Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 25 April 2006.

Standing Committee B

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available in the room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to called starred amendments. In addition, I ask hon. Members please to ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or on silent mode during Committee sittings. Finally, I am content on this occasion for hon. Members to remove their jackets if they so wish. We come now to the programme motion, on which debate may continue for up to half an hour.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move,

That the order in which proceedings in Standing Committee on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill are to be taken shall be Clauses 8 and 9, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 13 to 17, Schedule 1, Clause 18, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Schedules relating to Part 4, Clauses 23 to 27, Schedule 3, Clauses 28 to 31, Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 32 to 34, remaining proceedings on the Bill.

I welcome you, Mr. Taylor, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Atkinson, to the Committee. I have served under you on several occasions and I know that you will discharge your duty fairly and efficiently.

The debate in the Programming Sub-Committee took less than 30 seconds, so I assume that there is no opposition from the Official Opposition or others to the programme motion and I hope that the Committee will support it. It gives us scope for two days of consideration, although I hope that we can finish earlier.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I join the Minister in welcoming you to the Committee, Mr. Taylor. I have also had the pleasure of serving under you and I am sure that this, too, will be a pleasurable experience.

The Minister is right in assuming that we have no objection to the programme motion, but I should make just one point, which I have raised before in Committee and in the House. We have rather a lot of Northern Ireland business to consider at the moment. We were due to sit today and on Thursday, but the introduction of another Bill means that we will now not sit on Thursday. In addition, we had a rather ridiculous situation on Tuesday or Wednesday last week, when an important statement was made in the Chamber at the same time as an important statutory instrument Committee was beginning—the two items of business overlapped, even though both were extremely important.

I therefore ask the Government to be a little sympathetic to Opposition parties, which do not have as many Front Benchers and officials as the Government. I also ask them to think about their timetabled legislation. The Bill deals with important issues, such as devolving policing and justice matters to the Assembly. The other Bill, which will be introduced tomorrow, deals with the important issue of setting up the Assembly. Such issues are not trivial, and I ask the Government to give a little more thought to the timetabling of Northern Ireland business. Having said that, I have no objection to the programme motion.

Clause 8

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in clause 8, page 7, line 28, after ‘by', insert

‘Her Majesty The Queen on the recommendation of'.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in clause 8, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘Secretary of State' and insert ‘Her Majesty'.

No. 13, in clause 8, page 7, line 37, leave out ‘dismiss' and insert

‘recommend to Her Majesty the dismissal of'.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I have just agreed to the programme motion, but I do not intend to fill both sittings, although if we need to do so, we shall. I do not want to drag debates out, so I shall speak briefly to the amendment, which is intended to probe the Minister.

I have mentioned in the Chamber the fact that the police ombudsman, for example, is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, no doubt on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. However, the chief electoral officer is to be appointed by the Secretary of State. We had a long debate on that issue on the Floor of the House during discussion of a separate amendment.

I was concerned that there could be a rather incestuous relationship between the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer. It particularly concerned me that, in circumstances that were not clearly defined—they were defined by the words “public interest”—the Secretary of State would have the power to cancel a canvass of the electorate if he felt that appropriate.

We could not satisfactorily tease from the Minister the circumstances in which it might be in the public interest to cancel such a canvass. I have tabled the amendment to explore the situation again and ask the Minister why it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make the appointment. That seems inconsistent with other, similar appointments.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman, and I fully understand why he tabled his amendment. I refer him to the statutory provision that provides for the appointment of the chief electoral officer—the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, in which no mention is made of Her Majesty the Queen. However, the post is, is understood to be and is defined as a Crown appointment. The wording of the clause will preserve the current position; in essence, the chief electoral officer will still be a Crown appointment.

There is no need for the amendment. In fact, inserting a reference to the Queen would put the chief electoral officer, for the first time, on the same statutory footing as, for example, senior clergy in the Church of England. The amendment is unnecessary because the post will be a Crown appointment. Given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The concerns that we raised in Committee in the House remain—we were not satisfied with the explanation on that occasion—but I accept that we were discussing a different amendment on a different day. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 8, page 7, line 30, at end insert—

‘(1A) A person must not be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for less than two years at a time.'.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 8, page 7, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

No. 6, in clause 8, page 7, line 33, leave out subsection (3).

No. 7, in clause 8, page 8, line 5, leave out subsection (6).

No. 23, in clause 8, page 8, line 10, leave out ‘plus' and insert ‘less'.

No. 8, in clause 8, page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (7).

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I, too, am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor—in this and perhaps a second sitting.

We are still discussing clause 8, which concerns the tenure of the chief electoral officer. Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 stand in my name and I shall say a little about each. However, I would like to remind the Committee of the words of the Minister in his winding-up speech on Second Reading. Speaking about the chief electoral officer and his independence, the Minister said:

“The proposal will bring the chief electoral officer into line with other modern approaches and modern terms and conditions of appointment.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1244.]

I would be thrilled and delighted to hear from the Minister which other modern approaches and modern terms and conditions of appointment are mirrored by those of the chief electoral officer. I say that specifically because, under clause 8(3), the period for which a person holds office as chief electoral officer must not exceed 10 years. That seems clear. There is no discretion.

This is where my amendment No. 23 is particularly important. It applies to subsection (6), which drives a coach and horses through the provision that the fixed-term appointment must not exceed 10 years. It sets out an exception to that golden rule and states:

“This section applies in relation to the person who at commencement holds the office of Chief Electoral Officer as if...the total period which under subsection (3) must not be exceeded were 10 years plus the period of his appointment before commencement.”

If the Minister wishes to have a fixed term and wishes to have, as he said on Second Reading, the chief electoral officer brought into line with other modern approaches, let us have a fixed term of 10 years and let us replace the word “plus” with “less”. Let us have 10 years. Let us have a fixed-term appointment. That is the purpose of amendment No. 23.

I turn now to amendment No. 20, which is the lead amendment in the group. Curiously, subsection (2) states:

“A person must not be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for more than 5 years at a time.”

That seems clear. However, it means that the person who is appointed as chief electoral officer could be appointed for a week, a month or an hour. I gently suggest to the Minister that one of the modern examples to which he referred on Second Reading could have been a reflection of the appointment of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. According to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, an appointment as ombudsman may be full-time or part-time, but it

“shall be for a period of 7 years.”

That was the modern approach to take to the appointment of the chief electoral officer.

Under the Bill, the chief electoral officer has no security of tenure and cannot be appointed for more than five years. Amendment No. 20 would secure a basic minimum tenure of two years for the chief electoral officer. That is a significant and responsible position, particularly in Northern Ireland where we have a history of electoral fraud. Can the Minister explain why this phraseology has been used? Is it just poor drafting? Will he accept the amendments, even at this late stage?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I understand the spirit in which the hon. Lady tabled the amendments. There is nothing unusual in the way that the clause is drafted. It uses similar terms and conditions to those used in other legislation, for example, provisions relating to the commissioners on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the police ombudsman. The same conditions and the same method of appointment that apply under this clause apply to those posts. All those office holders, like the office holder we are discussing, are, of course, independent of the Government. Therefore, they are useful role models in respect of the appointment of the chief electoral officer. The time limit on their terms does not in any way diminish their independence.

As the hon. Lady identified, under clause 8, the chief electoral officer can be appointed for a term of up to 5 years, and nobody can hold the post for more than 10 years. I have also made something clear about the incumbent at the time the Bill is enacted. Denis Stanley has recently retired as chief electoral officer and we are in the process of appointing a new one. I am not yet clear, as you will not be either, Mr. Taylor, when or if the Bill will receive Royal Assent. Therefore, we have said that the time scale for the appointment of the chief electoral officer will commence when Royal Assent is given to the Bill and when it is enacted. An individual might be appointed in the next few months and they will have up to 10 years, plus the period up until the Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that that clarifies matters.

I understand the reasons why the hon. Lady wishes to specify a minimum period. I simply say to her that the normal practice is that individuals will be appointed for up to five years and that will, in normal practice, mean five years; there are few circumstances in which I can foresee the Secretary of State appointing someone for less time than that.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister agree that the present wording indicates that the person who is appointed chief electoral officer, and who will take up the work that Denis Stanley has been doing so courageously and well for such a long period, can be appointed for just a week or just a month? The Minister referred to “normal practice”. Why will he not simply change the wording to make it clear that the initial appointment will be for a term of not less than five years?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I can confirm to the hon. Lady that the Bill, as drafted, will ensure that a person can be appointed for a term of up to five years. I am happy, outside the Committee, to reflect on the points that she has made. There might be merit in specifying a minimum term, but the normal practice for other posts is the same as is in this provision. I hope that she can accept that. I shall happily examine whether it is in the interests of the chief electoral officer and the Government to consider her proposals, because there might be merit in them. I shall not prejudge the case. The normal practice is proposed in the Bill. Given those comments, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Minister. I am glad that I intervened, because following my intervention he gave a commitment, honourably and rightly, as is his habit, to listen to representations, particularly those from Members from Northern Ireland, who have particular concerns having grown up there, borne the brunt, and known what electoral fraud means and how votes are stolen. Stealing votes is a serious criminal offence. The office of the chief electoral officer is a particularly important one in Northern Ireland.

I am reflecting on earlier clauses, which I shall not comment on in detail. The Minister will know from a debate on the Floor of the House last week, that the Bill, in its earlier clauses, also abolishes the annual canvass and has instituted a canvass that might take place at 10-yearly intervals. That means that it is important that whoever is appointed as Denis Stanley’s successor has independence. Such independence is brought about by a secure tenure in post of at least five years and up to 10 years, and not by their having a short minimum period. If fraud is creeping back into the system, and if the antennae of those in the electoral office tell them that there is mischief, such as people being registered to vote who are not entitled to do so, it is important that the chief electoral officer has been in post for a considerable period of time.

Reflecting on the change to the annual canvass and the importance of the point that the chief electoral officer should be independent and have security of tenure, I look forward to subsequent discussions with the Minister on this point after the Committee. However, given his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 41, leave out ‘an' and insert ‘a criminal'.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Secretary of State must set out in writing the reasons for dismissing the Chief Electoral Officer in this section and place a copy before each House of Parliament.'.

No. 21, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.'.

No. 22, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—

‘(5B) The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment whether suspended or not.'.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 22 relate to the chief electoral officer him or herself, who will be appointed shortly. Again, it is curious drafting that has caught my attention and led to my tabling of the amendments. Clause 8(5)(b) is critical in relation to the amendment. It contains a discretion, not a duty that

“The Secretary of State may dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that—...

b) he”—

or presumably she—

“has been convicted of an offence”.

What jumped off the page was the omission of the word “criminal”. I am not a member of a golf club, but without anything to limit it, the word “offence” includes offences referred to as disciplinary offences, which are breaches of the rules of a golf club—or those of other organisations. I am sure that it is not intended that the Secretary of State may dismiss the chief electoral officer for a minor infringement of golf club rules.

Amendment No. 19 would ensure that the word “criminal” is included in the subsection to make it clear that the current drafting is far too wide and would ensure that the wording is narrowed to make it clear that only a criminal offence would be relevant. That would bring the wording into line with the appointment of members to the Policing Board. I notice that the Minister has his colleague who is responsible for policing and security with him, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). Given the recent controversy about appointments to the Policing Board, I am sure that both Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office will know that the Secretary of State may, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, dismiss and remove an independent or a political appointment to the Policing Board, if that person has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland after their appointment.

Regarding amendments Nos. 21 and 22, I repeat that the office of the chief electoral officer is important because its holder carries out a job that gives confidence to the public in Northern Ireland. The person in question must be satisfactorily qualified and remain qualified to command the respect of the community in Northern Ireland, whatever community it might be. Amendment No. 21 would insert a requirement for the Secretary of State to dismiss the chief electoral officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.

Amendment No. 22 would ensure that the Secretary of State must dismiss— [Interruption.] This is for the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who, I am sure, will wish to comment on this amendment. Amendment No. 22 would ensure that the Secretary of State must dismiss the chief electoral officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whether suspended or not. It seems incredible to me that even if the chief electoral officer has been found guilty of a heinous crime that carries with it a term of imprisonment, there is no duty under the Bill to require the chief electoral officer to stand down from his post. We are not talking about a member of staff in the electoral office, but the chief electoral officer himself or herself.

It is incumbent upon the Minister to accept the amendments so that there will be no discretion for the Secretary of State and so that the removal of the chief electoral officer will be compulsory when the criminal conviction carries a sentence of imprisonment. I am not aiming at minor infringements of the criminal law, but at the compulsory removal of a chief electoral officer who has been found guilty of a criminal offence that is punishable by a term of imprisonment. That is the simple import of the amendments, which are all sensible and straightforward. The Minister would do well to accept them.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I shall speak to amendment No. 9, which may sound a little heavy-handed and bureaucratic. However, I refer the Committee back to our debate on the Floor of the House about the control that the Secretary of State might have over the chief electoral officer and the concern that was expressed at the time. I refer to the opportunity for the Secretary of State to cancel a canvass of the electorate that might be recommended by the chief electoral officer, and the fact that his reasons for cancelling such a canvass are apparently covered by the words “in the public interest”. We did not receive a satisfactory explanation of that phrase.

The chief electoral officer can be dismissed for the reasons set out in the Bill. According to clause 8(5)(d), those include if

“he is unable or unfit to carry out his functions.”

That could be considered slightly vague. In the context of Northern Ireland, in particular, it is important to have a chief electoral officer with some degree of autonomy and independence. I am concerned that that will not be the case under the arrangements that have been made.

I will not try the patience of the Committee by going over the ground that we covered on the Floor of the House, as hon. Members will be familiar with what was said. However, if relations become strained between the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer, it should be made public why the Secretary of State feels the need to dismiss the chief electoral officer. It seems a bit bureaucratic to lay the report before the Houses of Parliament, but I do not think that it would take up a great deal of the Secretary of State’s time. There are not many changes taking place with regard to drawing up the list of electors, but transparency and, more importantly, confidence in the process in Northern Ireland are essential. That is my motivation in introducing amendment No. 9.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I want to add my tuppence-worth to the comments made by my learned colleague, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). The point is that the chief electoral officer needs to be seen to be independent and to be as autonomous as possible. Others have expressed significant concerns, which are genuine. It is possible—I hasten to add not under the present Government, as no such thing would ever happen with the present team of Ministers—that a future Government could try to exercise control over the chief electoral officer.

The SDLP shares those concerns and thinks that it would be right to build in that sensible safeguard. All it will do is require the Secretary of State to set out his reasons for dismissal of a chief electoral officer in a report to Parliament. We think that is entirely appropriate. We are therefore pleased to have the opportunity to add our names to the amendment and urge the Ministers to take our genuine concern into consideration.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Hopefully, I can reassure him that the chief electoral officer is and will be independent of the Government. The safeguards in the Bill allow that position to be independent. It is reflected throughout the Bill and in the way in which the current Government operated with the previous chief electoral officer, Denis Stanley.

I understand the points that the hon. Member for North Down made. I do not believe that the word “criminal” is necessary. It is used in other legislation—and there are different drafting styles in legislation—but the meaning of this Bill is exactly the same as the meaning of other Acts with regard to criminal convictions. It is not necessary to specify that the offence in clause 8(5)(b) should be criminal.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister just name one piece of recent Northern Ireland legislation where the word “criminal” has been omitted from in front of the word “offence”—just one?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am the fount of much knowledge and I have taken through a number of Northern Ireland Bills but, off the top of my head, I cannot answer that particular question.

However, clause 8(5)(b) does refer to criminal offences, as the clause is clear that the chief electoral officer can be dismissed only if a conviction has taken place, and convictions are available only in the criminal courts. Therefore, although I accept that the word “criminal” is not included in the clause, in essence, a conviction means a conviction in a criminal court, and that means exactly the same as what the hon. Lady’s amendment is trying to achieve.

I could add the word “criminal” into the legislation. There is not a problem with that, but the Bill, as drafted by myself and my officials, will achieve the same purpose. If the hon. Lady so wants, I am happy to reflect on whether the word “criminal” should be included, but the effect will be the same.

Mr. Robertsonrose—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, it is important to clarify matters, because I want to refer to amendments Nos.21 and 22 that the hon. Lady has tabled. I differ from her because under her amendments, the chief electoral officer would be dismissed if he or she were convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whether suspended or not, at any time during his or her career. I want to ensure that a criminal offence would mean a dismissal if it occurred during the tenure of the chief electoral officer, not historically.

I am not suggesting that any future Secretary of State or, indeed, Her Majesty would appoint a chief electoral officer who has criminal convictions. However, the clause is designed specifically to ensure that if a criminal conviction occurs during the tenure of the office, the Secretary of the State can dismiss the individual. As we discussed last week in the Chamber, previous convictions are matters for consideration but are not a bar to holding the particular office.

I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). There may be a need for a statement on the reasons why the dismissal of the chief electoral officer has occurred. Clause 8(5)(a),(b),(c) and (d) show clearly the circumstances in which a chief electoral officer may be dismissed by the Secretary of State. It would be an additional bureaucratic burden for the Secretary of State to undertake the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. He used those words when speaking to the amendment. I agree with him that it would be an additional bureaucratic burden.

Should the chief electoral officer have need to contest why the Secretary of State dismissed him or her, he or she has recourse in law, as does any individual dismissed from a post. They could also make their complaints public if they so wish. So if the Secretary of State had acted in an underhand way, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the chief electoral officer could go public with the reasons why he or she was dissatisfied with that decision. To add a legal requirement to produce a report for Parliament would be a step too far. I hope that the safeguards built into the clause will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

With that, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. I hope that I have given a satisfactory explanation of the way in which we approached the legislation and that I have satisfied hon. Members on the points raised.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am terribly sorry to disappoint the Minister but I did not find his response satisfactory in the least. He kindly said that he “could”—I am quoting him directly—add the word “criminal”. That is precisely what I am asking him to do under amendment No. 19. I understand from the Minister’s hesitation that he accepts that “criminal” should have been included.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There is no hesitation on my part; I simply say to the hon. Lady that the clause does what she wishes it to do. If a conviction occurred, it would occur in a criminal court, and the individual would be dismissed on that basis. That is an accepted definition. There are differences in drafting styles between different Bills, but that is an accepted definition, and I hope that it will satisfy the hon. Lady that there is no need for her amendment, which would add an extra word to the Bill but not change its meaning.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Minister. I can assist him with some references to recent Northern Ireland legislation on that very matter. He might like to know that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 says:

“The Secretary of State may call upon the Ombudsman”—

that is the police ombudsman—

“to retire...if satisfied that the Ombudsman has...been convicted of a criminal offence”.

That is written into the Act. Let me refer the Minister also to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, a more recent piece of legislation. He may like to know that schedule 1, which relates to the Policing Board, says that:

“The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as an independent or political member of the Board if satisfied that...he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland”.

The word “criminal” appears in that Act. Those are recent pieces of legislation in Northern Ireland in which the word “criminal” is included. That is what I am asking about.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have no wish to cause a row where a row need not exist. Essentially, the hon. Lady will be aware that the legislation that we support has exactly the same meaning as her amendment. I am happy to reflect on the matter with my officials and to write to the hon. Lady. I would rather do that because as the hon. Lady will understand, in Committee, the wording of legislation is carefully thought-out by parliamentary draftsmen to have specific meanings. I believe that the meaning of the legislation is exactly the same as it would be if we added the word “criminal”. I would rather reflect on the matter than accept the amendment for the simple reason that there may be different circumstances.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I call Lady Hermon.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for assuring me that, once again, he will reflect upon the inclusion of the word “criminal” in front of the word “offence” in clause 8(5). It just seems a simple, obvious request for clarification in the Bill to make it consistent with earlier pieces of Northern Ireland legislation. The Bill is poorly drafted; that is the problem. I would like the word “criminal” included.

The more important issue—and here I will have an argument with the Minister—is his refusal to accept the amendments that make reference to the chief electoral officer, including amendment No. 21, which says:

“The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.”

Alternatively, amendment No. 22 says:

“The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment whether suspended or not.”

The Minister took issue with the amendments on the grounds that they could relate to a previous conviction held by the chief electoral officer. I am sure that it is not necessary to draw the Minister’s attention to this point, but clause 8(5)(c) gives the Secretary of State the power to dismiss the chief electoral officer if he is satisfied that

“a bankruptcy order has been made against him, or his estate has been sequestrated, or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors”.

Does it say that that must have happened during the term of his office as chief electoral officer? No, it does not. The Bill does not refer to a criminal conviction. However, it does refer to a bankruptcy order, sequestration or a composition arrangement with creditors.

I humbly—though in ill temper—suggest to the Minister that it is much more serious for a chief electoral officer to have been found guilty of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. That should be in the Bill, and the Minister’s excuse for refusing to include it is woeful, taken in the context of the Bill’s provisions for dismissal on grounds of bankruptcy, whether past or current. The Bill does not set a time scale. I am sorry to detain the Committee but I refuse to withdraw the amendment.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Is it the hon. Lady’s intention to press amendments Nos. 21 and 22 to a Division?

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I would be persuaded, if the Minister would care to intervene to indicate that he is prepared to reflect on making the Bill more—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. The debate is concluded. The decision to press the amendments to a Division is in the hon. Lady’s hands.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Yes. I do want to.

Clause 13

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Taylor, for the opportunity to discuss this clause briefly. Under the legislation, donations to political parties in Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland will still be permitted. In no way do I want to make a party political point, but the concern is that donations from the Republic benefit certain political parties to the exclusion of others. The objective of much of our debate, and legislation that has been introduced through statutory instruments and primary legislation, is to normalise the situation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I welcome the attempts to normalise and, where possible, make comparable the situation. Some of this legislation works towards that. One aspect that does not is the provision for donations to political parties in Northern Ireland to come from donors in the south.

There is a further complication. It is possible for people who live abroad—in America, for example—to make donations to political parties in Northern Ireland not necessarily directly, but through citizens of the Republic. That is a concern. I would have liked to limit the amount of time for which the provision exists, stating that from, let us say, 2010, such donations would no longer be acceptable.

The Government’s explanation for allowing donations from the south to be made to the north is that the two countries are inextricably linked, and one party at least is registered in both countries, so it is acceptable. However, if we are moving towards normalisation and equalisation, I do not think that it is acceptable for that situation to continue. Therefore, I am concerned that the Government seem to be prepared to let it carry on indefinitely, whereas I would have sought to end it—not necessarily today or tomorrow, but certainly by putting a three or four-year limit on the arrangement. I look forward to hearing other hon. Members comments, because I know that the issue is of concern to a number of parties in Northern Ireland, and to finding out what the Minister has to say about the situation.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I very much welcome the fact that, in many ways, this part of the Bill represents a sensible way forward. Some would argue that the same rules on disclosure should apply to Northern Ireland as to Britain. There are good reasons why that is not the case for now. The simple reason is that Northern Ireland is not the same as Britain at present. Political life, in particular, is very different. Sectarianism, intimidation, extortion and violence all have a role to play in that difference, and they played a significant role in creating it. That is why the Committee on Standards in Public Life originally asked the Government to consider a short-term and reviewable exemption from the recording requirements in respect of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland.

Matters have improved in Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for that, but violence, sectarianism, intimidation and extortion still remain fairly serious problems. For example, during the Whiterock riots of last year, over a period of three days 146 blast bombs were thrown, 115 shots were fired, 116 vehicles were hijacked and 81 policemen and women were injured. Sectarianism remains a problem. Some 700 incidents took place in a few months last year, amounting to about five a day. Paramilitary extortion remains a big problem. In spite of that, two thirds of cases could not be pursued because the complainant did not want the police to take action. In many cases, the complainant will not approach the police at all. All that affects people’s willingness openly to support or donate to political parties, and to contribute the finance necessary to support genuine democracy and political life. Many business men would like to operate on a cross-community basis and do not particularly want to be strongly identified with one particular party.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that while we are trying to instil confidence in the political system, the secrecy that surrounds donations and loans to political parties undermines it? Extortion is a criminal offence, and it is about time that people reported it and co-operated with the police. Does he not agree that openness is the way to build confidence in our political system at home?

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I totally agree with the hon. Lady—in a normal society. The difficulty is that we still have a somewhat abnormal society. While others might not be, I am fully conscious that many people who would want to support me, or have done so, or have at times supported my party, are subject to threats and intimidation from sources of a paramilitary nature. I do not wish to subject people to that.

My political party needs money. It is an open and honest party that survives on the votes of its supporters and on small donations from a series of supporters. There is nothing underhand or dishonest about where we obtain our funds. My point is that, in the short term, to declare our sources openly is to put those responsible at high risk. I make that point genuinely and sincerely, and if people wish to disagree I regret that. However, I am not making it for any underhand reason. People are threatened and intimidated, and I emphasise that this has happened to my party’s donors. For obvious reasons, I do not wish to go into detail and expose them further.

It would have been reasonable to continue to exempt Northern Ireland political parties from reporting requirements beyond 31 October 2007. However, we understand that Parliament wants greater transparency. For that reason, we accept that donations above £5,000 should be reported to the Electoral Commission, although we are adamant that they should not be made public.

However, we have concerns even at this stage, as we know that from time to time paramilitaries have tried to infiltrate public bodies. For example, in October 2004, a member of the Real IRA, one of the dissident groups, was accessing personal information from the database of the Royal Victoria hospital. That is a concern. From that perspective, we would be keen to have information lodged in London, where it might be safer, rather than in an office in Belfast.

In the light of the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down, I emphasise that the SDLP is not in any way in favour of unregulated political donations. We accept the ban on foreign donations, as long as Irish citizens and Irish companies can donate. Further, and critically, we advocate the simplest and most effective of all regulation, a ban to ban all—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. The debate is on clause 13 stand part. I am allowing the hon. Member to make comments on other clauses in part 4 on the understanding that they are not repeated when those clauses arise, but I request that he conclude his remarks.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am happy to leave my comments at that, Mr. Taylor.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The proposed amendment aims to hold the Government to their word. They have said that they want the final disapplication period to end on 31 October 2010 and have planned for that in clause 17. However, they are notorious for introducing plan Bs. We are concerned about that, and are therefore sympathetic to the amendment.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I confirm again that we are dealing with clause 13 stand part. We have not reached the Government amendment on clause 15, to which I believe the hon. Member may be referring.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

In which case, I shall hold off. As you rightly say, Mr. Taylor, my points would be better made on clause 15, so I shall wait until then.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I want briefly to comment on clause 13. I am conscious of your comments, Mr. Taylor, about other clauses. I could speak to clause 18, but as there are no amendments down for that clause, perhaps it would be best to speak in this stand part debate.

The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury would put a time limit on the power of clause 18; that is, when it would cease to have effect. Clause 18 raises some concerns, in that no sooner have we passed the legislation than much of it can be changed by order—within two months, in fact—by the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, the Government are notorious for suddenly coming up with a plan B. Therefore, one sometimes wonders what this is all for if within two months it can be changed by statutory instrument.

In speaking to the amendment and clause 13 itself, I ask whether it is right that the clause is put in to allow clause 18 to come into effect and remove all the work that might be done in this Committee and perhaps in another place. I do not like having so many clauses that allow legislation to be changed so soon after it has gone through the House. In principle, that is wrong. Therefore, clause 13 and clause 18, to which it leads, should be opposed.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I should point out that amendment No. 10 has not been moved.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Briefly, I want to echo the points made by the hon. Member for North Down. The more transparency there is about political donations, the better, especially in the current climate, where there is great suspicion over how some parties have raised money and why people have donated to them. It is important for us all that there is a degree of transparency.

I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell). He said that Northern Ireland is different and that there is intimidation, extortion, violence, blast bombs and shots—he went through a whole catalogue of things. It is strange that someone who has lectured us about the fact that everyone has changed so much should use that convenient argument as an excuse for secrecy over political donations.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

All I want to do is inquire whether the hon. Gentleman is denying the facts that I have placed before the Committee. The facts are there as facts and they cannot be denied.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not denying those facts, but they are no excuse for secrecy over party political donations. Some business men make their party political affiliations well known, but none has faced intimidation or been put under pressure because people knew the parties to which they donated or were affiliated. It is important that there is a degree of transparency.

The other issue is how donations to political parties can be channelled from the Irish Republic. Given that such donations are likely to benefit one party alone—Sinn Fein—I would have thought that the hon. Member for Belfast, South was keen to close that conduit of funds. As has been said, many of Sinn Fein’s friends from across the world can channel funds through sympathisers in the Irish Republic and so add to Sinn Fein’s coffers. When one looks at the army—I use the word advisedly—that Sinn Fein can put out during elections, one sees that some of its members are paid daily to canvass areas and sometimes re-canvass them four or five times.

Sinn Fein councillors on Belfast city council say that they are allocated 30 people to canvass and re-canvass areas to ensure that people are registered and that their message gets across. Such organisation requires huge funding and disadvantages the hon. Gentleman’s party perhaps even more than mine, because he is in direct competition with Sinn Fein.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Gentleman will not be aware of a conversation that I had with Mr. Seamus Mallon, a former Member of the House. He told me that Sinn Fein had 200 paid activists in his area, and that is from a nationalist politician, not a Unionist politician.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That is exactly the point that I am trying to make and why I find the attitude of the hon. Member for Belfast, South so strange. The less transparency there is about funding arrangements or conduits from the Irish Republic to parties in Northern Ireland—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that this is a clause stand part debate. Clause 13 relates to periods of introduction, but I have allowed people a little latitude to refer to the clauses that it applies to. I ask him to keep his remarks within those boundaries.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you for that leeway, Mr. Taylor. I will draw my remarks to a close. The provisions ought to be removed as soon as possible, so that the laws on political funding in Northern Ireland can be brought into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom as quickly as possible.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The clause states the commencement dates for the Bill’s provisions relating to donations. I should make it clear to the Committee that the Government wish to see the situation in Northern Ireland regulated as quickly as possible to the same level as in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should move to a situation of openness and transparency in political party funding and donations.

Passing the Bill requires the rules on permissible donors and the declaration of accepted donations to the Electoral Commission to be brought into line with rules for the rest of the United Kingdom at the earliest opportunity. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South has pointed out several areas of potential intimidation, and we are acutely aware that although we are working toward and wish to see the normalisation of the political process in Northern Ireland, we are not quite there yet.

I recognise that there are still potential issues of intimidation and threats, and that individuals in Northern Ireland still cannot openly declare their funding support for any political party. Due to a range of potential threats, they cannot publish fully their financial support in the name of transparency. Clause 13 will establish a transitional period from November 2007 to October 2010, at the end of which I hope that Northern Ireland will move to full transparency. As Committee members will be aware, clause 13 and later clauses create the potential for donation declarations to the Electoral Commission to be held but not published until such time as the Secretary of State and I feel it appropriate to recommend otherwise.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

But can the Minister not see the irony in that? All that paramilitary organisations must do to ensure that the Government never implement a change is carry on intimidating people who donate to other parties.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that could undoubtedly be accepted by the Committee. However, it is my hope that the Committee, the Government and all political parties in Northern Ireland will accept that during the next three to four years, political party and election funding in Northern Ireland could move from having no regulation—it is entirely different from the rest of the United Kingdom in that it has no regulation of foreign donations—to having regulation on both foreign donations and political party funding donations, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of Northern Ireland’s special circumstances, we will move to full transparency over time. We have determined in the Bill that that period will last until 2010, but it could be shorter if the situation removes itself.

I accept that the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described could indeed happen, but I do not suspect that the Government will be in that position in due course. I believe that Northern Ireland is moving toward being a normal society. Tomorrow, the Independent Monitoring Commission report on the Provisional IRA and progress on decommissioning will be published. I believe that that will show further progress, and that Northern Ireland is moving toward being a more normal society. It is my hope that it will move speedily.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Most policies in Northern Ireland are subject to equality impact assessments. Will the Minister tell us whether an equality impact assessment has been carried out for the legislation on foreign donations and what its outcome was?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am happy to confirm for the hon. Gentleman that an equality assessment on the draft legislation was undertaken. I do not have the details of the outcome before me, but I would not have introduced the legislation if it was discriminatory in any way. I hope that that satisfies him.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that the section on foreign donations will benefit exclusively nationalist and, particularly, republican parties and therefore could not have met the conditions in the equality impact assessment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, I do not accept that. I believe that the ban on foreign donations will occur, but, as was referred to by the hon. Gentleman, we have made an exception for the special situation in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. We have allowed eligible individuals and bodies that donate to Irish political parties to continue to donate to parties in the north.

Let me put it this way to the hon. Gentleman: I do not know what the 3 million people who live in the Irish Republic will do with their donations—if they wish to make any—and to which political parties in the north they would make them. They might support the Ulster Unionist party or the Democratic Unionist party in the Republic. They might support the Social Democratic and Labour party or, indeed, Sinn Fein. They might support a range of parties.

I cannot speak for the 3 million people in the Republic and their donating habits. The point is that because of the special relationship and the Good Friday agreement, we have maintained that position. We will come on to amendments relating to it in later clauses, and I would prefer to discuss such matters at that stage.

The Irish Government themselves have indicated that they are looking at their own political funding regime. They have no imminent plans to introduce such proposals, but they are looking at the possibility. In the event of such changes arising, and under clause 13 and other powers in the Bill, we could reflect those changes in legislation by order, should we so wish. Certainly, Northern Ireland Office officials are in discussion with Irish Government officials about the joint objective of both Governments, which is to ensure political transparency in donations and that foreign donations from outside of the island of Ireland are banned, as they are in the United Kingdom.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

I have allowed the Minister to continue with remarks that more properly relate to clause 15 and others, but I trust that such remarks will not be repeated at length in subsequent debate.

Clause 14

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 14, page 10, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, leave out subsection (5).

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I should make a declaration at the beginning of my comments on anything to do with donations for political purposes or to political parties in that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. In that capacity, I take, for obvious reasons, a particular interest in any changes to legislation that apply to political donations, loans and anything akin to them. My views are my own entirely—the issue before us has not been discussed at any length in the Speaker’s Committee.

With that preface to my remarks, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 24 and 25. They relate specifically to clause 14 of this miscellaneous—extremely miscellaneous—provisions Bill and the final disapplication period, which is defined as

“(a) starting with the day on which this section comes into force, and

(b) ending with 31st October 2007.”

The amendments would remove subsections (4) and (5) from the clause. I have difficulty with what is meant by those subsections, although I am sure that the Minister will clarify their meaning when he responds to my proposals.

As drafted, clause 14(4) means that section 54(2)(c) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will be effective

“in relation to any donation received during the final disapplication period by—

(a) a Great Britain party, or

(b) a regulated donee who is resident or carries on activities in Great Britain,

as if it referred to a Great Britain party only.”

Speaking personally, that is gobbledegook to the hon. Member for North Down. I would be thrilled and delighted to be able to understand the legislation. Lovely, the Minister is indicating that he wants to intervene. Excellent!

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I shall try to assist the hon. Lady. In practical terms, the amendments would allow Great Britain parties, regulated donees and others to receive foreign donations from Northern Ireland parties as a back-door route during the disapplication period, because of the lack of regulation in Northern Ireland during that period. That is the purpose of the provisions.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

That is most helpful. So in clause 14 we are being asked to approve back-door donations. Did I understand correctly?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, the purpose is to stop back-door donations.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

It is just as well that the Minister clarified that. [Interruption.]

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The hon. Member for East Antrim is always very agitated and interested in making comments, whether sedentary or not, but I am sure that he will get his opportunity shortly.

