Lembit
Öpik: I have just one thing to say: I do not want
to rehearse the debate again, but the Minister is obviously so confused
that he thinks that the Liberal Democrats are supporting the Government
in opposing the amendment. When he looks at the record, he will see
that the previous debate covered an amendment that was pretty much
identical to the one that we just supported. That is a concern about
the clause, and I think that the Minister is now confused about its
intent.
Mr.
Hanson: I am only making the point on clause stand part.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute spoke in the last debate in favour
of Irish citizens donating to Northern Ireland parties, and then he and
his hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire voted against the same
thing in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North
Down. As ever, the Liberal Democrats have faced both ways at the same
time.
Mr.
Reid: My concern is that the Bill would allow Irish bodies
to give money and those bodies could, frankly, be money laundering. I
am not opposed to donations from Irish citizens, but my concern about
the wording of the clause is the reference to other
bodies.
Mr.
Hanson: The only money in this clause stand part debate is
a sixpence, because the hon. Gentleman has just turned on
one.
Mr.
Wallace: In speaking to the question that the clause stand
part, I would urge the Minister to come back with some details about
the Irish legislation that has been mentioned. I also want to point out
that this is not about some hidden agenda to stop that, and the
Minister’s accusation was rather insulting. We should do what is
right and what is within the power of this Government and Parliament,
without relying on the Irish Government. We could give even more
benefit, if we wanted, to the parties of the nationalist persuasion,
because it is in our power. To accuse us of trying to undermine things
is disingenuous.
Lembit
Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is
disingenuous of the Minister to say that he simply cannot see the
difference between having sensible legislation that achieves what we
want and ignoring the loopholes? All we are asking is that the
Government have a sensible conversation with the Government in Dublin
to ensure that everything fits together. Does the hon. Gentleman agree
that it is clearly the Minister who is
panicking?
Mr.
Wallace: The Government are certainly on the back foot at
the very least. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, we are asking only
whether we can do something in British law to close down overseas
donations via bodies in Ireland. It seems likely that the Minister was
not aware that the issue arose in the Bill until we mentioned it. I
would be interested to know whether he or any of his officials have the
Irish legislation beside them, because he has been challenged to
mention bits of it, but nothing has come back. The Government have
clearly rushed things through, trying to win hearts and minds in Sinn
Fein, and the losers will be the other parties, which play by the
rules. All we are trying to do is introduce British legislation to
ensure that a loophole that is not within our control is not exploited.
If the Minister cannot see that, the issue will rise to the surface in
three or four years’ time and he will have only himself to
blame. Question
put, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Committee
divided: Ayes 16, Noes
6.
Division No.
4] Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
17Modifications
during prescribed
period
Lembit
Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 12,
line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page
13.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 28, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection
(3).
Lembit
Öpik: We will probably speed up again now, and
there will probably be greater consensus than there was on clause
15. Amendment No. 3,
which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll
and Bute, is designed to meet a specific concern. As we said, we are
disappointed by part 4. Under clause 14, Northern Ireland political
parties will have to disclose donation returns on a confidential basis,
but that will still not achieve the full transparency that we would all
like. Under the Bill, full disclosure will not occur until 2010;
indeed, the Government might decide to muck about with the provisions
and postpone it even further. The more I hear in Committee, the more
likely I think it is that they want to give themselves wriggle room to
string the loopholes out even further.
That is why we are
particularly concerned that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State
the ability to delay full disclosure by extending the prescribed
period, during which parties need disclose their donations only to the
Electoral Commission. Ideally, we want the system to be as close as
possible to the one that operates in the rest of the United Kingdom. We
want openness and transparency to be achieved as soon as
possible. It
being One o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the
Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at
Four
o’clock.
|
