I entirely agree. Where someone says or does something that clearly contravenes the undertakings they have given, we should be able to investigate it and sanctions should be available for it. My slight worry is that the amendments might allow a complaint to be made that somebody had not sufficiently challenged all paramilitary activity—that they had not said enough times how heinous such activity is, or they might not have taken any physical action in the community, for example. I am not sure how it can be proved or enforced when somebody has not done something. That is my point. If we wanted a code of conduct that could be followed, it would have to be clear that people were prohibited from speaking or acting in any way in support of paramilitaries.
Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nigel Mills
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 10 March 2016.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
607 c501 Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2016-03-15 13:08:59 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-03-10/16031040000747
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-03-10/16031040000747
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-03-10/16031040000747