|
The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the subject of the debate, which is strictly the disapplication of the relevant Act for the United Kingdom, not a general tour of the election spending of all the political parties?
Mr. Robinson: I accept, Mr. Beard, that it is not a general tour of election spending, but the essence of this measure is whether the parties in Northern Ireland
Column Number: 7
are going to be handicapped by the provisions that are common for other parts of the United Kingdom. My point is that there is one political party that will not be advantaged or disadvantaged by this provision, but because of its illegal activities, which the Government have not sought to address in this piece of legislation, it will be in a beneficial position, vis-a-vis all the other political parties in Northern Ireland. The Government have to address that issue and must ensure that when elections take place in Northern Ireland they do so on a level playing field.
I listened to the Leader of the House, earlier today in the Chamber, referring to the activities of the IRA through its statement last night. The burden of his remarks was that there would be no sanctions for robbing the Northern bank of £26.5 million. In this piece of legislation is another indication that the only steps that the Government are prepared to take are those that will either benefit, or impact on, everybody, but they are not prepared to sanction an organisation that is able to rob a bank and get off with it. That has a massive implication for the democratic process in Northern Ireland.
May I indicate to the Committee that the threats to businesses in Northern Ireland because of their association with political parties are nothing new? Businesses in many parts of Northern Ireland have been burnt out because they have been seen to be Unionist, or in some cases because they are seen as nationalist. The view that the Government express is not built upon a guess about what might happen, but on the reality of what has happened in Northern Ireland. Therefore, sadly, the Government have taken the right step in ensuring that businesses would not be put under that sort of pressure.
The organisation of Sinn Fein is built largely upon the proceeds of crime. I should like the Minister, in winding up the debate—as he avoided dealing with the necessary issues in this piece of legislation—to indicate whether he has any further provisions that will ensure that we have a balance in the democratic process. I do not speak on this issue because I have any vested interest, because the order will, largely, not impact on Unionists. The main party that will be impacted on is the Government's sister party, the SDLP, which in most circumstances will be the party that is going head to head with Sinn Fein.
Although I support this legislation, I urge the Government to stop taking the easy route and deal with the main, important issue that needs to be dealt with in relation to the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland—namely, the introduction of significant funds from illegal activities into the coffers of Sinn Fein.
2.49 pm
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I apologise for my slightly late arrival for this important debate. The Liberal Democrats have worries about the disapplication primarily because, sooner or later, we must grasp the nettle and, if we are true to the intended
Column Number: 8
spirit of normalisation of Northern Ireland politics, we must accept that there will be a difficult but necessary transition to transparency in the future.
The several reasons that the Government have given for the disapplication are clear and easy to understand. Nevertheless, by acknowledging to an extent the danger that business donors can foresee of boycotts from customers as a result of the sectarian divide, that will implicitly entrench that behaviour because it will obviously lead to practical resistance to change in the transparency legislation in respect for funding. I accept that boycotts could occur easily on the mainland between political parties at times of highly charged electioneering during the general election, but we live with that and, to that extent, we should aim to reach an accommodation about the accepted cost of supporting parties in Northern Ireland.
Similarly, we must bear in mind Irish donations. The Government have said several times that they will find a resolution to the matter by consultation. It cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to find something that works effectively on that basis and it is not a sufficient justification to maintain the position, given how unsatisfactory that is at present. Undertakings were made to consult everyone, yet four years later not much progress has been made. It is likely that we shall still be here in two years' time seeking another disapplication and maintaining a difference between Northern Ireland legislation from that for the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is a matter of fact that there is considerable laundering of illegal moneys by at least one political party, and that that would be made easier by the disapplication. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but it is a consequence of agreeing to the extension of the disapplication. However, I understand the reason for the Government's action, so it is not a difference of principle but of judgment. I believe that we should be grasping the nettle more proactively, although the Minister would say that the time is not right.
I do not want to press the matter to a Division, but I seek clarification from the Minister about what practical and active steps the Northern Ireland Office will be taking to make sure that we shall not debate the matter again in 2007.
2.53 pm
Mr. Spellar: I am mindful of the time and the possibility of our completing our business before we have to take part in a Division in the Chamber, so I shall be brief. I thank colleagues for their helpful comments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) rightly identified that there are other significant major issues to be dealt with, but we have had to deal with the order because there was a deadline. If we had gone beyond the period of the current disapplication, standard GB law would have applied, which is why we have to bring forward the order now.
I accept what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said about donations from outside Great Britain or the island of Ireland. Indeed, as I said
Column Number: 9
earlier, we are committed to working in partnership with the Irish Government to bring greater transparency to political donations in Northern Ireland and, over the next few months, we will consider various options about how to bring that about. We have certainly been in correspondence with Northern Ireland parties and I nod in passing to my officials, just to say that I hope we have also written to the parties in Parliament that are not represented in Northern Ireland to engage them in the discussion. If we have not, we will soon.
Mr. Robinson: Did the Minister find any enthusiasm for the halfway house that I suggested when we met in Belfast? Political parties could be required to provide the Electoral Commission with the amounts of the
Column Number: 10
donations and information about from whom they came, but at present the Electoral Commission would not publish such information.
Mr. Spellar: I did not find much enthusiasm because there was worry that donors, when they believed that their names had moved outside of parties, would consider that there was an increased level of risk. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc.) Order 2005.
Committee rose at five minutes to Three o'clock.
| 
