 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill |
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Geoffrey Farrar, Hugh
Farren, Committee Clerks †
attended the Committee Standing Committee BTuesday 25 April 2006(Afternoon)[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) BillClause 17Modifications
during prescribed
period Amendment
moved [this day]: No. 3, in page 12,line 40, leave out
from beginning to end of line 8 on page 13.—[Lembit
Öpik.] 4
pm
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing amendment No. 28, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection
(3). Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Welcome aboard, Mr.
Atkinson. You join us at an exciting, nail-biting moment in
proceedings. First, I
apologise to the Minister. I recognise that the poor, poor Minister of
State for the Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr.
Hanson), always seems to get the bum’s rush when it comes to
this sort of legislation, with the Opposition becoming increasingly
annoyed with the Government’s position. I also assure him that
although I feel great warmth for him personally and have a lot of
respect for his capabilities, we do not seek to provoke him or the
Government for any spurious reason. I and my hon. Friend the Member for
Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) genuinely feel the concerns that we have
raised. I move
swiftly on to conclude my points about amendment No. 3. In essence, the
recent history of politics in Westminster in relation to the
Government’s fundraising efforts shows how any political party
will seek to gain advantage using any loophole that it is possible to
find. The Government should not be surprised that we are so concerned
about giving Ministers the opportunity to extend the prescribed period
under the clause. We should remember also that at least one party in
Northern Ireland has considerable previous form when it comes to taking
advantage of what one might call illegitimate fundraising techniques.
The Minister’s
position would carry more gravity if he were willing to accept that the
exercise is one in risk management rather than risk elimination. What
slightly irks us is that the Minister seems to suggest that the
Government’s solution is perfect and our concerns are not
necessarily legitimate. When the Minister responds to my amendment and
to amendment No. 28, which seems to do much the same, will he be a
little more balanced in recognising that our concerns are legitimate
and they come down to matters of judgment? When it comes to such
matters of judgment, those on the Opposition Benches and the
Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland
have plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that if things are
not tied down tightly and made transparent, that opaqueness will be
used to maximum advantage by those who have taken much more dramatic
and illegal measures to raise money before.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): It is a pleasure to sit under
your chairmanship this afternoon,Mr. Atkinson. It is not long
since some of us sat under your chairmanship in the Northern Ireland
Grand Committee, in a lively meeting if I remember correctly. This
afternoon might not be so lively, but I am sure that it will be well
conducted. I rise to
support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire
(Lembit Öpik) and also to speak to the related amendment No. 28,
which I tabled.
Clause 17 is an interesting
provision and has to be read in conjunction with schedule 2. Clause 17
declares in the definition
section: “During
the prescribed period, the 2000
Act”— that
is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
2000—will apply
“in relation to Northern Ireland
subject to the modifications in Schedule
1.” That application is a
welcome one. I will
not go into the modifications in schedule 1 in detail, because we will
have an opportunity later, but they mean that for the first time
political parties will have to notify the Electoral Commission of
donations, in secrecy. It is the Electoral Commission’s duty to
keep strictly confidential the detail of donations given to political
parties and disclosed to the commission by political parties in
Northern Ireland during what is intended to be and is described as
“the prescribed period”.
According to clause
17(2): “‘The
prescribed period’ means the
period— (a)
starting with 1st November 2007,
and (b) ending with
31st October 2010.” My
amendment would remove the following damaging proviso in clause 17(3),
whereby: “The
Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph (b) of subsection (2)
so as to extend the prescribed
period.” I do not wish
that provision to appear in the final legislation for several good
reasons. The first is the Secretary of State’s statement on
Second Reading. I shall quote his words directly. This is not an
invention by the Ulster Unionist party. The Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland gave the House an assurance that
“the Bill will require Northern
Ireland parties, for the first time, to comply with the rules set out
under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which
require donations over a certain amount to be declared to the Electoral
Commission. However, to take account of the continuing concerns about
the possibility of donor intimidation in Northern Ireland, for a
transitional period, donations to Northern Ireland parties will be
checked privately by the Electoral Commission...That period will
run from November 2007
and”— these are
the important words—
“pave the way for full transition
to complete transparency, as in the rest of the UK, in October 2010,
which remains the Government’s goal.—[Official
Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c.
1175.] That was the clear
assurance given to the House.
The difficulty with the clause
is when it is read in conjunction with that statement. It was
unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not continue in his remarks
on Second Reading to explain that through subsections (3) and (4), he,
as the Secretary of State, may extend the prescribed period so that it
does not end on 31 October 2010. Subsection (4) states that instead, he
may by order extend that period every two years:
“The power to make an
order...may be exercised on more than one occasion, but the
prescribed period must not be extended for more than 2 years at a
time.” The Secretary of
State may extend once, twice, three
times—indefinitely.
I hoped that when the Secretary
of State said to the House on Second Reading that as in the rest of the
United Kingdom, Northern Ireland was in full transition to complete
transparency in October 2010, the Bill would put that into effect. On
close scrutiny of this clause, particularly subsections (3) and (4),
however, that will not be the effect. Full transparency could be
delayed indefinitely on the whim of the Secretary of State every two
years by an Order in Council. I refuse to allow that power to be given
to the Secretary of State, and I therefore wish to see the Minister
adopt the amendment.
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Mr. David
Hanson): I join the other members of the Committee in
welcoming you to the Chair for this afternoon’s sitting, Mr.
Atkinson. You may or may not be needed for a further sitting later in
the week or next week. Who knows?
I thank hon. Members for
raising their points and tabling the amendments before us. For the hon.
Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Montgomeryshire, I shall
put on record straight away that it is the Government’s wish and
intention that Northern Ireland becomes part of the overall regime on
transparency of donations as soon as is practicable. We have provided
under clause 17 that the period between 1 November 2007 and 31 October
2010 will be the prescribed period. For reasons that I explained
earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr.
McDonnell), we have disapplied the regulations on publication of
donations, because there is the potential for intimidation and there
are concerns about threats. The situation in Northern Ireland, although
becoming more stable, remains potentially unstable, and we have
disapplied the order for those
reasons.
Lady
Hermon: Bearing in mind the much
quoted—particularly by the Northern Ireland Office and
Government Ministers—statement from the IRA
that “Volunteers
must not engage in any other activities
whatsoever”, where does
the Minister anticipate the intimidation of those who donate to
political parties coming from?
Mr.
Hanson: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s
intervention. She will know that I anticipate and very much hope, as
will every democrat in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, that the next
two to three years and beyond will see the continued building of
stability in the security situation in Northern Ireland that is
potentially there. The hon. Lady will know also that because of the
special circumstances in Northern Ireland, there is still potential for
the intimidation of people who donate to political parties, for
long-held enmities to continue, and for that to be manifested in
intimidation or, as has been put to me by political parties during the
discussions, threats to businesses that donate to political parties and
others. I hope and
appreciate that normality will continue to grow, but the Bill includes
a provision for the anonymous registration of donations, monitored by
the Electoral Commission for that three-year period from 2007 to 2010,
because the threat of that intimidation may still exist and be of
concern. Legislation can be changed, but the provision is there for the
Secretary of State to have the power to make the order post-2010 for a
period of up to two years. Although I accept fully that the situation
may be normal by 2010, and the Secretary of State may not need to apply
the power, I would rather include it in case a situation arises in 2010
whereby the future Secretary of State, for whatever reason or judgment,
determines that he or she cannot make those applications and funding
documents public—as is done in my constituency and in those of
my hon. Friends—and must continue to disapply the
order. I do not expect
that we will reach that situation. I expect fully that by 2010, we will
be in a situation of normality in which the Secretary of State can say
that in Belfast, North Down, Foyle and Belfast, South provisions will
be applied in exactly the same way that they are in my constituency and
in that of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon.
Friend the Member for St. Helens, South(Mr. Woodward). I
fully expect that to be the case. However, if the Bill did not include
the provision for the Secretary of State to make those decisions, which
the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for
North Down seek to delete, and in 2010, we reach a situation whereby we
feel it is not practical to lift the disapplication, we would have to
bring primary legislation before the House. This clause provides the
Secretary of State with the order-making power to take the decision to
extend the disapplication for a maximum of two years, if he so wishes.
That power would also be subject to the confidence of the House of
Commons and another place through a
vote. The hon. Members
for Montgomeryshire and for North Down are concerned about giving the
Secretary of State powers to extend the order. The Secretary of State
will not want to exercise that power, because our wish is to achieve
normality in Northern Ireland on a par with my constituency and those
of my hon. Friends. The power is there in case that situation does not
arise and the Secretary of State at that time needs to extend the
disapplication.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 27 April 2006 |