The Minister has now indicated that the effect of the clause is to stop back-door donations to Great Britain parties, and I am delighted with that assurance. I was particularly struck that, coincidentally, exactly a week after Second Reading of the Bill on 13 March, the Lord Chancellor made an important statement in the House of Lords about political parties and funding, and about donations and loans in particular. He indicated that

“The Government intend to move amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill, currently before this House, to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans they receive. This issue affects all political parties”

—I emphasise all political parties—and he said

“I have today written to the leaders of all political parties represented at Westminster, and to the Electoral Commission, seeking their views on the elements of a reporting regime, including whether it should be retrospective.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 12.]

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I confirm that it is the Government’s intention to introduce regulations to that effect in Northern Ireland.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister is obviously in a good mood this morning. He may not have been willing to insert the word “criminal” before the word “offence”, but he is now indicating that, when there is a mind to do something within the Government, they can move very quickly.

On the amendment, may I just test the Minister? The amendment tabled in my name is intended to remove subsection (5) from clause 14, because it is difficult to understand, and any member of the Committee may agree with the hon. Member for North Down on that, not just the Minister. It reads:

“References in Schedule 2A to the 1983 Act to a permissible donor falling within section 54(2) are to be read, in relation to any donation received during the final disapplication period by a candidate at an election in Great Britain, as not including a Northern Ireland party.”

The amendment is a probing one, because I need to be able to understand the legislation that we are being asked to approve in the Bill. As it stands, and even when read alongside the relevant legislation, it is extremely difficult to understand. Will the Minister clarify the scope of the paragraph? My other comments about donations will be taken in connection with clause 15.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope that through my interventions on both points, I have assured the hon. Lady. For the avoidance of any doubt, however, subsections (4) and (5) of clause 14 introduce a ban on Northern Ireland political parties in the disapplication period up to 31 October 2010 from making donations to regulated donees or candidates standing for election in Great Britain. In practical terms, her amendments would allow GB parties, regulated donees and candidates to use Northern Ireland parties as a back door through which they could accept foreign donations during the period in which donations were not as yet banned in Northern Ireland. Ours is a simple method of ensuring that during the period when the Act is disapplied to Northern Ireland, there is no back door by which mainland GB parties can receive donations via Northern Ireland. That is the sole purpose of those two subsections.

I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady. With regard to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs made about loans, we intend to ensure that, with specific modifications, Northern Ireland is dealt with in exactly the same way as the United Kingdom. I shall introduce appropriate amendments to deal with that matter at an appropriate stage during our considerations.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Minister. That was a helpful clarification, and I pay tribute to those who drafted the notes to provide that clear explanation of those subsections. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs confirmed on 20 March that he had written to the leaders of all political parties represented at Westminster. Although five Sinn Fein Members do not physically take their seats at Westminster, they receive money analogous to Short money. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State has written to the president of Sinn Fein, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), asking that party for its views about openness in relation to loans?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am sorry, but I missed the hon. Lady’s point.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I shall sum up for the Minister’s benefit. I shall not question what that Secretary of State told the House of Lords; I simply want it clarified. He said:

“I have today written to the leaders of all political parties represented at Westminster”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 12.]

My point was that there are technically five Sinn Fein Members and a political party known as Sinn Fein represented at Westminster, but they do not physically take their seats; so will the Minister intervene on the hon. Member for North Down and assure her that the Secretary of State wrote to the president of Sinn Fein, the hon. Member for Belfast, West, inviting him to disclose the details of loans and donations to Sinn Fein, and say whether those details should be retrospective?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Not only did the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs raise the matter, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to political parties in Northern Ireland and their leaders to ask them for their views on it. They obviously included the hon. Member for Belfast, West, even though he chooses not to take his seat in this place. Although he chooses not to do so, he and his colleagues are still elected.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 15

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 28, leave out ‘has' and insert ‘and “members association” have'.

This is a technical amendment, which corrects a drafting error. It ensures consistency with the 2000 Act. I commend it to the Committee.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 11, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 12.

I am sure that other members of the Committee will wish to keep fit by rising to speak on clause 15, which deals with the extension of categories of permissible donors.

There has been considerable controversy over recent weeks, which has affected all parties represented in the Committee, but not individuals, about loans and donations to political parties—including to my party. Controversy over the financial position of the Ulster Unionist party is quite different from that which has affected other parties, but I shall not go into detail.

The purpose of the amendment is to find out why clause 15 includes the provision that I wish to have deleted. Subsection (2) of proposed new section 71B states:

“A description or category of body must not be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that a body of that description or category would be entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party.”

It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of State should have to be satisfied that a body of a particular description or category is entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party. It is an extraordinary duty to give a Minister in the British Government. I would like the Minister to comment on that.

I was particularly struck by the comments of the Lord Chancellor on 20 March on Government amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill, which is currently being considered by the other place. Those amendments would make it compulsory for political parties to disclose not only donations but loans that they receive. The Minister indicated in an earlier intervention that it is the intention of the Northern Ireland Office to bring Northern Ireland quickly into line with what is happening elsewhere in Great Britain.

In its long title, the Bill states that it allows the Government to make

“miscellaneous amendments to the law relating to Northern Ireland.”

Why, when there was such haste by the Lord Chancellor in relation to other political parties and when the Minister who speaks for the Northern Ireland Office has already indicated that Northern Ireland would be brought into line, cannot we do so post haste? Not only did the Lord Chancellor refer to the Electoral Administration Bill, but the first clause of the Bill, which we debated on the Floor of the House, refers to an order in council making provisions for Northern Ireland

“for purposes corresponding, or similar, to those of section 10 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006”.

For goodness’ sake, if the Minister has indicated that Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the rest of Great Britain in relation to donations and loans, why cannot we do it now? The Bill has not even gone to another place. The Government missed the opportunity to bring forward amendments—[Interruption.]

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do not seek to have a difference of opinion with the hon. Lady where there is not one. The Government intend to bring forward an amendment to ensure that the provision announced by the Lord Chancellor applies to Northern Ireland. We will do that during the parliamentary passage of the legislation. We are not able to do so at the moment, because we need to consider in detail the consequences of that provision for Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady has the assurance that we will do it.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Minister. I take it that he indicates that the amendment will be made in this Bill—or did he indicate that the amendment would be made to the Electoral Administration Bill?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The amendment will be made to the Electoral Administration Bill.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am sorry, but I sigh with exasperation. We are considering the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We have just had a stand part debate on clause 13. We have gone through clause 14 and we are currently considering clause 15, but we have yet to discuss clauses 16, 17 and 18. A substantial part of part 4 is dedicated to “Donations for Political Purposes”.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I want to assure the hon. Lady that what she wants is what we are going to do. I do not mind being attacked in Committee for doing things that she does not want us to do, but I find myself in the strange position of being attacked for things on which I agree with her.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Minister. That was a helpful intervention for someone who claims not to be seeking controversy or a disagreement.

The Minister will know that it is exceptional, unusual and extremely welcome that Northern Ireland matters are dealt with by primary legislation. It is unusual for us to discuss a Bill that we are able to amend. The Minister will know that the vast majority of legislation for Northern Ireland is delegated legislation. I will be aggrieved if the Minister says that the Northern Ireland amendment to the Electoral Administration Bill will be made by delegated legislation. We are considering primary legislation for Northern Ireland clause by clause, with part 4 dedicated to donations for political purposes and loans, to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of Great Britain. I should have liked the Minister, on indicating that he intends to make the changes, to make them meaningfully, where they could be properly scrutinised in discussions on this Bill.

The Electoral Administration Bill is in the House of Lords and will come back—

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

The Minister mentioned his intention to incorporate into the Bill the changes in the legislation going to another place. However, it is not in his power to incorporate the legislation in the Irish Republic. This is a perfect example of a situation where he could introduce in the Bill provisions that would rule out loans that might have an effect in the north of Ireland being used under Irish legislation.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which moves this debate with the Minister on slightly. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on how he will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of Great Britain in the Electoral Administration Bill. I should like him to resolve the matter of whether that will be done by Order in Council.

Picking up on the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, my amendment would delete the reference whereby before a Secretary of State in the British Government can move, he has to be satisfied that

“a body of that description or category would be entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party.”

That is an extraordinary phrase to appear in the Bill. I do not think that any member of the Committee would be thrilled or delighted if it referred to a body of a description or category entitled under French or American law to donate to a French or American political party. Will the Minister clarify what is intended under the clause?

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am sitting here shell-shocked by the strength with which the hon. Lady has made her arguments. In the context of comments made earlier by the hon. Member for East Antrim, I can say that there is a serious misunderstanding in the Committee.

There is an implication that the funding for another political party that has chosen not to take its place in the House is somehow derived from normal political fundraising activities. The resources of 200 paid activists in the Newry and Armagh constituency, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury suggested there were, cannot be obtained through normal political fundraising. Neither he nor I could do that. We are talking at cross-purposes. When 200 such people are put into a constituency, there is an element of paramilitary operation involved rather than normal, legitimate political operation.

I will make no apology, even if I am in a minority of one, for being absolutely opposed to any restrictions on the raising of funds from Irish citizens and corporations. I do not think there is any doubt about my political views. I come to this place because we have very much in common and to represent the people of south Belfast, but I have a different outlook from many Members of the House and of the Committee and I would like to see things done differently. That does not prevent me from participating fully here and doing what I feel is the decent thing.

The survival of the SDLP is at stake, and we make no apology for drawing some of our funding from Irish citizens who do not live in Northern Ireland. That is quite legitimate. It is legitimate for people who see themselves as British to support the Unionist parties and for the Unionist parties to identify closely with people in Britain, and we believe that we are entitled to the same right and interchange.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that all of his intentions could be put into British law by the Minister in this Bill? We could help the SDLP and other parties. We do not have to rely on Irish legislation that is not within the control of the Committee, the House or this Government. We could achieve his aims without being dependent on another state.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is in keeping with the principle of what he wants to achieve for the Minister to make some reference to current Irish legislation, which is fairly tight—as tight as we want to achieve here. That is a good enough benchmark until the objectives are attained by whatever means we wish to use to put them in place here.

To return to my earlier point, the logical outworking of the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement, as others may wish to call it—involves the recognition of people’s right to be accepted as British, Irish or both. When we finally accept that point, it will leave relationships within these islands much healthier and more positive, and we will be able to look forward into the 21st century, rather than back to the 18th or 19th.

It would be entirely wrong to suggest that Irish donations, or indeed Irish laws and Irish regulations, should be treated or viewed in the same manner as those of France, the US, Germany or any other place. That would be clear discrimination against those of us who perceive ourselves as Irish but operating in Northern Ireland.

It is very important to accept and to remind ourselves that Sinn Fein funding is not the issue. Effort is being made again and again to say that if we take action, that will curtail illegitimate funding going towards Sinn Fein. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but looking through some of the reports to the Electoral Commission, we can see that it is not just on fundraising that there are flaws. There are flaws and holes at various levels. They relate to returns, money spent and how it is spent.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that it would be much better to have state funding of all political parties, including the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist party, to get away from any reliance on donations and, of course, loans?

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I entirely agree. State funding could not come half quick enough for me because, frankly, I have to spend far too much of my time talking to and working with people on whom I depend for donations and that distracts me from the work that I want to do. Bring on state funding quickly, please. Without delaying the Committee, I want to make the point that the measure that we are discussing is a direct threat to me and my party, and to make clear my absolute opposition to it.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. I have concerns about the wording in clause 15 that the amendment is designed to remove. Let us look back to 2000, when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was originally debated in the House. The Liberal Democrats accepted that parties that operated on an all-Ireland basis should be able to receive donations from offices in the Republic of Ireland. However, we recognised that, in the absence of similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the provisions of the 2000 Act, which bans parties in Great Britain from receiving foreign donations, would create problems. We agreed to the exemption of Northern Ireland from those provisions on the express condition that the Government would seek talks urgently with the Government of the Irish Republic on introducing similar legislation in Ireland.

Obviously, what the Government of Ireland do in relation to the funding of political parties in the Irish Republic is entirely for them, but can the Minister tell the Committee whether any discussions with the Irish Government have taken place? For example, were the Irish Government willing to consider special arrangements for parties that operate both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic? Can the Minister also explain who is or what bodies are allowed to donate to political parties under Irish law?

The hon. Member for North Down referred to the wording in clause 15 that would require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself

“that a body of that description or category would be entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party.”

The Secretary of State needs to become an expert on Irish law as it relates to donations to political parties. That is what we have concerns about. Ideally, we should be reaching an agreement on this issue with the Government of the Irish Republic.

The Electoral Commission has also expressed concerns about these provisions. Its view is that

“it is difficult to achieve openness and transparency with such a regime.”

The commission has stated that it would like to see a clear definition of the tests of Irish citizenship, so that recipients of donations would be able to check the permissibility of donors. It also states that the legislation should clarify to what extent the commission will be able to check political parties’ compliance with the requirements on donations and whether it will be asked to give an opinion about the extent of political parties’ observance of the requirements. Will the Minister undertake to deal with all those issues, hopefully today, but certainly before consideration on Report?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South are perhaps the most revealing made in the debate so far. He said that the removal of the clause would affect the survival of the SDLP. He is known for over-egging the pudding sometimes, but even if we take his remark with a pinch of salt it confirms the point that I made in an intervention on the Minister that this part of the Bill is discriminatory and is aimed at one section of the Northern Ireland community and one part of the body politic.

I do not think that any Unionist party could make the same comment and claim that without clause 15 its very survival—or any part of its financial arrangements—would be adversely affected. The provisions are particularly directed at the SDLP and will benefit Sinn Fein even more. Therefore, they do not pass one of the essential tests that Northern Ireland legislation is supposed to pass—namely, that it should undergo an equality impact assessment and should not go ahead without good reason, and indeed, usually mitigation as well.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister, now that we have heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, South, what he believes the import of the provision to be and how it got through an equality impact assessment. Anyone in Northern Ireland would find it difficult to accept the Minister’s assurance that the clause would have no adverse impact on any section of the community.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South has made much of the need for the clause to be passed, to reflect his Irishness. As a Unionist, I respect the fact that he looks more towards the Irish Republic than towards the rest of the United Kingdom. However, that does not by any stretch of the imagination justify determining the rules for fundraising and political donations in Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, by means of laws established in another country—albeit one with which some people in Northern Ireland might have an affinity—over which neither the hon. Gentleman nor I, nor any Member of the House, has any control.

