House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Mar 2000 (pt 9)

Mr. Walter: Many hours have been spent in the House discussing the situation in Northern Ireland. The clause that we seek to delete gives the Secretary of State power to make special provision for Northern Ireland parties.

14 Mar 2000 : Column 183

I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House on the necessity of the peace process. I think also that there is agreement that we wish to see a normal economic and political climate return to Northern Ireland. While not wishing to labour another debate on Northern Ireland and the current state of the peace process, we are debating a clause that would exacerbate the current failure of the peace process. That is, the failure to deliver a return to democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. If clause 63 remains part of the Bill, that failure will be compounded.

It is an affront to the people of Northern Ireland to make special provision for supporters of and sympathisers with terrorism. It is an affront to the political parties of Northern Ireland represented in the House of Commons--those Members who have taken the Oath and taken their seat--to allow others, the friends of terror, special privileges denied to parties in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Does my hon. Friend agree that the affront is even greater than he describes? The clause confers a power to make orders that are subject to the negative procedure, not the affirmative procedure. In consequence, the Secretary of State can exercise his power to extend the range of permitted donors without obtaining an affirmative vote in the House.

Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: clause 63, like other clauses, gives the Secretary of State such powers. We shall discuss that issue later.

The basic premise behind the amendment is that there should not be special provisions for Northern Ireland. Lord Neill suggested that provisions should exist, because there were special circumstances in Northern Ireland. I do not entirely accept all his arguments in that respect. The Neill report reached us in October 1998, and the game has moved on since then. The report reached us after the signing of the Good Friday agreement, but before the election and creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition, the report reached us before Sinn Fein--to name but one Northern Ireland political party--became an effective part of the political process. The rest, as they say, is history.

If Great Britain is to be subject to the requirements for financial propriety and transparency enshrined in the Bill, it is unacceptable that a part of the United Kingdom with the most vivid history of political corruption should be excluded from the provisions of the Neill report. I do not want to go over Northern Ireland's political history, but I emphasise that it would be wrong effectively to turn a blind eye to practices that have been declared unacceptable in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I hope that, as a result of the events of the past year, there will be an end to the violence used to further political causes in Northern Ireland. Like other hon. Members, I hope and believe that the arms that have been used by terrorists will be handed in and decommissioned. I wonder when that will happen, although that is a subject to be debated another time. Over the years, intimidation has been used to a great extent in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we must not, by allowing the clause to remain part of the Bill, create an environment in which it is perpetuated.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Among other attributes, my hon. Friend has a fertile imagination.

14 Mar 2000 : Column 184

Why should the clause provide for a possible extension of the categories of permissible donors, given that six such categories are already provided for in clause 48(2)?

Mr. Walter: The Committee considered the issue of why, having introduced a regime in Great Britain in which foreign donors were precluded from funding our political parties, and having laid down specific categories of permissible donors, we should allow the Secretary of State to announce exclusions in respect of political parties whose financial and democratic propriety some of us might call into question.

Mr. Hogg: The effect of the proposal in clause 63(1)(b), if it stands as it is, is that a foreign donor could be brought within the class of those deemed to be permissible donors. Not only that, but a foreign donor could be excluded by the Secretary of State from the requirement to give specified information.

Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We discussed in Committee the possibility of permitting donors from the Irish Republic to make donations to political parties not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I made it clear in Committee that we were not prepared to tolerate a situation in which donors in the United States or other foreign countries could continue to fund the activities of Northern Ireland political parties, as they have done in the past, and thus get away with funding the forces of terror, of which we have seen the effects in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): If permissible sources were to include citizens of the Irish Republic, the Neill committee makes it clear in paragraph 5.41 of its report that

there would exist the possibility of overseas donations reaching the Republic,

and thereby Northern Ireland. This clause would be a facilitator for Noraid and all its works.

Mr. Walter: Not only that, but the clause specifically does not mention the Republic of Ireland. It allows exemptions to be made regarding the list of permissible donors that would enable Noraid and any other organisation, whether in the United States or elsewhere, to fund Northern Ireland political parties. It is within the Secretary of State's power to specify which political parties he wishes to exempt from the rule. As the Bill is drafted, he could specify just one party to be exempted, so he might feel it politically expedient to specify a party that has traditionally received most of its funding from the United States, and perpetuate a situation that the rest of us in the House would regard as completely unacceptable.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for giving way so generously. Is there not another risk? I am not accusing the Government of having this in mind, but we must face the consequences. Any Government at some time in the future could use these exempting powers to assist the funding of a

14 Mar 2000 : Column 185

particular party with which that Government--not this one--had friendly relations. The exempting powers can be used in a partisan manner.

Next Section

Index

Home Page