| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have studied the proceedings in the other place and he will be fully
aware that I was repeating an argument used not just by Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, but by Lord Rees-Mogg, who I think carries the Tory Whip in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is aware of that, is he?
Mr. Walter: I am informed that Lord Rees-Mogg is a Cross-Bencher, but Lord MacKay led for the Opposition on the matter. As I and some of my hon. Friends have pointed out throughout, the Bill contains enormous contradictions when it comes to the human rights convention. They will be tested, particularly in referendums, when foreigners will be able to spend as much as they like, while poor British people will be limited by this legislation.
We then moved on to what I can only describe as the completely contradictory position of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) told us that he supported the Government position. On Report, when the Opposition disagreed with the Northern Ireland provisions, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said:
- I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).
- The Government have finally bitten the bullet and, through this Bill, have introduced provisions that will control national expenditure on elections. It is perverse therefore that we should say that there is one part of the United Kingdom where we cannot find a way of getting on top of the problem and that we need clause 63--
- to run away from it. This clause is based on the wrong underlying philosophy and the wrong legislative theory.--[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 195-6.]
Mr. Öpik: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman opposed to the fact that we have achieved some form of convergence criteria in the four-year upper limit?
Mr. Walter: I shall come to that in a moment, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient.
We had a passionate speech from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) about real life on the ground in Northern Ireland, and I was delighted with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who, in Committee, supported the Opposition on many issues.
Opposition amendments (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 133 concern the four-year limit that has just been raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I refer the Minister to a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office when we raised the matter in Committee and tabled an amendment that would have restrict any exemption made by the Secretary of State to a period of not more than 12 months. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
- I do not discount the period suggested in the amendment, but I would ask the Committee to reject it at this stage, so that we may see what emerges from the discussions.--[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 27 January 2000; c. 183.]
10.45 pm
The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in the other place was Lord Goodhart, who had been a member of the
Neill committee and had detailed knowledge of the matter. The Neill committee originally proposed a statutory four-year maximum exemption period, but Lord Goodhart came round to our view that we should look at a one-year period. We have had a lot of discussions and there has been much cross-party discussion. We have heard about views expressed in the other place and in the House. Will the Minister reflect on those discussions and accept amendments (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 133 at this late stage?We have spent many hours in other debates discussing the situation in Northern Ireland. Both sides of the House agree on the necessity of the peace process. We also agree that we wish to see a normal economic and political climate return to Northern Ireland. While I do not wish to go into the Northern Ireland debate again, I must say that the fragile nature of the peace process--which is part of what we are debating--would be damaged if we were to make special provision for those who support and sympathise with terrorism. It is an affront to political parties in Northern Ireland that are represented in the House of Commons, whose members have taken the oath and taken their seats, to allow others who are the friends of terror special privileges that are denied to parties in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The basic premise of our amendments is that, as far as possible, there should be no special provisions for Northern Ireland. Lord Neill suggested that provisions should exist because there were special circumstances in Northern Ireland, but I do not accept all his arguments because the game has moved on since the Neill report was published in October 1998. It reached us before Sinn Fein--to name but one Northern Irish political party--became an effective part of the political process. The rest, as they say, is history.
If Great Britain is to be subject to the requirements for financial propriety and transparency that are enshrined in the Bill, it is unacceptable that part of the United Kingdom with a vivid history of political corruption should be excluded from the provisions of the Neill report. I do not want to go over Northern Ireland's political history, but it would be wrong to turn a blind eye, in effect, to practices that have been declared unacceptable in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are many contradictions in the way in which the Bill deals with Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm, as I believe that he did in a written parliamentary answer yesterday, that political parties in Northern Ireland can use foreign money in a referendum campaign, but that other organisations registered in Northern Ireland as third parties in a referendum cannot use foreign money in such a campaign? Is that fair, and is the Minister prepared to live with that contradiction?
Finally, on Tuesday 30 May 1995 The Daily Telegraph stated:
- Labour has made clear that if it wins the next election it will outlaw contributions to party funds from overseas donors. While this would not prevent Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams raising funds for their new Washington office, it would stop his party using the money in Northern Ireland.
- senior party sources have confirmed that
- believes that these rules would apply to any party contesting elections in the United Kingdom.
Sources have indicated that Mr Straw is "relaxed" about the fact that it would now extend to the republican party.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a good debate on some difficult issues and have heard closely argued and sensible contributions from a number of distinguished sources. I shall deal first with the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and then with those of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and of Conservative Front Benchers.
Mr. Bercow: What about the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)?
Mr. O'Brien: I hear a sedentary comment from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Where I can, I shall pick up other contributions of equal importance.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made an important and good contribution, and I thank him very much for his support on this issue. His arguments were sound. I also thank the Liberal Democrats--in particular, Lord Goodhart, for his contributions in the other place. The Neill committee did not recommend a specific maximum period for the different approach in Northern Ireland to apply. Lord Goodhart suggested four years. The Government considered that and were able to agree that that approach most commended itself to us. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that amendment No. 133, which, I think, was tabled by the Conservatives, refers to four years. In a sense, that is the default position--we are seeking convergence. The hon. Gentleman deserves great congratulations for the fact that, during his speech, for the first time in the House, I heard a reference to convergence criteria that was not met with a sharp intake of breath by Conservative Members; he has achieved that tonight, if nothing else.
The hon. Gentleman also made the important point that we all want to ensure that, in due course, the situation for political parties in Northern Ireland is the same as that in Great Britain. We want to ensure that the same controls on political funding operate throughout the United Kingdom. In our view, however, we have not arrived at that situation, although the Bill contains a default approach and there is an assumption that we will move towards convergence. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, should it be necessary, we intend that the Government should come to the House to demonstrate that the period of difference needs to continue. The House would have to be convinced that that was the right approach.
I shall deal with several other points. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mentioned clause 65, and quoted the definition that it contains. I refer him to amendment No. 134, which sets out a different approach that may result in a change to clause 65.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was worried that the Bill would discriminate against the Scottish National party. He knows that that is not the
Bill's intention. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) regretted that we had to pass a Bill to prevent the diaspora of England, Scotland and Wales--never mind Northern Ireland--from contributing to political parties. I understand his arguments. However, donations from abroad caused great public disquiet about standards in public life. We therefore believe that it is necessary to enact such a measure.Although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has some anxieties, I am sure he accepts that when we entered government, there had been a period of serious concern about standards in public life. The way in which donations from abroad were made to some political parties caused the public to feel that the standards that they had a right to expect were not being maintained.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |