The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Allen,
Mr. Graham
(Nottingham, North)
(Lab)
†
Austin,
John
(Erith and Thamesmead)
(Lab)
†
Bryant,
Chris
(Rhondda)
(Lab)
†
Dodds,
Mr. Nigel
(Belfast, North)
(DUP)
†
Drew,
Mr. David
(Stroud)
(Lab/Co-op)
Evennett,
Mr. David
(Bexleyheath and Crayford)
(Con)
†
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
†
Goggins,
Paul
(Minister of State, Northern Ireland
Office)
†
McGrady,
Mr. Eddie
(South Down)
(SDLP)
†
Marris,
Rob
(Wolverhampton, South-West)
(Lab)
†
Mates,
Mr. Michael
(East Hampshire)
(Con)
†
Meacher,
Mr. Michael
(Oldham, West and Royton)
(Lab)
†
Naysmith,
Dr. Doug
(Bristol, North-West)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Reid,
Mr. Alan
(Argyll and Bute)
(LD)
†
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
Steen,
Mr. Anthony
(Totnes)
(Con)
†
Streeter,
Mr. Gary
(South-West Devon)
(Con)
Swire,
Mr. Hugo
(East Devon)
(Con)
†
Vis,
Dr. Rudi
(Finchley and Golders Green)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
David
(Telford)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Dr. Tony
(Cannock Chase)
(Lab)
Mark
Oxborough, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Third
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 10
July
2007
[John
Cummings
in the
Chair]
Draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2007
4.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
I beg to move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000 (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order
2007.
May I welcome
you to the Chair, Mr. Cummings? The order follows on from
the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which
received Royal Assent last summer. A number of detailed discussions
have taken place since then, including with the Irish Government and
the Electoral Commission. Prior to the passage of the 2006 Act we had,
of course, consulted the political parties and others on the issues
involved. The Government’s response to the consultation exercise
was published in January 2006 and informed the relevant provisions of
the 2006 Act.
It
might be helpful to the Committee if I set the order in context. The
2006 Act made provision for political parties registered in the
Northern Ireland register and regulated donees, known collectively as
“Northern Ireland recipients”, to continue to be exempt
from provisions relating to the control of political donations, as set
out in part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
2000, until 31 October this year.
The provisions have been
disapplied in Northern Ireland since their enactment for two good
reasons: first, because of continuing concern about the possible
intimidation of donors to political parties in the event of their
identities being made public; and, secondly, to allow Northern Ireland
recipients to accept donations from Irish citizens and from
organisations based in Ireland in a manner consistent with the Good
Friday agreement. From 1 November 2007, that disapplication will be
removed and part IV of the 2000 Act will apply to Northern Ireland,
albeit with the amendments and modifications made by the 2006
Act.
Those amendments
extend the categories of donors permitted to make donations to Northern
Ireland political parties in order to include, in addition to those
covered by the 2000 Act, Irish citizens and prescribed Irish bodies
that meet certain conditions. The amendments also make provision for
the Electoral Commission to hold Northern Ireland donation reports
confidentially for the prescribed period of three years, or for longer
if the period is extended by order of the Secretary of State. They also
require the commission to take steps to verify the information
contained in those reports.
The purpose of the order is to
set out the detail of how the new arrangements will work in Northern
Ireland from 1 November onwards. Part 1 specifies the conditions that
an Irish citizen must meet in order to be able to donate to a Northern
Ireland recipient. It also specifies the categories of Irish bodies
that will be entitled to donate to Northern Ireland recipients from 1
November onwards. Schedule 1 sets out the information that must be
provided in relation to donations from Irish donors in donation reports
that are required to be made by Northern Ireland recipients.
The steps that the
Electoral Commission must take in order to verify the information
contained in those donation reports are set out in part 2. The
commission must check 50 per cent. of donations from individuals and
100 per cent. of donations from bodies reported by Northern Ireland
recipients. The commission may verify the information provided in the
donation report by, among other things, contacting the bodies listed in
article 11 to which it is able to disclose information.
The commission is under a duty
of confidentiality in relation to information contained in reports from
Northern Ireland recipients during the prescribed period. However, the
commission has the power to release information contained in a Northern
Ireland donation report if it believes on reasonable grounds that the
donation was from an impermissible or unidentifiable donor. Article 10
sets out the requirements in relation to which such information must be
released.
In
conclusion, I hope that members of the Committee will agree that the
order represents an important step towards bringing donation controls
in Northern Ireland more fully in line with those in the rest of the
United Kingdom. It puts us on the path towards the achievement of what
we hope will be full transparency by
2010.
Mr.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): The Minister just said
that the order will put us on the track towards bringing Northern
Ireland in line with provisions for elsewhere in the United Kingdom,
but the order will allow and set conditions for donors from the Irish
Republic to donate to political parties in Northern Ireland. That is
not allowed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Would he like to comment
on that? Why are special provisions being made for Northern Ireland? He
has just told the Committee that the order will bring us in line with
the rest of the United
Kingdom.
Paul
Goggins:
It will bring Northern Ireland more fully in line
with what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman
acknowledged that one of the changes made by the 2006 Act allowed Irish
citizens and bodies to make such donations. That comes out of the
principles of the Good Friday agreement. I take it from his question
that he might not fully agree with those principles, but no doubt there
will be an opportunity to debate that. The fact is that the provisions
in place constitute a more robust system of scrutiny and oversight of
political donations than Northern Ireland has ever had. I hope that, by
2010, we will have sufficient confidence in communities across Northern
Ireland to ensure a fully transparent system of political
donations.
The hon. Gentleman caught me in
the middle of my final sentence. I am glad that he was able to take
that opportunity, and I am sure that he will want to catch your eye
later, Mr. Cummings. With those remarks, I bring my opening
comments to a
conclusion.
4.37
pm
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I, too, welcome you
to the Chair, Mr. Cummings. Like my hon. Friend the Member
for Belfast, North, I am a little surprised by the Minister’s
comments and the tone that he adopted when introducing the order.
Rather uncharacteristically, he made out that the order represents a
move towards normality and equality with Great Britain, when actually
it will extend the unusual provision that exists in Northern Ireland
for foreign donations. The original 2000 Act prohibited foreign
donations—from which, of course, Northern Ireland was excepted
by the provisions of the 2006 Act—so that political parties in
Northern Ireland could accept donations from the Republic of
Ireland.
It
is interesting to note that when the 2000 Act was passed, it was seen
as being very important to the great efforts being made to bring
parties together to form the Assembly. The Act therefore went through
at a crucial time. Why was that concession time-limited to 31 October
this year? We now have this order in front of us, which will make that
provision permanent. I have sat on enough of these Committees to become
rather suspicious, and I wonder why the concession was time-limited. I
suspect that it was done in order to get this order through the House,
which I think is rather disingenuous. The Minister said that these
provisions are consistent with the Good Friday agreement, but that
existed last year when these very provisions were time-limited. If they
are in accordance with the agreement, why was the concession
time-limited then? That does not make sense, and I would like an
explanation from him.
We are now considering making
these provisions permanent, and I note that since the enactment of this
legislation, there have been discussions with the Irish Government and
the Electoral Commission, as the Minister said, but not with the
political parties in Northern Ireland. There may have been discussions
before, when the option was time-limited, but not since it has become a
permanent proposition.
I return to the original
purpose of outlawing foreign donations, and I quote from the
Official Report of the Second Reading debate on the Political
Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The right hon. Member for
Blackburn (Jack Straw), now the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord
Chancellor, who introduced the Bill,
said:
“At the
heart of the Bill's provisions is the need to ensure that the funding
of political parties is open and
transparent.”
He
continued:
“The
secrecy that has hitherto been permitted to political parties in their
funding, and the scandals to which such secrecy has given rise in
recent years, have undoubtedly left a sour taste. In contrast, all
political parties—and the reputation of our political system as
a whole—will benefit from the Bill.”—[Official
Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c.
34.]
However, in Northern
Ireland we will not know who has made those donations because the order
does not allow for their publication. The very purpose of passing the
original Act, according to the right hon.
Gentleman, is completely lost, so in transparency terms we are not going
to move on at all, even though we are told that the situation in
Northern Ireland is becoming normal, and that it should be brought into
line with what is happening in Great Britain. The Minister said a few
moments ago that that is what the order is about, but it is
not.
The other
objective was to avoid foreign influence in British political life, but
the influence of the Republic will remain significant. It is not just
that—the question arises as to whether donations from the
Republic will originate in the Republic or come from elsewhere. We are
all aware of the fund-raising abilities of certain people in Northern
Ireland—those in Noraid, for example. Will that money find its
way to Northern Ireland via the Republic? It seems that that would be
very easy to do. Political parties in the Republic will also be able to
receive and to
donate.
The money
coming from the Republic will fund political parties only on one side
of the divide in Northern Ireland. It will not go to the Democratic
Unionist party or the Ulster Unionist party—or if it does, it
will be only a very small percentage, if that. It will go to the
nationalist and republican parties in Northern Ireland, which hardly
seems fair.
There is
some confusion in the law. For example, the Conservative party
organises in Northern Ireland and presumably it will be able to receive
donations from the Republic should people there want to give money to
it. I hear that the Labour party might be organising in Northern
Ireland, and presumably it, too, will be able to receive money from the
Republic. Yet those very parties in England will not be able to receive
money from the Republic of Ireland, and I do not understand how that
can be workable. It is a nonsense in law, regardless of the moral
issues and of whether people in the Republic would want to give money
to the Conservative party. The situation is potentially very confusing
and
conflicting.
Dr.
Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): If people in
the Republic were to give a donation to Northern Ireland that was meant
to go to London, that would not be impossible because donations can be
made from Northern Ireland to
London.
Mr.
Robertson:
That demonstrates how nonsensical this
situation is. Money could presumably go from America to the south, from
the south to the north and from the north to London. That shoots holes
in the 2000 Act and is complete nonsense. Apart from the moral aspects,
it is a legal mess.
I
have a couple of smaller points to make. There seems again to be a
difference between what will happen in Great Britain and in Northern
Ireland. As I understand it, for a donation to be permissible in Great
Britain, the donor must be on the electoral roll. In Northern Ireland,
it is phrased a bit differently—the donor must have an Irish
passport, a certificate of nationality or a certificate of
naturalisation to qualify. If somebody were living in New York but had
an Irish passport, would they be a permissible
donor?
Article 4(2)(i)
of the order deals with unincorporated associations. An unincorporated
association is one with two people or more. It does not take much to
set
one up. Provided that the head office—it could be a room above a
shop—is in the Republic, such people could qualify as recipients
of money, which they could then pass on to political organisations in
the north. No trust provision exists with regard to unincorporated
associations. It does not require much imagination to see that they
could be set up as fronts for all sorts of political campaigning
groups. That is perhaps a technical point, but it is an important
one.
I am
disappointed by how the order has been introduced. I am disappointed
that it picks up on what seemed a reasonably acceptable situation under
the 2006 Act. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s
explanations on the points that I have
raised.
4.47
pm
Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Cummings. Under existing legislation, Northern
Ireland parties are currently exempt from requirements to comply with
part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
concerning donation controls because of special circumstances in
Northern Ireland regarding both the continuing fear of intimidation of
donors and the Republic of Ireland’s special position, as set
out in the Belfast agreement, in relation to the political life of
Northern Ireland.
Last
year, we passed the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
2006, which provided for continuing exemptions for Northern Ireland
parties and regulated donors until the end of October 2007. After that,
they will be required to comply with most of part 4 of the 2000 Act.
However, they will continue to be able to accept donations from Irish
donors and, until 31 October 2010, need not make their donation reports
public. Instead, the Electoral Commission will check reports privately
for compliance.
The
2006 Act gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe what
conditions an Irish citizen must meet to be able to donate to a
Northern Ireland party, which categories of Irish body will be able to
donate, what conditions they must meet in order to do so and what steps
the Electoral Commission must take to verify the information in
Northern Ireland parties’ donation reports. The order prescribes
those details.
During
Committee consideration of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Bill, the Liberal Democrats expressed the view that there
must be clear rules for determining which Irish individuals and bodies
can donate to Northern Ireland political parties, and that the rules
must be drawn up tightly so that people who are not Irish citizens but
have only some vague connection with Ireland cannot donate. Clear rules
are needed so that any political party receiving a donation will know
whether it can be accepted, and so that the Electoral Commission can
check whether any donation is
valid.
I have a few
questions for the Minister about the order. I draw his attention to
article 3, which states
that
“the prescribed
condition in relation to an Irish citizen is that at the time of making
a donation to a Northern Ireland recipient he must be eligible to
obtain one of the following documents...an Irish
passport;...a certificate of nationality; or...a certificate
of naturalisation.”
The individual concerned might not hold
any of those documents, but he must be eligible to obtain one of them
for his donation to be legal. However, when the party that has received
the donation submits its donations report to the Electoral Commission,
that must not only state the amount of the donation and the
donor’s full name, but be accompanied by one of the following
documents:
“a copy of the
donor’s Irish passport...a copy of the donor’s
certificate of nationality...or...a copy of the
donor’s certificate of
naturalisation”,
and each
must be certified by
“the Department of Foreign Affairs
of Ireland”.
A
donation must be made by somebody who is eligible for one of the three
documents, but to comply, the recipient party must have obtained a copy
of one of the three documents. There seems to be an inconsistency
between article 3, which specifies the donation, and schedule 1, which
specifies the details of the report.
The donation could be legal,
but even if the person involved had been born and brought up in Ireland
and was an Irish citizen, they might never have applied for a passport
or have any of the documents. Their donation would be legal, but the
party could not make a legal return to the Electoral Commission. Surely
that is an inconsistency. Would it not have been better to have
specified in paragraph 3 that the donor must have one of the three
documents before making the
donation?
Another
question concerns enforcement. For the first three years, until 2010,
there is no requirement to make donations public, so there will not be
the transparency that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. If
someone makes a large donation and it is made public, the press become
interested, and if it turns out that the donor is not all that he
claimed to be, that could become public. My own party has had a little
difficulty in that regard. Political parties can find it difficult to
determine whether a donation is strictly within the terms of the law.
There are policing issues; the transparency required in the rest of the
United Kingdom can often throw up dodgy characters. Under the order,
the Electoral Commission has a duty to carry out investigations. The
wording is that
“the
Commission must take reasonable steps to ascertain whether...the
information...is
accurate”.
To
carry out those functions, the Electoral Commission would need the
co-operation of the Irish Government and their various agencies. Can
the Minister assure us that the Irish Government have assured him that
they will co-operate with all reasonable requests from the Electoral
Commission for information, as it tries to check the validity of the
donor?
If the
Minister can answer those questions satisfactorily, I shall support the
order.
4.53
pm
Mr.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): I join those who have
already spoken in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr.
Cummings.
As far as my
party is concerned, we voiced our concerns about the implications of
the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 when the Bill
was being discussed on the Floor of the House.
Our primary concern was about the advantage that it would give to
certain political parties in Northern Ireland and the disadvantage for
other political parties. That is unfair in its own terms.
However, I should also like to
touch on the point raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who
rightly said that there are implications for the United Kingdom as a
whole. We are in the business of creating a much more transparent and
open regime for political donations, and I support that. The order does
two things. First, it extends the period of confidentiality for such
donations for three further years. Secondly, it creates a glaring
loophole through which donations could be made from abroad not only to
parties in Northern Ireland, but through Northern Ireland to parties in
the rest of the
UK.
One interesting
suggestion that I have heard is that the order and enabling Act might
bring a boom in business in Northern Ireland with the creation of
political party offices in Northern Ireland. The idea has been mooted,
in some press quarters, that there is nothing to prevent political
parties from setting up offices and registering headquarters of some
kind of political operation in Northern Ireland. Such parties might not
be involved in the mainstream UK political process, or might see the
advantages of being able to attract large amounts of foreign money
without having to go through the current disclosure arrangements that
apply here, and could do that quite easily by simply setting up in
Northern Ireland.
As
the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green pointed out, there is
nothing to prevent money from being channelled from abroad into the
Irish Republic, into Northern Ireland and therefore into the rest of
the UK. Before Members simply nod this order through, they should be
aware of its implications not only for Northern Ireland, for which it
is a shoddy, shabby measure, but for the rest of the country, because
it opens a back door for donations to political parties in the
UK.
One way of
tackling the problem would be for the Irish Republic to have similar
bans on donations from foreign countries to political parties there,
because money could not then be channelled into the Irish Republic and
on into Northern Ireland. During the debates on the Bill that became
the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, the then
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, now the Minister of State,
Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr.
Hanson), who was steering the Bill through the House, said that the
Government were
“in
discussion with the Irish Government about their arrangements in the
Republic of Ireland and how they impact on our own arrangements.
Indeed, that matter was covered at the recent British-Irish
governmental conference in London. I hope that those matters will be
resolved to positive effect in due course.”—[Official
Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1244.]
Will the Minister tell us what the
outcome of those discussions was and whether any positive progress has
been made? I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Northern
Ireland, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who
said:
“The
Liberal Democrats agreed to the exemption of Northern Ireland from
those provisions on the express condition that the Government would
urgently seek to persuade the Government of southern Ireland to
introduce similar legislation”.—[Official Report,
13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1195.]
Were the commitments of the then Minister
of State followed through?
What were the outcomes of the
discussions with the Irish Republic? If that matter has not been
addressed, we will have opened up an incredible vista in the country as
a whole on party political donations. We now have a situation in which
Northern Ireland has been set aside as a special case, primarily to
advantage the nationalist and republican parties, as the hon. Member
for Tewkesbury said. I should be interested to hear what the hon.
Member for South Down has to say on this matter, as he spoke about it
in the debates on the 2006 Act. We pointed out that the relevant
measures would, in particular, primarily benefit members of Sinn Fein,
so the hon. Member for South Down may want to be slightly careful about
welcoming the order, because it might not turn out to be to the
long-term advantage of his party, even though his party might deem it
expedient in the short
term.
The
Minister mentioned why the order is in front of us. He also mentioned
the Belfast agreement, which gets to the nub of the reason why Northern
Ireland is being treated differently, and why we are opening up to the
rest of the country a back door for political donations. The reason is
political. All the good, sound, sensible and rational arguments about
preventing people from outside the United Kingdom from donating to
political parties that operate in the United Kingdom have been set
aside in Northern Ireland for political reasons. The Minister made it
very clear when he mentioned the Belfast agreement. From the
explanatory notes and background material, the argument clearly is that
the Irish Republic has a special position in relation to Northern
Ireland. Frankly, that is not a sufficient reason to set aside the very
good arguments that prohibit the donation of foreign money and
resources to a political party that operates in part of the United
Kingdom.
Another
issue is the Irish Republic’s role in the matter. It is clear
that Irish donors are eligible if they can donate to political parties
in the Irish Republic. I am concerned, because the question of who is
eligible to donate to a political party in the Irish Republic is a
matter for the Parliament of the Irish Republic, not for us. If it
wishes to change the rules about people who are entitled to donate, to
widen or narrow the category or whatever, what will be the impact on
the legislative process in this Parliament? Will we be forced to note
that the Dail has made changes and to follow suit to keep our
legislative regime in step with what happens in Dublin? It seems a
bizarre proposition that we must continually watch what goes on in the
Irish Republic and change our laws to make them fit with whatever laws
on party political donation the Dail decides to implement.
There are members of the
Committee and Members of the House who will not see any difficulty with
that situation, having become used to undertaking such activity when it
comes to Brussels legislation. However, we are transferring another
aspect of our sovereignty—the decision about what types of
donors should be able to send money to political parties in Northern
Ireland—to the Dail. The Minister must address those
questions.
On the
provisions for policing the order, I should be grateful if the Minister
could describe again his discussions with the political parties in
Northern Ireland, because
to my knowledge, there has been very little discussion about the
policing and enforcement of the regulations. Article 11 lists the
bodies, organisations, Departments and others that are prescribed for
the purposes of section 71E, which the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 2006 inserted in the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000. Those Departments and so on seem to be a strange
collection. They include the Department of Enterprise, Trade and
Investment, for which I now have some responsibility, but they include
also the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. I should be grateful if
the Minister could tell us what possible information that body, which
was set up to regulate the working of the Assembly, could hold that
would shed any light on the Electoral Commission’s
investigations. Indeed, what possible light could the corporate officer
of the House of Lords shed on whether somebody from the Irish Republic
is a permissible donor? Again, since we were deprived of the
opportunity to discuss that issue with the Minister, I should be
grateful if he set out his thinking
now.
Needless to say,
we believe that the order is deficient and bad in principle. It is not
a sensible way in which to proceed in terms of party political
donations in Northern Ireland, and it is favoured by only one side of
the Northern Ireland community. I shall finish with a point that the
Minister mentioned. He spoke about the Belfast agreement, and we were
told that agreement was fundamentally based on consent—the
consent of both communities—and that there had to be a majority
of Unionists and of nationalists in support of propositions for them to
be passed. The Northern Ireland Assembly is set up on the basis that
there must be a majority of votes, and a majority of Unionists
and nationalists in favour of a proposition on certain key
issues.
Fundamentally,
the order and the proposition of creating a loophole for Northern
Ireland political donations fail the test of the Belfast agreement
because they do not have the support of the Unionist community, nor of
any of the Unionist political parties. Therefore, I ask the Minister to
reconsider the basis on which he has brought the order before us
today.
5.6
pm
Mr.
Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): It is a pleasure to
serve under your direction and stewardship in the Committee,
Mr. Cummings. Needless to say, in view of comments from
contributors so far, you would expect me to welcome the order, and I do
so, but not for the reasons suggested by previous speakers. The
presumption that only the nationalist/republican community will benefit
from donations from the Republic of Ireland is simply not correct.
Most, if not all, political parties in Northern Ireland benefit from
and seek contributions from citizens of the
Republic.
The problem
that is not being faced up to is the difficulty of the special
circumstances that pertain in Northern Ireland. Yes, the Good Friday
agreement is broadly embedded, and yes, we have devolution, which is in
its infancy after only a few weeks or perhaps two months, but all has
not changed dramatically overnight just because four or five political
parties agreed to
devolution. On the ground, the situation will change only very slowly,
and there is still intimidation and
extortion.
Just
yesterday, a shopkeeper in my home town of Downpatrick wrote to the
local newspaper begging other shopkeepers to report intimidation and
protection money rackets to the police so that he would not have to
stand alone against them. That happened in a small market town without
a paramilitary history, so one can imagine what might happen—and
is happening—in communities that have been ghettoised by
paramilitaries.
The
situation is not normal and it is not a Great Britain situation. It is
a different situation. Many of the apparent loopholes may apply also in
GB. Two-power co-operation could be set up in GB, just as in the
Republic of Ireland, and people may make donations in GB, but surely
the registration process, the audit process, the register of companies
and the checks on those companies and people have some bearing on the
validity or otherwise of their
contribution.
Mr.
Dodds:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
McGrady:
Let me finish what I am saying, and then I will
give way.
Let me for a
moment differentiate the relationship between the United Kingdom and
the Republic of Ireland in terms of the use of the words
“foreign donations”. The difference is not just embedded
in the Good Friday agreement; it goes much further back to the Ireland
Act 1949, and it is important to refer to that. Section 2(1)
states:
“It is
hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is
not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is
not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part
of the United Kingdom...whether by virtue of a rule of law or of
an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever,
whether passed or made before or after the passing of this
Act”
—in relation
to—
“foreigners,
aliens, foreign countries, and foreign or foreign-built ships or
aircraft”.
For
60 years, there has been a definite distinction between the word
“foreigner” and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
This has already been alluded to. Section (vi) of the constitutional
issues part in the Good Friday agreement stated that all the
signatories and all those who now espoused, used and worked
with it
“recognise the
birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves
and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so
choose”.
The situation
between the United Kingdom and France, Germany and the United States is
different from the one between the United Kingdom and the Republic of
Ireland, which involves an entirely different
relationship.
Let us
consider the auditorial checking processes in the order. Although there
is a degree of secrecy in that the data are given to and protected by
the Electoral Commission, it is incumbent on that commission to carry
out all the necessary checks it considers appropriate to verify the
donation, its origins and so
on. We can debate that further some time after now, when things will
hopefully have changed dramatically.
The requirements in respect of
a citizen of the Republic of Ireland making a donation to a political
party in Northern Ireland are draconian in their stringency. If I
wanted to get a donation from a friend in the Republic of Ireland, I
would have to ask them for their passport, certificate of nationality
or certificate of naturalisation. I would then have to take the
document to the Department of Foreign Affairs for verification and
certification. Let us think of the consequences of a business man
handing me his passport, which would put it out of his jurisdiction,
and his having to go abroad on business. Such a situation would be
fraught with all sorts of practical difficulties. Those particular
measures and conditions have nullified the intent behind the
order.
This is not
just a question of opening the door, willy-nilly, to people making
illegal donations from illegally gotten gains. Stratum upon stratum of
verification and certification will be registered and pursued by
independent appointed bodies. Given that fact, it should not be put
into a context, as many of the contributions to date have been, of
suggesting that this is somehow a normal situation in respect of things
that happen in the United Kingdom and do not happen
elsewhere.
For
instance, a person can make a donation to a political party in the
United Kingdom if he is on the electoral register. That is a simple
thing. He cannot do such a thing in the Republic of Ireland. It is not
accepted that he or she is on the register of the Republic of Ireland,
so people have to go through this entire process to get to this
point.
Mr.
Dodds:
I am tempted to say that one has to qualify in a
whole lot of other ways to donate to political parties in the Irish
Republic, as some of the tribunals can testify, but we will not go
there.
Companies can
register here in Great Britain and there is nothing to stop them doing
so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the point is that they cannot
receive donations from abroad? He mentioned the issue of the United
Kingdom and the Irish Republic and cited previous legislation, but
section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
is littered with references to the UK. The purpose of the order is to
make an exemption from that and to make special provision for the Irish
Republic. Obviously, that is the
position.
Mr.
McGrady:
The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is
really referring to innocent funds coming in from a foreign country via
the donor to a political party in Northern Ireland. In reality, that
can happen in any situation, whether in GB, France, Germany or the USA,
but surely such funds are subject to the checking and all the various
counterpoints that are in place.
[
Interruption.
]
Well, the law is there to prevent money from being transferred
illegally from a foreigner from any country, notwithstanding electoral
processes and political party donations. The law is there anyway.
Someone could argue every which way that they were dealing with hot
money. That is a presumption that is not there. Political parties in
the north of Ireland
presumably can and will go only to legitimate sources and donors who can
and will be checked quite rigorously through the processes that I have
just referred to and so shall not refer to again
now.
I therefore ask
the Committee to take account of the circumstances in which we find
ourselves—not where we would like to be or what is available
elsewhere, but the particular circumstances that we have inherited. I
hope that in the fullness of time we will have a normal society in
Northern Ireland, but we should not think for one minute that we do
after three, six or eight weeks of devolution, because we do
not.
5.17
pm
Mr.
Michael Mates (East Hampshire) (Con): When I came into the
room this afternoon, I did not plan to make a contribution to this
debate until I heard the Minister say that the order is all about
creating normality. To pick up on what the hon. Member for South Down
just said, the one thing that I fully agree with is that there is not
yet a normal society in Northern Ireland. Much progress has been made,
but there is a long way to go. That is not an argument for making this
arrangement permanent. It may be an argument for extending it for a
year or two until what the hon. Gentleman wants to happen happens and
there is a normal society. When Northern Ireland is a fully normal
society and integrated into the democratic process in the same way as
the rest of the United Kingdom, this arrangement will still be on the
statute book. Therefore, the order is not about normalising or
regularising things. It makes permanent an irregularity that was made
temporary
earlier.
Aside from
the odd remark, no one has actually pointed to the elephant in the
sitting room. The order is not about the hon. Gentleman’s
business friends. It is about the massive donations from the United
States that go to a certain political party. That happened during the
time of terror, when the money provided arms. Many people gave money,
unconscious that that was happening. They thought that they were
supporting poor and beleaguered families. Sinn Fein members are still
active in going over to the US to obtain that supply of money. It can
now be channelled in, and it has made Sinn Fein the richest political
party in the whole United
Kingdom.
That
cannot be right. We are not on a level playing field, and to make
permanent the irregularity of the playing field must be fundamentally
wrong. Therefore, almost everyone in this Committee is pointing out the
anomalies, including the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green,
who made a perceptive intervention. I invite others to reinforce his
points about the flaws in the order. The Liberal Democrat speaker said
that it was full of holes but that he would support it. That is up to
his party—it is not all that
unusual.
As my hon.
Friend the Member for Tewkesbury said, if we are going to try to make
everything normal within the United Kingdom, if we are going to try to
bring the Northern Ireland political parties into a normal situation,
the wrong thing to do is to make permanent in law an exception that
none of the rest of the parties in Great Britain has to endure. Why
does the Minister not take this proposal away and make the provision
temporary for another year or two? In that case, I
believe that my hon. Friend—I have not consulted him—and
my party would probably support it. It is divisive, wrong and
illogical, and it should not be
happening.
5.20
pm
Paul
Goggins:
Although it is on an issue that I know is hotly
contested, this has been a calm and considered debate. Opinions are
sharply divided, as I acknowledged at the
outset.
The hon.
Member for Tewkesbury and I debate such issues frequently. I know when
his temper is up, and it was a bit up this afternoon. He challenged, as
did the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, my contention that the
order is a move toward normalisation. I stand by that claim. Why? At
the moment, and until 31 October this year, donations can be
made to any political party in Northern Ireland by anybody anywhere in
the world. Limiting the rules and applying tighter scrutiny to the
process of donating to political parties, as we are doing, will tighten
up the system significantly.
I acknowledge that we are not
there yet, but I hope that we will be soon. I hope that toward the end
of 2010, donors’ names and details will be published on the
Electoral Commission’s website. We have not arrived at full
normalisation.
Mr.
Robertson:
If the order were not passed, the relevant
measures in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006
would end on 31 October. I do not see how the order is moving
us more towards
normality.
Paul
Goggins:
It is as I said. At the moment, anybody anywhere
in the world can donate anything they like to any political party in
Northern Ireland. I take it that no Committee member thinks that that
is a good thing, and the Government are seeking to limit it. We want to
arrive at a fully normalised situation as soon as possible, but it is
not possible at the
moment.
We have made
it absolutely clear in the order that only permissible donors will be
able to contribute. That means that they must either be United Kingdom
citizens on a UK electoral register, feature on the list of
organisations in section 54(2) of the 2004 Act or—I accept that
this is contentious for some—be an Irish citizen or body
permitted by the legislation. That reflects the settlement connected
with the Good Friday agreement.
I have heard the comments of
the hon. Member for Belfast, North, and I understand that the issue
exercises him, but the Good Friday agreement enshrines the freedom of
citizens of Northern Ireland to choose whether they are Irish, British
or both. It enshrines the spirit of equal treatment. Irish citizens
should therefore be able to donate to political parties whether north
or south of the border. That is the principle. The hon. Gentleman might
not be entirely happy with it, but the Government are comfortable with
it, and it feeds into the order.
Mr.
Dodds:
The Minister fails to understand the Belfast
agreement. It is quite obvious from his comments that he does not
understand the fundamentals of the agreement to which he subscribes. He
will understand my party’s point of view on it. It is not a
question of equality between Irish and UK citizens; it is a question of
equality for all citizens in the UK. The Minister is creating a special
position for citizens and donors outside the UK that is unique to
Northern Ireland and has implications for the rest of the country. It
is not a question of creating inequalities between Irish and UK
citizens in Northern Ireland—people there have the right to an
Irish passport—but between people inside and outside the United
Kingdom.
Paul
Goggins:
I do not hide the fact that a different situation
pertains to the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. I
acknowledge that; there is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and
me on that matter. I simply point to the reason why that is the case,
but he clearly does not like that
explanation.
Mr.
Mates:
What about putting it into the legislation that the
arrangement was temporary? Was that not part of the Belfast agreement,
or was there a nod and a wink and “We’ll make it
permanent in a year’s time”?
Paul
Goggins:
The position is that we hope that by 2010 we will
not need confidentiality in relation to donations. We want normality
and the Electoral Commission to publicise the details of those who make
donations. That would be a normal situation, and we want to move to it
as soon as we are able. We hope that it will be possible by
2010.
Dr.
Vis:
My hon. Friend read out in his introductory remarks
paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum. He has just been talking
about confidentiality, but I do not understand the second part of that
paragraph:
“unless the
report relates to a donation which is impermissible or from an
unidentifiable source, in which case the Commission may publish
details.”
If the source
is unidentifiable, what is the purpose of publishing
details?
Paul
Goggins:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
intervention—a very perceptive hon. Friend he is too. We simply
make the point that if the source of the funding is either
unidentifiable or impermissible, the commission will be able to publish
details on its website. It will not be able to publish the details of
any donation made within the rules in the order. The situation is
perfectly clear. I do not know whether my hon. Friend accepts my
explanation, but that is the rationale.
If a donation comes from an
impermissible or unidentified source, such details can be put on the
commission’s website. Those are the only circumstances in which
there will be any publicity. I hope, and I am sure my hon. Friend also
hopes, that in due course—we hope by 2010—further details
will be publishable on the website. I am sure that all Members want to
see as we move further towards ending the
restrictions.
Mr.
Dodds:
As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said in
his intervention, it would be helpful if the Minister indicated that
the provisions were temporary and would lapse. The Minister referred to
allowing one aspect of the provisions to lapse, namely disclosure. Why
does he not apply the same logic to other provisions, such as the
special provision given for donations from outside the
country?
Paul
Goggins:
Because we think that that aspect of the
provisions should be
permanent.
Paul
Goggins:
For the reasons that I have indicated. We believe
that there should be equal treatment north and south so that people in
Northern Ireland have the right to choose whether they are Irish,
British or both. The consequence is that an Irish citizen should be
able to contribute to a political party, whether it be north or south
of the border. We believe that that is an important principle that
underpins the order, and we do not see any circumstances in which we
would wish to change it. We do wish to change the provisions on
confidentiality, which we have to accept at the moment for reasons that
my hon. Friend the Member for South Down amply illustrated. The risks
are still too great, so we wish to have confidentiality in place, but
we hope that beyond 2010 it will not be
necessary.
Mr.
Robertson:
Even if we accept the disclosure part of the
order, however, we come back to the fact that under the Northern
Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, the disapplication period
was to end on 31 October 2007. If the arrangement is now going to be
permanent, why was it made temporary then? I cannot see what has
changed. Well, I can, but I would like the Minister’s
response.
Paul
Goggins:
We had to put in place procedures and
administrative systems and there had to be discussion with the Irish
Government and the authorities there to ensure that the system actually
worked. The disapplication meant that anybody could make any donation
from anywhere in the world. That was the temporary position that the
disapplication provided for. We want to move on from that to a
permanent position whereby donations are properly regulated, albeit
that they are permitted to come from Irish citizens and
bodies.
I want to get
to other comments that the hon. Gentleman and others made. The hon.
Member for Belfast, North asked about consultation; one or two others
made similar comments. I understand that on the day the order was
published there was a difficulty with its circulation. If any hon.
Member was inconvenienced by that, I apologise. However, we are not
bringing in brand new legislation out of the clear blue sky. It was
already debated and resolved in an admittedly heated debate on the 2006
Act, and the order seeks to give effect to what was decided then.
Extensive consultation had already been carried out. Political parties
submitted their views and there was considerable debate in the House
when the Act was
passed. We did not feel that there was any need to have the formal
consultation process again; we were simply giving effect to that
legislation.
As
the new system comes into play, we will of course need to engage and
discuss to ensure that it works as we all hope that it will. I make
that pledge to the hon. Gentleman for as long as I am in this job, and
I am sure that those who follow me will ensure that there is continuing
dialogue and discussion.
Mr.
Dodds:
I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance.
He refers to consultation—or the lack of it—with
political parties. Will he also confirm the lack of consultation with
others outside the political parties in Northern Ireland? Were others
consulted? Were bodies, organisations and the public at large given the
opportunity to comment on the provisions in the order? From what he
says, that appears not to be the case.
Paul
Goggins:
I have learned over the past year that
consultation procedures in Northern Ireland are second to none, and
rightly so. Full consultation on the legislation had already been
undertaken, and the Government published their response in January
2006. The hon. Gentleman’s own party’s comments were
reflected in that response. So we had the consultation, the legislation
was debated and decisions were made; the order gives effect to the
legislation.
Mr.
Dodds:
I cannot let the Minister get away with that. He is
now advancing the proposition that if there has been a debate on the
relevant primary legislation in the House of Commons, that constitutes
adequate consultation in respect delegated legislation and Orders in
Council in Northern Ireland, of which we have a plethora. What a
preposterous proposition! The Minister should reconsider. Many people
in Northern Ireland would be outraged at such a proposition, not least
those who are not members of political parties or Members of
Parliament, and who will therefore be deprived of the opportunity to
have any say in the consultation process.
Paul
Goggins:
I simply do not accept the hon.
Gentleman’s argument. I am saying that there was a widespread
consultation with the parties and with wider civic society in
preparation for the legislation in 2006. The order gives effect to
that, so that from 1 November we will have a better, more rigorously
monitored and regulated system. We have had the consultation process,
and we have not ignored people’s views. We might not have
incorporated all the views of the hon. Gentleman’s party but, if
I recall correctly, it made it clear in the consultation process that
there would need to be some limits to transparency because we were not
yet in a fully normalised situation. That was good advice, and we were
happy to acknowledge it and to ensure that it was in the
legislation.
Mr.
Dodds:
That is why we are advancing the argument that the
temporary provision on disclosure should also apply to donors from the
Irish Republic. I thank the Minister for confirming the consistency of
our position. He says that consultation took place in the form of
discussions during consideration of the
original Bill on Second Reading and on Report, but when on earth were we
given any information about the bodies that would be asked to disclose
information, about how the Electoral Commission would go about its
business, about the nature of the qualification criteria for Irish
citizens, and so on? That was never discussed, and rightly so because
we were dealing with primary legislation. We were not dealing with
delegated legislation and none of the matters in the order were
properly consulted on. The Minister cannot suggest to the Committee
today that the debate in the main Chamber was a substitute for proper
consultation, given that these matters were never before the
House.
Paul
Goggins:
I have placed on the record several times my
opinion that we had a full and comprehensive consultation. I freely
acknowledge that I will not persuade the hon. Gentleman. He drew
attention to article 11, and it is clear that the bodies listed in it
are listed on the advice of the Electoral Commission, whose job is to
ensure that donations that fall within the terms of the legislation are
scrutinised properly. In its view, those bodies, including the Northern
Ireland Assembly Commission, to which the hon. Gentleman drew
attention, need to be
consulted.
Paul
Goggins:
Because the Electoral Commission advised us that
it will need to be able to divulge information to those bodies.
Otherwise, the confidentiality rule inherent in the legislation would
be breached. The commission wants to be able to consult those
organisations and to ensure the scrutiny and effective control that I
imagine hon. Members want to
see.
Mr.
Dodds:
Will the Minister give
way?
Paul
Goggins:
I am happy to give way. However, I hope that in
the end, I will have time to respond to all members of the
Committee.
Mr.
Dodds:
I think that the Minister will have plenty of time,
given that we curtailed our comments in the main debate. It is
important that we question him, because this is our first chance in any
shape or form to go through the details of the order. He mentioned the
Northern Ireland Assembly Commission and other bodies listed in the
order, and the Electoral Commission’s view. However, I am
interested in his view. He brought the order before the Committee, so I
am interested in his explanation as to why the Assembly Commission and
others are on the list. Without referring to the Electoral
Commission’s view, what is his reason for including the Assembly
Commission in the list? What information does it have that could be of
relevance to the Electoral Commission? I want his view—not that
of the Electoral
Commission.
Paul
Goggins:
Obviously, there has been a great deal of
discussion with the Electoral Commission, involving officials and
Ministers who dealt with this issue before it became my responsibility.
In those discussions, the
commission made it clear that it felt it necessary to share information
with those bodies in a way in which it could not do more generally. I
accept its advice and the views of my hon. Friends who dealt with the
matter before me. The list is comprehensive and will enable the
commission to do its job properly. That is the commission’s
advice and I am happy to accept
it.
On the publication
of names, addresses and other details, I repeat that I hope that in
2010 we can move to a much more normal situation and that such names
can be published by then. However, we must have regard to the ongoing
security situation. A number of members of the Committee deliberated on
the Bill that became the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act
2007, so they will be aware that, despite the tremendous progress that
has been made in politics in Northern Ireland, there remains a residual
threat from dissident republican terrorists and loyalist
paramilitaries. We must have regard to that in legislation. None the
less, we remain optimistic about there being an increasingly normal
situation in Northern
Ireland.
The hon.
Member for Tewkesbury contended—I suspect that it is
true—that Irish citizens might be more predisposed to give their
hard-earned cash to a republican party such as Sinn Fein, or to the
party of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down. The hon. Member for
Tewkesbury is quite right: an Irish citizen could make a donation to
the Conservative party were it to operate in Northern Ireland, which it
increasingly tries to do, if that were the choice of that citizen. That
could perfectly well be the
case.
The hon.
Gentleman went on to point out—he was joined by the hon. Member
for Belfast, North and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for South
Down, although the latter made the point from a slightly different
angle—that, of course, there is a risk that people who make
donations might have received the money from another source. Of course,
we acknowledge that that is a risk, but it is not peculiar to Northern
Ireland. It is a risk within the democratic system across the United
Kingdom. We need to guard against it, but it is not unique to Northern
Ireland. Politicians of all parties face that risk more generally, and
must guard against it. With the help of the Electoral Commission,
hopefully, we can do that as effectively as
possible.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way
yet again. He is right, of course; money could find its way to England
via different sources. However, as he is well aware—both he and
the hon. Member for Belfast, North pointed it out—Northern
Ireland is not quite in a normal situation. For 10 years, Ministers
have pointed out that Sinn Fein is inextricably linked to the IRA,
which retains an army council. Does the Minister not accept that that
is why the issue is a little different and more of a concern in
Northern Ireland? Money could well come from sources in America,
whether well-meaning ones or not. That is a big
concern.
Paul
Goggins:
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying in
historical terms, and that brings me to the comments of the right hon.
Member for East Hampshire. I do understand the history, but the fact is
that since the historic decision this January by Sinn
Fein to support policing and the rule of law—and given the
consequences of that for devolution and democracy, and for the peace
and prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland—the situation
has changed. That has reduced the risk pointed out by the right hon.
Member for East Hampshire, to which the hon. Gentleman has just
alluded.
We are in a
changing situation: the risks may be there, but they are comparable
with the risks that we face anywhere in the United Kingdom. The context
of this discussion is more optimistic, in that sense. We have in Sinn
Fein a political party that has fully supported policing and the rule
of law. That moves us substantially forward on this and other
issues.
I turn briefly
to two other matters raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. First,
he asked—rhetorically, I think, but I owe him an
answer—whether Irish citizens with an Irish passport in New York
will be able to make donations. Yes, they will, as this legislation
makes perfectly clear.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman
put his finger on an interesting issue to which I intend to pay close
attention, as I am sure he will: unincorporated associations. To put
that into context, the Electoral Commission tells us that in its
overall work, only 4 per cent. of donations to political parties come
from unincorporated associations. We have included in the legislation a
requirement that such associations get a guarantee, as it were, from a
solicitor. That solicitor would say that the group were who they said
they were, and were operating in good faith. We need to make sure that,
bearing in mind the advice of the Electoral Commission, the situation
works out as well as we hope it will. I am happy to say to the hon.
Gentleman that we need to pay close attention to that issue. I am happy
with the provisions in the order. An unincorporated association must
get a guarantee from a lawyer proving that it is what it says it is,
and that it is acting in good faith. However, we need to keep an eye on
the issue, even if only 4 per cent. of donations come from
unincorporated
associations.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way
again and for his sympathetic response to the issue that I raised.
Article 4(2)(h) refers to trusts, and there are restrictions in respect
of money that can be transferred to a trust, which might then pass it
on to political parties. Would it not be sensible to apply a similar
restriction to unincorporated
associations?
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Gentleman points out that trusts set up
in good faith to make political donations before the order becomes
fully operational will be able to carry on as before. Newly established
trusts can be paid into only by permissible donors, so we are certainly
tightening the restrictions in that respect. The situation regarding
unincorporated associations is different. I simply point out that I am
satisfied with the legislation as it stands, but I will be fully
satisfied only if it works as well in practice as we hope it will. I
intend to follow how it works very
closely.
I turn to the
comments made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. He asked for
assurances in two respects. First, he wanted an answer about whether
somebody’s eligibility for a passport or a certificate of
citizenship or naturalisation was sufficient to enable a donation to be
made. I hope he will be reassured to know that to make the donation, an
individual citizen would have to provide that documentary proof. So
eligibility is one thing, but to exercise that eligibility and to make
the donation, one would have show one’s passport or certificate
of citizenship or naturalisation. The proof would have to be there. No
donation would be accepted from anyone unless they showed physical
proof. It will not be sufficient to produce a photocopy: the original
document will be required. I hope that that offers some
reassurance.
On the
hon. Gentleman’s second point, there has been considerable
discussion about the terms of enforcement with the Irish Government.
The Irish authorities have assured us that they will continue to work
closely with us to make sure that the administration of the system
operates effectively.
Mr.
Dodds:
In his discussion with the Irish Government, did
the Minister get any indication at any point that they had the
slightest notion of introducing similar arrangements to bar donations
to political parties from outside the jurisdiction of the Irish
Republic?
Paul
Goggins:
I can be candid with the hon. Gentleman and say
that I was not party to any of those discussions personally. I am
assured that the Irish Government have no intention, as far as I know,
of changing the rules and widening the range of people who will be
permitted to make donations to political parties in Ireland. If they
were to do so, we would obviously need to pause and reflect, but I have
no reason to believe that they intend to do that.
It is absolutely clear to me
from the work that I have done on this issue so far that the Irish
authorities are acting in complete good faith. They want to see this
system work and they will work with us, even though it imposes an
additional administrative burden on them. They want to make it work. I
hope that that offers some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. I live in
hope.
Mr.
Reid:
In order to monitor the legislation, could the
Electoral Commission publish a report for each political party showing
how much money had come from each category: Irish citizens, UK
citizens, political parties, and companies? Although the names of
individual donors would not be published, that would give some idea of
where the money was coming
from.
Paul
Goggins:
The straightforward and honest answer is that I
do not know. It is a fair question, however, and I shall raise it with
the Electoral Commission. Perhaps it already does that in some way,
shape or form, or it may be prepared to consider it. I shall write to
the hon. Gentleman with a full reply in due
course.
The hon.
Member for Belfast, North and I have had a few exchanges since the
consultation, during which his party drew attention to the issue of
confidentiality. We need to place limits on transparency until we get
to a position of full
normality.
Mr.
Dodds
indicated assent.
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Gentleman made a strong contention on a
number of occasions regarding the permissibility of making donations
from abroad. I have already confirmed to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury
that the legislation permits that, but only from permissible
donors—in other words, Irish citizens who are living abroad. The
idea was conveyed earlier that these donations could come from anybody,
anywhere in the world. That is what we are changing through this
legislation. Yes, an Irish citizen abroad would be able to make a
donation, but that would be
all.
I alluded to the
conversations with the Irish authorities, which I was not personally
party to, about their intentions. I can tell the hon. Member for Argyll
and Bute that they have operated in complete good faith and I think
that they have every intention of making sure that this system will
work properly. If there were to be a major change, we would have to
reflect, as I said, but I do not see any prospect of that in the
immediate future.
As
I pointed out, the organisations named in article 11 are those
recommended to us by the Electoral Commission. Given its experience in
carrying out such work, I accept its recommendation, which is why those
organisations are included in this
legislation.
My hon.
Friend the Member for South Down, as he always does on these occasions,
used his experience to illustrate the history of this issue. He also
dealt with the practical implications for modern times, including some
of the risks that remain. He acknowledged those factors and gave us a
very effective run-through of the practical issues that we need to deal
with. I am grateful for his support for what I believe will be a
well-
regulated system, which will ensure that donations to political parties
in Northern Ireland will be made in a much more robust, highly
scrutinised and controlled way than ever before.
In conclusion, I contend that
order will aid the process of democracy and devolution in Northern
Ireland, and I hope that the whole Committee will support
it.
Question
put
:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
3.
Division
No.
1
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
2000 (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order
2007.
Committee
rose at eight minutes to Six
o’clock.
