| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, for which I have much sympathy. Does he accept--reverting to the Disqualifications Bill, which the House debated some time ago; I think that he may have spoken in that debate--that one cannot both argue the position that he is advancing now and support the Government's position on the Disqualifications Bill? I therefore hope that he will give consideration to his position on the latter matter.
Mr. Linton: I neither spoke--to the best of my recollection--in the debate on the Disqualifications Bill, nor understand where the alleged contradiction lies.
Mr. Hogg: The Bill proposes excluding--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have the debate conducted from a sedentary position.
Mr. Hogg: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's apology.
Mr. Linton: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will enlighten me in due course.
The Neill committee's concern was to allow residents and citizens of the Republic of Ireland to contribute to Irish parties. I well understand the argument for that, as an integral part of the peace process is the principle that all people in Ireland should be able to participate in the political process in all parts of Ireland. It is an unfortunate truth that, to accomplish that, we may undermine the Bill's efficacy.
I appreciate the difficulties involved in the matter, and I do not have a solution. I tabled amendment No. 164 simply to ensure that the warning is heard loud and clear. For almost 50 years, we have had an election law that has been rendered ineffective by a very simple loophole. A finding by the courts, in 1952, in the so-called Tronoh Mines case, rendered totally ineffective limits on candidates' spending by allowing spending on national campaigns to escape the ban provided that they did not mention a candidate's name. Although it is a simple matter to put right, it has taken almost 50 years to plug that simple loophole. However good our motives, therefore, it is essential that we do not create another loophole.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry):
I have tabled several amendments in this group and I have also added my name to the Conservative amendment No. 152.
The reason for such special provisions is evident: it is to make Northern Ireland different and then use that difference as an excuse for further separate provisions. It becomes a vicious circle. We do not want Northern Ireland to be different--we want it to be as much like the rest of the United Kingdom as possible. It has become clear over the years that only when the Province is fully integrated in every way into the United Kingdom can the violence and the horrors that we have seen be contained. Those who try to tell us that they can be contained in an all-Ireland ambit miss the point. There are 1 million people in Northern Ireland who do not want to be part of an all-Ireland republic. They have steadily voted against it and no doubt they will go on doing so. The proportions of those who are nationalist and Unionist in Northern Ireland have not changed much in the past 80 years, and I see no prospect of them changing. When differences are created, the Unionist population see them not as an attempt to address a real problem, but as an attempt by the Government to push them in a direction in which they do not want to go. Pushing majorities in a direction in which they do not want to go is dangerous and is not a course of action that should commend itself to anyone.
My first amendment is No. 169. The aim is to ensure that each of the parties covered by the clause has a point of authority within Northern Ireland that exercises oversight of the party there. It is essential to ring-fence expenditure on elections in Northern Ireland to those who stand within the boundaries of Northern Ireland. The Government should accept that principle and apply it as swiftly as possible.
The amendment could mean that a United Kingdom or Great Britain party would need such an office. Reference has already been made to the position of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland. However, in practice it would bear only on Sinn Fein, which, as we all know, is one of the public political faces of terrorism. No one seriously questions that proposition. It is a fact that the leading members of Sinn Fein are also members of the IRA and are known to be its leaders. It may not be possible to prove that in court, but if Ministers get a full-blown security briefing, they will find that the intelligence on the people concerned would convince even the most doubtful.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his amendment No. 169 would not discriminate against the Women's
Mr. Ross:
The intention is to make it difficult for the terrorist parties. All the parties that the hon. Gentleman has named are not involved in terrorism, as far as I know. The Women's Coalition and the SDLP are perfectly legitimate parties. They would not be affected because they are not getting money from across the border. If they were, that would be interesting information.
Dr. Godman:
Am I right that each of the two parties to which I referred has just two members in the legislative Assembly? I ask the hon. Gentleman again--would not his amendment No. 168 discriminate against the Women's Coalition and the Progressive Unionist party? What kind of message does that send to the smaller parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mr. Ross:
I am not really concerned about those parties. The number of votes that those parties get is so small that it is doubtful whether they would gain election in a normal election. When everything settles down, those parties will almost certainly disappear. I am aiming at the one party that is the terrorist front.
Dr. Godman:
The hon. Gentleman should try to answer the question.
Mr. Ross:
I think that I have answered it. I am not all that concerned about the tiny parties, but I am concerned with the terrorist front and the IRA. The amendments are aimed at the IRA, and the hon. Gentleman is raising red herrings because he knows perfectly well what my amendments intend to do.
Mr. Hogg:
I acknowledge the democratic credentials of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). As I understand the Bill, the definition of a Northern Ireland party includes the requirement for representation in this place or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If a democratic party has not achieved representation in one or the other, it cannot benefit from the provisions of clause 63, as it now stands. That sounds to me to be extremely discriminatory.
Mr. Ross:
I recognise what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. If the Northern Ireland Assembly were to disappear, the parties about which the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is concerned would not be caught by the Bill's provisions in any case. If he wanted to protect them, he should have tabled his own amendments to prevent them from being swept away from the political scene in those circumstances.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I would appreciate clarification from the hon. Gentleman of amendments Nos. 168 and 172. It seems to me that the amendments would bite not on Sinn Fein, but on a number of other parties, such as the Northern Ireland Unionist party, the United Unionist Assembly party, the Progressive Unionist party and the
Mr. Ross:
The Minister knows that I have said that I am not all that concerned about those tiny parties. If an election were held tomorrow, they would have no representative in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am trying to get at the terrorists' face, and I believe that my amendments would bear heavily upon that.
The plain truth is that the Minister has not explained to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is a well-known barrister, how a Northern Ireland party is defined by membership of the bodies named in the Bill. Suppose that the Northern Ireland Assembly disappears--we would then be left with a situation in which several parties could no longer be defined as Northern Ireland parties.
Can Sinn Fein be defined as a Northern Ireland party? In one sense it is, but in another it is not because it is an all-Ireland party, which is totally different. The courts might take a dim view of the definition, which will almost certainly be challenged as it stands. The Unionist party might find itself in some difficulty if it decided to fight elections in Great Britain. Could it then get away without declaring the source of its donations? The party might find support in some areas of Great Britain, and the SDLP or Sinn Fein might find support in other areas.
The provision is not so much a loophole as a gaping barn door. If it is left open, it could admit all sorts of as yet unforeseen evils. We never really know what will happen or what will be the consequences of leaving such a concession in the Bill with the clear intention of benefiting one party. If the Bill did hammer Sinn Fein, I would be happy to withdraw all my amendments, but I am presently inclined to press them to a Division.
Recent speculation in the press has suggested that parties in the Irish Republic would like to forge ties with the SDLP. Indeed, it would appear that advances have already been made to the SDLP by the Irish Republic's Labour party and by Fianna Fail. The SDLP is, no doubt, considering those offers in the light of the effect that they might have, both in total and in the border areas.
The aim of my amendments is to create a ring fence, inside which the Northern Ireland section of any party would have to conduct its financial affairs. The parties would be so tightly ring-fenced that their accounts would be public, the sources of their income would be public, with everyone knowing exactly what was going on, and their behaviour and activities would fall within the jurisdiction of the UK courts so that this legislation could be enforced.
It was well demonstrated by the hon. Member for North Dorset that currently there is much scope for the movement of money, which either could not be traced or would be legal. However, if the same activity were carried out in Great Britain, it would be totally illegal and the perpetrators could go to prison for it. As drafted, the Bill simply means that Northern Ireland parties would be able to do things that would bring prosecution and retribution in the courts in Great Britain. That must be wrong, because we all operate in the same nation and under the same rod of electoral law, not least to get elected as Members of Parliament.
The Government claim that they are trying to get rid of even the faintest trace of fraud and corruption from the electoral process. However, they are deliberately leaving this great barn door gaping open in Northern Ireland. I think that that barn door should be closed.
We need not ask why the Government have left the concession in the Bill. The Government know that Sinn Fein-IRA would simply break the law anyway, but they are running away from that confrontation and intend to allow in Northern Ireland what would be illegal in Great Britain. That should not be acceptable to any Member of Parliament, never mind only Opposition Members.
The Government are also refusing to take on the one organised and mass corruption of the electoral process anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is because that corruption, backed up with violence, has been so successful that the Government have failed to live up to their moral and political obligations. Evil can neither be beaten nor contained within reasonably narrow limits if we do not face up to it. We must divide it first, as a prelude to its elimination. The amendments are the first line of defence and should be accepted.
Amendments Nos. 171 and 170 would limit to one year the period of freedom to corrupt. Amendment No. 166, with amendment No. 174, would ensure that the maximum period of grace for Sinn Fein-IRA would be limited to three years. At present there is no limit to the free hand given to that murderous organisation in this matter, but a maximum limit should be set. All the amendments would close down the freedom of Sinn Fein-IRA to corrupt the electoral process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |