| Home Page |
Column 283
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. On page 2426 of the Order Paper today, you will see that the first question is in my name. This question has been transferred from the Department of which I originally asked the question to another. In the process, it has been rewritten, and as a consequence of that rewriting, nonsense has been made of the original question. I asked the question originally of the Attorney-General, and if he had answered my question I might have been enabled to put a supplementary question to him concerning the scandals on the Isle of Man and the way in which people have been defrauded by those who run that island.
By virtue of what has happened, I am once again denied that opportunity. If every time I table a question to the Attorney-General it is automatically transferred to the Home Secretary, I shall never get an answer to the question that I am tabling.
Mr. Speaker : Order. What is the point of order?
Mr. Holt : I am asking you, Sir, whether it is in order not merely to transfer questions but to rewrite them so that the consequential content of the question is changed. I asked the Attorney-General what contact he had had ; I did not want to know what contact the Home Office has had. If I cannot ask that question, the people whom I represent will be denied the opportunity for justice.
Mr. Speaker : In answer to the first question, it is in order to transfer questions. I refer the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, to page 286 of "Erskine May", which says :
"It is a long established principle that decisions on the transfer of questions rests with Ministers and it is not a matter in which the Chair seeks to intervene."
I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that. As to the question whether his question has suffered a material change, I shall look into the matter, but if it simply directs the question from the Attorney- General to another Minister, I am afraid that that would be covered by the ruling that I have already given. Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise if you feel that this is boring. I accept that you are not responsible for ministerial answers, but surely the time has come to do something about the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who, not once but three times today--he must know this--deliberately distorted facts and deliberately misled the House.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I would allow "distorted", but not "misled". Will the hon. Member please withdraw that remark?
Mr. Ewing : The Minister, unknowingly or accidentally, misled the House. Whatever approach he took, he is certainly guilty of leaving an impression with the House that is totally contrary to anything that the facts will bear out. This is becoming a regular feature of the Minister's approach to the House of Commons--
Column 284
Mr. Speaker : Order. The whole House knows that no occupant of the Chair can be responsible for the answers given to questions. I thought that the matter had been put right for the Opposition by the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why, despite your earlier strictures, we continue to suffer lengthy exchanges between the Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen during Scottish questions? May I ask why you continue to persist in calling English Members, which means that Scottish Members are ignored?
Mr. Speaker : As the hon. Member knows, he is frequently called on questions about Scotland and England. This is a United Kingdom Parliament. I well understand the hon. Member's frustration at not being called--
Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) at not being called on Question 7, but I must seek a balance in calling Back Benchers who have questions on the Order Paper. It seems to me--I hope that the House agrees--that if an hon. Member has been fortunate enough in the shuffle to have a question on the Order Paper, he should be given some precedence. I have tried today to ensure that that happened. Mr. Ron Brown rose--
Mr. Speaker : Does the hon. Member wish to raise a point of order or something else?
Mr. Brown : Trust me, Mr. Speaker. As a socialist and a Scot, I seek your guidance. Clearly the acoustics in this place are not good. Sometimes we do not hear what the Government say. As I understand it, the Government are offering, perhaps slightly hypocritically, to help the Iraqi people in their hour of need and are offering to send out medics and perhaps engineers and others. Are the Government really offering to do that? Whatever the politics of the situation, the Iraqi people suffered unnecessarily because of the Government's evil intentions
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member must not use a point of order to make a political and debating point. That has nothing to do with me.
BILLS PRESENTED
Railway Re-Openings (Tribunal)
Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Peter Snape, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Tony Speller and Mr. Nigel Spearing, presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a tribunal to examine proposals for the re-opening of railway lines ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July. [Bill 102.]
Column 285
Forestry
Sir Hector Monro, supported by Mr. Calum Macdonald and Mrs. Margaret Ewing, presented a Bill to increase from 9 to 12 the maximum number of members of a regional advisory committee maintained under section 37 of the Forestry Act 1967 : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March. [Bill 101.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Column 286
Employment Protection (Government Communications Headquarters) 3.38 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice ; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would once again allow GCHQ employees to belong to an independent union of their choice. Just over seven years ago, on 25 January 1984, the then Foreign Secretary announced in the House that unions would be banned at GCHQ. Indeed, on 1 March this month, it was the seventh anniversary of the time limit given to the employees at GCHQ to sign what was described as an option form. That form states :
"I, have read and understood General Notice 100/84 and wish to continue to be employed at GCHQ. I agree to resign from membership of any trade union to which I belong. I also undertake not to join a trade union or to engage in its affairs or to discuss with its officials my terms of employment or conditions of service or any other matter relating to my employment at GCHQ. I understand, however, that I may join a Departmental Staff Association approved for the time being by Director GCHQ."
That was an infamous document, and no British citizen should be forced to sign such a document. No one should be surprised to learn that 25 January, when the Foreign Secretary announced the ban, and 1 March, when everyone had to sign that form in order to continue as an employee at GCHQ, are well remembered. This state of affairs is totally unacceptable to trade unions and the labour movement. At the time of the ban, much was made by Ministers about industrial action that had occurred at GCHQ, particularly in 1979 and 1981. It was argued that the ban on union membership would ensure that there was no more disruption. The then Foreign Secretary, however, when trying to justify the ban, conceded that no threat to the nation's security resulted from industrial action that had taken place at GCHQ. Sir John Nott, Defence Secretary in 1981, said that an industrial dispute had not in any way affected operational capability.
Hon. Members may argue that, as we have just been through a war, that justifies even more the ban on union membership.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) indicated assent.
Mr. Winnick : I note that the hon. Member believes that. Union membership was allowed of course at GCHQ in 1982 during the Falklands war. Sir Brian Tovey, then director general at GCHQ, sent a telegram to all the employees in Cheltenham and the outstation after the Falklands war. That telegram read :
"High level praise. There can be no doubt that this praise has been well deserved. It has been earned by hard and dedicated work by you as individuals."
Less than two years after that telegram had been sent, the Government showed their thanks by taking away the basic right of those dedicated individuals to belong to an independent trade union. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), who represents so many of the people who work at GCHQ and live in Cheltenham, was highly critical of the Government ban. He made a courageous speech in
Column 287
the House when he said that there was never a hint of disruption at GCHQ during the Falklands campaign, and that to imply otherwise had hurt and infuriated the staff. He also said that the slur that union membership at GCHQ involved the risk of putting people's lives in danger was completely beyond the bounds of decency and truth. In December 1989, the certification officer made a decision on the application for a Government communications staff federation--one can imagine what type of organisation that is. He considered whether that represented an independent trade union, and, not surprisingly, he came to the view that it was not an independent trade union at all. He said that the staff federation functions subject to the approval of the director at GCHQ.I am myself an active trade unionist, and I believe that it was an impertinence in the first place that any such application was made. How can a staff association that is bound by the organisation in which the employees work be described as an independent trade union? The International Labour Organisation, which largely functions under the auspices of the United Nations and works closely with it, has repeatedly called on the Government to rescind the ban and to negotiate with the unions. In recent weeks, we have heard much about binding Security Council resolutions. The House knows that I believed that those resolutions had to be implemented, but when the International Labour Organisation has told the Government that the ban is wrong and that they should negotiate with the unions surely it is only right and proper for the Government to take notice. The Government have completely ignored all its requests.
I imagine that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when Prime Minister, was the most enthusiastic member of the Cabinet urging a ban on union membership. We are told that since her departure various matters have been looked at and that there is a different kind of Government who are more caring and less dogmatic. They are even looking at the poll tax, for which we are told that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. No doubt we shall know more about that after tomorrow's by- election. If they are really a different kind of Government, why have they not rescinded the ban on union membership at GCHQ? If the right hon. Member for Finchley was largely responsible for that ban, as I believe she was, why will the Government not do away with that dogma and prejudice, because that is what it is?
Anyone who thinks that the issue will go away and that, as it arose seven years ago, it is a dead issue could not be more wrong. We intend to keep the issue very much alive. We intend to ensure that people are reminded, as they are year after year by the demonstrations at Cheltenham, that in January 1984 a basic right of British citizens was taken away. I understand that no Conservative Member wants to oppose the Bill. [Interruption.] If the ban is right, I hope that a Conservative Member will have the guts to stand up and defend it.
The ban should be removed now. This Tory Government remain the same as they always were, regardless of who leads them. If they do not remove the ban, the next Labour Government will do away with it and
Column 288
will ensure that employees at GCHQ have the same rights as the rest of us to belong to an independent trade union. The sooner that that comes about the better.3.46 pm
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) rose--
Mr. Speaker : Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Walker : I do. I oppose the Bill because the record on this matter must be properly set straight so that the people of this country are able to understand it. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that the trade unions at GCHQ had not merited the ban and that it was wrong. I shall give a history of the events. The trade unions at Cheltenham always knew, and were never in any doubt, that, because of the unique nature of their work, if they took part in any kind of industrial action, the Government of the day, of whatever complexion, would have no option but to bring in measures to remove the right to such action. That applied under Labour and Conservative Governments.
Mr. Winnick indicated dissent.
Mr. Walker : The hon. Member for Walsall, North shakes his head. Let me tell him that, for six and a half years, I was a trade union representative, and in the 1960s I represented the largest union at GCHQ. That was during the period of office of a Labour Government. I was an employee when sensitive and delicate work important to our security was being carried out. That required 365 days of work a year, 24 hours a day, and the civil service and the military were closely involved. Lives could have been put at risk in various parts of the world, and that was properly and fully understood by the trade unions and their representatives.
Government action was taken for two reasons. First, the trade unions took action at Cheltenham even though there was an unwritten agreement that they would never take such action. Secondly, the trade unions were exposed because of publicity generated by trade unions and political activists throughout the country who tried to make political capital out of the situation. They were prepared to put the nation's security at risk for purely political ends. Such action had not occurred in all the years that GCHQ had functioned so effectively and well looking after the nation's security.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North has obviously not made any attempt to study the history of the matter, nor has he spoken to the vast majority of the people who work at GCHQ. If he had, he would understand that they would have no truck with such a measure. Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) :--
The House proceeded to a Division--
Mr. Winnick (seated and covered) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pressure is being applied by the Government Whip to stop the Division.
Mr. Speaker : I am waiting for the Tellers to come to the Chair.
Column 289
Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow) (seated and covered) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been disgracefully suggested that pressure has been applied on me by the Government Whip. I can assure you that that is not the case. It never has been. Perish the thought.Mr. Speaker : I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is the type of Member who would allow any pressure to be put upon him.
Question agreed to.
Mr. Winnick : Conservative Members do not have the gumption to vote against my Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Michael Foot, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Gavin Strang.
Employment Protection(Government Communications Headquarters)
Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 May and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As there has been a dramatic change of mood in the House since the ban on the trade unionists at CGHQ took place and there is now a universal desire to have trade union rights there re-established, and as the Bill will now go through the House unopposed and with the support of the Government, will you advise us how we can enable this simple and uncontrovercial measure to pass quickly through the House?
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has named 17 May. We cannot do much about that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, when ten-minute Bills are spoken against, they should be followed by a vote. The principle is simple. If an hon. Member declares that he wishes to speak against such a Bill but does not vote, he could, in some circumstances, deprive another Member of the opportunity of opposing the Bill who wanted to vote.
When the two voices on the Conservative Benches said, "No," including that of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who spoke against the Bill, it was noticeable to all hon. Members that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), a Government Whip, went across to those two hon. Members and convinced them not to vote. It is almost certain, Mr. Speaker, that we would have won a handsome victory, which would have been clear in the Lobbies. I fear that, on the day set down for the Second Reading, a Tory Whip will rise in his place on the Government Front Bench, object to the Bill, and kill it. We need the power to carry the Bill through into legislation. Mr. Winnick rose--
Column 290
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong to say that opposition to the Bill must be carried to a Division. That is not so. However, if a right hon. or hon. Member seeks to oppose a Bill, he must say the word "No" when I put the Question, and that was done. It is not always necessary to have a Division, as the hon. Member knows from frequent occasions in the past. Furthermore, I cannot be held responsible for what is said in private conversations.
Mr. Bill Walker : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is in order for a right hon. or hon. Member to enter the Chamber to hear the case that is being made for a Bill before making up his mind whether or not he should oppose that particular Bill? I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and anyone who listened to my own will have realised that I was opposing his Bill. That is exactly what I set out to do, on the basis of his remarks.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member is right. I would normally receive prior notification that a Bill was to be opposed, but I did not receive such notification today.
Mr. Winnick : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often stated that the ten-minute Bill procedure should not be abused. On the last occasion that I raised a point of order on that subject, you confirmed that my remarks were correct. Is it right for a right hon. or hon. Member to oppose a Bill but not to force a vote? Even more important is the fact that we all saw the Government Whip approach the two Conservative Members concerned and tell them not to force a Division. Those two hon. Members are guilty of being spineless and behaved despicably.
Mr. Speaker : I do not know what the hon. Member is so concerned about. After all, his Bill obtained an unopposed Second Reading. What is he worried about?
Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The incident to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred was not obvious to all. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was merely seeking the opinions of my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Harlow (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. Speaker : I have no idea what happened.
NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS] Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise or require payments into the Consolidated Fund.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL Ordered,
That, notwithstanding that such provisions could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on consideration of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill to provide for the enforcement of orders and the punishment of offences outside Northern Ireland.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Column 291
Orders of the Day
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 5
Confiscation orders
.--(1) Where a person is convicted in the Crown Court of a relevant offence the court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, make a confiscation order if it is satisfied that he has (whether before or after the coming into force of this Part of this Act) benefited from terrorist- related activities engaged in by him or another ; and that order shall require him to pay an amount equal to what the court assesses to be the value of his proceeds of those activities.
(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act--
(a) a person engages in terrorist-related activities if he engages in activities which consist of or involve the commission of one or more relevant offences ;
(b) a person benefits from terrorist-related activities if he obtains money or other property as a direct or indirect result of those activities ; and
(c) a person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities are the money or other property obtained by him as mentioned above. (3) A court shall not on convicting a defendant of a relevant offence make a confiscation order against him unless
(a) he is in the same proceedings convicted of another relevant offence committed on a separate occasion (whether before or after the coming into force of this Part of this Act) since the beginning of the period of six years ending when those proceedings were instituted ; or
(b) he is shown to have committed another relevant offence as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
(4) In subsection (3)(a) above the reference to an offence of which a person is convicted includes a reference to an offence taken into consideration by the court in determining his sentence.
(5) A court shall not on convicting a defendant of a relevant offence make a confiscation order against him unless it is satisfied that, at some time since the commission of that offence, the realisable property held by him has exceeded £20,000 or such other amount as is for the time being prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6) A court shall not make a confiscation order if the defendant satisfies the court that the circumstances in which the terrorist-related activities in question were engaged in would make it unfair or oppressive for such an order to be made.
(7) If when making a confiscation order the court is satisfied that the amount that might be realised in the case of the defendant at that time is less than the amount which the court assesses to be the value of his proceeds of terrorist-related activities, the order shall require him to pay the amount that might then be so realised. (8) For the purpose of assessing the value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities in a case where a confiscation order has previously been made against him, the court shall leave out of account any of his proceeds of such activities that are shown to the court to have been taken into account in determining the amount to be paid under that order.'-- [Mr. Brooke.] Brought up, and read the First time.
Column 292
4 pmThe Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider the following : Government new clause 6-- Provisions supplementary to section (Confiscation orders).
Government new clause 7-- Relevant offences.
Government new clause 8-- Realisable property, value and gifts. Government new clause 9-- Assumptions as to benefit and value of proceeds.
Government new clause 10-- Statements, etc., relevant to making confiscation orders.
Government new clause 11-- Assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities.
Government new clause 12-- Concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist -related activities.
Government new clause 13-- Enforcement and supplementary provisions.
Government new clause 14-- Interpretation of confiscation provisions.
Government amendments Nos. 18, 21 to 31, 15, 32, and 34 to 38.
Mr. Brooke : New clause 5 is the first of a series of 10 closely related new clauses. Together with an associated new schedule, they will, if approved, provide for the confiscation of assets belonging to persons who have benefited from terrorist-related activities. The new provisions are aimed at those persons who have involved themselves, or who may be tempted to involve themselves, in the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If they become law, persons who are convicted of a range of offences--of a type known to be committed by terrorist financiers--will be liable to personal financial loss, as well as to whatever penal sanction the court convicting them may impose. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if, when introducing new clause 5, I also say something about the confiscation scheme as a whole--the background to it, its rationale and its main features.
You and other hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, will note that the 10 clauses and the schedule contain a good deal of technical legal language. You may therefore be somewhat reassured to know that much of this is necessary repetition, for the purposes of this Bill, of very similar language contained in comparable provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which provide in England and Wales for the confiscation of the assets of persons involved in drug trafficking, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which deals with the confiscation of the proceeds of involvement in other serious crime. Moreover, many of the paragraphs in the text now before us repeat, almost word for word, provisions in the Northern Ireland (Criminal Justice) (Confiscation) Order 1990, which reproduces, for Northern Ireland, the substance of the two Acts which I have just mentioned. First, I will give some background. The Government are convinced that an effective strategy for the eradication of terrorism in Northern Ireland must be one which includes effective measures for tackling terrorism at its financial roots. Finance is the life blood of terrorism. It is required not simply for the acquisition of weapons, explosive and other terrorist material, some of it very sophisticated and expensive ; it also pays the so-called
| Next Section
| Home Page |