| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: I have noted very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove actually said of the matter:
- This clause is based on the wrong underlying philosophy and the wrong legislative theory.--[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 196.]
Mr. Öpik: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is scared of the almost irresistible force of reasonable
politics coming from the Liberal Democrats. However, as the hon. Gentleman is being a little naughty with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I will now give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Stunell: It is always good to have one's words of wisdom drawn to the House's attention, not just once but twice. I said very clearly on Report that the proposals then in front of the House were not satisfactory, and we voted against them. Let us be clear: they have been changed and improved on their return to the House. Let us also be clear, however, that the Minister has acknowledged that the change is not the best job that could possibly have been done. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that some progress is better than no progress, and nowhere is that more true than in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Öpik: I cannot say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend is explaining his position and the points that were made on behalf of us all on the previous occasion--an evening when I was busy and unable to be here to influence the debate in person.
Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone): Instead of the hon. Gentleman arguing that we have got a great concession and that there will be a review in four years, not 10, does not he agree that it would have been better for the Minister to come to this House and say that the arrangement will end in four years, after which there will be normality throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? The chances are that when the review takes place, the Government will argue that matters should continue as they are.
Mr. Öpik: There are two answers to that. First, I said that the default position, as I understand it--the unusual and exceptional arrangement, the exemption in Northern Ireland--will fall unless it is reaffirmed by the House. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in his summation.
Secondly, these matters could well be in the Liberal Democrats' hands. There will be an election, at which point I confidently believe that the new Liberal Democrat Prime Minister will consult me, should he provide me with the Northern Ireland Cabinet position that I hanker for, and we will look at it again. However, the serious point--one that the general public should realise too--is that the default position is that this is an interim arrangement and that it will fall unless it is reaffirmed by the House. If that is incorrect, perhaps the Minister will intervene.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: To clarify the matter, the four-year period is an initial one. After that, we want to review the situation; I very much hope that we could move to what the hon. Gentleman describes as a greater default position--to a process of greater convergence. It remains to be seen whether the peace process will enable us to do that.
Mr. Öpik: At the moment, I cannot confirm the exact details in the Bill, but my interpretation of the Minister's response is that that would be the desired outcome. In four years, the Government, whether red, yellow or--conceivably--blue, will have to work extremely hard to justify to the House the idea that international funding for
Northern Irish political parties should continue as it is--[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) assures me that in the event of the Conservatives forming a Government, they will not continue it. As they have told me many times that they will win the next general election, I do not know what they are so worried about. If they win, I shall make a lot of money out of Ladbroke.I have enormous respect for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. He expressed the justified concern that in a referendum--for example, on the unification of Ireland or the disconnection of Northern Ireland from the UK--there could be an unfair funding bias in favour of those who received international funding; let us assume that it would help the nationalists. That assumes that, between now and such a referendum, the funding arrangement would be maintained.
I do not think that there will be a referendum in four years. In the light of both the debate so far and the Minister's inference, we shall review the arrangement after four years with the presumption of eliminating it. If such a referendum were to be held in about 20 years, there would be five opportunities to eliminate the preferential funding arrangement. I stress that, meanwhile, there is nothing to stop those who are against unification from putting forward their case and receiving international funding to make it.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann expressed the valid concern that the differential in funding arrangements requires slightly different treatment of parties that might otherwise choose to operate UK-wide. That is correct. However, my interpretation of that point is that, at long last, there are convergence criteria; we are recognising present reality, while setting up a process whereby the differences can be resolved and eliminated.
Those people who are concerned about the money imply that the increase in beneficial funding to republicans or nationalists would convince many people to vote for them. However, if I gave the right hon. Member for Bracknell or the hon. Member for Beaconsfield £1 million, I do not think that they would vote for a republican or nationalist party. The general public in Northern Ireland are extremely well informed politically; they tend to make judgments based on their varied points of view.
There has been enormous progress in Northern Ireland. Individuals whose participation in the political process we might never have anticipated have laid down their guns and tried to participate. The objections of the official Opposition are reasonable--these are matters of judgment--but they put an unnecessary and distracting strain on a process that has, to date, shown signs of leading to a lasting peace. History will prove whether we are right.
I respect the views of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, but it is exciting that we at least have the opportunity to resolve the key issues--to park issues such as these and not introduce them now, and make a commitment to return to them in four years. If those of us who accept that the pragmatic outcome of our deliberations should be to leave the funding issue as it is for now and return to it in future are right, history will prove it. If we are wrong, I shall be the first to say so.
10.15 pmWe happen to agree with the Minister on this matter of judgment. We have secured a change. I hope that the Minister accepts that the reduction in the review period from 10 years to four was partly due to Liberal Democrat influence on the Government. We have now chosen to support the Government's proposal. I thank the House for listening to my arguments.
Mr. Walter: I presume the hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the Liberals, who have tabled an amendment in this group. Will he speak to that amendment as well?
Mr. Öpik: If my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will speak to that amendment, but I am limiting myself to the matters that I have discussed.
I ask those who are not inherently sympathetic to the Government's proposal to think about what we are trying to do. Politics in Northern Ireland is an extremely complicated business, and the proposal deals with the realities, strains and tensions not just between communities, but within them. If we are serious about acting in good faith, once in a while we may have to do what seems out of kilter in the short-term interest; but in my judgment, it will lead to a promising convergence in the long term.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): I have listened with interest to the last two or three contributions, but living as I do in Northern Ireland and knowing exactly how such proposals are put into effect there, I shall not use the gentle words that some hon. Members have used in an effort to persuade the House of the rightness of their cause. Frankly, at this stage in the consideration of any Bill, the chances of changing the Government's mind are somewhat less than nil, and we all appreciate that.
The bottom line and philosophy of the Bill was that the Labour party wanted to prohibit the foreign funding of political parties. That is what Labour said, and I believe it was in its manifesto. That is the thesis underlying the Bill, yet an exception is being made that will primarily help Sinn Fein/IRA--a murderous, terrorist and thuggish organisation, which is responsible for many thousands of deaths; for untold misery, damage and pain not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the kingdom; and for racket after racket, intimidation, violence, beatings, thuggery and mutilation, which continue day by day.
By and large, hon. Members--except those who live in Northern Ireland--await stories about road accidents, mild crimes or something that the Government have or have not done, or problems with their local councils, but when my radio goes on in the morning, the first thing I hear is that a young man of 21 has been beaten up in the night by several people who broke into his house; that a young man has been found shot through the elbow, wrists or knees and found bleeding in an alley; or that someone has been beaten up. That is terrorism in action, and it does not happen once a week or once a month, but every flipping morning.
The Government tell me that we must make a concession, but we all know that the concession is being made at the behest of Sinn Fein/IRA. The concession is nothing more nor less than a capitulation to its demands, backed up by its weapons, its thuggery and its willingness
to return to violence if it does not get what it wants. For that reason in this matter, as in others, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends would prefer it if Northern Ireland parties were part of the United Kingdom system.If the Government really want to know what to do, the Minister should consider the fact that the Bill contains a system called "accounting units", which could have been used in constructive, clever fashion to enforce the law and make Northern Ireland parties ring-fence their accounts. Primarily, Sinn Fein, which claims to be an all-Ireland party, could be made to ring-fence its accounts in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that would not stop the inflow of money from the rackets and intimidation and the money that is collected by folk rattling boxes on street corners in Boston. A friend of mine lives there. He told me that some years ago he was accosted in the street and asked to give a dime to shoot a British soldier.
That is the reality of where that dirty, bloody money comes from and what the money handed over into the boxes and in pubs and raised in all Sinn Fein/IRA's fund-raising activities is aimed at. It is aimed at changing the constitution and the territory of this nation--at diminishing the area of this nation and the writ of law. Ministers and many Labour Members exhibit a total unwillingness to understand that reality and to do what is necessary to thwart the activities of those people.
We should demand clarity about where money entering the United Kingdom political system from abroad comes from--not necessarily by publishing names, although the Opposition have tabled an amendment that would accomplish that. We could have a secret register if we wished. At least those in authority would have some idea of what was going on. Perhaps that could be done. I would prefer more clarity and transparency, but that said, I would be satisfied with that solution.
Where does most of the Sinn Fein/IRA money come from? My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the amount of money that the Social Democratic and Labour party got and the fact that the proportion of Sinn Fein/IRA money coming from abroad was quite small. Where does the rest of it come from? It comes from rackets and drugs, but above all from fuel smuggling.
This week, I received a written answer to a parliamentary question from the Minister responsible. The question was: what was the Chancellor's estimate of the loss to the Revenue as a consequence of fuel smuggled into Northern Ireland? I was referred to a written answer given on 20 March, which said that the loss was estimated to have been £100 million in 1998. Am I to understand from that answer that the Government have cravenly decided not to estimate the loss in 1999, never mind in 2000? That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the answer. The Government do not know what the loss to terrorism due to fuel smuggling is, and they do not want to know. If the loss were determined and became public knowledge, there would be an outcry in the House, in newspapers and throughout the country about the amount going straight into the hands of terrorist organisations which is used not only for political, but for all sorts of matters.
A large Mafia-type society has been created as a result of Government willingness--it did not start with this Government, I regret to say--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |