Orders of the Day — Disqualifications Bill

House of Commons, 25 January 2000.

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1(1)(E) OF THE DISQUALIFICATION ACTS

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert— 'Subject to section (Commencement of Act to be conditional on progress in implementing decommissioning),'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 1, line 9, after `Ireland)', add— ' provided that, in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly'. No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end add— '(2A) This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he has previously laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement in relation to the Belfast Agreement (Cm 3883), stating that in his opinion and in the opinion of all parties to that Agreement all aspects of the Agreement have been implemented. (2B) No order shall be made under subsection (2A) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'. New clause 1—Commencement of Act to be conditional on progress in implementing decommissioning— 'This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; but no such order shall be made until the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Norther Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 is satisfied that there has been substantial progress in implementing the commitments made in the Decommissioning section of the Belfast Agreement (Command Paper 3883).'.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I have to say, Sir Alan, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I deeply regret that the Committee of the whole House is to discuss the Bill this afternoon. You will recall that, only yesterday, there was a robust debate on Second Reading. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had to respond to many interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House and many hon. Members that expressed concern or asked questions about certain aspects of the Bill. With his usual courtesy, he was good enough to say that he would reflect on the observations made. I have to say, with the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary, that I believe that he and hon. Members have had insufficient time to do that. The only occasions in my recollection—and, perhaps, yours, Sir Alan—on which we have had Second Reading followed immediately by Committee, Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House have been when there is urgent, emergency legislation to be passed. With the best will in the world, it is not possible to describe the Bill as urgent, or even as important. It is a deeply irrelevant little Bill, for which few people asked. The Under-Secretary failed to tell us yesterday who had asked for it; and while spending four days in Northern Ireland last week, I failed to find anyone who is the slightest bit interested in the Bill or wants it to be passed. Despite that, the Government, in a ham-fisted manner that shows great contempt for you, Sir, and for the House, have set the Committee stage for today. You, Sir Alan, will have noticed that the amendment paper contains amendments that were tabled only yesterday. We have not had time to reflect on those amendments, let alone on the many points raised on Second Reading. I ask the Under-Secretary even at this late hour to withdraw the Committee stage until we have had adequate time to reflect, which is what normally happens. At the very least, he should explain why the Bill is an urgent, emergency measure that must be passed quickly. Perhaps he will intervene on me, but if he is not prepared to do so, we will have to assume that the Bill is not urgent, emergency legislation and that the procedures of the House are being abused.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

rose—

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I give way to the Minister.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I am sorry—I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is entitled to make some prefatory remarks before speaking to the amendment, but I advise him to move directly to the subject of the amendment. The fact that we are having Committee stage now is not a matter for me. I believe that Madam Speaker ruled earlier today that it is a matter for the usual channels.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you guide members of the Committee on how to proceed with considering the outcome of Committee stage and therefore the possibility of tabling of amendments on Report, before the House proceeds to Third Reading? Will you give us reassurance—so far as it lies within your powers to do so—that the Bill will not proceed beyond Committee stage today? Members of the Committee will want to reflect in the usual way and decide on what action to take as a result of Committee proceedings before we move to Report.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I am inclined to take a tolerant attitude toward manuscript amendments, if they are tabled. However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee to recognise that we are considering a three-clause Bill that is fairly tightly drawn. My discretion in the matter of amendments being in order might be somewhat constricted. Within the constraints of the difficult and tight time scale with which I have been presented, I have done my best to be as generous as possible about when amendments are tabled and as flexible as I can be in the selection of amendments. We should now proceed to consider the substance of the Bill.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. Will you give the Committee a little more information? If amendments are to be tabled for consideration on Report—you have generously indicated that that possibility is open to us—are we to take them in the normal way to the Table Office, leaving it to the Table Office to draw them to your attention; or are we to bring such amendments directly to you, in which case, how will we be told whether they are in order and have been selected for debate?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should state, for the benefit of Committee, that it is usual to have a Report stage only if amendments have been made in Committee. We have not yet made any amendments, so the matter we are discussing is a contingency on a contingency.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. I hope that the Committee does not assume that the Bill is not amendable—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I said no such thing. I merely said that what was being discussed was a contingency on a contingency. We cannot be aware in advance whether the Committee may choose in its wisdom to amend or not amend the Bill.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I understand that, Sir Alan. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I wonder whether you could advise the Committee on the difficulty of tabling manuscript amendments if the Bill is amended in Committee and we do not have a print of it. In those circumstances, I do not see how manuscript amendments could even be brought to the Table. If we do not have a print of the Bill, on what basis can we construct amendments?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Should that matter arise, I think that it is possible for manuscript amendments to be brought to the Table.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

rose—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I think that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was trying to make a point of order.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Further to the point that has already been raised, Sir Alan. I apologise for being a few minutes late but I was trying to check one or two things in the Public Bill Office before I came into the Chamber. If you are having some difficulty in deciding which amendments should be taken, you will appreciate—given the expertise on which you have to draw and the help that you receive—the tremendous difficulty that Back-Bench Members face in trying to table amendments. Although the Bill is narrow in content, it has wide consequences, which began to become apparent to hon. Members only yesterday, on Second Reading. We need rather more time than we have so far had to consider the possibility of tabling amendments.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

That is going back over a past argument which I do not think we can now repeat. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I have not had any difficulty in my selection of amendments, which is made in accordance with the normal considerations on these occasions. I said earlier that I had tried to be flexible so as to give hon. Members the maximum time in which to submit their amendments, and to ensure that my deliberations encompassed the widest range of amendments that hon. Members wished to table.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On a point of order, Sir Alan, may I ask for further guidance? If the Bill were to be amended in Committee, it might be proper, even if at that stage the Government were proposing indecent haste in pressing on immediately with further stages, to suspend the House of Commons for a period to give reasonable and proper time for hon. Members to consider those proceedings before being forced by the Government to go forward with indecent haste on to Report. Might that be in your mind, Sir Alan?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

All politicians fight shy of hypothetical situations, and I regard the one that the right hon. Gentleman has described as hypothetical. We shall deal with matters as they arise. The Committee might now move on to the substance of the matter.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Sir Alan. You will appreciate that in considering amendments we sometimes approach the same issue from slightly different points of view, and apply different standards. Would it be possible to have a vote on each amendment in a group if that were thought necessary by Back-Bench Members?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the occupant of the Chair will judge that according to the content of the debate. I shall listen carefully to all that is said. I call Mr. MacKay.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I hope that you will appreciate, Sir Alan, that I would not wish to abuse the Chair. However, there are important points that I—and other hon. Members—wish to make. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has refused to accept my offer that he should confirm that the Bill is urgent or in any way important emergency legislation.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

rose—

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

It seems that the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind; clearly he has been briefed.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I intervene for the purpose of the record, Sir Alan. As you rightly said, this is a short three-clause Bill. It was published before Christmas. There were consultations—and certainly with the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party. I cannot understand what the present concern is all about. There has been plenty of opportunity to debate these matters. Members were able to read the Bill and introduce any amendments that they thought suitable. Indeed, some right hon. and hon. Members have done so. I fail to see what all the fuss is about.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I do not want to be distracted unduly, but I must respond to the Minister, who has given no reason why the Bill must proceed with such haste. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for some years—it is some time since he won his by-election—but I shall give him a brief tutorial none the less. The normal circumstance is that a Bill has its Second Reading. If that is agreed to, the Bill goes into Committee the following week at the earliest. Only urgent or emergency legislation goes into Committee the following day. I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that the Bill is neither urgent nor emergency legislation. I am asking the Minister to tell me why it is urgent.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

As I understand it, these matters were sorted out through the usual channels. I do not believe that any concerns were raised by the official Opposition about timing. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has chosen today to raise them.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Let me make it absolutely clear—I have checked with the Opposition Chief Whip—that there has been no consultation through the usual channels. We were merely informed. We were not asked for our views and we were not given an opportunity to consider an alternative timetable. I shall finish my tutorial. It seems that the Minister does not fully understand the procedure. In normal circumstances, a Second Reading debate takes place one week and, at the earliest, the Bill is considered in Committee the following week. In my recollection, the only exception—I have served in the House of Commons for more than 20 years—is when we deal with emergency legislation. I do not believe that the Bill is emergency legislation. Perhaps the Minister might care to tell me why it is.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, I think somewhat disingenuously, that the Opposition were consulted through the usual channels, and said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, not consulted."] Well, he said that they were told through the usual channels. He said that that is not quite the same as being consulted. But if the Opposition were not happy with that, they should have raised their concerns at that stage. They did not do so, and we were entitled to believe that the official Opposition were content with the timetable. We proceeded on that basis, and I see no reason for the Committee to be detained any further on this matter.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that I would allow him some prefatory remarks before he moved into the substance of his speech on the amendment. Almost a quarter of an hour has passed, during which points of order have been raised, and I think that it would be in better order for the Committee to proceed to the substance of the amendment.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Let me say, Sir Alan, how much I agree that it would be in better order if we moved to the substance of the important amendment that I am moving. I would not have discussed other matters for so long if I had received some sort of answer from the Minister. I place it on the record that the Minister has signally failed to tell the Committee why the Bill is emergency or urgent legislation.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

It is not.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Oh, it is not. I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have an answer. I appreciate that. From a sedentary position, the Home Office Minister has said clearly that this is not emergency or urgent legislation. That being so, I fail to understand why it is being pushed through the House of Commons at such speed. As the hon. Gentleman seems to know more about the Bill than the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, perhaps he will explain to me why the Bill is being dealt with at such speed. It seems that he is not prepared to do so. It is now clear, Sir Alan, that we are not dealing with urgent or emergency legislation. That being so, we are faced with total abuse of the House of Commons. You have been placed in an extremely difficult position. As you rightly said earlier, you have had a tight timetable, as has the rest of the House of Commons, to consider amendments. We know now of the Government's arrogance. We know also that they could not care less for the House of Commons. They wish to push through non-urgent legislation at an extremely fast pace. We now see clearly what the new Labour Government are all about, and it stinks. The Under-Secretaries of State should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I shall now proceed because I do not wish to drag you into these matters, Sir Alan. My quarrel is not with you because you are being put in an equally difficult position. Having said that the Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and its having been made clear that this is not emergency legislation, I repeat that the Government are bulldozing the Bill through the House of Commons in a most unsatisfactory way. I shall now discuss my amendment in some detail.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

On a point of order, Sir Alan. If no explanation is forthcoming from the Government Front Bench as to why Second Reading and Committee are being taken so close together, can you tell the Committee whether any explanation has been given to Madam Speaker?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Let us consider amendment No. 10, which is grouped with new clause 1. The latter was tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and Ulster Unionist Members. A month ago, the courageous First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), made the decision to enter into an Executive with members of Sinn Fein. We considered the matter long and hard, and concluded that he was right and that, yet again, we would walk the extra mile with him to try to ensure that the process moved forward. We have always supported that process, from the Belfast agreement onwards. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will willingly confirm that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) started the process, and was ably abetted by Lord Mayhew and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is in his place. There were signs before Christmas that Sinn Fein-IRA would at last fulfil its obligations under the Belfast agreement. I use the phrase "Sinn Fein-IRA" correctly because successive Prime Ministers and Taoiseachs have stated that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked and one and the same; they are two sides of the same coin. There were signs that Sinn Fein-IRA would decommission its illegally held arms and explosives by May 2000. That hope was shared, perhaps naively, by me and others. The majority of Members of Parliament supported the Government and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann as First Minister of the Executive that was being set up. All hon. Members in every party in the House are democrats. We all believe that it is unsatisfactory for Ministers to run part of the United Kingdom when they remain inextricably linked with men of violence who have failed to end their violence for good or fulfil their obligations under the Belfast agreement to decommission any of their illegally held arms and explosives. Not one gun or one ounce of Semtex has been handed in by any of the paramilitaries—republican and so-called loyalist—whose political associates signed the Belfast agreement. It would not be right in our free society for the two Sinn Fein Members of the Assembly who are Ministers respectively for Education and for Health to retain those Executive positions without substantial decommissioning. I therefore support what the Secretary of State and the First Minister have said repeatedly: early decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives must take place. Most reasonable people believe that that must happen this month, which ends next Monday, or shortly thereafter. Sadly, having met a wide variety of people in the Province during a four-day visit, which concluded on Sunday, I can report that few people believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will fulfil its obligations and decommission. I hope and pray that they are wrong, because it is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning occurs, and that the Executive is able to continue to run much of Northern Ireland. The politicians whom the people of Northern Ireland elected should be responsible for much of the running of their Province. That is healthy and helpful, and we wish to encourage it. The people of Northern Ireland would dearly like to continue with that process. Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 show that we have absolute faith in General de Chastelain and the commission. It is for him, not—with the greatest respect—for you, Sir Alan, or me or the Under-Secretary to decide whether decommissioning has taken place. If the general, when he reports on Friday or Monday, reports that there has been no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by the Provisional IRA, the Secretary of State has no choice but to do that which he has promised the House and the people of Northern Ireland: he must suspend the Executive until progress has been made. Conservative Members believe passionately that, in such dire and sad circumstances, it is up to the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive. It should not be left to the First Minister and his Unionist colleagues to resign and thus close down the Executive.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that Conservative Members relied totally on General de Chastelain. It may well be possible to rely on the general's words, but how can we rely on any construction that the Government's spin doctors might put on them?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

The general is obliged to report by the end of the month. When he does that, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members will study his words carefully, and we shall take no notice of whatever spin is put on them by those who wish to influence events. I know the general, and I believe that his report will be clear and succinct and not open to various interpretations.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I do not know the general, but I am sure that he is an excellent man. Everything that I have heard about him is good. However, there is currently an idea that, instead of being destroyed or surrendered, weapons will be kept in bunkers in which terrorist organisations place them, where they will be permanently out of their reach. How can any intact weapons, in bunkers whose location is known to terrorist organisations, be permanently out of their reach? Perhaps my right hon. Friend can enlighten me.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

If I answered that point in too much detail, I would be trespassing on your good nature, Sir Alan. However, I shall respond briefly to my hon. Friend, who takes a deep interest in such matters. He is joint vice-chair of the Conservative Northern Ireland Committee. Successive Governments have used the word "decommissioning" rather than destroying or surrendering. I am not too fussed about the way in which weapons and explosives are decommissioned as long as it happens. It does not matter whether they are destroyed, handed in or left in sealed containers, provided that General de Chastelain and his staff can police them at all times.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

rose—

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I will certainly give way but first I want to clarify our position for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Where I have great criticism of the paramilitaries, republican and so-called loyalists, is that not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in. I want substantial progress towards the decommissioning of all illegally held arms and explosives by the appointed day in May this year. So far, we have seen no progress whatsoever. That is what really counts.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The word "decommissioning" is used in my hon. Friend's amendment, so I am sure that he is right to explain at length what is meant by it. Is my right hon. Friend saying that putting weapons in a sealed container is decommissioning? If so, can he say the purpose for which those weapons could possibly be needed?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

The word "decommissioning" is not only used in the amendments but was used in the Belfast agreement and all the legislation that came from it. I am sure that successive Governments have been right to define that process as decommissioning. I am anxious to ensure that weapons are decommissioned—taken out of commission. Whether they are taken out of commission by being destroyed or are retained in a sealed container that is properly policed is secondary to ensuring that they are all decommissioned. We want them all decommissioned by the said date in May. That is essential.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. Friend knows well that the Bill is about a proposed change to an aspect of our constitutional arrangements that many of us believe is of fundamental importance—allowing aliens to enter the House. Given that he believes that such a change could properly be brought about provided the words in the amendment are fulfilled, does he not think it reasonable to be more than fully satisfied that the meaning of the words "decommissioning" and "substantial progress" are positive, reassuring and provide a guarantee such as we would require before allowing aliens into the House?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why I have discussed decommissioning at some length and am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) for pressing me to define "decommissioning" more fully.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

rose—

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I have not completely answered my right hon. Friend and know that he will want me so to do. It is vital, as decommissioning goes to the heart of the amendment and new clause, not only to debate the merits of decommissioning but to take a look at where we are on decommissioning and how it relates to the Executive. Vital, crucial days lie ahead for the Province. Every law-abiding person in both communities is hoping and praying that there will be substantial decommissioning so that the process and the Executive can proceed. That is the crucial test.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Is it not a fact that under the legislation by which General de Chastelain is operating, the arms have to be destroyed? Hiding them in bunkers will not satisfy that law.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

The hon. Gentleman and I were both sitting in the House when that legislation was passed in July 1998. I would need to double check the detail of that legislation before answering. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby whether I would be satisfied with decommissioning if it turned out to be, as he would put it, merely sealing the weapons in bunkers. I said it was vitally important that we had decommissioning in full and, provided that it is properly policed by the general and his staff, I could live with that. If my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks is asking whether I would prefer the weapons just to be sealed, of course the answer has to be no. My preferred option is obviously to have them destroyed in front of General de Chastelain's staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby was trying to tease out of me whether I could live with the weapons being sealed. The answer is yes. What is vitally important is that decommissioning takes place, so that the process can move forward and the Executive can continue to function. That is absolutely what the overwhelming majority of both communities in Northern Ireland want and I believe the majority of right hon. and hon. Members want that.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

Is not the essential point that the so-called paramilitaries hold weapons illegally? There are no circumstances in which they can hold those weapons legally. The ceasing of all holding of those weapons is decommissioning. I beg my right hon. Friend not to allow a grey area into the debate at this stage. We cannot accept anything other than paramilitaries no longer having illegal weapons in their physical possession—even if policed for the time being by General de Chastelain's officers.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Perhaps I may be of assistance. I begin to see in my mind some limitation on the extent to which one can define the word "decommissioning". As I read the amendments and new clause, it is a matter of the belief of the Secretary of State in one case and, in the other, of the belief of the commission. Those are the matters being debated and it would be out of order if the Committee attempts to make fresh definitions. The definitions required are explicit in the amendments.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Sir Alan. Surely the term "decommissioning" is only defined, so far as the law of the United Kingdom is concerned, in the Act that creates the decommissioning process. The definition in that Act should matter, not anything that people might wish to introduce by any side wind during this debate. We are dealing with decommissioning as already legally defined—as being the destruction of the weaponry.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Nothing I have said implies any detraction from what is said in the original Act. I merely repeat my advice to the Committee that the amendments deal with the opinions of certain other stated persons or bodies, as to whether or not decommissioning as defined is being fulfilled.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I naturally accept your advice, Sir Alan, and will proceed accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has immense experience in this field and is joint vice-chairman with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby of the Conservative Back-Bench Committee and has taken great interest in these matters.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Notwithstanding the experience of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), which I acknowledge, that does not altogether debar him from sometimes stepping aside from the amendment being discussed.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Therefore, Sir Alan, it is worth reminding my hon. Friend that I have stressed to you the phrase, "illegally held arms and explosives" every time that I have discussed the matter. I think you will confirm, Sir Alan, that I have used the word "illegal" every time. There is no question that persons could retain the weapons in bunkers themselves; those bunkers would not be under their control but would be overseen by the commission. As you rightly say, Sir Alan, that moves us away from the amendment, although I might add that that movement is not of my own making, but has been caused by interventions.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I hesitate to intervene on that cue, but will my right hon. Friend elucidate for my benefit? Does the earlier legislation define "substantial progress"? If not, surely it is necessary to debate what constitutes substantial progress towards decommissioning for these purposes.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. If the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is, by his own admission, having difficulty in determining whether he is straying out of order as a result of interventions rather than anything he has said himself, I might help him by saying that he would be unwise to answer.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

May I answer briefly? No, and wisely so. New clause 1 quite rightly refers to "substantial" decommissioning and, although we had little time due to the speed at which the Bill was foisted on the Committee, we took some trouble to draft it carefully. We believe that General de Chastelain can say in his report whether substantial decommissioning has taken place. In other words, token decommissioning will not satisfy the House. Substantial decommissioning, heading towards full decommissioning by the appointed day in May, appears to us to be quite reasonable and it is well within the scope of the amendment, and within the House's understanding of decommissioning, to allow him to define whether that has taken place. We need substantial decommissioning and substantial decommissioning we must have. I return to the Bill in general and why we have tabled the amendment and new clause 1, which, with respect, are the most important and substantial of those before the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will disagree, although you, Sir Alan, may consider them to be the most important. The Bill does not in any way flow from the Belfast agreement. It is not urgent, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have more or less confirmed from the Dispatch Box and in sedentary interventions, and, so far as I can see, not many people have asked for such a measure. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) deeply believes the Bill to be to be a constitutional outrage—as do my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who is much respected—but we on the Conservative Front Bench are fairly agnostic. We think that it is not anywhere near the constitutional outrage that they suggest, although we would be happy to give it fair wind if only we felt confident that it would be enacted only as and when General de Chastelain made it clear that there had been substantial decommissioning. I shall tell the Committee why, because that is the key issue. The process has been all take by the paramilitaries, and absolutely no give. The British and Irish Governments and the peace-loving constitutional parties—Unionist, Alliance or nationalist—have jumped every hurdle that they have been asked to jump. The Assembly elections have taken place. The Executive has been set up—with two Sinn Fein Ministers—as was correct under the legislation. Terrorist prisoners have been released early from jail and are back on the streets—more than 300 hundred already. North-south bodies have been set up. The Patten report on policing in the Province has been completed and the Government are shortly to introduce legislation to make changes. That is all give by the Government and all take by the paramilitaries, republicans and so-called loyalists. Some of us might say that we have had precious little in return so far. I fundamentally disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Although I do not believe that the Bill is important, why should we pass unimportant legislation and give a bit more when we are getting nothing in return? Is not it time for the House and the Government to draw a line in the sand and say, "This far and no further. We will agree to the Bill going through only if there is substantial decommissioning as defined by General de Chastelain."? That is why I commend the amendment and the consequent new clause to the Committee.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Following directly from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has said, it is interesting that in yesterday's debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said: In particular, the establishment of the new institutions provided for in the Good Friday agreement makes the measure timely."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.] That clearly establishes a link in his mind between the Good Friday agreement and the measure before us. It can do none other. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the arrangements between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and this House—and the Government—are unique and different. Our response to the agreement must reflect that. The argument is about context rather than precise linkage."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 73.] Two Ministers said in the debate on Second Reading that there is a connection—a link—between the Good Friday agreement and the Bill. I do not see how they can deny that, because their own words, which appear in Hansard, illustrate the point all too directly. We have an answer to the question that we all struggled with yesterday. Given the benefit of reflection—how valuable it is during parliamentary proceedings—we are beginning to detect a link in the minds of Ministers. That is helpful and puts the amendment in context.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Does that suggest to my right hon. Friend and the Committee that some understanding between the two Governments on that precise point—secret, perhaps, or covert—has not been revealed?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I would like to think that we shall learn more today than we did yesterday and my hon. Friend is correct to raise that point. Our suspicion yesterday was not that there was an arrangement between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but, much more sinister, that there was a deal or undertaking between the Government and Sinn Fein-IRA. That is even more worrying and we suspect that it, rather than the connections between the Good Friday agreement and the Bill—which Ministers had dragged out of them, as Hansard has verified—may be the genesis of this ill-begotten and untimely measure.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we have not yet had a comprehensive list of all whom the Government consulted in regard to the Bill. We have dragged out of the Government only that they consulted the leader of the Unionist party and, presumably, the usual channels.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. That is a matter for Second Reading, which has passed.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

A perusal of yesterday's Hansard might show that Ministers said that they would consider those matters and report back, but perhaps this is not the moment for that to happen. In speaking to the amendment in my name, amendment No. 1, so far I have not been persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, in his elegant moving of his amendment and new clause, for a reason that began to become rather too obvious—for him to seek to link the mechanism contained in the Bill with the decommissioning process may well be unsatisfactory. I regret the fact that I do not believe that the words of my right hon. Friend's new clause, which rely on the words "Decommissioning" and "substantial progress", give sufficient guarantees or reassurance when it comes to altering an arrangement as fundamental as that relating to who is or is not qualified to sit in the House of Commons. I simply cannot see that. I shall argue in the context of my own amendment that nor was I entirely satisfied with the provisions in the new clause that the Act should come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint". That is a pretty slender basis on which to base such a measure, as we all realise. My amendment, by contrast, seeks to both broaden and sharpen the requirement by providing that the section would come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State who shall not make such an order unless he has previously laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement in relation to the Belfast Agreement …, stating that in his opinion and", crucially, in the opinion of all parties to that Agreement all aspects of the Agreement have been implemented. What the amendment seeks to do is make much more certain the basis on which we might proceed to the measures contained within the Bill. I made it clear on Second Reading—I hope that I shall make it clear again on Third Reading—that I am against the Bill in principle. I want that to be absolutely clear. I took part in a vote against the Bill last night, but what we are doing now is different: the House having given the Bill a Second Reading, we are now seeking ways in which to improve and strengthen it. It is in that regard that I put my amendment to the Committee this evening. Before we can progress with the Bill, a number of closely interrelated things must happen. The first is that the Secretary of State will make an order only if he has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement that, in his opinion, all of the requirements of the Belfast agreement have been met, but also, crucially, that all parties to the agreement state that all aspects of it have been implemented. This will give the whole matter a much more solid and reliable foundation, because we are now not only relying on the Secretary of State, who is always a key element in these matters, but—in my view rightly—asking all parties to the agreement to say "We are sufficiently satisfied that the agreement has been met in all respects and we are now prepared to accept that we move on to the next crucial stage of allowing foreigners into the House of Commons."

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Given what my right hon. Friend is saying, which makes great sense, and given that we all accept—on this side of the House, even if the Government might deny it—that the whole purpose of the Bill is yet another bribe to Sinn Fein, can he imagine why the Government would not accept his amendment? Surely the bribe to Sinn Fein is designed to get Sinn Fein to give up its weapons. Therefore, is he surprised that the Government appear to be likely to oppose the amendment?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That remains to be seen. What my hon. Friend illustrates yet again is that we are all still guessing. Is it not a disgrace that, at this stage in the Bill's proceedings, the House of Commons is still not clear as to the motivation behind the Bill, the reasons why the Government have introduced it and why they are bringing it in with such undue haste? There is widespread suspicion, certainly on this side of the House, that it is part of an extremely grubby deal, where the Government are prepared to give away another key element of our constitutional arrangements for nothing at all. That is how it looks, and it is the only assumption on which we can operate unless Ministers tell us otherwise. If my hon. Friend accepts the quotations of Ministers that I gave from yesterday's Hansard, he will agree that, in the minds of Ministers on the Treasury Bench, there is a link between the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday agreement and the Bill. Amendment No. 1 seeks formally to embed that in the Bill. I simply seek—perhaps fortuitously, because I tabled the amendments before I had even heard what the Ministers said, but everybody has to have a little bit of good luck in their time—to give Ministers a formalisation of the link that they themselves were making, as reported in yesterday's Hansard. To the extent to which that is the case, I have enormous confidence that Ministers will want to accept my amendment. Ministers might even prefer my amendment to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell because, for the reasons that we saw just a moment ago in the debate, my right hon. Friend, with all his skill and experience, was not quite able to persuade some of us that his amendment was sufficiently airtight and watertight to give us the reassurances that we would naturally want to have. I believe that my amendment does the job even better, because it involves the judgment of the Secretary of State on the one hand and the judgment of all the parties to the agreement on the other. It then goes even further, because in subsection (2B) it says, crucially: No order shall be made under subsection (2A)"— that is, the Secretary of State's order with the agreement of all the parties built into it— unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. What we are saying is that it would require both Houses to agree that the composition of the House of Commons could be changed as envisaged in the Bill. That would mean, in this case, the ability of aliens—non-United Kingdom citizens from the Republic of Ireland, a different and separate country, with many different and separate interests, as we explored briefly on Second Reading yesterday—to enter the House of Commons. It distresses me that I must disagree with my right hon. Friend: he thinks that this is a small measure, whereas I think that it is a profoundly important measure. What could be more important than who is or is not entitled to come to this House and represent the people of the United Kingdom, from all parts of the United Kingdom? What could be more important, as a matter of definition of our nationality and as a matter of a statement of our relations with other countries? That is why I believe that we would have to be doubly, triply—or even more than that—satisfied before we allowed any significant alteration to the arrangements that have hitherto applied on these matters. We are talking about citizens of the Republic of Ireland—legislators in the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland—being qualified to sit in this House. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, an explicit linkage to the Belfast agreement must surely be appropriate.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Since the right hon. Gentleman puts so much emphasis on a connection between the Bill and the Belfast agreement—it is his wish to make such a connection—may the House know whether he is in favour of the agreement? When I look at the Opposition Benches, I note that all the Unionist Members present are against the agreement. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who takes a close interest in Northern Ireland and has done so for many years, is against it. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My view is that an agreement that has facilitated the release of some very disgusting people from prison into the community, is facilitating terrorists' friends being invited into United Kingdom institutions, and may now be being used as the vehicle whereby a change such as that encompassed in the Bill is to be made to our constitutional arrangements, is of increasingly doubtful validity.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

The right hon. Gentleman has given the answer to my question, but was he against the agreement when it was signed? The hon. Members I mentioned, who have every right to their opinion, as I have to mine, made it clear at the time that they were against the agreement. Was the right hon. Gentleman against it?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I may have had my doubts at the time, but I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to all parties to the agreement, on the assumption that, if they were all operating in a spirit of genuine goodwill, it provided an opportunity to resolve the problems that have bedevilled part of the United Kingdom for so long. Time has passed, however. Changes have occurred, and the factors that I have mentioned have led me to doubt increasingly whether we were right to feel so optimistic.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of the Bill are outside those of the Belfast agreement in any event?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is an important point. It is all very well for Ministers to sit grinning and nodding, but it is they who made the connection between the agreement and their own Bill. Unless they retract, clarify or change the meaning of what they said yesterday, that remains the case. I quoted those words only a few minutes ago—not my words, but those of one of the Ministers. I hope that one, or both, will take the opportunity—

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

rose—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Of course I shall give way to the Minister.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The right hon. Gentleman did, indeed, read out the relevant words from Hansard, but they do not mean what he suggested. In the part of my speech that he quoted, I specifically used the word "context". The right hon. Gentleman should realise that using the word "context" is different from saying that the Bill is in some way related to the Good Friday agreement, and he should not misrepresent what was said by me or by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is all very well, but I quoted the words of the Under-Secretary of State first, and I think that they were even more relevant. Having been asked to quote them again, I will—with your indulgence, Mr. Martin. The Under-Secretary of State said: The Bill is just one example of that closer relationship … it is built on the firm foundation of the principle of consent that is central to the Good Friday agreement, and which was enshrined in law … The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. All the words that the hon. Gentleman used yesterday—there were many more, but I shall not weary the Committee with them now—sought to establish a causal link between the agreement and the Bill.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

My right hon. Friend omitted a key part of what was said by the Under-Secretary of State. He said: The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.] Does that not suggest that there were discussions at the time of the agreement, and that they were part and parcel of the Bill?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It is beginning to sound very much like that, is it not? I wish that, rather than sitting there giggling, Ministers would do the Committee the courtesy of giving us a proper, full and open explanation of the genesis of what increasingly seems to be the grubby little measure that we are considering. They should let us know what gave rise to it, why they are presenting it now, why it is so urgent, and what they expect to gain from it. I hope that, if the Ministers did not understand what they were told, they may understand it better as a result of the help that they are being given. I also hope that, when they reply to the series of important debates in which we shall continue to engage during the next few hours, we shall discover from them what on earth is going on.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

We have two options. The first is to believe that the Bill emerged from behind-the-scenes discussion with Sinn Fein in an attempt to hand Sinn Fein another sop in terms of the agreement, arising from it. The second is to believe that—all of a sudden, out of a clear blue sky, with no prior discussion, with no public interest and with no newspaper commentators raising the subject—a Government with a huge agenda manufactured the Bill. Which option does my right hon. Friend prefer?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

rose—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is talking about the Bill. Interventions should relate to the amendments and new clause that we are discussing.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin. You have possibly saved me from having to make the difficult choice presented to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I may return to the matter later, when I gauge that you might allow me more leeway, but I dare not do so now.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am approaching the conclusion of my speech, and I hope that my colleagues will bear that in mind; but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Earlier, my right hon. Friend responded to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked whether he supported the Belfast agreement. We supported it—with some reservations—because it appeared to be supported by the great majority of people in Northern Ireland. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable misgivings felt by large sections of the community in Northern Ireland, especially the Unionist community, who voted in favour of the agreement but now believe that they were hoodwinked in certain ways, not least by the Prime Minister?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I cannot answer the question that my hon. Friend poses, but others in the Chamber can, and I hope that they will seek an opportunity to do so. It is important for us to know as much as possible about the views of the people of Northern Ireland before we proceed much further. This is a valid aspect of our considerations. I cannot give the views of those people, but there are those sitting very close to me who could. What I am trying to say is very simple. In my view, the key measure in the Bill—I am against the Bill in principle, but the House gave it its blessing by agreeing to Second Reading—cannot be allowed to proceed without conditionality. It cannot be allowed to proceed without reassurance and guarantees. The guarantees that I suggest—I hope that I shall be able to test the Committee's view at an appropriate time—would explicitly link activation of the Bill with completion of all aspects of the Belfast agreement, as established by all parties to that agreement. I consider that to be proper, reasonable, straightforward and comprehensible, and I think that it should therefore form a key part of the Bill.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Thank you, Mr. Martin. I realise that one of my advantages is being so tiny and insignificant that I am rarely noticed. It will greatly please Ministers to learn that I do not intend to speak at length. The amendments, however, strike me as important, in as much as they relate to the Bill and to the qualifications of those who will have the right to sit in the House of Commons. The title of the Bill is a bit of a misnomer. It is not so much a disqualifications Bill as a qualifications Bill. One of the hazards presented by the new clause and, from a different angle, the amendments is the confusion in Members' minds about whether the particular measure being introduced relates to a particular group of persons who have not been identified. If that is the case, and if it had been put to us that we are now confronted by an entirely different political situation that requires us to make fundamental changes to the qualifications of those who wish to enter the House of Commons because we need much wider representation, people would be better able to judge the amendments. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asks, I am in favour of the Belfast agreement. If I have objections to the Bill and to the amendments, they arise from my belief that, if constitutional change is made without detailed examination, once the legislation is on the statute book—especially if debate has been, what shall I say? somewhat foreshortened—we often end up with wording, even with basic changes, that may not constitute exactly what we foresaw. That is why I feel impelled to say that I am worried not just about the amendments, but the qualifications that would apply in future to people who wanted to be candidates. I do not have a great wish to be a Member of the Dail, not least because one of my best friends had to sit through eight recounts before knowing whether he had been elected. I pointed out to him that, after the second recount, I would put my coat on, go home and suggest that someone tell me when a conclusion had been reached. However, I would not want the Minister to think that my views on proportional representation were influencing any of my comments tonight. The amendments and the new clause can be dealt with simply. If we were told whether some political decision or political change necessitated the passage of the Bill in this form, without qualifications or restrictions on the people who can be candidates for the House of Commons, and if we were told that the changes had to be made now, the matter would possibly be dealt with quickly. I do not think that we have been told those things. Those who propose restrictions in the amendments do so from a genuine desire to ensure that we do not allow constitutional change to put us in a position that we might regret, if not in the near future, certainly before many months have passed. So I make one suggestion to Ministers: speak clearly to us, explain fully to us what is implied and, above all, remember that constitutional change applies to every Member of the House of Commons, wherever they come from, whatever their background, sex, religion or general approach to life. It therefore behoves those of us who believe in democracy to ensure that the one thing that they have in common is a commitment to a democratic form of government.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Last night, I voted against the Bill on principle, for several reasons. I saw no reciprocity between the arrangements that are being provided for the House and the arrangements in the Dail and in Eire as a whole. That in itself is unfair and unreasonable in all circumstances, but the issue goes much deeper than that. The question that is before us has not been answered by the Government. We have continually put to them issues relating to why the Bill should be brought before us at this stage. We have had no answer whatever. That is an outrage and it is why I tabled the amendment. My amendment No. 32 states: in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly". I challenge the Government to answer the point. Is it conceivable that anyone who did not disavow terrorism as a matter of principle would take their place in a democratic society and democratic Government under a constitutional arrangement, whether in respect of the House of Commons, or the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The hon. Gentleman speaks of Members coming into a democratic society. Is it not for a democratic election to decide the merit of those individuals and which House they enter? The electorate would ultimately make that judgment in a democratic society.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is not inconceivable that there are people in Ireland who would want to stand for election and who had not disavowed terrorism. If they stood and were successful, it would be inherent in the Standing Orders of the House and in the duty to protect the people of this country to ensure that anyone who did not disavow terrorism should not take their seat in the House—just as, without going into the merits of the process, they would not be able to take their seat in the House without declaring their Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. The question of terrorism is thus of fundamental importance in the context of the Bill. We face a strange situation. After all, in the 19th century, during debate on the home rule Bill in 1886, Mr. Parnell, who took a strong position with respect to home rule, supported by Mr. Gladstone, made it clear in a memorandum that was put forward, effectively, in his name that he would not stand out on the question whether the Irish Members should reman in the imperial Parliament or be excluded from it. We have come full circle. It is clear that, at that time, Mr. Parnell was not against the idea of members of the Irish nation, as he would have put it, being excluded from the so-called imperial Parliament. We are posing for ourselves the West Lothian question in relation to Ireland as a whole. If members of the Irish nation, as they would put it, are to stand and to be elected in this country, it follows that we will face exactly the same issues as those raised by the West Lothian question. As a colleague of mine said to me earlier today, instead of the West Lothian question, we might just as well raise the East Connemara question. The Bill is directly relevant to a devolution question. I believe strongly that we should also look at a much deeper question that faces the Committee: what really lies behind the Government's objectives. As I have often said, the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. It is becoming clear that the best way to keep a secret is to promote a Bill without giving any reasons for it. We have not had a single reason from the Government. I look to the Minister, who is now shaking his head—he was nodding earlier; he does not know which way to go—to say why the Bill has been introduced at all. Some of us look at the Irish issue not as a means of dividing ourselves from our colleagues or friends in Ireland, but to discover whether what is being done is inimical to the interests of this country, or indeed of Eire as a whole. We have no reciprocal arrangements in respect of the Bill. I demand that the Minister explain before the debate on the amendment is concluded, or on Third Reading, why the Bill has been introduced. On Second Reading, many people raised the legitimate question of the conflict of loyalty and interest—that Members cannot serve two nations—but there is another question at the heart of what is behind the Government's thinking. There is a proposal, albeit embryonic, for arrangements within the—

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I will indeed. Anyone who promoted terrorism and was not prepared to renounce it would invade the sovereignty of the country in which they proposed to stand and be elected, or be disqualified under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Anyone who proposed to stand for this Parliament but was not prepared to renounce terrorism would invade the sovereignty of the citizenship and the right of the electors. 7 pm I therefore ask the Minister to answer this question: is it inconceivable that the real reason why the Bill has been introduced is that Ministers are proposing an arrangement whereby there is no conflict, and people are able to stand for election and to be elected to the House, because we shall be subject to a European Union arrangement under which Ireland and the United Kingdom are part of the same province? That would be a very convenient way of dealing with the problem that Ministers face with Sinn Fein and its aspirations in relation to Ireland as a whole. Has the Minister had any direct discussions with Sinn Fein on the Bill? We know that there were secret discussions last year. I should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to deny that the arrangements for this Bill and for the future of Northern Ireland were discussed with Sinn Fein-IRA, within a constitutional—

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am speaking to an amendment that raises the issue of whether a person who stands for election to this place or to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and who is elected, should be prepared to disavow terrorism. That is the key issue. Anyone who is prepared to stand for and to achieve election to this place, but not to disavow violence and terrorism, should be prevented from becoming a Member of this place. That is the key element of amendment No. 32. I should be interested to know whether Opposition Front Benchers are prepared to support amendment No. 32, requiring a disavowal of terrorism. I do not know the answer to that, as I have had no indication from Front Benchers whether they would be prepared to go down that road. However, a requirement to disavow terrorism must be equivalent to one requiring us to take the Oath of Allegiance.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

My hon. Friend will be aware that, very wisely, legislation on the Northern Ireland Assembly that he and I helped to pass includes a provision requiring Assembly Members to disavow violence before taking their seats in the Assembly, let alone on the Executive. It is an interesting issue, and we should give it further consideration. Nevertheless, I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking to his amendment, enabling us to discuss the matter in greater detail.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. However, although that provision may apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it does not seem to apply to the House of Commons.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

In view of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), does it not seem to be a contradiction that we have Assembly Members who are supposed to have repudiated violence saying publicly that, if they do not get their way, they will go back to doing the things that they do best—blowing up schools, hospitals and industry, and killing people? How can anyone say that a person who says such things has given up violence? We know perfectly well that some of those who have been released on to the streets have gone back to violence and attacking police.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

That was one of the reasons why, last year, when we were considering other legislation, I was deeply concerned. I objected to releasing terrorists into the community simply on the basis of a very sordid deal with Sinn Fein-IRA. Does the Minister agree that the Government should clearly state that, in principle, no one who fails to conform with the requirements of a provision such as amendment No. 32—which is consistent with the provisions of the Terrorism Bill—should be allowed to take a seat in the House of Commons? We are debating a matter of principle and legislation that Ministers say is urgently needed, and I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to support my amendment. If they are not, they are effectively saying that, as far as they are concerned, anyone who does not renounce terrorism should be qualified to be a Member and to speak in the House of Commons. I see the Minister shuffling around. He almost came to the Dispatch Box, but has not quite made it. Will he be good enough to tell me whether the Government agree with my amendment? If he is not prepared to say whether the Government agree with it, the Committee would be entitled to draw the conclusion that Ministers do not agree with it. The Committee would also be entitled to conclude that Ministers are prepared to allow those who do not renounce terrorism—in the context specified in the Bill—to join the House of Commons. I give him another opportunity to answer that question.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

If the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience, I shall speak later in the debate and deal with the points that have been raised.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Will the Minister answer my specific question? Does he countenance on behalf of the Government the attendance in this place of those who are elected to the House but who are not prepared to renounce terrorism, although their track record clearly shows that they were interested in pursuing terrorism as a means of achieving change? Will he, please, answer that question? He has indicated a quarter of the answer, but will he now answer it?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I shall answer it in my own time and in my own way.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I shall leave it at that. We shall have to wait until we hear the Minister's reply. However, the fact is that the Government are not prepared to state quite clearly that anyone who is elected to the House but not prepared to renounce terrorism will not be able to take his or her seat.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

My hon. Friend will know that the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), has clearly said that he believes that the House should have the same level of security as the Northern Ireland Assembly—where, at least supposedly, those who sit have said that they have forsaken any type of violence and believe in democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members are right to insist that the Government should include in the Bill at least that safeguard, if not any other?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Yes. I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, which were absolutely to the very point of the debate. The Opposition spokesman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), has raised the decommissioning issue. However I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) with great respect—at the heart of the issue is not merely a technical matter about bunkers or about whether we will make sufficient or substantial progress on decommissioning. Although that is a part of the issue, the real question is whether people should be in the Northern Ireland Executive or elected to the House if they are not prepared, given their track record, to renounce terrorism. In this Bill, that is the fundamental issue facing the Committee.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but I want to press him a little further on this point. It is my understanding that the Belfast agreement's requirement that violence be renounced for good means that there must be no association with a paramilitary organisation that has failed to decommission its illegally held arms and explosives. As I said earlier, every Prime Minister and Taoiseach has said that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked. It follows that people cannot renounce violence simply by swearing that they have renounced it if the paramilitaries with whom they are associated have failed to decommission, or have not even begun to do so. Would my hon. Friend accept that proposition?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I would certainly accept—as I have said repeatedly—that there is an absolute requirement for decommissioning in respect of the whole process, including the Belfast agreement. However, for any people with a track record of terrorism who stand for election to the Northern Ireland Assembly or this House, it would have to be clear, not only that they were associated with the process of decommissioning, but that, on behalf of their constituents, they would disavow terrorism. That is the gravamen of the amendment. It is a fundamental constitutional question about democracy. I need not elaborate any further. I am deeply disappointed that more hon. Members are not present for this important debate, which is fundamental to the workings of our democracy. Given the history involved, and the practical realities of the present, it is disappointing that more attention is not being devoted to the matter. I am strongly of the opinion that the Opposition should have voted against the Bill as a matter of principle yesterday. However, having said that, I look to the Government to support amendment No. 32. If they do not, they will stand condemned by their unwillingness to go along with the clear principle that people who want to become members of a legislature—whether it be the Northern Ireland Assembly or the House of Commons—cannot stand for election without disavowing terrorism.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

As yesterday, the debate is more wide ranging and interesting than the Government would have wished. The questions raised by all contributors go to the heart of our democracy, and the Government have not yet given us any real answers. We are still considering the first group of amendments selected for debate, and I am grateful for the fact that it will be possible to go beyond 10 pm tonight. I hope that we will not be confronted with a motion to guillotine discussion on this important Bill. However, I should be somewhat surprised if we were not, as I suspect that Opposition Members are prepared to carry on the debate beyond the next two and three quarter hours so that the Government will be able to hear their views as we explore the detail of the Bill. Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 tie implementation of the Bill to decommissioning. I shall return later in my remarks to decommissioning and what it means to any reasonable citizen in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 32 would exclude unreconstructed terrorists from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The degree to which some terrorists remain unreconstructed was made plain at the weekend, when we saw Mr. Adams—who should be regarded as a Member of this House—carrying the coffin of Tom McWilliams. McWilliams was hanged in 1942 for the murder of a Roman Catholic police officer in Northern Ireland. Such murders were carried out whenever the IRA planned outbursts of violence in Northern Ireland to disrupt this country's war effort. An uncle of mine who died last year aged more than 90 was involved in work against the IRA at that time, so I know something about the period. McWilliams belonged to the original IRA, the predecessor organisation to the Provisional IRA. The appearance at the weekend of Mr. Adams, given his role in Sinn Fein, illustrates the seamless spiritual line of violence in Irish politics that extends from long before 1942 right up to the present day. It is an unbroken line—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Joined-up terrorism.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for that phrase. The truth is that such people have not deserted violence. As I said yesterday, a mental reservation exists in them. They have proclaimed several times that the wording of the oaths and undertakings that they have been asked to accept was such that they were able to accept them. That is why the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) may have been somewhat amiss in his remarks. Wording that is tight enough to tie down the IRA and their fellow travellers will be refused. Those people will not utter any words that do not allow them to justify, to themselves and their followers, what they have done. They will accept only words that allow them to continue with their violence, as and when they consider it necessary. Amendment No. 1 would achieve two things: first, the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, and secondly, that implementation was by order of both Houses of Parliament. Those are reasonable points that need to be accepted. All the tests set out in this group of amendments are reasonable tests of commitment to democracy. How can armed terrorists be allowed into government? That is what has happened in Northern Ireland. The people involved are still armed. Anyone who thinks that they have deserted violence and are no longer tied to the IRA should have been disabused by the funeral at the weekend. Those people's grip on their weapons is a public declaration that they believe in the power of weapons. They are wedded to the belief that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is not so much that they distrust the path of peace and democracy, but that they despise it. As de Valera once said, the majority have no right to be wrong—the corollary, of course, being that anyone who disagrees with the majority is wrong. De Valera changed his path eventually, but I suspect that he never changed his mind.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

The hon. Gentleman suggested that I might have been remiss in respect of aspects of my amendment No. 32. However, the question of mental reservation would not arise if it were accepted, as it specifies explicitly that people would have to disavow terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Bill currently being considered in Committee, so people would not be able to engage in a mental reservation. Is not that suggestion reasonable?

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The hon. Gentleman's proposal uses language that is much stronger than that of any of the undertakings or commitments that the people about whom I speak have had to give to enter the Northern Ireland Assembly, so to that extent I agree with him. He is asking that a complete disavowal of terrorism be a requirement of any person seeking election, but the phrasing of that disavowal must be a great deal stronger than what has so far been used in Northern Ireland. The amendments under consideration vary somewhat in their approach. Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 tie the application of the Bill to weapons, while amendment No. 32, rightly, demands visible and verbal conversion to democracy. However, in some ways amendment No. 1 is more comprehensive, as it sets the whole of the Belfast agreement as the standard with which those who benefit from it must comply. In other words, it would require people to accept the agreement as a whole and not cherry-pick, as the term that is often used has it. Messrs. Adams and McGuinness say that we should stick to the agreement. They mean, of course, that we should stick to their construction of the agreement, and not to that of any reasonable man. Those are two very different things. The reasonable man put his construction on the agreement at the start, so many of them voted for it and soon regretted it. Amendment No. 1 makes the implementation of the agreement subject to the opinion of the Secretary of State and the judgment of Parliament. It says that the Secretary of State can accept that weapons are being decommissioned, and that the people who used them have been converted and are now decent, law-abiding and snow-white citizens. But, having made that judgment, the Secretary of State would, under the amendment, have to come before Parliament with an order. It would be debatable and could be considered and explored so that its spin doctoring aspects might, to some extent, disintegrate. We could consider what the agreement and the decision reached actually meant, and whether these people had changed their minds. Such an examination should be welcomed by every hon. Member. If such a detailed examination were undertaken, we would know whether there was compliance with the requirements of the Good Friday agreement. If the amendment were accepted, the agreement should be lauded by the Government. If a genuine conversion took place, the Government, every hon. Member and everyone in Northern Ireland would rejoice. But unless such an examination, or something like it, can be carried out, I think that people in Northern Ireland and many hon. Members will be extremely suspicious. Conservative Members should also welcome the amendment. It avoids the dangers of cherry-picking, whether that is done by the Government, by the IRA or by parties prepared to be satisfied with less than the ideal. This is a holistic approach to the problem, and I think that the Government should welcome it. They tell us that we must not cherry-pick by taking out bits and pieces of the agreement but accept it as a whole. That is what we should be applying as the real test and standard of behaviour to be observed by folk who benefit from these things. There should be no mental reservations. Let me turn now to decommissioning. There seem to be different views about the meaning of the word. I believe that under the agreement, the weapons must be destroyed. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told the Unionist party that decommissioning meant what we saw happen to the Loyalist Volunteer Force weapons. That was nearly 14 months ago. The LVF brought in some home-made weapons—they had some ancient rifles that looked like the stuff brought in by Lord Carson for the old Ulster Volunteer Force in the early years of the last century. Some of the weapons could still be fired, and ammunition could be obtained for them but they were not modern weapons. If the LVF was relying on that armoury, I suspect that it is not in very good military shape. No more have been produced, but the principle was clear. The weapons were brought in and cut up in front of television cameras. It was shown on television nationwide. That is what the leader of the Unionist party has told his party members that decommissioning means to him. There have been reports in the press that the IRA could blow up the weapons. Let us be clear what that means. We cannot blow up guns. Suppose we built a stack of them and put a lot of explosive in the middle of it—we would simply distribute them to all and sundry for half a mile in every direction. Many of them would, I suspect, still be usable after that. Guns cannot be destroyed by that method. They have to be cut up or melted down—there is no other way. Rockets and mortars can be blown up, but that is a different kettle of fish. Furthermore, what explosive would be surrendered? We could not be satisfied with a bang in a bog, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said. A bang in a bog could be created by a home mix—something that the IRA is expert at producing. So that is not acceptable. Such material must go to people who are professionally qualified to say whether an explosive is Semtex or another explosive. It can then be blown up, burned, or whatever. Bullets are a particular problem. They cannot safely be crushed, for they might explode, and they cannot be burned or exploded. They must be destroyed in some other way. Ministers have made it plain that there must be substantial decommissioning and that it must be verifiable. Nobody has yet spelt out what substantial means; I have spelt out what verifiable means to me and, I believe, to the leader of my party, to every reasonable man and woman in the House and to the people of Northern Ireland. Given that we only have until May, the first tranche is unlikely to consist of half a dozen rusty revolvers or weapons that have been used to commit murder or other acts of violence. "Substantial" will mean many hundreds of weapons—large quantities of them—and hundredweights, possibly tonnes, of Semtex and other explosive. The question has been posed time and again: who asked for the Bill, and why the rush? Who did the Government discuss it with? Is it related to the request or suggestion of members of Sinn Fein that Northern Ireland Members be allowed to sit in the Dail? We know that such a suggestion has been made—there is reference to it in the excellent documentation on the Bill produced by the Library. What would that mean? Is it not an effort by Sinn Fein-IRA to get a measure of condominium or joint authority in a more visible form over Northern Ireland? Is that what underlies the Bill? We deserve to be told; the longer these discussions continue, the more suspicious I become. I can see no real reason for the Bill. There is certainly no urgency about it, yet it is being rushed through before we have time to ask the questions that need to be asked.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I want to focus my remarks on amendment No. 10 and new clause 1. Before I do so, I should like to commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on her speech. It is a pleasure, in a serious debate such as this, to be able to say to someone on the other side of the Committee that I agree with virtually every word that she said. I agreed not only with what she said but with the significance that she attached to clause 1, the qualification for serving in the House and the amendments that might affect that. I hope that she will not mind my saying that I also greatly admired the fineness and sharpness of her stiletto. In fact, it was so fine that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland still does not realise that he is bleeding. The fact that amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 are on the amendment paper tells us something of significance about the Bill. Earlier, Mr. Martin reproached me for a question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I asked why the amendments to this clause had been put to the Committee today in such a rush after yesterday's Second Reading. I offered him a choice of answer: either that this was complete happenstance—the business managers had nothing better to do so they dreamed up a Bill that had no relation to anything and thought they would take up a couple of days of our time with it—or that the measure related to the Belfast agreement. It is significant that all the amendments, which have been tabled and accepted as legitimate, relate to the agreement. They all relate to the process. It is clear—not only from Hansard, as my right hon. Friend pointed out—that the House authorities have no view on the merits of amendments, they rule only on the acceptability of amendments in the context of the Bill. That is what we are discussing. In that light, the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich becomes even more important. She rightly pointed out that the debate is about qualification for serving in the House. That is an issue of fundamental importance, which goes far beyond whether a couple of Sinn Fein politicians—or even a couple of IRA or loyalist paramilitary politicians—are eligible to serve in this place, or whether that is desirable. Clause 1 carries far wider ramifications than that. The first point that I make to the Government is that the amendments all set the context for the debate as to qualification for service in the House. The Minister would do the Committee a considerable service, and would lessen the contempt that the people of Northern Ireland will feel about the way in which the Government are proceeding, if—as his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said—he was a little more open with us as to the background to clause 1 and the amendments.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

Is it not because the Bill has wider implications, which go beyond Sinn Fein and Ireland, that it is somewhat unwise to link it to decommissioning issues? The Bill should stand alone.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right in so far as clause 1 deals with a non-specific issue; it adds Ireland to several countries that are affected by the disqualification provisions—Commonwealth countries and so on. In that narrow sense, he has a point. However, I hope that he will not take it amiss when I point out that those of us who are operating in the real world understand what clause 1 and the amendments are about. Clause 1 and the amendments that have already been accepted put the Bill in the context of the agreement—in the context of decommissioning and of terrorism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who has temporarily left the Committee, and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) pointed out. Although the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) is technically correct, the rest of us are debating the real issue that lies behind the amendments.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

Reference has been made to other countries. The Americans do not allow people in, even on a visitor's visa, if they have a murder conviction. Can we possibly imagine that we should allow people—even those from Commonwealth countries—to stand for Parliament if they had such a record? The intervention of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was not relevant.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I suspect that I should get on the wrong side of Mr. Lord were I to develop the hon. Gentleman's point, although it is a good one, which the whole Committee will understand. I want to draw the Committee's attention to two aspects of amendment No. 10 and new clause 1: conditionality and progress on decommissioning. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is no longer in the Chamber, because it was not clear to me that there was as much difference between his view and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) as he thought. In the context of the agreement, decommissioning is the outward and visible sign of an inner grace. It is a demonstration of the fact that a renunciation of terrorism has taken place—or that there is a willingness to move away from it over time. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell as expressed in the phrasing of amendment No. 10 and new clause 1. I suspect that, had the roles been reversed and the Conservatives were in government, we might or might not have introduced the Bill. However, we are not debating the principle of the Bill; we are debating its substance, line by line. It has received its Second Reading. Given the Government's majority, it will become law. We are considering whether we can improve it. That was the approach, with which I agree, taken by my right hon. Friend in his introductory remarks. He put his finger on two issues in the amendments that would make the Bill better. The first is progress on decommissioning. All of us—especially those who have been Members of Parliament for some time and, in particular, those of us who have had the privilege of serving in Northern Ireland—understand that the Belfast agreement was a deal. It was a deal endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and that gave legitimacy to those right hon. and hon. Members who bought into it, despite our reservations about one or other aspect of the agreement. However, the legitimacy derived from the referendum told us that we had to buy into the deal. As is shown in relation to amendment No. 10 and new clause 1, part of that deal related to decommissioning. If we consider the other issues in the deal, we find that progress has been made on all of them, with the one exception of decommissioning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell said that the Unionist community had given and given, but that no one else had given anything in their direction. I do not want to pursue that line of thought, although I share his perception. Progress, which would have been inconceivable to many people a few years ago, has been made on the whole agreement, except on that one issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have had the pleasure of exchanging views on other matters, but he is not helping the Committee or—far more important—the people of Northern Ireland by maintaining that the Bill has no significance to the deal that was done in Belfast. It is not helpful for the Committee to get into a debate tonight about the definition of decommissioning. However, I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell that, like him, I was recently in Belfast, and I was deeply worried to hear the latest Sinn Fein lie on decommissioning, which runs something like this: "We are not using the weapons. That is decommissioning". It is not, and to make substantial progress against a background of Sinn Fein saying, "We will not use them any more and that is substantial progress on decommissioning" is to treat people with contempt.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

indicated assent.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he would not countenance that definition of decommissioning. Were he to countenance it, he would lose the support of all Conservative Back Benchers in the process.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I confirm that I share my right hon. Friend's disgust that Sinn Fein-IRA representatives are now simply saying that the fact that they are not killing or maiming many people with their guns is a form of decommissioning. That is not decommissioning as defined in legislation. More important, that is not decommissioning as defined by any reasonable, civilised person, and it certainly would not be acceptable to us or, I trust, to the Government.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am not in the least surprised, but I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend says. I know that Conservative Back Benchers will share that perception, but we need to hear that the Government also share it. The amendments concern substantial progress in decommissioning. Their importance, in the context of the clause, is that they affect the qualification for serving in the House. My second point concerns conditionality. I have at least the virtue of being consistent. From day one—as the Minister, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and my right hon. and hon. Friends know—whatever reservations I might have had, I gave my support to the agreement. I have not wavered from that view. I have made it clear from time to time that I felt as much anger and distaste as did others, when I saw flocks of people being let out of jail, but I always gave the agreement my support, because it was a deal. The Minister's problem, and the reason why these two amendments would introduce conditionality, is that there is a growing view in this country and in Northern Ireland—I hope that the Minister will not take it unkindly if I put it this way—that the political judgment of Ministers is now itself starting to undermine the agreement. There are those who simply do not understand why a more cautious approach was not taken to the release of prisoners, with conditionality built in, requiring response before the next step was taken. Any expert on conflict resolution or negotiation anywhere in the world could have told Ministers that the way that they are proceeding is precisely the wrong way to deliver the deal at the end. As recently as last Wednesday, I was the first—perhaps the only—Member to raise conditionality with the Secretary of State in the context of his statement about reforms to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I said that reforms were manifestly necessary but I invited him to make the name change conditional. I was not greatly encouraged by his response, but he did not flatly say no, and I shall hang on to that, bearing it in mind that even he is not planning to implement the measures until the end of next year. A lot can happen between now and the end of next year. 7.45 pm The conditionality of the amendments is not a new concept. Many of us have adhered to it from the beginning of this process, and it is precisely because tonight the prospects of progress on decommissioning do not look good, as the Minister knows, that conditionality becomes even more important. Those of us who have taken an interest in Northern Ireland know—we do not suspect, we know—that in conjunction with the Bill, the Government planned this week to move orders to permit Sinn Fein elected representatives to make use of these facilities. We also know that the Government have shelved that plan indefinitely. Given that there is neither urgency nor emergency in respect of the Bill, the Government would have been wise to have taken a similar line, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, but two helpings of embarrassment on the same subject in the same week were probably too much. Having been a Minister, I understand that. Given that that followed a week in which the wheels kept coming off the Government's wagon, I can understand why they are forcing the Bill through tonight. However, that does not mean that the Bill cannot be improved and make some recognition of the realities of what is happening out there, and of what I learned in Belfast yesterday. The Minister will not be inclined to accept conditionality—that was the message from the Secretary of State last week—and I understand that, but he would be well advised to do so. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell will press amendment No. 10 to a Division. If he does, I will vote with him. I tell the Minister that that vote will not be a cooling on the agreement by those who vote against him. It will be saying on the record that unless the Government look to their political judgment in these matters, we shall all find ourselves in extreme difficulty very shortly. It is right, and the role of the Opposition, seriously and carefully to warn the Government that there is a way to avoid that stigma. One way to avoid it would be to accept amendment No. 10 and new clause 1.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I shall follow the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the aims of those who supported the agreement, and I am not arguing about the agreement, but I believe that a dangerous situation has developed. Last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear that those of us who had misgivings about the agreement had no right to make any comments in the House on recent developments. That was a shameful exhibition, and I hope that that theme does not re-emerge tonight. Time and again, we hear Labour Members who, rightly, are still fighting the battle of the coal mines, and it seems to me that any of us are right to keep arguing the case that we believe to be right. The average Ulsterman will not buy a pig in a poke, and wants to know what the bargain is. Some of us recognised the difficulties from the beginning. There are those who keep arguing about decommissioning. I cannot understand how anyone in this House can be against proper decommissioning when this House legislated to decommission legally held sporting firearms throughout the nation. If we were concerned about that, we ought to be concerned about the decommissioning of illegal weapons in the hands of terrorists. My sense of humour has not left me completely, and I was amused to be told by certain sources that it was being considered that the weapons would be put in concrete bunkers and sealed. Some of us thought that if those people could tunnel out of the Maze, they could tunnel into those bunkers. I understand that someone with connections to Sinn Fein-IRA has said that there will be no announcement on decommissioning because there would need to be a convention of the IRA called to announce that, and no convention has been called. The Bill contains a statement by the Home Secretary that the Bill conforms to European legislation. We believe that the Bill must conform to the Belfast agreement. I know that our Sinn Fein opponents, in political terms, do not believe that decommissioning was in the agreement. However, even a blind man on a galloping horse could see that it was in the agreement that decommissioning must take place. The Government would be standing by and consolidating the agreement if they came forth now and said that they were prepared to accept the amendment and that there will be no further move on this issue unless the Belfast agreement has been ratified completely. That would save a lot of hassle, and would prevent a Division. However, I can assure the House that if the amendment is divided on, those of us voting for it will be putting on record the fact that if the Government are not prepared to stand by the agreement in all its parts, we are.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

In his exchange with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was characteristically over-generous. One need only look at the five lines of the Bill's title to see how narrow and limited it is in its objectives. There are deeper implications, but the Bill itself is restricted. So far, our attention has been focused on three amendments and one new clause. However, that has been sufficient to bring to light some of the many baffling and puzzling features of the Bill. First, why is the Bill being pushed through so rapidly? Still, no answer has come to that question. Secondly, what is the need for the Bill in the first place? We have speculated on that matter during our deliberations on the amendments. The third baffling and puzzling point—there are many more to come—came when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) invited the Minister to state unequivocally and unambiguously that it is totally intolerable that those who have not disavowed terrorism should be in this House. There were baffling moments when the Minister declined to answer. I thought that that was an extraordinary episode—that a Minister of the Crown should hesitate and remain silent on that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a strong argument on amendment No. 32, which amounted to this: why should the Government not accept the proposition in the amendment? That proposition is that there is no place in a democratic Parliament for people who are terrorists. That is consistent with the spirit of the Belfast agreement, of which, I acknowledge, I am not a supporter—although I accept that others are. The proposition is consistent with the spirit of the agreement, and with the letter and spirit of Government policy. The Government therefore have no reason to reject the amendment. We started our deliberations on the amendments with something of an academic argument about what we understood by decommissioning—a concept that is central to new clause 1 and the amendments. We may have started from different points, but we have finished very much on common ground. We understand that illegally held arms are precisely that: they are illegal and they should not be held. Decommissioning means the irretrievable and irreversible physical separation of paramilitaries from those weapons. Most of us can see no alternative to the physical destruction of those weapons. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) came to that position by the end of the exchange. I strongly support the underlying proposition in new clause 1—that there should be linkage between the decommissioning of illegally held arms and the implementation of the Bill. To be honest, I would rather not have the Bill at all. I voted against it yesterday, and I oppose it in principle. Nothing that I heard last night—and, I suspect, nothing that I will hear tonight—has led me to change my mind. Nevertheless, the composition of the House is such that the Bill is proceeding. On pragmatic grounds, one must try to be as positive as possible about it and to argue that its damage should be limited. In that respect, the linkage between decommissioning and the implementation of the Bill is a significant step in the right direction. The arguments have been well rehearsed, and I can summarise them briefly. So far, there has been concession after concession to the republicans—concessions that have come in return for virtually nothing. Their prisoners have been released, and the north-south body—the embryonic structure for an all-Ireland Government—has been created. They have places on the Executive, and they have achieved their long-held objective of the effective destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Now, it is their turn to deliver on decommissioning. I strongly support the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell that they should do that. 8 pm I have one slight reservation about the new clause. The emphasis on implementing the Belfast agreement is not enough. The agreement is woefully inadequate on decommissioning. All that it demands is co-operation with the Decommissioning Commission, and that the political parties use their best endeavours to persuade the paramilitaries to decommission by May 2000. My right hon. Friend argued that the wording of new clause 1 goes further than the Belfast agreement, and I hope that that is so. We want the verifiable, on-going decommissioning of all illegally held paramilitary weapons. Amendment No. 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and it is supported by my hon. Friends the Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). There is much to commend the amendment. It would offer a belt-and-braces process and it seeks more cast-iron reassurances than new clause 1 that verifiable commissioning will become a reality. I confess that I have a reservation about the proposed new subsection (2B) because the composition and arithmetic of the House is such that one wonders whether all Labour Members would approach a draft order with independent judgment and thought. However, the key point is found in proposed new subsection (2A), which would require all parties to the Belfast agreement to accept that decommissioning should be a reality. That is vital. It would give a status to the constitutional and democratic parties of Northern Ireland that they rightly deserve. If we can use the old cliché, it would provide a Unionist veto, but that is absolutely right. It has been one of the sadly missing ingredients in the process to date. Amendment No. 32, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, is self-evidently justified and it is a matter of deep regret that the Government did not instantly respond to the reasonable challenge that he presented. New clause 1 is a significant step in the right direction in that it would establish linkage. However, we come to the heart of the matter in amendment No. 1. It would give a positive role to the parties of Northern Ireland in establishing whether verifiable, genuine decommissioning is on-going.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Together, the new clause and the amendments would link decommissioning with the enactment of the Bill. That is right and I support that principle. We must consider why the Bill has been before the House for the past two days. When I read remarks that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made about the Bill yesterday, I was amazed that the Government were suddenly worried about some right that we have in Northern Ireland that the people in the rest of the United Kingdom do not have. That is extraordinary. I would rather that there was more concern about the rights that the rest of the United Kingdom has and that Northern Ireland does not have. The Government should be keen expeditiously to amend those and not introduce the one in this Bill, which they say is so necessary. The Minister said that the Bill would bring into parity not only the House, but the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. However, there seems to be nothing in the Bill that applies to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. That suggests that the Bill was introduced quickly and that it is not well thought out. Judging from yesterday evening's discussions, it is clear that the Government have not considered many aspects of the Bill or its repercussions. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland were very surprised when we heard about the Bill. We had to ask ourselves what on earth it was about. I suspect that very few Members of the House were aware that the Members of legislatures in the Commonwealth could become Members of the House. We have learned something that we did not know. However, we were not at all conscious that there was any pressure from anywhere that Members of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland were desirous of sitting here or that Members of this House were desirous of sitting in the Irish Parliament. Therefore, we had to ask a second question: who would benefit from the Bill? The only people who are likely to benefit from the Bill are Sinn Fein. Of course, the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) are elected to the House, but I suspect that, in future, they may wish to sit in the Dail: they need the Bill so that they do not lose their membership here. In other words, the Bill is another act of appeasement to Sinn Fein. The Minister has refused to say why the Bill was introduced at this time. I suspect that he dare not say why it was introduced now because it was simply introduced to appease Sinn Fein. We all want Sinn Fein to decommission its arms as quickly as possible, and preferably before the end of this month. Therefore, it has sought concession after concession. It has sought the removal of army posts, the drawing of soldiers away from Northern Ireland and more and more. No doubt, the Bill was one of the concessions for which it asked.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

My hon. Friend has just implied that he believes that the Government, and perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have discussed the contents of the Bill with a certain party that was elected to the House, but has not chosen to take up its seats. Does he believe that the Government have discussed the Bill's contents with Sinn Fein-IRA and, if they have, why have they not had the courtesy to discuss a constitutional measure with the leaders of other parties representing Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I certainly believe that the Government have discussed the Bill with Sinn Fein. I ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and deny that such discussions have taken place. Why is the Bill being rushed? It is being rushed so that Sinn Fein can be assured that it will be on the statute book before decommissioning starts—if, indeed, it ever does. There can be no other reason why the Government should give up valuable time to spend two days debating the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and deny that, too. We in Northern Ireland believe that the position is as I have described it and that the Government are acting in the hope—probably fruitless—that if Sinn Fein are given concession after concession, they will deliver on decommissioning. In fact, concessions will be made and appeasement will continue, but, at the end of the day, there will be no decommissioning. It appears that the Government never learn. That is why I believe that it is essential that the linkage set out in the amendments should be made. The Bill should not be brought into force unless there is complete decommissioning and we have seen that Sinn Fein-IRA have had a change of heart and have decided to turn away from violence for good. They must show that they are prepared to give up their arms and decommission them to prove that, in future, they are willing to tread the democratic path. Only in that way should they be able to achieve their ambitions. I shall fully support the amendments.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I share the revulsion expressed by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) at the haste with which the Bill is being taken. We have had stages of Bills concertinaed before, but I cannot recall such a thing being done without a proper explanation being given to the House. The Bill is bad, and the only merit of the first group of amendments is that, if accepted, each of them would, in its own way, delay implementation of the measure. I do not find all the amendments in the group equally attractive. Of them, I prefer amendment No. 32 on the ground of its clarity. It is self-evident that what is good enough for the Northern Ireland Assembly ought to be good enough for the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister will explain why a protection he thinks it necessary for the House to put in place for the Northern Ireland Assembly should not be applied to the House. We have not yet heard Conservative Front Benchers' views on the amendment, so I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) express full support for it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke to amendment No. 1. I note that, yesterday, he announced that he, too, is opposed to the Bill "in principle". However, he is apparently prepared to accept the Bill passing into law when a number of things happen. When those things have happened and he is satisfied that they have happened, he is—reluctantly, I assume—prepared to move to what he called "the next crucial stage". That puzzles me. If we are opposed to the Bill in principle, why do we have to accept that, when a number of completely unrelated events happen, the principle must be dispensed with and there has to be a next crucial stage? I look to my right hon. Friend to reassure me on that.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I was trying to say—obviously, with insufficient clarity—that, despite my having opposed and continuing to oppose the principle of the Bill, I, as a good parliamentarian, have to accept that, because the House has given the Bill its Second Reading and thereby agreed it in principle, it is now our job collectively to improve the Bill as best we can. There can legitimately be a process whereby one opposes a Bill's Second Reading but acknowledges the will of the House and plays one's part in improving the Bill.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I fully understand and accept that. My point was a slightly different one—perhaps my right hon. Friend did not quite catch it. When speaking to amendment No. 1, he said that, if a number of other matters fell into place and events happened in the order and to the extent that he wanted them to happen, we could then move to "the next crucial stage". I do not accept that. If the Bill is bad in principle, how would the amendment enable us to sweep away its unacceptable features and move on? New clause 1, which stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench, is in many ways the weakest of the amendments in the group. For wholly understandable reasons, it links the constitutional change, to which we have strong principled objections that were ably expressed yesterday by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, to the pace of decommissioning. If I were uncharitable, I might criticise the acceptance of the concept of the pace of or "progress" towards decommissioning, because it perpetuates the wholly false assumption that decommissioning is some sort of process. To my mind, decommissioning is not a process, but an act. The moment we concede that decommissioning is not an act, we are inevitably drawn into agreeing that it is a process, which may be long drawn out or difficult to define. I reject that and I am disappointed that the new clause implies that such "progress" is tradeable and that its definition is a matter of argument. All we are asking Sinn Fein-IRA to do is decommission. We are not asking them to commit themselves to decommissioning, or to make some sort of progress towards it. We are asking them to do what they agreed to do—decommission.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend says he regards decommissioning as an act. Will he concede that it might consist of a number of acts?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Of course I concede that it might consist of a number of acts, because it involves a number of people. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend, whose speech was easily the most compelling of the speeches so far on the group of amendments, agrees that, if we concede that decommissioning may be a process, we are in danger of being drawn into ill-fitting definitions of pace and progress and what does or does not constitute substantial progress.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, although there might be a number of acts of decommissioning, decommissioning is supposed to be complete by May this year.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I am well aware that the timetable has been set out and that it now presses. That timetable could easily have been complied with. Although decommissioning is a complicated act that involves a certain amount of good faith and a leap being made by several parties in Northern Ireland, it does not have to be drawn out over a couple of years. I have reservations about the Bill, which were set out yesterday far more eloquently than I could have done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). the shadow Home Secretary, and by the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The Bill does not exclude Ministers in the Irish Government from being Members of the House of Commons, and does not guarantee the continuance of the Oath that we have all sworn or affirmed. If we are to concede that the Bill might somehow become acceptable if there is some progress towards decommissioning, I fear that we are falling into that classic Northern Ireland trap of compromising our principles in return for what at best are promises. I look to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to reassure me.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

My name is associated with new clause 1. Last night I voted with colleagues against the Bill in principle because I believe that it is unnecessary legislation. There is no demand for the Bill among the wider population in Northern Ireland. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) that the Bill has only one purpose—to provide a further concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. It is to facilitate that party. Incidentally, that party has returned to the House of Commons two Members, who refuse to take their seats in the Chamber. Yet we are taking up the valuable time of this place to facilitate those two same Members to take seats in a foreign Parliament. It makes a mockery of our constitution that we should do such a thing and that the Government propose it. With other hon. Members, I look to the Government to explain why we need the proposed legislation that is before us. At present, the provision within it is available only to members of legislatures within the Commonwealth. I accept that that is a general point, but it relates to the amendment. The Irish Republic has not rejoined the Commonwealth, so why do we need to provide legislation specifically to facilitate the Irish Republic? I am not aware that the Irish Government have been calling for the Bill, so it must be Sinn Fein-IRA that is involved. There has been reference to the Good Friday agreement. Perhaps I am unique in this debate because I was involved in the negotiations in that agreement until the end. That being so, I have some knowledge of the agreement. I know that the provisions that are contained in the Bill were never discussed during the negotiations. We are told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of my party, that they were not part of the recent review that was carried our under the chairmanship of Senator Mitchell. Therefore, we must conclude that the Bill is coming forward because the Government have done a back-door deal with Sinn Fein-IRA. That is why it is important to provide linkage between the proposed legislation—

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The House of Commons will acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was deeply involved in the Belfast agreement negotiations. Perhaps he will try to enlighten us by explaining why in yesterday's proceedings the Minister said: Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement"?—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.] That suggests that there were discussions of some sort taking place, otherwise the Bill and the links to which we have referred would not have been envisaged. Can the hon. Gentleman help us?

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

There are linkages proposed within the Belfast Agreement, not least with the British-Irish Council, which brings together not only the Westminster Parliament but various legislatures and assemblies throughout the United Kingdom, together with the legislature within the Irish Republic. There were discussions about linkages at that level. I think that the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary group was discussed also. However, as far as I am aware, there was no mention and discussion of the specific legislation that is before us, and it is not part of the agreement. Therefore, we must consider where it fits into the political process in Northern Ireland, and the timing. Why, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone asked, are the Government in such haste to bring forward the Bill and to get it through Parliament? The Committee is entitled to an answer to these reasonable questions. I appreciate the comments that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has made about decommissioning, but I refer him to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which includes provisions about a process of decommissioning and defines decommissioning in those terms. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that decommissioning is in itself an act. Unfortunately, under the Belfast agreement it became a process, which is set out in the Arms Decommissioning Act. We are told that the process begins with the appointment of an interlocutor by the various terrorist organisations. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that that step was taken as recently as December 1999, a year and a half after the Belfast agreement was signed. So it is a process, whether we like it or not. I would much rather it were more narrowly defined in terms of an act. The linkage between the Bill and its enactment and progress on decommissioning is important. Irrespective of whether the Government care to admit it, the Bill is linked to the political process in Northern Ireland. The problem with that process, if I may call it that, is that in terms of the so-called confidence-building measures that are an integral part of the agreement, it has been a one-way street of concession after concession to the republican movement without requiring something in return. It has been said that it is time to draw the line. It is right for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to press the amendment and to create a linkage between disarmament and the enactment of the Bill, even though I do not like the measure and do not accept the need for it. Given the Government's majority in this place, I accept that the Bill's passage in inevitable. That being so, we must build in safeguards. Why is that? Is that just to be stubborn? No. We must protect the people of Northern Ireland by providing some leverage in the process so that we might achieve the disarmament that we have been seeking. The Government have been far too weak in pursuing the republican movement, and it is time that they started to get tough with the leaders of republicanism. The people of Northern Ireland are dejected, depressed and demoralised, not least because of what the Government proposed last week for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They feel that it is time that instead of pandering to the whim of the abstentionists in this place, they should listen to the voice of the democratic majority. We are saying that people need safeguards, and we believe that the new clause provides a reasonable one. We seek to extract from the republican movement something in return for a constitutional concession specifically for it. We are talking about a party that represents 18 per cent. of a small region of the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to consider accepting the amendment, not because it is designed to destroy the agreement or the process but because it is an act that is designed to bring about progress on the one issue that is capable of destroying the entire process, which is that of disarmament.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on tabling new clause 1, which cuts to the heart of the Bill. The measure is being rushed through in an extraordinary manner for one reason: because Sinn Fein wants it. The new clause is important because it acknowledges that, and declares that, if Sinn Fein wants the Bill, it must pay a price—that of decommissioning. Without the new clause and the price it demands, the Bill will become what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) describes as another step on the shameful road of appeasement. The new clause is important because it names the price.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Like several of my hon. Friends, I voted against the Bill last night. There were 19 of us, and I suspect that more hon. Members would have done that, had they realised the precise implications and potential consequences of the Bill. I was joined in the Lobby by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who also voted against the measure on principle. I was interested in his assertion that there was no public demand for the Bill. Not only is there no public demand for it, there is no demand for it among Labour Members. No Labour Member has spoken to support the measure. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made an extremely valuable contribution, but not in support of the Bill. She acknowledges the effect of the amendments on a measure about which she feels unhappy. In such circumstances, it is astonishing that the Government attempt to drive the Bill through. One or two Labour Members have come to listen to the debate, but no Labour Member has sought to attract your attention, Mr. Lord, to speak in support of the Government. I hope that, when the witching hour of 10 o'clock approaches, the Government will not try to move the 10 o'clock motion to enable further consideration of the Bill tonight. That would be inappropriate because the measure is not urgent. As we progress, more and more deficiencies are revealed. Yet the Government provide no adequate, convincing explanation of why the Bill should be passed, let alone why it should be rushed through. If the Bill remains unamended, there will be suspicions throughout the country that the Government are involved in some sort of squalid deal. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley and others suggested that the Government have made a squalid deal to support some arrangement with Sinn Fein. In the light of the Minister's explanations, one can be driven to no other conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) hit the nail on the head when he said that there were only two explanations for the Government's behaviour: that the Government chanced on the measure to fill a bit of spare time; or that the Bill was part of a deal, which had to be made. Ministers deny that the Bill is part of a deal, but they are singularly ineffective at explaining why it has been brought before the House. They have failed to convince us and, I suspect, the only Labour Member who intervened in the debate. The amendments give the Government an opportunity to say that they understand the fears about the legislation and how it will be viewed in the country, and that the amendments are reasonable. If the Government accept them, they will at least make some effort to reassure the country that the measure is not part of a squalid deal and that they have not traded entitlement to membership of the House for decommissioning. The Government should accept the amendments.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

If the Bill was supposed to be a carrot to encourage decommissioning, and decommissioning does not occur but the Bill is enacted, the measure will remain an Act.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

My hon. Friend is right. There are no conditions attached to the Bill. If it is part of a deal, the law-abiding people, as always, will deliver first, while the holders of illegal weapons deliver nothing. In the so-called process, not one ounce of Semtex, and not one bullet or weapon has been handed in. The Minister should understand the strength of feeling on this side of the Committee: we, who have seen our friends cut down by murderers, are asked to go along with the process when there is no evidence that Sinn Fein is prepared to abide by the agreement that it signed.

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

The hon. Gentleman insists on talking about that side of the Committee. It is important to emphasise that the anxiety that he expresses is shared generally in the country and on this side of the Committee.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

That intervention does not surprise me. The right hon. Gentleman has appeared in the Chamber only recently and I warmly welcome his words, which will be widely welcomed in the country. I do not suggest that there are no reservoirs of anxiety on the other side. I pointed out only that there was no evidence of such anxiety, apart from the contribution of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has shown that there is cross-party concern about the matter. The Minister should take note of that. Symbolism is important when discussing Northern Ireland. We must tread carefully; not allowing the Bill to pass unamended will convey a clear message and an important signal. Even if we do not support the Bill, we must accept that it has been voted on, but we should not allow it to continue unamended. If we did that, we would send the wrong signals to those who have the power to decommission but have shown no signs of exercising it. The amendment is an opportunity for Ministers to make the position clear, and I hope that they will take it. It is an enormous privilege to serve in the House. All of us have struggled to get to the House—perhaps not all of us, as some of us arrived here unexpectedly, as I did in 1983. However, most hon. Members take membership of the House seriously and regard it as a great privilege to serve in the oldest Parliament in the world, which dates back to 1265. It may be unrealistic to imagine that any member of the Irish Parliament would be prepared to swear an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Nevertheless, the Government are seeking with this Bill to give away the right to sit in this hallowed place without getting a single thing in return. That cheapens membership of the House and shows yet again how much contempt and how little respect the Government have for the House of Commons. Many references have been made to yesterday's debate. Most of the amendments were available only today and it is discourteous to the Committee that important amendments were not made available for consideration by right hon. and hon. Members in advance. We should have more time to consider them. I am genuinely mystified as to why the Government are pursuing this Bill. I do not think that they are being totally dishonourable. I certainly do not think that my namesake, the Minister, is a dishonourable man. However, we cannot see where the Government are coming from. I am struggling. I searched yesterday's Hansard and saw that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said: It is time to build a sounder basis to our institutional relationships and to provide a basis on which we can proceed, as two islands just off the mainland of Europe, with many common links, historical and otherwise, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—a basis for ensuring that those closer links are given some institutional background. I believe that that explains this fairly modest Bill."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 29.] If the Bill is not part of the discussions that took place in Belfast, of which the hon. Member for Lagan Valley had no knowledge—we were told that parliamentary links between the various legislatures were discussed at that time—we are told that it is to provide some linkage between the institutions. The Irish institutions have not been particularly helpful to this country. Time and gain, we have seen attempts to extradite people wanted for serious crimes in this country. Whatever the actions of the Government of Ireland, their institutions have been singularly unhelpful in enabling us to bring those persons to justice before our courts.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Nor, it seems, does the Dail see any merit in the Minister's argument. Otherwise, we might see some reciprocity.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I believe that we shall deal with reciprocity in a later amendment. Amendment No. 1 is rather more comprehensive than the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). It is unquestionably linked specifically to the terminology of the Belfast agreement. Amendment No. 10 nevertheless makes the point that I sought to make and sends a clear signal that we want some measure of decommissioning. I prefer amendment No. 1, but am happy to go along with amendment No. 10 and new clause 1. Amendment No. 32, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), is also worthy of consideration and I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). If it is good enough for the Northern Ireland Assembly to have protection against terrorism, it is certainly good enough for this House. I say this to the Minister: if you will just turn to your right—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I apologise, Mr. Lord. If the Minister were to turn to his right, he would see at the entrance to this Chamber the coat of arms of Airey Neave—a Member of this House who was blown up by terrorists in pursuit of objectives in Northern Ireland. It is an affront to suggest that we should allow membership of the House to people who, if they have not committed the same crimes, hold similar aspirations. We owe it to the memory of Airey Neave to state in the Bill that nobody engaged in terrorism should be entitled to membership of the House of Commons in the way that it is phrased in amendment No. 32. If it comes to a vote, I shall certainly support that amendment.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The propositions are that there would be a link through the Bill to decommissioning and to a denouncement of terrorism. Both propositions come from the same perspective. Liberal Democrat Members are as frustrated as any party at the delay in making progress with decommissioning and wish to see it proceed as speedily as possible. Tempting arguments were made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who suggested that the Bill should have some link with decommissioning, to speed the process. In negotiations, the Government have held a few cards that they could play at various points, but they appear to be running out of cards. The Bill might be another card to be played. Tonight's debate has not cleared up when it should be played. Would coupling decommissioning with the Bill help the peace process? I am disappointed that we have yet to receive clear guidance from the Minister. It is unhelpful that the Government have not been open about the process. There is a nervousness on all sides that some kind of deal has been done. If one has been done, we would judge it on its merits. We accept that the whole process has been risky. If the deal is that the Bill has to pass before decommissioning, I may accept that that is another risk on a difficult path. Being unclear whether that is the case and where the process is going is not helpful. Although it may be tempting to link the Bill and accept some of the amendments, I and others on the Opposition Benches are left to take on trust that the Government know what they are doing—[Laughter.]—and that they are doing this in the interests of peace.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am slightly surprised at what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is it not at least possible that his party would know a lot more about the Government's motivations through one of the rather sinister Committees on which the hon. Gentleman's colleagues sit cheek-by-jowl—indeed, in bed—with Government Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more than he cares to reveal at this stage and is just bluffing.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I assure the Committee that the pillow talk does not go anywhere near Northern Ireland. The issue is whether or not linking decommissioning with the Bill would help the process. Although the Government are not being open and clear, some discussions have taken place. We must take it at face value that, broadly speaking, it would not be helpful at this stage to link decommissioning with the Bill.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the process will be harmed if the Government have done a deal with Sinn Fein on linking the Bill with decommissioning and that link is written into the Bill. I cannot understand that. If we accept the amendment, surely the link will be set in stone. If they have come to an arrangement, it will not be damaged if it is included in the Bill.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

That is a chicken-and-egg situation. It would be helpful if the Minister explained, but I sense that the Bill may need to be passed before decommissioning can take place. The amendment proposes an alternative that is the other way round. That is the difference.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

rose—

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I shall not give way. I want to make progress on amendment No. 32. On terrorism, the proposition is that the Bill should be linked with a statement from Members moving into the House making it clear that they disown terrorism. That is another tempting proposition, but I return to the point that I made in an intervention: an important principle would be broken because those individuals would have stood for election and been democratically elected. We would be saying that democratically elected individuals could not take their seats.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Were we wrong to pass such legislation on the Northern Ireland Assembly where, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, no one can take his seat unless he swears that he has given up violence for good? Is there to be one law for Northern Ireland and another for the rest of the United Kingdom? I think not.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The issue could be considered in terms of the ability of individuals to stand for election in the first place and what they say in their statement before they stand. I am uneasy about the principle of a person being elected and conditions being attached to his election. We may impose the condition of renouncement of terrorism, but what other conditions and aspects could be imposed? The principle is dangerous.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a predictable Liberal "on the one hand, on the other hand" effort. Does he not understand the difference between democratic elections and trying to destroy a society or a Government by force and by terrorism? The whole point is that those who take part in a democratic election say, "I will foreswear the Armalite; I will go for the ballot box." People cannot use the ballot box and the Armalite. Surely he must understand that.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I understand that point, but the process of standing on a platform and being democratically elected would be overturned by amendment No. 32 because it concerns a person who has already been elected. I would have had more sympathy for it if it related to whether a person was able to stand for election in the first place.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I want to conclude my remarks.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

No, I want to conclude my remarks. We are uneasy about being unable to back the amendment. The Government could have been more open with us on those issues, but, in the interests of making the peace process work, we are prepared to back them and reject the amendment.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) because, although I am not sure that he has given the Committee any true knowledge of where the Liberal Democrats stand on the Bill, he has at least suggested that they are not particularly happy with it and we are grateful for that. The Bill is an important constitutional measure and some truly valuable contributions have been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—sadly, he is not in his place—drew attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is also not in her place, although she has been present for most of the debate. Her contribution was a rapier thrust at the chest of the Government because it concentrated the minds of hon. Members on the purpose of the Bill. I remind the Committee that the hon. Lady has been a Member of the House for many years, is one of the most senior Labour Members and is highly regarded across the House. She asked Ministers to be honest, open and transparent about the purpose of the Bill. I make a plea to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: I hope that he will be open, honourable and transparent with the Committee and will tell us precisely the purpose of the Bill, why the Government have introduced it now and why they have rushed it through in such a hurry, allowing inadequate time for the consideration of amendments. Clearly the Opposition are in a sizeable minority. We therefore have to accept last night's decision to give the Bill a Second Reading. I am opposed to the Bill in principle and on principle, and there is a difference. It is fundamentally flawed, it is unnecessary and it leads members of the Committee to hold strong suspicions about its objective. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made an outstanding contribution. He naturally advised the Committee that he had served as a Northern Ireland Minister and of course he has a pedigree that connects him directly to Northern Ireland. I very much value, respect and appreciate his views and he touched on all the important issues relating to the amendments. I also commend the speeches made by official Ulster Unionist party Members, whom I describe as my hon. Friends. In my view they always have been. I have taken a strong interest in Northern Ireland affairs ever since I was elected to the House 29 years ago and am happy to advise the Committee that the first time I voted against my party was on the prorogation of Stormont in 1972. I believe that that was the most insidious form of surrender to terrorism, the enunciation of which I heard from the mouth of the then Conservative Prime Minister. From that moment, we have never stopped making concessions to terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred to the coat of arms that we see over one of the entrances to this Chamber of the House of Commons, the coat of arms erected on the instruction and at the wish not only of the House, but of the then Speaker: the coat of arms of Airey Neave. I feel very emotional about my hon. Friend's reference to Airey Neave, because I was the last Member of Parliament to speak to Airey Neave before he went off to his tailor that Friday morning and before I went up to my constituency by car. It would be an insult to his memory if we allowed anyone to enter this place as a Member of the House of Commons who had not renounced terrorism and a wish to achieve their objectives through armed conflict or terrorism, whether by the bomb or by the bullet. So I am speaking strongly in favour of amendment No. 32, tabled by my very good hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I believe he is absolutely right to have this matter placed on the face of the Bill. 9 pm I repeat that I do not like the Bill. I do not believe that it is necessary. But now that it has had a Second Reading, I believe that amendment No. 10, with which other amendments and new clause 1 are linked, is absolutely correct. It would be improper, it would be immoral, it would be dangerous and it would be wrong for this measure to take effect before decommissioning had taken place. In this debate we have had discussions about the action of decommissioning. The excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) highlighted that. Then the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) drew attention to another piece of legislation in which the phrase "the process of decommissioning" formed a part. I am sure it is not necessary to remind the Committee that decommissioning was really the essence of the package put forward, I think, three years ago by Senator George Mitchell. Of course, we know that at that time no progress was going to be made towards a peace settlement at least until decommissioning had started. We know now that Sinn Fein has achieved a considerable amount since then. Not only has not a single weapon been decommissioned by Sinn Fein—or a round of ammunition or a pound of Semtex—but the party is now in the Northern Ireland Executive; it is in part of an institution of the United Kingdom.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Does my hon. Friend also recall that one of the Mitchell principles was that all parties to talks, let alone any further stage, would have renounced violence for good? Does he not think it might be helpful to remind the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), of that? I know that he was not in the House then, but I am sure he understands that it is a pretty good principle, which has been established for some time.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but I believe I would be straining your patience and tolerance, Mr. Lord, if I went back to everything that has occurred since Senator George Mitchell came on the scene and decommissioning became such an important part, supposedly, of making any progress whatsoever. I do not need to mention again matters referred to by the hon. Members for Lagan Valley and, I believe, for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson)—not only that Sinn Fein has achieved what I have already indicated, but that the RUC is being decimated; I used the phrase in a supplementary question to the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland, and I believe that the RUC's death warrant has been announced by the Government. Certainly the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been devastated by what I see as the insult that has been delivered to it, only a few weeks after it was rightly awarded—because I believe it is the finest, most courageous and most professional police force in the world—the George Cross. Just a few weeks after that it learned that in due course it is to be deprived of its name, its oath is to be changed and the whole composition of the force is to be dramatically altered and its numbers reduced again. That was one of the purposes of Sinn Fein-IRA. So what we in the Opposition are seeking to do—I believe that some of what I am saying is shared by Liberal Democrat Members—is to see some safeguards put into the Bill, however undesirable it is in principle to us. The House, in its wisdom or otherwise, because of the Government's very sizeable majority, gave the Bill a Second Reading. I believe that it is absolutely right that if the suspicions of the Government's acts and intentions are not to grow, these amendments need to be included in the Bill in one form or another. I nevertheless make a plea to Ministers. Not one hon. Member has spoken in favour of the Bill. I hope that, if democracy is to mean anything—and to me it is very important—Ministers will heed what I consider to be the properly founded, well considered arguments of Opposition Members, and will make a gesture of some kind. What, otherwise, is the House of Commons about? Why have this debate? People are asking why the time should be expended if the Government are not prepared to listen to the—I think—well argued cases advanced by Opposition Members. I still believe in this place, and to me it is valuable that people out there still believe that this place is valuable. Are the Government going to reduce its credibility by forcing the Bill through without any proper, detailed, open response, or are they going to respond to the genuine concern that has been expressed, reply positively and accept, if not the wording of all the amendments, at least the intention behind some of them? It is not often that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire comes to the Chamber, as an ex-Minister, to make speeches such as the one that he made tonight. His knowledge is considerable; his commitment to Northern Ireland and to the peace process is also considerable, respected and well known. On his behalf, and on behalf of all Opposition Members who have spoken, I make this plea to the Government: please be honest with us. Please do right by the people of this country who believe in justice, democracy and law and order. Do not forget the overwhelming majority of peace-loving, law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland, for whom we seek to secure the best deal—and the Bill, as it stands, is not the best deal.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I apologise for my absence for an hour earlier. I shall be brief: I do not want to repeat all the excellent arguments that have been presented by my friends and colleagues. But I think the debate has shown that the Government, if they do not already know it, should study the old adage: "Act in haste, repent at leisure". The Bill, ridiculously, is being rushed through in two days, allowing hon. Members no chance to table amendments or even to think about what the Government are trying to say. My hon. Friends have been poking holes in the failings of the Government's argument throughout today's debate. I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that if the amendment was not accepted, the Opposition would not give the Bill a fair wind. I did not oppose Second Reading yesterday, because I felt that we should at least have a chance to amend the Bill. Perhaps the Government will accept amendments, and perhaps the Bill will then be passed—although, frankly, I think that it is pretty much of a dog's breakfast. It strikes at the heart of much of our constitution; it is ill conceived and badly thought out. Let me say a little about the constitutional change that the Bill proposes. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) drew attention to the terrible mistake of introducing constitutional changes in this manner, but I think we can all see from what has been said today that the Bill is purely a sop to the IRA. It has been put together with Sinn Fein. No one else wants it; no Labour Member is prepared to stand up and talk about it, because none of them wants it—if they even know what it is about. The Government are giving away yet another card. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) pointed out, they have laid their cards on the table, but what are they getting in return? What cards do they have up their sleeve to use against IRA-Sinn Fein, who are inextricably linked and who still maintain huge arsenals of weapons? One has to question—I do not like to do so—the Government's motives. Why do they want that constitutional change? What is it for? Is it just that they hate the United Kingdom Parliament? Do they hold the UK Parliament in contempt? They do not treat it well; we all know that. Even the most loyal Labour Back Bencher knows that. What is the Bill about? What are the Government about this afternoon? I hope that we will be able to ask that question for a long time after today; we shall have to discuss the matter on some other occasion, too. I turn to decommissioning, which is the point of most of the amendments. I much prefer amendment No. 1, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to amendment No. 10, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), because amendment No. 1 is absolutely clear. It says that the Belfast agreement has to be put into force completely before we can proceed. In other words, all decommissioning would have to take place. Those of us who were unhappy in some part with the compromises that have had to be made for peace in the past three or four years would be much happier if amendment No. 1 were accepted. We need an absolutely clear-cut guarantee that those to whom concessions have been made—Sinn Fein and the IRA—will make some concessions in return. I would like all weapons to be destroyed, not sealed in some bunker that might yet be under the control of terrorists, or indeed of some dissident terrorist group. I should like weapons to be destroyed before we give any more concessions to the IRA. In the last fortnight, we have had several concessions. We have had the destruction, or emasculation of the RUC, the name change and everything that goes with that. We have had the Bill. Hon. Members may not even be aware that, in another Bill, we have a clause to exempt Sinn Fein from the rule to stop political parties receiving donations from foreign countries. It should be called the Noraid clause, but I will not stray further down that road because I know that it would be out of order. I said that I would be brief and I have been, but I just wish to add my voice to those of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have all made such good points, saying that the Bill should not proceed unless it is fundamentally amended.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate. It is probably one of the shabbiest episodes that I have witnessed as a Member of Parliament, and not only because of how the Government introduced the Bill, which is of questionable worth. They introduced it in a hurry, on two consecutive days. The whole thing has been handled in a way that is utterly unacceptable in a civilised Parliament, especially when Ministers are prepared to say that there is no emergency. There is no reason why it should be done in such haste. The debate has also been shabby in that, with the honourable exceptions of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who have indicated at least some capacity for sentient thought, not a word has been uttered by Labour Members to justify what they are doing. Not a word has been uttered in criticism of the sensible and moderate amendments tabled by Opposition Members, whether from the official Opposition or the official Unionists. I can only come to the conclusion that no plausible and honest argument can be advanced by those Members who oppose the amendments. I was confirmed in that view when I heard the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He at least had the decency to say something, but he did not advance a plausible argument against the amendments. As I said when I intervened during his speech, I cannot see the logic of the argument that, if the Government have done a deal to link the Bill with decommissioning of terrorist weapons, it must not be put on to the face of the Bill because it would cause difficulties. Including the deal in the Bill would accomplish precisely the opposite effect. It would not prevent the Bill's passage, but simply create certain safeguards involving the legislation's commencement date or the behaviour of Members who might be affected by its provisions.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The problem is that we cannot make a judgment because we have not been told about the deal, if there was one.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, and agree that there is a problem. However, when Ministers demonstrate a total lack of openness and candour, it is not incumbent on hon. Members to accept what they say. Indeed, it is precisely then, when Ministers will not tell us what they are doing and show no respect for the House, that hon. Members—whether Labour, Ulster Unionist, Liberal Democrat or Conservative—should do what we have been sent here by our constituents to do. We must think, be cautious and use some common sense in legislating, particularly on the most sensitive matters in relation to Northern Ireland.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the deal that everyone is talking about is the Good Friday agreement; that no other deal should be necessary to achieve decommissioning; that decommissioning should start without the Bill; and that that is why we need to pass the amendments?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. I do not believe that Ministers are rejecting the amendments—they seem to be rejecting them but perhaps they are playing us along for a few hours to keep us in suspense—because they have done a deal or secured something in return for what they propose to give away. They are simply locked into a process of giving things away, of letting things go by default and of expecting nothing in return from those who, sadly, to date, have given no sign of wishing to move forward to genuine peace and disarmament.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Does my hon. Friend remember from his history lessons the danegeld and how one just had to keep on paying it, but received nothing in return?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I remember it well. However, I do not intend to be diverted down that historical road, pertinent as it may be. There are many examples of appeasement in history, whether it be the danegeld or more recently, and we know that appeasement does not work. The Government, in proceeding with the process over almost two years, have shown that appeasement does not work. Ministers have never insisted on delivery of something in return from Sinn Fein, but consistently conceded more. They have never stood up or said what they should have said—that the people of Northern Ireland, and people across the United Kingdom, wish to achieve objectives and a very important prize. The Government do not have the courage or backbone to insist on moving towards achieving those goals. In his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) dealt with the importance of conditionality and of including that vital principle in the Bill. I do not intend to speak at length to the amendments in this group, but should like to deal briefly with the three key subgroups of amendments in the group. Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 deal with the importance of the principle of negotiation and of conditionality, and of ensuring that we receive something in return for what we give away. Amendment No. 1 insists that there should be full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, and not some fudge, half-baked deal or failure to implement the agreement. It is also vital because it would ensure that implementation could not proceed without the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. That brings us back to the crucial point that the Bill must enjoy proper democratic assent. The Government cannot get away with sitting mute and not attempting to defend their proposals. Finally, amendment No. 32 is absolutely vital. The other amendments deal with the commencement of the measures, and the point at which it will be permissible for Members of the Dail also to sit in the House of Commons. However, they do not provide permanent security for this House—[Interruption.] A rather frightened mouse has run across the Floor, Mr. Lord, just as I was expounding the argument that I smell a rat with the legislation.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is not the mouse an indication to the Government that we should not let vermin into the House?

