| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
As I said, we need to make sure that the changes do not constitute a back door route through which funds can be made available to political parties in Great Britain. That was a central issue that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised. Under the legislation, Irish citizens will be able to donate only to parties running candidates for election in Northern Ireland. Those parties will not be able to make donations to parties, regulated donees or candidates in Great Britain, so the measure cannot be used as a back door method of funding political parties in Great Britain. I gladly give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I hope that I can help the Minister, who might even get some respectable advice on this matter if I speak for a moment or two. Could a UKIP candidate, or the Northern Ireland branch of UKIP, be funded by citizens in the Republic of Ireland? If so, that appears to me extraordinary, particularly as the money could then be siphoned, at least in part, from UKIP Northern Ireland to UKIP Great Britain.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a very good question. I am advised to include it in my reply. The noble Lord hits on an issue. It is the case at present, so far as I am aware—I stand to be corrected—that no party that is registered with the Electoral Commission to fight elections in Great Britain fights elections in Northern Ireland. That is the issue. In Northern Ireland, there are members of the main parties represented in this House, but they do not fight elections. The noble Lord referred to UKIP, which is a United Kingdom party, as indeed, are the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Those parties do not fight elections under their banners in Northern Ireland. If they have branches in—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, let me just finish this bit or I shall get it wrong as well. If those parties fight elections in Northern Ireland with candidates, they would be eligible—they must be eligible, as much as the unionists, Sinn Fein and the SDLP—to receive donations from Irish citizens. But there must be a mechanism to make sure that that money is not used as a back door route to fund GB political parties. That would be disastrous as it would undermine the very restrictions that we are trying to place on elections in Great Britain.
13 July 2006 : Column 883
The noble Lord has raised the issue, but it should not be allowed to happen, which is why it is so complicated that I will have to write to write to him.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I wanted to make the point that there is one national party in the United Kingdom, the Conservative and Unionist Party, which does have candidates in Northern Ireland, as well as England, Scotland and Wales. It fights on a national basis. That must be taken into account.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know what is registered with the Electoral Commission, and I have not received advice on that. The funding position in Northern Ireland is quite different, and the Bill narrows that. In other words, at present, anyone from anywhere in the world can donate in secret to Northern Ireland political parties. We think that that is wrong and this Bill restricts that. It is not restricted to the level that operates in Great Britain. I do not know whether the political party that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to is registered with the Electoral Commission—and he did not say that it was. These days you cannot go around standing for election willy-nilly, because the commission was designed to police the system. I shall make sure that this point is covered in the notes, because the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked a legitimate question that needs to be answered.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, because this is as full of holes as an Edam cheese—I think that Edam has holes in it, doesn’t it? No, not Edam—it is Gruyère. It is unlikely but not inconceivable that one or other of the Ulster unionist parties could resume the relationship that the Ulster Unionists had with the Conservative Party before 1970. That may be unlikely, but legislation should provide for what is possible and not just what is likely.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the Minister replies to the imaginative suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, relating to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, I point out that in my lifetime one of the predecessors of our party, the Liberal Party, contested seats in Northern Ireland. Who knows what might come in the future? This is a lacuna that clearly needs to be looked at.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree. I have to say that to the best of my knowledge at no time was this issue covered in any of the briefings on the Bill that I have read or in any of the debates in the other place—noble Lords should not forget that the Bill came to this House having been thoroughly debated in the other place. I looked at some of the Standing Committee debates. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is quite right: there was a time when the Conservative and Unionist parties were linked and fought on a UK-wide basis. At no time in any of the briefings on this legislation has that situation been envisaged for the future. I shall rest my case on that, having dug myself halfway out of the hole and I shall make sure that I write to noble Lords well before Third Reading.
13 July 2006 : Column 884
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his good-humoured responses. I am now even more convinced that the solution to the noble Lord’s problems lies in my amendment, which, I hope, brings Northern Ireland pretty much into line with the United Kingdom on these matters and will tidy up all sorts of things.
Certainly, my grandfather was a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party, was Chief Whip in the other place and was a Minister of agriculture. Our parties have been together. The Conservatives now have one councillor in a local authority and we are very much involved in Northern Ireland politics. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
3.28 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 148; Not-Contents, 111.
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Blaker, L.
Bowness, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.
Chadlington, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Cotter, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Crisp, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dundee, E.
Dykes, L.
Eames, L.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Falkland, V.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Flather, B.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Freeman, L.
Garden, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodhart, L.
Goodlad, L.
Goschen, V.
Greengross, B.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]
Hayhoe, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hooper, B.
Howe, E.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Inglewood, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Kalms, L.
Kilclooney, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kingsland, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Laird, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lane of Horsell, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lindsay, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
McNally, L.
Mar, C.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
13 July 2006 : Column 885
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monson, L.
Montrose, D.
Moore of Lower Marsh, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Newby, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Rawlings, B.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Renton, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Roper, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Sandberg, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Sandwich, E.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Taverne, L.
Tebbit, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tope, L.
Trumpington, B.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walpole, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Windlesham, L.
Acton, L.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. [Lord President.]
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Brennan, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Christopher, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Filkin, L.
Ford, B.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hylton, L.
