House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Mar 1991

Column 293

"volunteers"--those who carry out acts of terrorism on behalf of their organisation. The provisions before us represent an important additional element in what we intend should be a comprehensive range of measures for curbing the financing of terrorism, itself an increasingly diversified activity. There is, I suggest, little doubt that such measures are necessary.

It is well known that terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland and those who handle money on their behalf are becoming ever more sophisticated in the means by which they raise and launder funds. Increasingly, persons of substance, including business men and accountants, are involved. It is a particularly worrying feature of the current scene that persons known to be involved with terrorist organisations are involved in the running of what may be regarded as legitimate businesses, with the principal objective of using those businesses to raise or launder funds intended to finance terrorism. There is good reason to believe that some of these people have been involved in such terrorist-financing activity for several years and that they have derived substantial personal benefit from their involvement.

There is in the Government's view--a view which is fully shared by the Royal Ulster Constabulary--a serious risk that, unless effective action is taken soon, persons acting on behalf of terrorist organisations will succeed in establishing a commercial or business infrastructure capable of providing long-term support for terrorism. Perhaps just as much a matter for concern is the risk that, even after a cessation of political violence, such an infrastructure might remain in place, able to sustain a potential for more

straightforwardly criminal racketeering. No one would wish to see the creation of a Mafia-style society anywhere in the United Kingdom. It was against this background, and with the concerns that I have just outlined, that the Government considered how they might use the opportunity created by this Bill to strengthen the law to allow more effective action against terrorist financiers. There were two principal outcomes of this consideration. The first was the new investigative powers for non-police officers, which were introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee, and which are now to be found in clause 47 and schedule 4. An ability to invoke these powers, and to secure the involvement in a financial investigation of persons with the special skills required for this task, should considerably ease the task of the RUC in bringing to justice those involved in such activities.

The second main outcome of our consideration of possible new measures is the scheme for confiscation which is now before us. It addresses a gap in the existing law. As Lord Colville has pointed out in his recent report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, the present law, while providing some machinery for the confiscation of money or property which it can be proved is intended for terrorist use, does not provide any means of depriving "terrorist financiers" of the personal benefit which they derive from their involvement in such activity.

It is a matter of regret to me that the very extensive and detailed work that was necessary before these provisions could be brought forward could not be completed quickly enough to allow them to be considered in Committee. They were, however, tabled at what was the earliest

Column 294

possible moment after the necessary preparatory work had been done, and I am grateful for the indulgence of the House.

Despite their length and technical complexity, the provisions that make up the new scheme have a simple purpose, and their intention can be expressed in straightforward terms. In essence, they provide that, if a person is convicted in the Crown court of a relevant offence as defined in new clause 7, and if certain conditions have been fulfilled, the court will be required to make a confiscation order. The amount of that order will represent either the value of the person's proceeds from terrorist-related activity during the six years preceding his conviction, or the value of his realisable property--as defined in new clause 8--at the time when proceedings are instituted, whichever is the less. The relevant offences will be the scheduled offences identified in new clause 7 from the commission of which persons are most likely to benefit or which are most closely related to terrorist finance.

There are five matters, identified in new clause 5, about which a court must be satisfied, after it has convicted someone of a relevant offence, before it can make a confiscation order. It must be satisfied first that the defendant has engaged in terrorist-related activities ; secondly, that he has benefited from such activities ; thirdly, that at some time since the commission of the offence the defendant has had realisable property exceeding £20,000 in value ; fourthly, that, in the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted, the defendant has committed another relevant offence on a separate occasion ; and, fifthly, that in the particular case, having regard to the circumstances of the offences, the making of the order would not be unfair or oppressive. Terrorist-related activities are defined in new clause 5(2)(a) as activities that consist of, or involve the commission of, one or more relevant offences, and it will be provided that a person benefits from such activities if he obtains money or other property as a direct or indirect result of such activities.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : As my right hon. Friend has said, the wording of the new clause is somewhat extensive, and difficult for anyone to understand completely. Will one of the conditions to be met before the court can make an order be that the defendant must be given notice that, if he is convicted, an application for such an order will follow? Or will an order be made in any event against anyone who is convicted of such an offence?

Mr. Brooke : As I said a moment ago, the court will be required to bring in a confiscation order if the relevant circumstances obtain. To assist the court in its task of determining whether the conditions have been fulfilled, the scheme will provide certain assumptions which the court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, will be obliged to apply. They include the assumption that any property appearing to the court to have been held by the defendant at any time since his conviction, or to have been transferred by him at any time during the six-year period ending when proceedings were instituted, was received by him as a benefit from terrorist-related activities.

As with other confiscation schemes, such as the 1990 Northern Ireland order that I have already mentioned, provision will be made for restraint and charging orders. Those are required to enable assets to be frozen at an early

Column 295

stage so that they are available to meet any confiscation order that may be made if the defendant is convicted. There will also be provisions creating offences aimed at persons who attempt to avoid confiscation.

The power to make confiscation orders will be available only to the Crown court in Northern Ireland, but the funds subject to such orders may be held elsewhere. For that reason, the scheme will enable provision to be made by Order in Council for the enforcement in England and Wales, Scotland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man of confiscation and restraint--but not charging orders--made in Northern Ireland. The offences provisions in new clauses 11 and 12 will also be capable of application in those separate jurisdictions. It is intended that restraint orders should normally be granted by the High Court in Northern Ireland. However, it will also be provided that, in certain closely defined circumstances, the power to grant such orders should be exercisable by the Secretary of State. The circumstances will be that the Secretary of State should be satisfied on all the matters on which a High Court judge would have to be satisfied before granting such an order, and that in addition it should appear to him that the disclosure of information that it would be necessary to provide to the judge in support of such an application would be likely either to place someone in danger or to prejudice the capability of members of the RUC, or an authorised inquiry, to investigate offences to which the scheme applies. I readily acknowledge that these provisions appear severe. Indeed they are severe, which is their intention. They are intended to make people who have deliberately involved themselves in financial activity in support of terrorist organisations, or who may be thinking of so involving themselves, to think twice about that involvement. I remind the House that, in principle, the provisions are no different from or more severe than provisions that Parliament accepted for those who profit from their involvement in drug trafficking. The Government, and I hope the House, regard the deliberate financing of terrorism as an equally heinous activity. That is why I introduced the provisions and am commending them to the House.

The Government amendments are all consequential on the new clauses to which I have referred.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) : To some extent, we welcome the new clauses. We question them not because of a lack of good will towards them--we welcome their purpose and hope that they will be speedily and readily effective--but because we believe that they should be part of the general law of the land. I understand that a Home Office committee is considering their provisions, but we would have preferred them to be part of the general law on preventing anybody from benefiting from criminal offences.

It is of the utmost importance that no one should be able to benefit financially from the proceeds of terrorist offences. It is important that such proceeds, whether they be from extortion, illegal rackets or bank robbery, do not find their way into the normal channels and thereby make it appear that they came from legitimate businesses. That is very dangerous because, if the criminal elements--the IRA, some Protestant paramilitaries or the mafia--were to

Column 296

gain control of our economy, it would make us a very sick society. We cannot allow that, so we welcome the new clauses.

We regard the Bill as proper anit-terrorist legislation. To deal with terrorism, we must get at terrorists' financial routes and cut their ability to finance their enterprises. It is perhaps not a spectacular way of dealing with it. It is not immediately emotive and it will require much hard police work, but in the long term we believe that it is far better than any knee-jerk reaction to terrorist offences.

The Secretary of State has said how the system will work and it seems to contain adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Unless all the conditions are fulfilled, seriatim, no orders can be made against individuals. Again, we welcome that.

We should not wish a legitimate business to go out of existence merely because its financial control was in the hands of terrorists or terrorists' front people. Legitimate jobs may be placed at risk and many innocent people may suffer. One would like to think that there was some way of thinking this matter through so that those points were covered.

Finally, I turn to the tracing orders that will be made for the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Is there any provision that would enable funds to be followed to other Community countries-- because of the free movement of capital that now exists within the Community--or to countries outside the European Community where they could be used to buy arms? It would be a great benefit to terrorist organsiations to have apparently legitimate funds in such countries.

With those general caveats, we welcome the provisions. We believe that they will be effective and hope that they will form part of the general law of the land. As this is emergency legislation, let us hope that, when the Home Office inquiry is concluded, we see such provisions as part of general legislation and included in our ordinary Criminal Justice Acts.

4.15 pm

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : It is gratifying for all of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to debate a Bill, not an Order in Council, because the benefits that will flow from that will enable people from all walks of life in Northern Ireland to feel that their views have been expressed both in Committee and on Report.

We hope that we can illustrate the inaccuracy of the advice that is sometimes given to the Secretary of State, to the effect that, if the Government legislated by Bills as a matter of course for Northern Ireland, that would place an intolerable burden on the time of the House. My colleagues on this Bench, and, I hope, all those in the House, will do our best to illustrate that that is not an accurate assessment. We can all help. I make a plea to my colleagues of all parties who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to help by making their contributions crisp, accurate and concise, and not to waffle on at great length on matters which, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with the provisions under discussion.

We are aware of the hurried introduction of some of the new clauses and the thinking behind them. If there had been a longer period for consultation-- if the provisions had been tabled, even in outline, on Second Reading or earlier in Committee--we would all have had the benefit of receiving some input from interested bodies and

Column 297

experienced persons in Northern Ireland. We might then have been able to assist the Secretary of State and his colleagues to improve the legislation still further.

I find it difficult to understand why we appear to have been caught on the hop. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) reminded the Committee--I put it on the record now--that some of us had read in The Sunday Times as far back as 21 October 1990 that the Northern Ireland Office had it in mind to introduce legislation on this subject akin to what applies in the United States of America. However, there appears to be a curious dichotomy in the Government's thinking as a unit. Not all Departments in Whitehall seem to be alive to the possibilities of the legislation and the potential effectiveness of clauses such as those which have now been introduced. All honour to the Secretary of State and his colleagues for perhaps defying the advice that they have received from certain other quarters, to the effect that they should take their time and put off this matter until after a general election. That would not have been desirable.

I find it curious that we have not been given more time, but I appreciate the problems and the fact that discussions probably took place in Government at various levels, so I shall not press that point too far today.

My colleagues and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State seemed to say that he was providing for the application of certain provisions to Great Britain by order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being precise because, like his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I find it difficult to take all these matters in at one bite. Nevertheless, if that is what the Government have in mind, it would be highly desirable. Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I go further and suggest that thought should be given to a wider application, where possible, to overseas finance houses if co-operation could be secured.

At various stages of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann has made pleas for greater precision in drafting. Having listened to the Secretary of State, I hope that he will not close his mind to further suggestions about how precision could be attained. In various respects, the new clauses represent a considerable improvement on the outline made available in Committee, but I hope that, in our examination of the new clauses and amendments, we can give further help to the Secretary of State to achieve greater precision.

I assume that, even when Royal Assent has been obtained, the Secretary of State and his colleagues will pay heed to expert advice and opinion--I use those words deliberately--about closing loopholes which terrorist godfathers, like tax dodgers, will inevitably discover in the legislation. I assure the Secretary of State and his colleagues of the co-operation of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in the House, first, on the passage of the remaining stages of the Bill and, secondly, in helping him to scrutinise the effectiveness of the legislation when it is applied to doing something significant to contain terrorists, wherever they may be found.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Signals from the Labour Front Bench were trying to attack me through the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), but they should remember that example is better than precept.

Column 298

Of course hon. Members from Northern Ireland welcome the fact that we are discussing a Bill in the House. We should not be over-enthusiastic, because I do not think that the Government are in any way converted to the view that all legislation for Northern Ireland should be done through Bills. This legislation is being done by Bill because of certain regulations connected with it. However, I do not think that the Government have been down a Damascus road and have been persuaded that the House should legislate for Northern Ireland in the same way as it legislates for other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Molyneaux : I hope that I did not give the impression that it was a fait accompli. Is my hon. Friend prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps we will all travel hopefully.

Rev. Ian Paisley : I have my doubts about the Government, so I can give them the benefit of the doubt at all times.

I regret that, when the Government introduce a Bill, we have all these changes and additions. It would be easier for Northern Ireland Members to discuss a measure on Second Reading if they knew the full content of the Government's mind. Of course, the Government may not know the content of their own mind, and may therefore be in difficulty about delivering it earlier.

The Government are trying to do what needs to be done. Money should be clawed back immediately from anyone who benefits financially from terrorist activity. Everyone is in full agreement on that. I have tried to be concise.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : For once, I shall try to follow the example of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Again, I am disappointed that this new legislation has been introduced in the manner in which it has. The Minister of State was good enough to consult members of the parties from the north of Ireland in the concluding phase of drawing up the legislation, but we now have 10 new clauses, a complete new schedule and almost a complete new Bill on Report. It may be easy for people with legal expertise to deal with such legislation, but those of us who are not so qualified find great difficulty with it. It is not fair to hon. Members to introduce what is essentially almost a new Bill at this stage, because the Bill is not open to the investigation and examination that is required.

Another important factor is that, if the changes to the Bill had been dealt with in Committee, we would have a much clearer idea of the import, impact and effectiveness of the Bill. I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). One of the difficulties with emergency legislation--I made this point on Monday--is that we end up with a patchwork quilt. The Government have drawn a little from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, a little from the prevention of terrorism Act, a little from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a little from the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and a little from something else, and have ended up with a panoply of measures which is like a patchwork quilt, with no central unity. It is almost impossible to deal with such a measure as a single piece of legislation. That is what has happened, and that is why the changes have been made so late.

Column 299

The Bill seeks to take provisions from the ordinary law, to put them into emergency legislation and to make them apply to proscribed organisations and scheduled offences. The patchwork quilt approach has continued. It does not seem the right way to deal with the matter.

I regard wealth or money which is obtained through violence or as a result of violent activity as nothing less than blood money. [Interruption.] I am not terribly sure why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has given me a glass of water. Is there a Freudian message within it, or is there something stronger?

Mr. McNamara : It was what the doctor ordered for the hon. Gentleman's throat, and it is suitable for Lent.

Mr. Mallon : I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I know that, when it comes to that which goes into a glass, he is an expert on the implications of Lent.

Money earned as a result of violence is simply blood money. I and everyone else who lives in the north of Ireland have seen the way in which some people have become wealthy on the back of the sufferings of others, so no one would question the need for legislation to deal with it. It is a difficult area of operation, and the problem has been with us for several years. The reason why it became so widespread and so much a part of the sub -culture of the north of Ireland was that successive Governments were not willing enough to get to grips with it. It is on record in the House through the years that organisations such as the Housing Executive, which is charged with providing housing in the north of Ireland, have paid out millions upon millions of pounds--in protection money and other forms of racketeering. Part of the problem was a reluctance to come to grips with it, because it was a conduit for intelligence. That is a reality which people may not like to hear, but it is one of the difficulties. As a consequence, racketeering has become part of the sub-culture of the north of Ireland. That is why it has reached the stage that it has.

I have reservations about certain elements of the new clauses. I am worried about the families of those who may come under scrutiny. I am fairly certain that in some cases a woman has no control whatsoever over the activities of her husband. Such a woman might find that her home was subject to confiscation. In other words, a woman and her children could lose their home through no fault of their own. I am not sure that such sensitive matters are dealt with clearly. Let us hope that the Secretary of State will be able to clarify the situation.

My other fundamental reservation concerns the fact that, once again, the onus of proof is on the suspect. Throughout these new clauses, the suspect is required to prove his innocence. That represents not just weak law but also a weak approach to law.

4.30 pm

The provision concerning compensation is particularly ambiguous. Compensation may be paid if the High Court decides that there has been some serious default on the part of a person concerned in the investigation or prosecution of the offence. Surely the provision must be made much more precise. Is not proof of innocence sufficient to establish entitlement to compensation under this type of legislation? It seems to me that there is a high degree of subjectivity in the definition of serious default by

Column 300

the High Court. Once a person has been absolved, he should be entitled, without this subjective element, to compensation. The provision would substantially weaken the subject's position. As this is emergency legislation, we should be especially concerned about the protection written into it. It is not enough to provide for the punitive element.

I repeat that there is a need for this type of legislation. It is not confined to proscribed organisations. Indeed, some of the most serious racketeering in the north of Ireland is indulged in by an organisation that some people deem no longer to exist. Those of us who live there know how potent it still is. We know how much money it puts through its hands every year--and its members through their pockets. We know that it works very closely with what many people now regard as a legitimate political party. The fact that it is not proscribed shows the difficulties that could be faced in the application of the law to such racketeering. There are weaknesses in the new clauses. We must always look for means of protecting accused people.

Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down) : This new legislation manifests the determination of the Government and of the people of Northern Ireland not to let up, even for a moment, in the attempt to throttle the evil men-- on whichever side of the divide--who parade themselves as patriots. The legislation can grab hold of what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to as the blood money which has been screwed out of the people of Northern Ireland by the terrorists, in particular by the Provisional IRA.

I have some reservations about the legislation. As the Secretary of State said, it is based on legislation dealing with drugs in England. The courts have not been determined in grabbing hold of all the money that drug dealers have accumulated. They have interpreted the laws extremely strictly and dealt kindly with the relations of the defendants in the dock. The laws should be tougher. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, we must be able to follow funds that go to other parts of the world--for example, the tax havens in the West Indies.

The IRA is extremely astute at manipulating money. Those funds have been and are being accumulated for the express purpose of terrorism, but the terrorists also have in mind the day when peace will come--as it surely must--to Northern Ireland and put the money away for their retirement. It is said, although I cannot produce any proof, that IRA funds have been used to buy property in my constituency. Some people act as front men for the terrorists.

I only hope that, when the legislation is enacted, it will be fully implemented, with the greatest determination. As the Secretary of State said, money is the life blood of the terrorist. We must cut off that money and, in so doing, we shall help bring down the evil men who have haunted Northern Ireland for more than 20 years, and whose day of reckoning has come.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : The legislation, which was introduced late in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, is full of good intention. However, I have been in the House for 17 years and have lived through the problems and troubles of Northern Ireland since the day they began, and I have seen much

Column 301

legislation pass through the House that was full of good intentions. But good intentions are not enough ; the practical consequences of those good intentions are what count. If the Secretary of State thinks back on all the legislation brought before the House that was supposed to produce good consequences, but which gave birth to nothing of the sort, I have no doubt that he will share my reservations about the legislation before us.

The Secretary of State knows perfectly well, because he referred to it, that the legislation is based on the powers contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. How much money, and on how many occasions, and how much property has been seized as a result of the application of that Act against people committing drug offences? Similar powers, relating to the seizure of bank accounts, were contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 : how many bank accounts have since been seized?

If the Secretary of State asks us to pass such legislation, surely he should tell us the practical consequences of earlier, similar legislation, but he did not do so. The House has a right to hear the answers to those questions and to know whether similar legislation has been effective. I fear that it is not effective in those two situations. Whenever he says that business men and accountants are now involved in these matters, he inadvertently proves to the House and to the country that all this talk about mindless violence committed by members of the IRA is utter nonsense. The IRA and its fellow travellers are not engaged in mindless violence. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that I, for one, have never accepted the belief that they were mindless thugs. They are directed by clever, efficient and ruthless people. By telling the House that business men and accountants are now involved, the Secretary of State has given us proof positive that these organisations--not only but principally the IRA-- have got the thing down to a fine art. These people are being well advised by able people. Therefore, a botched job will be no good. It will only bring the law being formulated against them into grave disrepute. That does no good to anyone : in fact, it makes the matter a great deal worse. Therefore, I hope that, when the Secretary of State, his colleagues and his advisers were dreaming up these new clauses, they asked themselves how the provisions could be circumvented. As soon as they appeared, the IRA and other terrorist organisations had their boys on the ball trying to figure out ways round them.

I have no doubt that, when the Secretary of State and the police proceed against the first targets that they have in mind, they will find that those people have discovered ways round the new law. They will have found the loopholes and expanded them until an elephant, never mind a mouse, can get through. This is a serious issue, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his advisers, and the police officers and accountants who have to investigate such matters, have put themselves into the minds of terrorist organisations, have tried to discover the loopholes, and as a result have created nets to ensure that those people are caught in one way or another. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the situation in the building trades in Northern Ireland. That has been an open scandal for more years than any of us cares to remember. The consequence is that, whenever a legitimate builder looks for work in Northern Ireland, he is confronted with two problems. The first is that many believe that building firms are under

Column 302

the control of these evil organisations. If even one tenth of what we hear is to be believed, firms have been paying large sums to terrorist organisations on every building contract that has been put through in an area ruled by such an organisation.

The second problem is partly the result of the DHSS in Northern Ireland still falling down on its job. We hear tales from the small builders of how they can no longer compete because these fellows are doing the double, working for £20 a day. Will the DHSS be called in to close that aspect of the building trade? That concerns every legitimate builder in Northern Ireland.

