| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brady: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest. Has his own party ever received significant donations from any famous actors who, for tax purposes, were not resident in Scotland?
Mr. Salmond: My party has declared the donations that it has received from Mr. Sean Connery--
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Sir Sean Connery.
Mr. Salmond: Discussing the process by which Mr. Connery eventually became Sir Sean Connery could take me down a completely different path. However, we disclosed the contributions that he made voluntarily, and we are proud of that. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is wrong to suppose that Sir Sean Connery does not pay tax in this country: on the contrary, he pays tax on his earnings in this country. I was going to say that I estimate that he probably pays a lot more in tax than all Labour Members combined, but the truth is that he probably pays more than all hon. Members in total.
My party has always argued that people who openly declare an interest--as Sir Sean certainly has in Scotland--should be absolutely entitled to give donations to the political party of their choice. Furthermore, I can assure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that that was the opinion of Lord Neill too. I asked him a question on that point in a recorded conversation, and he said that he did not intend to prevent people such as Sir Sean Connery from giving money to the Scottish National party.
If the Government intend to prevent that from happening, the Minister representing the Home Office should say so. Any remarks to that effect would get an interesting reception in Scotland, which might even parallel the reception of the Government's previous attempt to deprive Sir Sean of his knighthood.
If the Government argue that anyone with an interest in Scottish politics should be able to make donations in a Scottish election--as the London offices of the main political parties have done--that would be fair enough. However, the same argument would have to be made about United Kingdom elections and people with a legitimate interest, regardless of whether they were in the European Union or elsewhere in the world. The Government cannot have the bun and the penny. If the qualification is to be on the electoral register, there should be a separate electoral commission for Scotland. We should end the process by which the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are subsidised to the hilt in Scottish elections from their London headquarters.
8.45 pm
If the Government want to pursue the argument that these organisations have a legitimate interest in a Scottish election, they must open up the UK process to people with a legitimate interest, as originally proposed by Lord Neill. He did not argue that people had to be on the electoral roll, merely that they could be on the electoral roll as UK citizens if they chose to exercise that right.
Why does the Minister believe that this attempt to direct Scottish Ministers--to influence a commission to make it more sensitive to Scottish requirements--is a better route to take than having a Scottish electoral commission which will be able to set its requirements under the direction of the Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Tipping: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). He has pursued this issue before, and recognises that this is an improvement to the Bill. He said that Scottish Ministers could use the provision "if they so wished". In a sense, that is the essence of the argument--nothing in these amendments prohibits or restricts the Scottish Ministers. This is a purely enabling matter; it will be up to Scottish Ministers whether they take the matter forward.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a number of points in his interesting contribution. Let me take the underlying point first. He made it clear that things might be done differently in Scotland. I say hooray--that is what devolution is about. If political parties in Scotland have had a good experience with a voluntary electoral commission, we should look, listen and understand.
My position is clear: I think that this traditional Parliament will have a lot to learn from the new emerging Parliament and Assemblies. There will be differences, and I am not ashamed or surprised to say that eventually the distance between the way in which we work will diverge. In a sense, that is what devolution is about.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister, in his typically generous and friendly way, is attempting to disarm the argument. The point remains, however, that even if every member of the Scots Parliament voted to establish a separate Scottish electoral commission, that would not be allowed under
the discretion in the Bill. The discretion applies not to establishing a separate commission but to affecting the commission prescribed in the Bill. Is that not the case, despite the Minister's generous words?
Mr. Tipping: That is clearly the case. I was coming to the harder point second. The hon. Gentleman accused me of trying to disarm him; I was giving him the soft punch before the hard punch. The hard punch is quite clear--the bulk of the commission's work is around reserved matters. That is why we have chosen to go this way.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is not the power in the Bill for an electoral commission for Scotland. If I were to look into my crystal ball, I think that I would see us returning to this discussion at some point in time. The hon. Gentleman's party might want to discuss the speed and rate of change and movement towards that objective.
I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman any further. These are discretionary matters. The Scottish Ministers can ask the commission to act in local government matters but there is no prospect, as the hon. Gentleman clearly recognises--and as the Bill recognises, because these are reserved matters--for a separate electoral commission for Scotland.
Mr. Salmond: If the qualification for being a donor is inclusion on the electoral register, is there not an anomaly if, in a Scottish election, a person is not required to be on the Scottish electoral register in order to be a dominant donor to three of the political parties in the House?
Mr. Tipping: At the end of the day, Scottish elections are a matter for the Scottish Parliament and for the Scottish parties; it is not a matter for Westminster. The Bill is about establishing the Electoral Commission. My strong point to the hon. Gentleman--as he clearly realises--is that the bulk of the commission's work will be on reserved matters.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister's views and mine are going to diverge. The Bill is not merely about establishing an Electoral Commission; it sets out in statute who is and who is not a qualifying donor. As the Bill states that a qualifying donor must be on the electoral register, will the Minister tell us why, in a Scottish election, a person is not required to be listed on the Scottish electoral register?
Mr. Tipping: The amendments are about the Electoral Commission. That is what we are discussing. The Electoral Commission's work is on reserved matters. I realise that I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that point, although he clearly understands the situation. Things will change over time. I suspect that, as devolution continues, such matters will be re-examined--indeed I have no doubt about that. Whether we shall ultimately reach the point that the hon. Gentleman wants--and at what speed--is a matter for the crystal ball of other people.
Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 25 agreed to, one with Special Entry.
Clause 20
Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 12, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A),")
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 33, 40, 41, 46 to 51, 53 to 55, 57, 61 and 62, 68 and amendment (a) thereto, 69, 71 and amendments (b) and (a) in lieu thereof, 73 to 79, 81 to 83, 97 and 131, 132 and amendment (a) in lieu thereof, 133 and amendments (a) to (g) thereto, 134, 142, 149, 213, 214, 218, 265, 267, 329, 333, 339, 343, 345, 376 to 378, 380, 390, 407, 436, 437, 487, 488, 541, 542 and 642.
Mr. O'Brien: The changes made by this group of amendments to the arrangement for the registration of political parties are primarily the result of the special provisions made for Northern Ireland in clause 65. Accordingly, to understand the amendments, it may be of help to the House if I set out why the Bill contains such special provisions.
I realise, of course, that some hon. Members will have concerns about certain aspects of the provisions that we are discussing. I understand that; on many Northern Ireland issues, it is extremely difficult to secure agreement across the spectrum of opinion in that part of our country. In those circumstances, Parliament must always consider the arguments with great care, to try to find a way--honestly and with integrity--to establish a set of provisions that can command support in the House.
In an ideal world, we should not need special provisions for Northern Ireland parties. However, as the House and Northern Ireland know, we have to face the realities of politics in Northern Ireland. It is undoubtedly true that the peace process has made several welcome advances since the Neill committee reported in October 1998, but the special factors identified by the committee have not disappeared during the intervening two years.
The Committee considered at some length the impact in Northern Ireland of its proposals for the disclosure of donations of more than £5,000 and the ban on foreign funding. At the Committee's public hearings in Belfast, it heard evidence on disclosure from both sides of the community that, notwithstanding the Good Friday agreement, it would be unsafe to disclose the names of donors to Northern Ireland political parties.
Public disclosure of donations would be likely to have one of two consequences. The first possibility is that donors might face intimidation, discrimination or worse. The second and perhaps more likely possibility is that party supporters would simply stop making donations for fear of the consequences. I emphasise that such fears were voiced by nationalists and Unionists. John Stephenson of the SDLP told the Neill committee:
- You should be aware that already many potential donors to political parties here do not donate due to fear. Even with the huge endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement, the problem with public declaration will still exist.
Much the same sentiments were expressed by Jack Allen of the Ulster Unionist Council. At paragraphs 6667 and 6717 of the Neill committee report, he said:
- Over a number of years, because of the political situation in Northern Ireland, people did not want to be identified with political parties . . . because of the risk factor in Northern Ireland . . . We are happy enough to put forward those people who give us donations of £5,000 or more but it would be important for them that it was kept private or confidential to an electoral committee or something like that, rather than be made public in the press.
The committee separately considered the effect of a ban on foreign funding in the context of Northern Ireland. They concluded that citizens of the Republic of Ireland must be able to continue to make donations to parties in Northern Ireland. They took the view that it was consistent with both the Ireland Act 1949 and the Good Friday agreement for Irish citizens to be able to contribute to Northern Ireland parties. As a result, the Neill committee recommended that
- in relation to donations to political parties in Northern Ireland, the definition of a permissible source should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act 1997.
We concluded first that it would not be practicable to require a United Kingdom party to satisfy itself that a donor complies with legislation in a separate state. Secondly, it is the Government's view that such a safeguard would not amount to much. The Neill committee recognised that there could be no effective way to prevent funds from outside the republic, where there is no ban on foreign donations, from reaching parties in Northern Ireland. It would be pointless to imagine that confining the exemption to citizens of the republic would prevent donations from the United States or elsewhere reaching parties in Northern Ireland.
In the light of that very clear analysis by the Neill committee, the Government remain firmly of the view that Northern Ireland parties should be exempt from the controls on donations in part IV for an initial period of four years. We fully accept that any such exemption should be regularly reviewed. That is why we tabled amendment No. 128 in another place to limit to four years the duration of any order made under clause 65.
Having concluded that there is a continuing need for those special provisions for Northern Ireland, it was necessary to find a satisfactory definition of a Northern Ireland party. The Bill as introduced in the House defined a Northern Ireland party as a registered party with either one or more Members of the House elected for a Northern Ireland constituency, or with one or more members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We recognise that that definition is too narrowly drawn.
Any registered party that contests elections in Northern Ireland should be able to benefit from the exemption from the provisions in part IV. In extending the definition of a Northern Ireland party for the purposes of clause 65, we need to ensure that a party that operates throughout the
United Kingdom does not use the exemption from the controls on donations that will operate in Northern Ireland to circumvent a ban on foreign funding operating in the rest of the United Kingdom.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |