unconstitutional Bill, based on a hypothesis.

§ Madam Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, I shall be happy to call him. We have three hours to go.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)
On behalf of the people whom I represent in the House, I should like to make my protest about the way in which the matter has been conducted. According to some press reports, when the draft Bill was tabled, it was not even written out or complete. The Government very kindly faxed us all in Northern Ireland a copy of the Bill, but the fax was so abominable that we could not read it. In fact, I offered the fax to an hon. Gentleman and asked whether he could interpret it for me, but he said, "No, I couldn't interpret that." How can we adequately represent the people of Northern Ireland when we have not before us what we have to discuss in this very important debate?
I do not want to prolong my speech now, because it is more important that what time we have is used effectively and effectually. However, this is no way of dealing with a matter of such seriousness. We are supposed to be debating a failsafe Bill, but, in previous weeks, I have heard nothing but people conjecturing about the possibility of a failsafe situation.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, told us that he needed an assurance from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that he would see to it that IRA-Sinn Fein would be expelled from any Executive unless it had decommissioned by a certain date. Then, I read about the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) talking about a mythical Mr. P. O'Neill, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman would be quite satisfied that we could move forward if that mythical Mr. P. O'Neill would only just write to him. Today, we come to this Bill.
There is nothing in the legislation that really deals with the issue before us—one has only to read it to see that that is so. I suppose that the reason for that is that the Government are hooked to their own petard, because they cannot change the agreement. If they put anything into the legislation that will change the agreement, the parties to the agreement—especially Sinn Fein itself, and the Dublin Government—will of course have something to say. Those are the facts of the matter.
Today, we are being pushed to deal with legislation that is different from anything that has ever been produced in the House of Commons on the standing of terrorists in a part of the Government and a part of Her Majesty's United Kingdom. Surely such a matter deserves time to discuss and debate properly.