Lady
Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for taking another
intervention. I may have misheard
him—I do not think that I did—but he stated that the
Secretary of State will have the power to extend the provision for a
maximum of two
years.
Mr.
Hanson: On each individual
occasion.
Lady
Hermon: Precisely. I just wanted the Minister to confirm
that a Secretary of State will be able repeatedly to extend the
provision for two years at a time, which is the wording in the
clause. 4.15
pm
Mr.
Hanson: The hon. Lady did not mishear me. I said that the
Secretary of State can undertake to extend the order by a maximum of
two years at a time. Each time that he does so, it must be confirmed by
this House and by another place in an order before the House. I have
said to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that
the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that provision for
donations in Northern Ireland is put on a par with that in the rest of
the United Kingdom. The disapplication period will last for three years
in order to cover the points of concern that have been put to us, for
instance, by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South.
That disapplication period will
end in 2010, but if at that time, the Secretary of State judges that
they need to extend it, he, or she, can do so for two years, subject to
a vote in this House and in another place. But that will be the case
only if that is the situation at the time, which I do not expect. I
hope that it will be recognised that our intention is to apply the
provision uniformly across the United Kingdom. That is the
Bill’s intention, but we have the reserve power, in order to
save further primary legislation, if the situation
deteriorates.
Lembit
Öpik: I understand the Minister’s position.
I have two thoughts about that. First, the irony of the
Government’s intention is that the provision will give the
paramilitaries the opportunity to determine Government policy because
as long as the paramilitaries are willing to intimidate people who give
money to parties, the Government will have a justification for
extending the provision that we are
discussing. Secondly,
I have another, perhaps even greater, concern: I have warned the
Government repeatedly that as long as it looks like there is a plan B,
plan A will not get as much support as it otherwise would. Everything
that the Minister has said suggests to me that the Government are
planning for a potential impasse or failure, or a situation in which
such intimidation
persists.
Mr.
Hanson: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that neither I, my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friends the Members
for St. Helens, South and for Basildon (Angela E. Smith) nor my noble
Friend the Lord Rooker, are spending our time trying to work towards a
failure. We are working for success, a peaceful situation in Northern
Ireland and
restoration of the Assembly, but this provision is there in case the
Secretary of State, at that time, judges extensions to be
necessary.
Lembit
Öpik: I detect a hint of irritation in the
Minister’s voice. I do not want to provoke him because I do not
want to give the evidently false impression that I think that the
Government expect failure. Nor do I think that he is anticipating that
the legislation will fail. But to be equally precise, I observe
inclause 17, as I have in his language, a desire to keep the
option open. Anybody
who has been involved in such matters for a long time will agree that
the Minister needs to recognise that when the Government keep their
options open, they keep open also the options of those who would resist
what the Government want. That is the difficulty with having a plan
B—I am always advising the Government not to build one in as a
subtext to the primary message of
legislation. I do not
think that the Minister his hoping for, or expecting failure, or
anything like that. However, by saying, “We need to keep the
provision in case something goes wrong and we have to extend the
prescribed period,” he is adding to the culture of expectation
demonstrated repeatedly by those who resist the process and who will
say, “Okay Government, you have given yourself a way forward
here, even if we disagree, go ahead and use that extension
order.” That is why I am opposed to this part of the
legislation. I think that the hon. Member for North Down has a slightly
different take on the matter, but at the end of the day, the sum total
is the same. It is not
worth dividing the Committee on the matter, but I should like to
reserve the right to return to it on Report, following further
consultation with Ministers. I have made my points, and I am not
satisfied that the Minister took them seriously. Nevertheless, for the
convenience of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
17 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1Modifications
of 2000
Act Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP): I beg to move
amendment No. 33, in page 23, line 34, at end
insert— ‘“71F
Location of donation reports A
Northern Ireland report must not at any time be kept in any office of
the Commission in Northern
Ireland.”'. The
amendment is very simple and could be described as a probing amendment.
I would like, as I believe would many others, to be reassured by the
Minister that information that is given to the Electoral Commission
will be held in a safe place, preferably in London rather than Belfast.
The reason for that is simple. In the period between now and
2010—and afterwards if necessary—there will be a serious
risk that information that has been disclosed, but not publicly
disclosed, will be leaked. We would like it not to be leaked, but if it
is, we do not want the wrong
people to be blamed. We do not want staff in a Belfast office
automatically getting the blame. More fundamentally, we are
fully aware that paramilitary organisations have sought at times to
gather information in the public sector. As I said in our debate this
morning, a member of the Real IRA was convicted in October 2004 after
he had accessed a number of personal details from records held at the
Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. There have also been times, dare I
say, when there have been leaks from the Northern Ireland Office to
hon. Members across the Committee. It appears that in 2002 the IRA was
operating a spy ring inside the NIO. Those are some of the reasons, and
they are enough justification to say that information kept in Belfast
might not be as safe as it would be if it were kept
elsewhere. I am keen
to have some reassurance from the Minister that information that has
been disclosed will be kept in a safe place. Should I get that, I shall
be very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Mr.
Hanson: I fully understand what my hon. Friend is trying
to achieve, and I have some sympathy with the points that he makes.
However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to put such
things in primary legislation; that should be an operational matter for
the Electoral Commission. My officials in the Northern Ireland Office
have discussed with the Electoral Commission the location and security
of any records that might be made under this legislation. It has
indicated that so far as it is aware, provisionally until the Bill
becomes law, the intention is that it should not hold any donation
reports from Northern Ireland in premises in Belfast. I hope that that
reassures my hon. Friend. The security of information is particularly
important to the Commission; it takes it very seriously and is aware of
the sensitivities in relation to Northern Ireland. While it is an
operational matter and I hope that the legislation will not fetter it,
the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed are understood by the
Electoral Commission and, having discussed the matter with my
officials, I have every confidence that it will act
appropriately.
Lady
Hermon: Will the Minister kindly enlighten the Committee
about the estimated cost of the Electoral Commission’s providing
the security that will be its responsibility once this is on the
statute
book?
Mr.
Hanson: I do not have to hand an estimate of the potential
cost, but let me put it into context. The Electoral Commission is
already undertaking that role for parliamentary constituencies and for
parties in Scotland, England and Wales. We are adding to its burden by
some 18 parliamentary constituencies, and the political parties that
operate in Northern Ireland. While I do not have an estimate of the
costs involved, I suspect that their overall impact on the legislation
will be marginal, because they will relate to an operation that the
Electoral Commission already undertakes.
If I have any figures to hand
in due course, I shall write to the hon. Lady. However, the costs are
marginal and the commission is content to undertake the work. Given
that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South will
feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Dr.
McDonnell: I am very happy to do so, and I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
1 agreed
to.
Clause
18Power
to make provision in connection with permissible donors
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I welcome you to
the Committee, Mr. Atkinson. I apologise for arriving slightly late for
this afternoon’s sitting. I do not want to speak for long on the
clause, but I am slightly concerned about the power that it gives to
the Secretary of State. I was wondering whether the Minister would
explain why it is necessary. As one or two hon. Members have commented
to me, we spend time on a Bill and then we reach clause 18, which shows
that it can all change by order.
Clause 18(2) states:
“The provision that may
be made under subsection (1) includes provision amending or
modifying— (a)
any provision of the 2000
Act; (b) Schedule 2A
to the 1983 Act”. The
clause is wide-ranging. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary
to have such wide-ranging powers?
Conservative Members feel that
if issues are important enough they should be in the Bill. We can then
see what we are considering passing or rejecting, and have the
opportunity to debate the issues, not just in statutory instrument
Committees, which inevitably contain only a limited number of hon.
Members. If things are in the Bill, the whole House has the opportunity
to discuss them. So, will the Minister explain why clause 18 is
necessary? Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): It isa
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,Mr. Atkinson. I
share the concerns of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).
We spend time scrutinising legislation, and we reach this clause, which
gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to amend Acts of
Parliament. We are creating a culture of the Secretary of State being
given sweeping powers, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland
business. I do not
understand why such powers are necessary in this case. The Secretary of
State has powers under the previous clauses that we have debated. I do
not see why we need this sweeping clause, which gives him the power to
do more or less anything he likes to various Acts of
Parliament.
Mr.
Hanson: I am grateful for the points that have been made.
The simple fact is that we have proposed that the Secretary of State
have this power because we hope that the situation will improve and
that we can introduce the regulations before 2010. The provisions give
the power for the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Electoral
Commission and by order before the House of Commons and another place,
to change the provisions in clause 17.
I have said all along that the
disapplication period in clause 17 applies until 2010, and we have
given the Secretary of State powers to extend that if the situation is
worse. The provision in clause 18 allows him to amend the previous
clauses by order confirmed by this House, in conjunction with the
Electoral Commission, if we feel that the provisions of the legislation
need to apply at an earlier date.
I hope, as I am sure other hon.
Members present do, that the situation will arise whereby we are able
to bring normality to the funding situation in Northern Ireland earlier
than 2010. The provision simply gives the Secretary of State the power
to do that. I hope that offers an explanation. Hon. Members might
remain concerned about the matter. I must repeat that the Secretary of
State cannot just exercise the power. It will be exercised in
consultation with the Electoral Commission. If hon. Members know Mr.
Younger, its current chairman, they would know that the Electoral
Commission would have strong views should the Secretary of State
exercise the power in an inappropriate way.
If the Secretary of State were
to determine that the scheme should be brought forward or ended because
the situation had improved, he would need both Houses of Parliament to
endorse his decision. That is the reason why the clause is included in
the Bill. Given that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will allow
it to stand part of the Bill, as drafted.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause 18
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