Kinnock, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Paul, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Quin, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
13 July 2006 : Column 886
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Soley, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Weatherill, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.38 pm
Clause 13 [Section 12: supplementary]:
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 10:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 11:
“(c) because he is no longer committed to upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland,”. “(c) because it is no longer committed to upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland,”. “(da) whether he or it is committed now and in the future to upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland”.”The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would ensure that there will be appropriate consequences for a Northern Ireland Minister who publicly refuses to support the role of the police and to accept the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. In Committee, I dropped a previous amendment concerning Ministers taking an oath to support the judiciary and the police. I believe that this amendment will serve very well. Those who understand the operation of Northern Ireland governance will know that the measure would have to be enacted in the Assembly by a cross-community vote.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that I have carefully considered what he had to say about the difficulty of changing the pledge of office without active agreement from all the parties in Northern Ireland. Although I remain hopeful that the appropriate action will be taken, should it become necessary, I am prepared to leave it to the Northern Ireland Assembly to take those steps.
However, the amendment that I have retabled is very necessary and is appropriate to be put intothis legislation. The criteria for exclusion were first established in primary legislation passed through this House in 1998. Now that the political climate has
13 July 2006 : Column 887
In Committee, the Minister tried to reassure me that there was no chance of a Minister coming to power who did not fully support the police and justice systems. He quoted the leadership of the republican movement as accepting the need to engage in policing and being committed to following a peaceful path. That is quite clearly not enough; the police rely on the active support and help of the community, including the encouragement of Ministers. Imagine a Minister for justice in Northern Ireland who did not support the criminal justice system. Until Sinn Fein and the IRA accept that they must co-operate fully with the police in all matters and encourage their supporters to do the same, they should not be considered ready to take up positions in government.
Unfortunately, that is far from the case. As the Minister said in Committee, Sinn Fein is considering the policing issue. A consideration can go two ways, and if Sinn Fein decides that it will not start co-operating with the police, it is not fit to serve in government and should not be allowed to remain in a position of power. This amendment would ensure that it would be removed and the police would not be further undermined. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, this amendment empowers the Secretary of State to require the Presiding Officer to move a motion in the Assembly excluding people from office if they or their parties do not support the police and uphold the rule of law. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, pointed out, it is unacceptable for a Minister in government, who is running the functions of state, not to support the state—in other words, the police, who help to ensure that the state is run properly. We certainly hope that that will never happen, but these Benches support the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the arguments on this amendment were rehearsed in Grand Committee and in another place. As I said before, I have much sympathy with what the amendment is trying to achieve, but I must disagree with the way in which the noble Lords are seeking to do it. There is no argument with the principle. Indeed, the Government have consistently said that we want all the parties, including Sinn Fein, to support the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. Likewise, we cannot call into question the underlying aim of the amendment, which is that support for what we know as “the rule of law” be embedded into the political life
13 July 2006 : Column 888
It is important that we give due recognition to the arrangements that are already in place in the existing pledge of office under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That pledge of office, which all Ministers must affirm before taking up their posts, already requires a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out in Grand Committee, the wording of the pledge is taken directly from the text agreed in the Good Friday agreement. It has therefore been agreed by the parties and is not to be amended lightly. I should add that amendments to the 1998 Act made in 2003 have shored up and strengthened the requirements set out in the existing pledge of office by allowing consideration of the Independent Monitoring Commission’s recommendations and by providing safeguards where Ministers and parties fail to observe the pledge.
The pledge is not the only requirement to which Northern Ireland Ministers are subject. Throughout the debate, I have repeatedly stated my concern that, while we all understand what is meant by “the rule of law”, it is not easily defined in legal terms and is therefore quite unhelpful when put forward in the amendment. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the heart of what we term “the rule of law” is respect for the independence of the judiciary. This issue was not mentioned in Grand Committee, but we must not overlook the fact that all Northern Ireland Ministers are already subject to a strict statutoryduty, under Section 4 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. It is evident that the rule of law is already protected and therefore we do not needthe further provision afforded by the amendment. Section 4 of the 2005 Act is subtitled:
(d) all with responsibility for matters relating to the judiciary or otherwise to the administration of justice, where that responsibility is to be discharged only in or as regards Northern Ireland”.
Other subsections follow that talk about Ministers not being able to interfere with judicial decisions through any special access to the judiciary. That is on top of the pledge that I have referred to from the Belfast agreement.
As I said at the outset, the underlying aim of embedding support for the rule of law into the political life of Northern Ireland is unquestionable: it is not questioned by me or by anyone in the Government. For the reasons that I have outlined, however, the Government are of the view that the existing arrangements under the 1998 Act and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 are sufficient. We have made it clear, both here and in the other place,
13 July 2006 : Column 889
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, what worries some of us is that we have seen in the papers recently that Sinn Fein activists have sought to justify the murder of a very decent and brave lady in Northern Ireland on the basis that she was an informer. Informers have been treated by Sinn Fein as lowly creatures but, surely, if justice is to be established, we have to have informers. If we had had more of them, perhaps there would have been fewer murders.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not want to go into the detail of that case, which I am aware of from the media, but the fact remains that we need more co-operation with the forces of law and order and the rule of law in order to create in Northern Ireland a normal civic society, which it is not at present.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said. I do not believe that on this occasion my amendment would interfere at all with the pledge of office—I had dropped that amendment. This amendment is purely to make obvious failure to support of the rule of law, the judicial processes and the PSNI a reason for the removal of a Minister.
I felt that the Minister had some sympathy with that. His explanation of Section 4 of the 2005 Act was something that I had not heard before and need to brush up on; in fairness to him and other noble Lords, I should research it a little more. I think that the Government know what we are after here. However, there may be a way in which we can between now and Third Reading bring some provisions of Section 4 to the fore and strengthen the Bill.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |