HC Deb 20 October 1993 vol 230 cc335-50

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 10, line 36, leave out subsection (2).

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11, 23 and 24.

Mr. Brooke

The amendments represent a considerable clarification of the powers contained in the previous version of the Bill. Amendment No. 8 removes the earlier subsection, and amendment No. 10 introduces a new clause aimed precisely at the two sets of circumstances in which we feel lottery funds should not be available.

The purpose behind subsection (2) of the new clause is to ensure that the distribution bodies do not act in a way that may give rise to conflicts of interest. That is in Line with our stated intention that distributors of lottery moneys should not also be beneficiaries. A conflict of interest would arise if a distributor made grants to a body it owned or wholly sponsored, or whose members were appointed by the distributor, or indeed whose membership was the same as that of the distributor.

In bringing the amendment to the House, it is certainly not my intention that the measure should be seen to imply criticism of any of the existing staff or members of the distributive bodies. However, in taking forward legislation, one has to think of the long term. It would be quite wrong for there to be any question in the future, when circumstances may be quite different from now, that the distributive bodies had feathered their own nests with lottery money. It is obviously important that the Government should have the power to prevent this situation from arising.

The amendment is also concerned with Northern Ireland matters. It provides that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considers that the lottery funding of a particular application could benefit a terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland he will be able to seek information from the distributing body concerned and, if appropriate, direct that body to refuse the application. The distributing body would be able to tell the applicant why its application had been refused, but would not be able to disclose publicly the name of the applicant. The powers could also be used to prohibit the funding of a particular project by what might otherwise be an acceptable applicant.

That explains the broad thrust of the provisions, and it might be helpful to the House if the amendment is placed in context in relation to the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. A key part of the Government's security strategy is to isolate terrorists from the communities within which they operate. For our part, we recognise the requirement to win and retain the confidence of all sections of the community in the effectiveness and impartiality of the Government's security policy, in the criminal justice system as a whole and in the operational activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army.

The terrorists also recognise the critical importance of public relations within their sides of the community. To that end, they have established in the past organisations which, taken at face value, have legitimate aims and carry out praiseworthy activities. In reality, these organisations are terrorist deceptions and are fostered and manipulated by terrorists for the purpose of raising the profile and enhancing the standing of their organisations.

In other cases, terrorists have infiltrated respectable organisations and sought to use them for own ends. The current provision is intended to prevent that deceitful evil. Against that background in 1985, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), launched a policy to deny paramilitaries access to funds from the Government. The genesis of the policy was the concern that application of the normal criteria governing financial assistance from the Government could result in public funds being used for purposes that could directly or indirectly assist paramilitary groups. Although that policy has been applied very sparingly indeed—only 28 times in eight years—we believe that it has been effective in depriving paramilitary groups of funds or of an enhanced reputation.

The policy has been applied with sensitivity, and I know from my own experience that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland takes a decision in any such case only after the most careful consideration of the circumstances of the case bearing in mind, on the one hand, public interest and, on the other, the effect on the organisation or individual concerned. The policy has been applied with a willingness to reconsider decisions in the light of information that has been made available, and funding has been restored in a number of such cases.

The policy has been applied above all as a security measure. There is no question of political vetting. The grounds that are considered are security grounds, and no cognisance is taken of the political opinions of any organisation or individual involved. It has been applied fairly on an even-handed basis to groups or individuals on both sides of the community. We are seeking with the amendment to apply the policy to the proceeds of the national lottery. We are under an obligation to regulate the business of the national lottery and it would be a dereliction of duty on our part if we were not to introduce a procedure to enable the denial of funds and the enhancement of reputation to terrorists in Northern Ireland.

We also believe that it is incumbent on us to provide safety for the distribution bodies so that they are not placed in the invidious position of being seen as targets by terrorists because of their actions. We have chosen to confer on the Secretary of State the power to direct the distributing bodies in relation to their operations in Northern Ireland. That measure will make it clear to terrorists in Northern Ireland that if they are deprived of access to funds and influence, it will be a result of a Government decision and will not be due to any initiative of the distributing body. By doing so, we intend to safeguard the distributing bodies from any unfortunate consequences of the decision to withhold funding in a particular case.

Similarly, we are prohibiting bodies from identifying to the general public those subject to direction, as such direction might be taken as implying that the applicants are themselves terrorists and could thus make them the targets of unlawful threats. Frankly, we see no alternative to the provision we are introducing. There are those who say that the matter should be left to the police with the investigative powers available to them under the emergency provisions legislation, but that reasoning has three major flaws.

First, the experience of the police in Northern Ireland has been that when they investigate a fraud—particularly one that has been perpetrated by terrorists—even a successful prosecution does not result in the recovery of the funds; so money has gone to support terrorists whether or not the investigation has been successful. The second flaw is that criminal law does not provide a remedy where the benefit to a terrorist organisation is an enhanced standing in community. The third and most important flaw is that a reliance on offences is inappropriate for our purposes. We are not in this instance trying to catch criminals but rather are seeking to prevent innocent bodies from being duped into providing a flow of money to terrorist organisations or otherwise enhancing their reputation.

It is quite unreasonable simply to say to such organisations that they are acting at their peril and that, in the event that they provided a benefit to terrorists, they would be in jeopardy of prosecution for a terrorist offence. That would not achieve our aim which is the prevention of the flow of funds to terrorists. It would not result in the prosecution of terrorists but would criminalise innocent parties.

Without the amendment, the Government would find themselves in the position of relying on the other powers of direction in the Bill. But the effect of that would be to require distribution bodies to have regard to the views of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The bodies would thus become aware of our view that a particular distribution could benefit directly or indirectly a terrorist organisation, but it would be entirely for them whether or not to make the distribution. We believe that would place the distribution body in a difficult position and it would be wrong to place that burden on the body.

There is nothing sinister in the amendments. They serve simply to define a power that the Government have accepted was too wide ranging and to close off a loophole that might have allowed lottery money to go to terrorist organisations. It is necessary to make explicit provision for matters in the Bill as national lottery grants are not subject to the controls that are available in the case of voted Government expenditure.

I hope that the national lottery will attract an enormous amount of interest and that the distributive bodies receive applications for project funding from a vast number of organisations from all over the United Kingdom. I am sure that the millions of people who are eagerly awaiting the start of the lottery do not intend that their contributions to good causes should end up in the hands of terrorists. The House would be doing all of those people a great service by agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. Pendry

We are in total agreement with the earlier part of the Secretary of State's speech. Most of the points of clarification that are contained in most of the amendments are down to our efforts in Committee, and therefore we agree with them.

We find great difficulty in accepting amendment No. 10. If there were no alternative to the measure, it seems strange that it was not in the original Bill and was not referred to on Report or in the House of Lords.

The Opposition are implacably opposed to the terrorist campaign in Britain and in Ireland. As a former Minister for Northern Ireland, as was the Secretary of State, I am particularly aware of the problems and sensitivities that exist in the Province. I have spent a good deal of time in New York, Washington and Boston talking to bishops and to the editors of certain newspapers trying to stop the funds coming from Noraid. We need no lessons in that area. The Labour party is totally opposed to those particular activities and we support all attempts to block the terrorists' sources of funding. But in our view the amendment will not achieve that aim. We believe that it is unnecessary and could be counterproductive.

7.30 pm

The Government have claimed that the amendment was introduced as a result of various representations—indeed, the Secretary of State will not mind my saying that only yesterday he told me that himself. We have taken a good deal of time researching the matter and, as far as we are aware, no representations were made in Committee or in either Chamber concerning the possibility of lottery funds being diverted to benefit paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State said, the representations made on the original clause concerned the excessive power that the Secretary of State would be granted to interfere with the decisions of the distributing bodies—indeed, I tabled some amendments in that connection myself. The Government's justification for the proposal was the possibility of a conflict of interest between the receiving and the distributing bodies.

It was not until the Bill reached its final stage in the Lords that Viscount Astor moved an amendment to what was then clause 26, purportedly to enable the Secretary of State to prevent funds from going to proscribed organisations or organisations "promoting or encouraging" terrorism.

The Opposition argue that the present amendment is redundant, however, as legislation already exists to deal with cases where there is evidence of misappropriation of funds and support for paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Section 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act makes it an offence for a person to make any contributions intending that they be applied or used in connection with acts of terrorism. Section 10 of that Act makes it a criminal offence for a person to receive from or lend money to a proscribed organisation or to come to an arrangement that would benefit a proscribed organisation.

It is already possible under existing legislation to prosecute in a court of law any individual or organisation giving funds to contribute to acts of terrorism or to benefit a proscribed organisation. Amendments to the present Bill would therefore contribute nothing to the fight against terrorism.

Amendment No. 10 is clearly based on the 1985 Hurd statement, introduced purportedly to prevent Government funds from "furthering the aims" of paramilitary organisations. The Opposition oppose the use of that statement as the basis for the amendment on two clear grounds. First, the funds in question are not public funds but funds from the public. That is an important distinction. The Government have consistently argued that funds accrued as a result of the national lottery will not be treated as public money. That is vital if we are to avoid any problems of additionality at this late stage of the proceedings. Any amendment based on the Hurd statement would only create confusion about the nature of the funds being distributed.

Secondly—and more important—Northern Ireland's experience of the Hurd statement has been that it leads to self-censorship and fear among those in the voluntary sector. The practice in question has been discredited locally, nationally and internationally by the case of Glor Na Gael, the Irish language group, which had its funding withdrawn by way of the Hurd statement. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who knows much more about the subject than I do, will say more about it if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker. The practice was discredited not because the Government changed their mind but because the matter went to court. We believe that it is vital to avoid a repetition of that case—not least because it served only to damage the Government's campaign to starve the terrorists of cash and, in the process, damage the very Bill that the Government are trying to promote.

Funding can be denied to individuals and groups without any specific allegation of wrongdoing being made —indeed, there is no obligation on the Government even to present any evidence of wrongdoing. The amendment allows funding to be denied on the basis of slurs, innuendo or other unspecified "intelligence" material, which could hardly be considered to constitute evidence and certainly would not do so in a court of law. It is impossible for any group properly to defend itself against unspecified allegations—and in any case there is no right of appeal. That is clearly contrary to all the principles of natural justice and to everything that the House expects.

The amendment would extend political vetting to the whole of Britain as well as Northern Ireland. Decisions taken by the National Lottery Charities Board on United Kingdom funding would be overturned as a result of the amendment.

All the regional voluntary sector organisations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are opposed to the amendment. It is an insult to the director general of the lottery—when he takes up his post—and to the independent organisations that are to distribute the lottery money to sports organisations, the voluntary sector, arts councils and projects to celebrate the millennium.

The amendment undermines the basis of the Bill. It is completely at variance with the whole idea of independent and transparent decision making in the distribution of lottery funds. The Government should reconsider in the light of overwhelming opposition from the very bodies that are to distribute lottery funds and on the basis of past experience. The Government, in the form of the Secretary of State, should be big enough, even at this late stage, to withdraw the amendment in the interests of justice and common sense. In the absence of a guarantee to that effect, I will certainly ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment in the Lobby tonight.

Dr. Hendron

I share with the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) their absolute opposition to the men of violence, especially as I represent the constituency of Belfast, West, where murder, terror and bombings are the order of the day—we shall hear more of that subject tomorrow and on Friday.

I oppose amendment No. 10 because I have no doubt that it will allow political vetting and confer on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland excessive powers, with an absence of any appeal process. I am concerned both about the circumstances in which the power of discretion might be exercised and about that absence of a right of appeal. Speaking on the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Astor made the point that bodies and persons have the normal right of a citizen to make representations to the Government about the operation of their policies, and that scope also exists for a judicial review. All I can say to that in present circumstances is, "Big deal."

The Secretary of State will be able to direct distributors to consult expert bodies on grant applications. I should love to know who those expert bodies are. I have been a political representative in west Belfast for almost 20 years, mainly in local government but also with the Northern Ireland Convention and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have not seen any of the expert bodies that people are supposed to consult about who should be given funding. As the Member of Parliament for Belfast, West, I have not been consulted. I have certainly had discussions with people about funding that has already been given out, but no one has ever asked me whether I believe that a certain group should be given financial aid. I should certainly like to know who those expert bodies might be.

Like every hon. Member, I should deeply resent it if any public funds, including lottery funds, went into the coffers of the IRA, the UDA or the UVF. It is ironic that, not terribly long ago, hundreds of thousands of pounds were creamed off by the IRA in connection with the building of maisonettes on the Moyard housing estate in west Belfast. Those maisonettes have now disappeared and have been replaced by new housing. I should add that I am in no way criticising the present Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which I believe is doing a magnificent job.

I have given a fair number of years to fighting terrorism in west Belfast, but in the only way that I know that I can, and that is in the political arena. I think it fair to say that I have had some little success in that regard. I believe that responsible public representatives, genuine community leaders, spiritual leaders and, above all, Government bodies must encourage young people, families and community groups and young men and women who have come out of prison—God only knows that there are many of them—away from the evil influence of all paramilitary organisations. They should encourage these people, exhort them and guide them to participate as fully as possible in meaningful, active community organisations.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the Belfast action teams, and will know that money is given to many groups. The Belfast action teams do great work, and I pay tribute to them. I have had discussions with them on many occasions, but I cannot say that I was ever consulted about what money should be given to any particular group. I am therefore cynical about amendment No. 10, and about which bodies will advise the Secretary of State.

Belfast action teams give the money that they receive from the Government to community groups. Strict criteria are laid down for the giving of that money, but it is not vetted by the Secretary of State.

Glor Na Gael, the Irish language group from west Belfast, has won prizes all over Ireland and abroad, but following a statement made a few years ago by the then Secretary of State—the present Foreign Secretary—finance was withdrawn from that group. Legal action was taken, and the Government eventually restored its funding.

The amendment would be dangerous for those active in community and voluntary organisations, because it might be suggested that they were associated with paramilitary organisations. Of that I have no doubt. It is one of the most important things in the debate. Great fear now stalks the streets in every part of Belfast, not just in my constituency. There are terrorists and murderers around, and people who have been in prison. More people have been in prison per thousand of the population in west Belfast than virtually anywhere else in western Europe in the past 20 years.

Some of them are young people who have been in prison for all sorts of reasons, been released and are now involved in community work. Someone will write to the Secretary of State and say that a, b or c is involved in a particular group, and the Government will decide that that group should not receive any funding. I entirely oppose that.

I pay tribute to the many voluntary bodies and community groups, not only in west Belfast but in north Belfast—in the territory of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), who is not present now—in the Catholic Falls road and the Protestant Shankill road. Many of those groups are doing outstanding work in those areas; but for them, the city of Belfast would be in a much worse state than it is today. Those groups are keeping many young people out of paramilitary organisations, although some have been associated with such organisations in the past. I would therefore like to know how the political vetting will be carried out.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

My hon. Friend represents the constituency of Belfast, West; I represent the constituency of Newry and Armagh. Can my hon. Friend envisage a situation in which community groups in our constituencies will not contain some people who support Sinn Fein, have previously supported Sinn Fein or have been through the legal process because of their support of that group? Can he tell me how it would be possible to have a dynamic community organisation in our constituencies that excluded such people?

Dr. Hendron

My hon. Friend is right. One of the difficulties is that we cannot name organisations in Belfast, because if we make a general point that some members of a particular organisation hold certain political views, someone will put a bomb at their door and blow them to kingdom come. The person who named that organisation would be directly responsible for that.

Political vetting of any kind would be wrong, stupid, immoral and counterproductive. While I agree with the Secretary of State about the Provisional IRA, the UDA and other paramilitary organisations, the amendment plays into their hands; they will use it and show it in the United States and around the world. I totally oppose the amendment, and I ask the Government and the House to do the same.

7.45 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence

I do not understand the official Opposition's objection to this provision or that of the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I have listened with great care to what has been said, but I do not understand how they can object to this provision if they are opposed to the harm that can be done by money going to evil causes. Even if it is right to say that the present law is adequate to stop the distribution of money to evil causes, surely the belt-and-braces approach being adopted will be of advantage.

An appalling mischief would be done if the profits of the lottery went to evil causes and if, in due course, the public learnt about it. If confidence in the lottery is lost, the lottery is dead. It must be squeaky clean; at no stage should the public suspect that the money that they are contributing through the national lottery is going to an evil cause. If they do that, it will defeat the purpose of the lottery and there will be no money to go to the good causes that exist.

The belt-and-braces approach seems to me to be justified in this particular situation, even if the Opposition are right in saying that it is not strictly necessary because the existing law is adequate. I am not sure that they are right. The existing law may deter the giving of money to evil organisations, but such an action may not come to light until after the money has been given. It may be only subsequently discovered that the law has been broken, that the money has been used—has gone—and only subsequently that criminal charges are brought.

The amendment is designed to pre-empt that. Where it is clear to the Secretary of State that an organisation which benefits from this vast source is likely to use the money for evil ends, he can stop that money from being distributed to that organisation. That will tighten the loophole in the existing law.

Having listened carefully to what hon. Members have said, I am rather surprised that this did not form part of the original Bill. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, we cannot always guarantee that the money will not go, via some person, to an evil organisation, but that is no reason to say that, when we know that an organisation is evil or contains a sufficient number of evil people, it should not be a beneficiary. As for the argument that has just been advanced, that to introduce the measure would play into the hands of the paramilitaries and others, it does not appeal more widely to hon. Members because it savours of the attitude that one must not do anything which is good in case others who are evil use it as an excuse for stepping up the amount of their evil. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who speaks so movingly and with so much knowledge about terrorism whenever the subject arises, would have appreciated that more than anyone.

Mr. Mallon

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I know and everyone in the House knows that during the past 20 years in the north of Ireland millions of people have been creamed off the expenditure of the Housing Executive and other organisations towards paramilitary organisations. The Government knew that that was happening and allowed it to happen, for the good reason that if they had not houses would not have been built. The previous Secretary of State for the north of Ireland knows that as well as I do, and I have no doubt that in different circumstances he would confirm it.

In the north of Ireland, in certain parts of the Protestant community and the Catholic community, irrespective of the circumstances, if an application is made for grant aid in such a situation it will be almost impossible to say that there is no type of antipathetic political definition within that organisation. That is the reality of life in the north of Ireland and, whether we like it or not, we have to live with it.

I know that in an intervention it is not my job to ask a question—

Madam Deputy Speaker

It is not so much a quest ion whether a statement is made or a question asked; it is the length of the intervention.

Mr. Mallon

I agree absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. If areas are deprived because there are no decent, upstanding people like the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and myself living there, who take the time and energy to try and deal with that community, are those communities to suffer as a result of their absence?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have already dealt with his second argument, and I cannot improve upon my answer by repeating it.

As to the first argument, it may be that, as he alleges —though I do not accept it for one moment—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's predecessors all knew that some money was being creamed off for evil causes. I do not accept it, but even if it were so, what on earth is the objection to putting a further obstacle in the legislation to the same thing happening through the National Lottery Bill? I simply do not understand it.

Finally, I return to the argument that I began to make, that the issue seems to me to be so important that I am puzzled as to why it did not form part of the original Bill. It may be that we are grappling with a beast so large, with so many ramifications, that as Parliament sits we shall always spot more loopholes, requiring changes, and improvements that need to be introduced, and that we shall end up having an annual lottery amendment Bill, rather like the Finance Bills that we have to consider every year to block loopholes. I know that I have not been especially constructive in saying that, because the Bill that I introduced was an enabling Bill and even less was going to be in the Bill.

An annual lottery Bill procedure might be a bad thing, but perhaps it would be a good thing. Perhaps it would focus hon. Members' minds regularly on the way in which the giant machine will operate. If we do not want such a procedure, however, we shall have to settle down—certainly during the next 12 months—and try to ensure that all that we want in the Bill is written into it. Perhaps we can then suffice with one amendment Bill at this time next year. Perhaps there is a reason why that was not originally in the Bill and perhaps we shall hear that from the Minister when he replies.

Mr. Brooke

I welcome the implacable opposition to terrorism expressed from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I am grateful to him for what he said in that context. He referred to a conversation with me on the eve of the debate, and I apologise if I misled him in any sense.

On 25 February, in column 294 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee of the Bill, when he was leading for the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—I was glad to see him in the Chamber earlier this evening—was leading for the Government, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde inveighed against the dictatorial powers that were then contained in the section. In line with the praise that he bestowed upon the Government in response to an earlier group of amendments, we obviously listened to what he had to say. He commended certain parts of the new clause that we introduced, which were in response to his propositions.

In practical terms, however, the narrowing of powers that we were obviously being invited to undertake concentrated our minds in the context of those particular provisions relating to Northern Ireland. We had to verify, therefore, whether the new wording of the legislation would cover us adequately. In the light of that it brought —here I turn to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—to our attention the fact that the Bill, as originally written, allowed the Secretary of State by order to offer advice to the distributive organisations in the context of the type of organisation that we discussed in the debate. In the process of doing it by order he would be identifying the organisations.

A classic element of what is referred to as the doctrine that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) originally propounded when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 1985 is that the Government do not identify the organisations. On the occasions when the name of an organisation subsequently appears in the public prints, it is because that organisation has put it into the public prints, not because the Government have done so. The Government have avoided doing so and have sought to preserve anonymity for the reasons that I gave in my earlier speech, which is that they wish to protect that organisation from any suggestion that all those who are engaged in that organisation might have a direct paramilitary connection.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Does the Minister appreciate that so far he has not answered the following argument? Where an arbitrary decision is made, albeit after careful consultation within the Department, which prevents funds going to a particular organisation without an explanation, cannot the frustration and anger which that arouses among a perfectly legitimate organisation cause it to act as a recruiting ground for the Provisional IRA, which we would all strenuously deplore and oppose? Cannot the legislation have a backlash effect if it is put into practice?

Mr. Brooke

I thank the hon. Member for the manner in which he made that argument. It is one of the considerations that weigh with the holders of the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as to whether they will invoke the particular doctrine in a particular case. I said in my earlier speech, and will refer to it again, that that has happened infrequently. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will be interested to know that that is the reason why we introduced those aspects of the new clause in the other place.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke about sections 9 and 10. He could also have mentioned section 11 in the same context. I have covered the arguments that relate to those, and I would not assist the House by repeating them. I appreciate that these are complex matters, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch the arguments first time round.

The Bill as originally drafted allowed for advice by the Secretary of State. If it remained like that, he would simply be able to advise the distributive body that it would be ill advised to pass money on. He would not be able to give any reasons because, for reasons that we all understand, there is no tradition for doing that. Therefore, the distributive body would have to make a decision without knowing the precise basis on which the advice was offered. In terms of the sections cited by the hon. Gentleman, one of the problems is that the distributive body might be troubled about whether it was committing a criminal offence by passing on the money.

8 pm

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made play of the distinction between public funds and funds from the public. Clause 21 refers to the national lottery distribution fund. Once the money enters that fund, it becomes public money for which the Government are answerable, and not public expenditure. That element of the hon. Gentleman's argument does not have anything to do with additionality.

The Government have avoided referring to particular cases, and one of the hazards of making references to them emerged in the debate. At least one hon. Member made incomplete reference to a body that had been affected by the working of my right hon. Friend's doctrine. An incomplete reference could have caused the hazard to spread to another body which was not involved.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that "political vetting" would extend throughout Great Britain. He will note from the Bill that that simply applies to grants to organisations in Northern Ireland, although I acknowledge that some Great Britain bodies are responsible for making grants to Northern Ireland. I repeat what is said in the Bill—that the issue determining the Secretary of State's decision and direction is security and not political affiliations. I say to the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that, for reasons given in the debate, these decisions are taken with extreme sensitivity.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who is no longer in the Chamber, asked his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West how many community groups in his constituency and, he implied, in his own did not have associations with people in, for example, Sinn Fein. In a sense, that rhetorical question made the point that, if almost every community group in those constituencies has the associations that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh implied and if only 28 bodies, a significant number of which were not of the paramilitary persuasion to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh refers, have been identified under the doctrine in the past eight years, that shows that the powers have been used sparingly and sensitively.

The House owes a great deal to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton for his pathfinder work on

    cc345-50
  1. Power to prohibit distribution in certain cases 2,503 words, 1 division