New clause 5 says that the value of the realisable property has to exceed £20,000. I should like an explanation of that figure. Am I to take it from that that persons can acquire a maximum of £20,000 from terrorist organisations or activities before the legislation catches them? Many people would like £20,000 if they thought that they could get it without any danger to themselves. It might be a powerful incentive to some of these folk to go ahead. If that is so, can we close that loophole?

The third line of new clause 5 says :

"whether before or after the coming into force of this Part". That implies retrospective legislation. Nobody likes that but the fact that it is necessary in this case shows that the Government are a minimum of six years late in introducing this measure.

Mr. Mallon : Twelve.

Mr. Ross : I think that it is rather more than 12, but we shall only try to catch the latter half of the 12, even if that is incorrect.

I appreciate the need for retrospection in this case, but I regret that it is needed, because it is not the sort of Bill that any hon. Member would like to accept or willingly pass. Retrospective law is generally bad law, and I do not like it. However, in this case it is necessary.

4.45 pm

I also noted that the individual who is convicted cannot be caught by these provisions for only one proven offence. He has to be convicted of more than one. I should like the Secretary of State to comment on that. The implication is that we are trying to catch not the one-off offender, but the committed, continuing offender. If that is so, I should welcome it.

New clause 14 speaks of "property wherever situated". As has already been said, property owned by these organisations, and income-producing property at that, can be anywhere--the United States, Canada, the Irish Republic or England. I can understand that the Secretary of State is referring to property in Northern Ireland and probably in the United Kingdom and adjacent British Isles. However, is he saying that he will try to find out the situation in foreign states such as the Irish Republic? If he is not, here is the first great gaping hole. We need to have that cleared up. I do not believe that the IRA has invested all its ill-gotten gains in Northern Ireland. A lot of it is invested elsewhere, where it is safe. The new clause seems to be aimed at individuals who have benefited, but we are not dealing with terrorists as individuals. Individuals get caught, but they are only part and parcel of the terrorist machine. I am curious about what consideration has been given to how we can get at the whole machine. Although the person who has been caught may have benefited, he is only a tiny part of the machine.

Column 303

How about the money held by the organisation that owns the property and employs the individual, perhaps as a consultant, a worker, a director or a simple, straightforward employee or alleged employee? These matters need to be addressed, because these organisations are super-mafias.

I wonder whether the powers that the Government have taken unto themselves are sufficient, draconian though they are. Will they hurt these organisations where it matters--in their pockets? That is where we want to hurt them. We do not want to attack the minor individual who has made a small profit, take the money off him and leave the whole organisation with its property and money and resulting income intact.

I am curious to know whether, if one of these individuals has been paid as an employee and has benefited over the past six years to the tune of £10,000 or £12,000 a year, we will tell him that he will have to pay such wages back. What will be the practical consequences of such a move? The person does not have money in the bank, because he was paid the money and has spent it on living. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to recover that money.

I welcome the fact that any compensation that the convicted individual has to make will have priority over any other claim. I am happy to see that, because those who have suffered injury and may be able to claim compensation from the individual who has committed the offence will be protected, and their interests will be safeguarded. It is unusual that the individual rather than the Crown will be first in line for the money. If that policy were applied generally, many people in the business world would be happy to see the tax man's demands. I do not think that the Secretary of State will ever convince the Chancellor to adopt that approach to debts.

Under new clause 6(8), the courts will have to state the reasons for their actions. I am curious about whether that is necessary, because we may create a precedent which, instead of being helpful, turns out to be an albatross. Perhaps the Secretary of State and his advisers would like to consider that measure again. If the right hon. Gentleman puts himself into the position of the courts or the terrorists, he may think of some of the possible problems. You will have gathered from my comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not think that this is a good curate's egg overall. It looks good. No doubt the hen's intention in laying it was good. It is a pity that the egg was kept in the nest for six or seven years too long and went bad. However, good intentions are welcome. We hope that, with increasing knowledge of the capacity of the wicked organisations at which the Bill is aimed, the Government will understand that this is a fair beginning but is not yet a good or successful end.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe (Antrim, South) : I support and welcome the Bill, which we hope will prevent racketeers from using normal businesses to make money for terrorist purposes. As a former plumbing contractor and one who worked in the construction industry, I have taken great exception to the threats against business people and tradesmen in the building industry and the protectionism practised by terrorist groups and racketeers.

Many jobs have been lost because of changes in certain areas of Northern Ireland. Many tradesmen and other workers in the construction industry are on the dole

Column 304

because threats mean that they cannot work in certain places because of threats. Sadly, people who went to work in such places were murdered because they came from a different area. It is disgraceful that a person who is trying to earn money for his family should be treated in that way.

The threats are made by cowards, not by people who express their views to workers. They are made by telephone calls and by "a word to the wise". That is absolutely disgraceful. Unfortunately, the cowards are getting away with it. It is a tragedy that people who wish to work cannot do so. If the Bill has any effect on such actions, I should very much welcome it on behalf of those who work in the construction industry. Attempts are made to extract money from people so that they can work in particular areas--and, sadly, workers are paying it. That is another tragedy.

The Bill is the other side of the coin from the terrorists who prevent workmen from going to certain areas or certain camps to carry out their building trade. Workmen are murdered to prevent them from doing their work. Firms are intimidated. I have been sadly disappointed by certain firms that backed down when threatened. For years, workers who have travelled into and out of these areas have been intimidated and threatened but have gone to work ; but as soon as some firms are threatened or intimidated, everyone loses his job. I have been sadly disappointed that business people should do that.

Mr. William Ross : My hon. Friend will be aware that, whenever a firm is forced out because of such activity, it can be replaced by a firm whose workers will comply with the terrorists' demands.

Mr. Forsythe : Unfortunately, that seems to be the case.

Rev. Ian Paisley : Is there not a Government failure in providing proper protection for those firms? I am sure that the hon. Member would not like to castigate a firm which has been seriously threatened and which, when it asks for protection, is told by the police that they cannot do much to help. I am sure that such firms cannot carry on in view of a threat against not only the business people but all the workers, as recently happened in Ballymena in my constituency.

Mr. Forsythe : I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I was coming to that point. It is sad that firms are placed in that position and that they feel that they can no longer depend on security measures to look after them and their workers.

In such circumstances, workers are put on the dole. The fellow travellers of those who carry out the threats and murders then wring their hands in despair about unemployment in Northern Ireland. The hypocrisy of such actions is beyond belief and is treated by the people of Northern Ireland with the contempt that it deserves. I am sure that the racketeers and the terrorists will not listen to anything that I say or, indeed, to what the House says, but they are not wanted by people in any area in Northern Ireland. They should let the rest of us again have the quality of life that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. I plead with the Government to enforce the laws.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster) : Does the hon. Member not find it strange that, on numerous occasions in my constituency, the IRA has set off large bombs which have destroyed many premises, yet the first people on the scene to board up and replace windows happen to be from

Column 305

the same grouping, from Sinn Fein or the IRA? The Government are ready to fill its coffers with payment for doing those jobs.

Mr. Forsythe : Sadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that has happened on a number of occasions.

Mr. Mallon : It would be entirely wrong to give the impression that everyone working in the building trade in the north of Ireland is, first, a member of that nationalist community and, by implication, a member or a supporter of Sinn Fein or the IRA. The real racketeering in the building trade is organised by the loyalist paramilitary groups, and hon. Members who represent Belfast know that. They also know that the people who have been killed on building sites because of racketeering are, by and large, Catholics who have come to those sites from other areas.

5 pm

The consensus that we should seek to achieve should mean that anyone who runs any racket is guilty and should be found guilty before the law. We should not indulge in the type of snide remarks that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has introduced into the debate.

Mr. Forsythe : I made my position clear at the beginning of my speech.

Rev. William McCrea : I should have thought that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would have the honesty to condemn the despicable actions that have often occurred in my constituency. Whenever the IRA blows up a town and destroys properties owned by people right across the community, IRA personnel then come in under disguise as contractors, and they lift the coffers from the Northern Ireland Office. That is a despicable situation and it should be condemned by everyone in the House.

Mr. Forsythe : I am sure that hon. Members heard what the two hon. Gentlemen said and they will draw their own conclusions. I made it clear at the beginning of my speech how disgraceful I thought it was that building trade workers were not allowed to go about their business without intimidation and threats. I stand by that.

Mr. Mallon : All building trade workers.

Mr. Forsythe : Yes, all. I was one myself, and I support them fully.

If the Government intend to introduce new legislation, I plead with them to ensure that it is implemented for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.

Next Section

Home Page