Dr.
McDonnell: I very much welcome the fact that, in many
ways, this part of the Bill represents a sensible way forward. Some
would argue that the same rules on disclosure should apply to Northern
Ireland as to Britain. There are good reasons why that is not the case
for now. The simple reason is that Northern Ireland is not the same as
Britain at present. Political life, in particular, is very different.
Sectarianism, intimidation, extortion and violence all have a role to
play in that difference, and they played a significant role in creating
it. That is why the Committee on Standards in Public Life originally
asked the Government to consider a short-term and reviewable exemption
from the recording requirements in respect of donations to political
parties in Northern Ireland.
Matters have improved in
Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for that, but violence,
sectarianism, intimidation and extortion still remain fairly serious
problems. For example, during the Whiterock riots of last year, over a
period of three days 146 blast bombs were thrown, 115 shots were fired,
116 vehicles were hijacked and 81 policemen and women were injured.
Sectarianism remains a problem. Some 700 incidents took place in a few
months last year, amounting to about five a day. Paramilitary extortion
remains a big problem. In spite of that, two thirds of cases could not
be pursued because the complainant did not want the police to take
action. In many cases, the complainant will not approach the police at
all. All that affects people’s willingness openly to support or
donate to political parties, and to contribute the finance necessary to
support genuine democracy and political life. Many business men would
like to operate on a cross-community basis and do not particularly want
to be strongly identified with one particular
party.
Lady
Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that while we are
trying to instil confidence in the political system, the secrecy that
surrounds donations and loans to political parties undermines it?
Extortion is a criminal offence, and it is about time that people
reported it and co-operated with the police. Does he not agree that
openness is the way to build confidence in our political system at
home?
Dr.
McDonnell: I totally agree with the hon. Lady—in a
normal society. The difficulty is that we still have a somewhat
abnormal society. While others might not be, I am fully conscious that
many people who would want to support me, or have done so, or have at
times supported my party, are subject to threats and intimidation from
sources of a paramilitary nature. I do not wish to subject people to
that. My political
party needs money. It is an open and honest party that survives on the
votes of its supporters and on small donations from a series of
supporters. There is nothing underhand or dishonest about where we
obtain our funds. My point is that, in the short term, to declare our
sources openly is to put those responsible at high risk. I make that
point genuinely and sincerely, and if people wish to disagree I regret
that. However, I am not making it for any underhand reason. People are
threatened and intimidated, and I emphasise that this has happened to
my party’s donors. For obvious reasons, I do not wish to go into
detail and expose them
further. It would
have been reasonable to continue to exempt Northern Ireland political
parties from reporting requirements beyond 31 October 2007.
However, we understand that Parliament wants greater
transparency. For that reason, we accept that donations above
£5,000 should be reported to the Electoral Commission, although
we are adamant that they should not be made
public. However, we
have concerns even at this stage, as we know that from time to time
paramilitaries have tried to infiltrate public bodies. For example, in
October 2004, a member of the Real IRA, one of the dissident groups,
was accessing personal information from the
database of the Royal Victoria hospital. That is a concern. From that
perspective, we would be keen to have information lodged in London,
where it might be safer, rather than in an office in
Belfast. In the light
of the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down, I emphasise that
the SDLP is not in any way in favour of unregulated political
donations. We accept the ban on foreign donations, as long as Irish
citizens and Irish companies can donate. Further, and critically, we
advocate the simplest and most effective of all regulation, a ban to
ban
all—
The
Chairman: Order. The debate is on clause 13 stand part. I
am allowing the hon. Member to make comments on other clauses in part 4
on the understanding that they are not repeated when those clauses
arise, but I request that he conclude his
remarks.
Dr.
McDonnell: I am happy to leave my comments at that, Mr.
Taylor. Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): The proposed amendment
aims to hold the Government to their word. They have said that they
want the final disapplication period to end on 31 October 2010 and have
planned for that in clause 17. However, they are notorious for
introducing plan Bs. We are concerned about that, and are therefore
sympathetic to the
amendment.
The
Chairman: Order. I confirm again that we are dealing with
clause 13 stand part. We have not reached the Government amendment on
clause 15, to which I believe the hon. Member may be
referring.
Lembit
Öpik: In which case, I shall hold off. As you
rightly say, Mr. Taylor, my points would be better made on clause 15,
so I shall wait until
then. Mr.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): I want briefly to
comment on clause 13. I am conscious of your comments, Mr. Taylor,
about other clauses. I could speak to clause 18, but as there are no
amendments down for that clause, perhaps it would be best to speak in
this stand part
debate. The amendment
of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury would put a time limit on
the power of clause 18; that is, when it would cease to have effect.
Clause 18 raises some concerns, in that no sooner have we passed the
legislation than much of it can be changed by order—within two
months, in fact—by the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member
for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, the Government are
notorious for suddenly coming up with a plan B. Therefore, one
sometimes wonders what this is all for if within two months it can be
changed by statutory
instrument. In
speaking to the amendment and clause 13 itself, I ask whether it is
right that the clause is put in to allow clause 18 to come into effect
and remove all the work that might be done in this Committee and
perhaps in
another place. I do not like having so many clauses that allow
legislation to be changed so soon after it has gone through the House.
In principle, that is wrong. Therefore, clause 13 and clause 18, to
which it leads, should be
opposed. The
Chairman: Order. I should point out that amendment No. 10
has not been
moved.
11.30
am Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Briefly, I want to echo the
points made by the hon. Member for North Down. The more transparency
there is about political donations, the better, especially in the
current climate, where there is great suspicion over how some parties
have raised money and why people have donated to them. It is important
for us all that there is a degree of transparency.
I do not accept the argument
of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell). He said that
Northern Ireland is different and that there is intimidation,
extortion, violence, blast bombs and shots—he went through a
whole catalogue of things. It is strange that someone who has lectured
us about the fact that everyone has changed so much should use that
convenient argument as an excuse for secrecy over political
donations.
Dr.
McDonnell: All I want to do is inquire whether the hon.
Gentleman is denying the facts that I have placed before the Committee.
The facts are there as facts and they cannot be
denied.
Sammy
Wilson: I am not denying those facts, but they are no
excuse for secrecy over party political donations. Some business men
make their party political affiliations well known, but none has faced
intimidation or been put under pressure because people knew the parties
to which they donated or were affiliated. It is important that there is
a degree of
transparency. The
other issue is how donations to political parties can be channelled
from the Irish Republic. Given that such donations are likely to
benefit one party alone—Sinn Fein—I would have thought
that the hon. Member for Belfast, South was keen to close that conduit
of funds. As has been said, many of Sinn Fein’s friends from
across the world can channel funds through sympathisers in the Irish
Republic and so add to Sinn Fein’s coffers. When one looks at
the army—I use the word advisedly—that Sinn Fein can put
out during elections, one sees that some of its members are paid daily
to canvass areas and sometimes re-canvass them four or five
times. Sinn Fein
councillors on Belfast city council say that they are allocated 30
people to canvass and re-canvass areas to ensure that people are
registered and that their message gets across. Such organisation
requires huge funding and disadvantages the hon. Gentleman’s
party perhaps even more than mine, because he is in direct competition
with Sinn Fein.
Mr.
Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will not be aware of a
conversation that I had with Mr. Seamus Mallon, a former Member of the
House. He told me
that Sinn Fein had 200 paid activists in his area, and that is from a
nationalist politician, not a Unionist
politician.
Sammy
Wilson: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make
and why I find the attitude of the hon. Member for Belfast, South so
strange. The less transparency there is about funding arrangements or
conduits from the Irish Republic to parties in Northern
Ireland—
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say
that this is a clause stand part debate. Clause 13 relates to periods
of introduction, but I have allowed people a little latitude to refer
to the clauses that it applies to. I ask him to keep his remarks within
those
boundaries.
Sammy
Wilson: Thank you for that leeway, Mr. Taylor. I will draw
my remarks to a close. The provisions ought to be removed as soon as
possible, so that the laws on political funding in Northern Ireland can
be brought into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom as
quickly as
possible.
Mr.
Hanson: The clause states the commencement dates for the
Bill’s provisions relating to donations. I should make it clear
to the Committee that the Government wish to see the situation in
Northern Ireland regulated as quickly as possible to the same level as
in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should move to a situation of
openness and transparency in political party funding and
donations. Passing
the Bill requires the rules on permissible donors and the declaration
of accepted donations to the Electoral Commission to be brought into
line with rules for the rest of the United Kingdom at the earliest
opportunity. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South has
pointed out several areas of potential intimidation, and we are acutely
aware that although we are working toward and wish to see the
normalisation of the political process in Northern Ireland, we are not
quite there yet. I
recognise that there are still potential issues of intimidation and
threats, and that individuals in Northern Ireland still cannot openly
declare their funding support for any political party. Due to a range
of potential threats, they cannot publish fully their financial support
in the name of transparency. Clause 13 will establish a transitional
period from November 2007 to October 2010, at the end of which I hope
that Northern Ireland will move to full transparency. As Committee
members will be aware, clause 13 and later clauses create the potential
for donation declarations to the Electoral Commission to be held but
not published until such time as the Secretary of State and I feel it
appropriate to recommend
otherwise.
Lembit
Öpik: But can the Minister not see the irony in
that? All that paramilitary organisations must do to ensure that the
Government never implement a change is carry on intimidating people who
donate to other parties.
Mr.
Hanson: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that could
undoubtedly be accepted by the Committee. However, it is my hope that
the Committee, the Government and all political parties in Northern
Ireland will accept that during the next three to four years, political
party and election funding in Northern Ireland could move from having
no regulation—it is entirely different from the rest of the
United Kingdom in that it has no regulation of foreign
donations—to having regulation on both foreign donations and
political party funding donations, as in the rest of the United
Kingdom. Because of Northern Ireland’s special circumstances, we
will move to full transparency over time. We have determined in the
Bill that that period will last until 2010, but it could be shorter if
the situation removes
itself. I accept that
the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described could indeed
happen, but I do not suspect that the Government will be in that
position in due course. I believe that Northern Ireland is moving
toward being a normal society. Tomorrow, the Independent Monitoring
Commission report on the Provisional IRA and progress on
decommissioning will be published. I believe that that will show
further progress, and that Northern Ireland is moving toward being a
more normal society. It is my hope that it will move
speedily.
| 