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. Do not Standing Orders state that no animals other than guide dogs will be allowed into the House?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

That intervention by the frightened mouse can be likened to the behaviour of Ministers, who have failed to stand up for what they should be fighting for. They have shown neither fibre nor substance in handling the negotiations entrusted to them. Finally, it is crucial that future hon. Members whom the Bill will allow to join the House should disavow terrorism. Amendment No. 32 is the only proposal that would guarantee permanent security. I hope that decommissioning of weapons begins or that there is substantial progress to that end. However, it will remain possible that those who resorted to violence in the past could return to it. In those circumstances, the conditionality that would be introduced by new clause 1 or amendment No. 10 would not give that vital protection. However, amendment No. 32 would give some permanent guarantee, in the event of a wholesale return to violence and terrorism affecting the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Northern Ireland, that those who refused to disavow violent intervention would not be allowed to sit in this House. It would mean that we would accept only those who believed in democracy and wished to participate in our democratic process.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has just criticised me for not taking part in the debate at some earlier juncture. However, he will accept that the whole point is that Ministers responding to a debate listen to what hon. Members have to say. That is why I have sat here patiently noting all the points that have been raised. I intend to respond to them as fully as possible. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has asked me to be candid, and that is my intention. I believe that it is inappropriate for me to be on the receiving end of criticism for having shown disrespect to the House in some way. At least three right hon. and hon. Members who have been present for all or most of the debate will attest to the fact that on every occasion on which I address the House and respond to issues raised by Opposition Front-Bench Members, I take the House very seriously. I am sure that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) would accept that. I see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) accepts that. The criticism that has been levelled at me is slightly unfair.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be a courteous man and a courteous Minister. What I believe to be wrong is the disrespect that the Government have shown for the House in the way in which they have handled this piece of legislation.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I will demonstrate in a moment why I do not believe that that criticism can be sustained. Certainly, some of the criticism, including that made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was directed at me, and I think it appropriate and relevant for me to respond.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I, for one, would not have wished the hon. Gentleman to take the comments personally. He is at the Dispatch Box, representing the Government, and the criticism was of the Government. I made it, as did others, and I do not resile from it. The hon. Gentleman said that he has listened carefully to the debate. Does he now have any sense of the anger and unhappiness that those interventions sought to convey to him about the taking of business today?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I will address, as far as I can, all the concerns that have been expressed during the course of the debate. 1 am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that I will do that in due course. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what everyone has said. In no way would I make the criticism that any of the speakers who have taken part in these Committee proceedings have done so with anything less than seriousness. People felt that they had to make their points and, even if I do not agree with them, I recognise that they were made with all seriousness and proper concern. I want to begin by dealing with some of the general points made in the debate; then I will turn to more specific points that arise directly from the amendments. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) both said in different ways that the process so far had been all take and no give. Well, that is hardly the case. For the first time in 25 years, a devolved Government have been returned to Northern Ireland. That is an achievement. For the first time in 60 or so years, there is now agreement on the constitutional issues, and articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution have been amended. Those amendments will stand, regardless of what happens to the institutions. Of course, the 1985 agreement, about which many Ulster Unionists of different kinds had grave reservations—to put it mildly—has finally been replaced. So it is simply not true to say that there have been no achievements. That is not to say that there is not more to be achieved.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for giving way. Let me remind him of the context of my remark that there has been all take and no give by the paramilitaries. I said that the two Governments, British and Irish, had fulfilled all their obligations, including many of those that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I went on to say that the constitutional parties—Unionist, nationalist, alliance—had fulfilled all their obligations, including many of the those that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, which I agree are important achievements. In return, the paramilitaries—whether republican or loyalist—who signed up to the Belfast agreement have failed to fulfil their obligations. They had two particular obligations: the first was to decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives by May; the second was to end violence for good. That is what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I mean by all take and no give. That is the point that needs to be addressed.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I was not trying to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I accept entirely the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of their remarks. I was about to draw attention to the matters on which there are still large reasons for concern and I shall talk about them in due course. I stand by the fact that there is no direct link between the Bill and the agreement—it is a matter of context, as I tried to make clear in an earlier intervention. The agreement was negotiated with most—although not all—the parties in Northern Ireland; it was subsequently endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, by the people of southern Ireland. There has been progress on all three longstanding, fundamental Unionist objectives—rightly held by Unionists to be of deep importance. That has been achieved through the courageous leadership of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). In his speech, the right hon. Member for Bracknell referred to all the people who played a major role in bringing us to where we are today. I concur with, and add to, the list that he gave. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is in his place, as he was on the list read out by the right hon. Member for Bracknell, whom I join in paying tribute to the role played by the former Prime Minister in beginning the process. I have referred to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who played an important role in the matter when she was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and to the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Everyone has put their hands to the pump; we have all tried to do the best possible for the people of Northern Ireland.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I will give way in a moment. I acknowledge that other elements are less welcome. However, we should not close our eyes to the substantial progress that has taken place as a result of the Good Friday agreement. The right hon. Member for Bracknell and others, including the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred to the modalities of decommissioning—the how, where and when. That is central to the Opposition's main amendment, which has been the subject of much of the Committee's debate. The whole Committee would probably agree that the point of decommissioning is that arms are decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Independent Commission on Decommissioning. The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 makes it clear that the commission has to supervise decommissioning according to schemes that have been made. The Act requires that such schemes may include a range of methods of destruction, defined under section 10 as making permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable". Let me simply point out what is stated in the legislation. We must wait and see what the commission reports; I shall comment further on that in a moment. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is not in the Chamber. At the risk of incurring some hon. Members' wrath, I wondered why the hon. Gentleman had been stirred to take part in the debate, as he was not in the Chamber—

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The hon. Gentleman often takes part in such debates.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

He is quite entitled to do so, although he was not here on Second Reading yesterday. On listening to and then reading the speech that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made yesterday, I realised that he had made the fatal mistake—at least so far as the hon. Member for Stone is concerned, of mentioning the word "Europe". I suspect that that may have played some part in tempting the hon. Gentleman into the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman tabled amendment No. 32. If it were passed, someone elected to the House of Commons who was also a Member of the Irish Parliament, had also been a paramilitary and had not disavowed terrorism would be disqualified. The difficulty is that it would not apply to someone elected to the House of Commons who was not a Member of the Irish Parliament, so it would set a different standard for different people. The other difficulty that arises from amendment No. 32 is that there would have to be some means of deciding who had or had not been a paramilitary. In some cases, by virtue of the fact that the person had been convicted of something, that might be obvious, but we do not have an exhaustive list of everyone who may have been a paramilitary at some time in the past.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I thank the Under-Secretary, who, with characteristic courtesy, has given way whenever requested. He and I strongly support the setting up of the Assembly. He and I know that we both supported in the House the legislation that set up the Assembly. He may correct me if I am wrong, but my memory of that legislation was that everyone elected to the Assembly had to swear an oath that they had given up violence for good—not just members of Sinn Fein but members of the SDLP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. That seems an interesting precedent. Whereas, as currently drafted, amendment No. 32 may not be acceptable, it has interesting implications and possibilities for the House.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and if the precedent that he referred to existed, he might have a stronger case. Unfortunately, he is wrong. The pledge that he referred to is required only of Northern Ireland Ministers. No such oath or declaration is required on the part of Assembly Members, so I rather think that his—

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish dealing with the intervention that he has already made, I will allow him the opportunity to come back. It is an interesting point, but he is simply referring to a precedent that does not exist. However—

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

rose—

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

Give way to my hon. Friend.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, to instruct me.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that every hon. Member who takes the Oath by implication denounces terrorism?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

So why—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who came into the debate rather belatedly and contributed to it briefly from the Back Benches, would bear with me, I was dealing specifically with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Stone. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Stone was speaking, so he will forgive me if I do not take any more sedentary interventions from him. The group of amendments before us effectively seeks to put on the face of the Bill a direct linkage between the lifting of disqualification and decommissioning. I can see why the Opposition might want to make that linkage but, as I argued on Second Reading, it would be wrong to make that direct linkage between the Bill and that issue. I shall explain why. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) supported the Government's position on that matter; and, from a slightly different angle, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a similar point. Let me make the Government's position as clear as I can. We entirely share the view of the Opposition, and of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, that decommissioning is an essential part of the process—not an option; a part of the process. The process of decommissioning is being overseen by General de Chastelain's commission. The right hon. Member for Bracknell paid proper tribute to General de Chastelain and the other distinguished members of the commission for their independence and professionalism. I hope that the whole House would accept also that the commission brings good faith to its work. For those reasons, a great deal of trust is put in the hands of the commission. For that reason, when the commission makes its report on progress—as it will by the end of the month—it will be a document of authority. The hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) seem to believe that some other kind of process is involved. However, that is the process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it clear that decommissioning is an essential part of the process. If it is clear from General de Chastelain's report that the paramilitaries are in default on decommissioning, there will be serious consequences. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that in circumstances where the commission has reported that there has not been proper progress, the operation of the various political institutions—the Assembly, the Executive, the north-south bodies and the British-Irish Council—will cease immediately. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend, who is sitting alongside me, stands entirely by what he has said on this issue, and that he takes the matter seriously indeed.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.