That is not acceptable—especially in the light of the record of some parties in the Republic, the laxity of the rules that apply to political donations there and the way parties are allowed to raise money. Some of the stories of sleaze emanating from the Irish Republic would make the honours-for-loans affair here look quite acceptable or even honourable.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Yet is not that very example testimony to the importance of transparency? The Government’s recent experience underlines what happens if one gives loopholes for secrecy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely, and that is why I do not believe that this clause is acceptable. We would not wish the standards that apply in the Irish Republic to be translated to us. That is not a dig at what happens in another country—well, I suppose it is. It also reflects on politicians in Northern Ireland parties if it is seen that the rules are so lax that the required degree of transparency does not exist and there is secrecy that allows parties to hide behind a smokescreen when it comes to raising finance.

I do not particularly agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South on state funding. Although we have security problems in Northern Ireland—members of my party sometimes seek to highlight them more than members of the hon. Gentleman’s party do—that is not a reason for having a cloud of secrecy obscuring the way parties raise funds.

Referring to an earlier clause, the Minister said he wished to close the back door on foreign donations to parties in Great Britain. Yet, at the same time, he is leaving the back door open for foreign donations to parties in Northern Ireland. As a Unionist, I want the same standards to apply to fundraising for parties in Northern Ireland as apply for parties in Great Britain. I also believe that having that degree of transparency in fundraising is a safeguard for parties.

For all those reasons, the amendment is sensible. It would give safeguards to the parties in Northern Ireland and ensure the integrity of any legislation covering party political donations. It would also stop back-door funding. Some of that might well go to the Social Democratic and Labour party, but I believe that far more goes to Sinn Fein. We know from all the other financial arrangements it has had in the past, such as money laundering, that it has no qualms about how funds are raised or where money comes from. Unfortunately, Sinn Fein is now probably one of the richest parties in the United Kingdom per member. It has used that fact to good effect to inflate its political standing in Northern Ireland.

The arguments of the Minister and the hon. Member for Belfast, South do not withstand scrutiny, and the amendment ought to be agreed to.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Unlike the Minister, I have yet to hear the Government talk about the relevant Irish legislation, and I am therefore unsure whether we in the Committee or the House in general have been informed about what it means to hand over some power to Ireland to set electoral rules and laws over us—or certainly over Northern Ireland and the political parties there. I therefore made the effort to look at the Irish legislation. In fact, I looked at two Acts in particular: the Irish Electoral Act 1997 and our Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as it pertains to the Republic of Ireland.

To do so is important, because there are clear exemptions in Ireland that we would not be happy about having in our legislation. For example, all that one needs to do to donate to a political party in the Republic of Ireland is be an Irish citizen. One does not have to live anywhere in particular. One also can donate through support groups, as they are called, or friends. The most famous are Noraid and Friends of Sinn Fein, which are highly proactive and have on many occasions been involved in raising more than funds for political parties.

We have no control over that Irish legislation—not yesterday, not today and certainly not tomorrow. As it stands, it would allow undeclared loans to be made to political parties. That is the point that I was trying to raise earlier with the Minister. He does not have control over the legislation going through the Lords at the moment; he cannot ask for an amendment that allows us to cater for Irish legislation.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I feel it is in order to check whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is utterly unacceptable in any moral context for a party operating in the United Kingdom to accept loans from abroad and not declare them.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I would certainly say that that has been the thrust of legislation since I have been a Member of the House. I do not think that I would want to do that, nor is it appropriate that people who are arrested for fraud are involved in donating to political parties. If the Minister were to go to the Committee in the other place and ask it to cater specifically for Irish legislation, it would probably say, “No, you have your chance: here is your Bill, so why do you not do it?” This is a missed opportunity.

On the support groups, the Standards of Public Office Commission in Ireland will give one the details of donors because, interestingly, Ireland has transparency for its donors. I recognise that Northern Ireland is a special case and that we should allow some leeway in Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that, for now, anonymity is allowed—certainly outside the Electoral Commission.

It is clear that one party—Sinn Fein, which I have chosen specifically—has received nearly $1 million from support groups outside the Republic of Ireland since 1997. In an election year, it is usual for it to receive some $200,000 to $250,000. In addition, it has received other sums of money from citizens who live outside the Republic. That is important, as this party generates a lot of money in a way that it could not in the north of Ireland, nor could any other party.

The Minister could use the legislation to cover the aims of the SDLP or the nationalist parties or those that receive funding from the south—they can have all the exemptions they like. We could say that an Irish citizen living in the Republic of Ireland would be allowed to donate and that a party incorporated north and south of the border could donate—we could do all that—but to turn a blind eye and say, “Well, we’ll leave it up to the Dail to decide, in whichever year,” is short-sighted and certainly foolish.

We do not know what position Sinn Fein will take in elections in the next few years. One has only to listen to the Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic to realise that there are serious concerns about the position Sinn Fein might achieve in the Republic and about the influence it might have—rightly, if elected—on future legislation. If the number of exceptions and exemptions given to Sinn Fein in the north are any yardstick to go by, if they are given in the south, I fear for the future of some Northern Ireland parties, whether nationalist or republican, if, yet again, they are treated unfairly while an individual party is favoured.

As a Conservative, I do not believe in state funding. I notice that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have stated their support for it. There is one party in the United Kingdom that is state funded. Because of the exemptions to the Short rule and its wider remit in receiving state funding, the one party in the United Kingdom that receives state funding, outside the House of Commons, is Sinn Fein. That is yet another irony of the peace process. The one party that is benefiting from all the exceptions and help is not the nationalist SDLP, which plays by the rules, but the other party, which does not.

With clause 15, we therefore get rid of our responsibilities for producing good legislation to Ireland without even trying to focus on what we are trying to achieve. That is an opportunity missed and it will not help the process.

I find it fairly discourteous that the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office have not referred us to or provided us with the detail of Irish legislation, so that we know what that means—it is important. I am interested to know whether the Minister will refer to those Irish Acts and to how people can get round things, and whether he will explain how we can be sure that those Acts protect the interests of the peace process, because that is what it is all about.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the contributions from hon. Members from all parts of the Committee. I can tell the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and for East Antrim straight away that we have an honest disagreement. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South, in that the clause states that Irish citizens and bodies should be allowed to make donations to political parties in Northern Ireland to take account of the historic nature of the special role that the Republic of Ireland has in the affairs of Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend indicated, it is entirely consistent with the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—that relationships between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on such matters should appertain.

I understand where hon. Members are coming. From their perspective, the Republic of Ireland is a foreign power and should be deemed as such under the Bill, as France, Germany, America, Australia or anywhere else in the world would be. However, I share my hon. Friend’s view that it is quite clear that, when implemented, the legislation will in due course ban foreign donations. We have included a difference in relation to the Republic of Ireland because there is a relationship with the Republic of Ireland, whether hon. Members like that relationship or not, with regard to shared objectives, a shared future and shared aspects of the democratic process. For the reasons that my hon. Friend outlined, in relation to the Belfast agreement, that is part of the principle.

As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) mentioned, we have on a number of occasions discussed with the Irish Government their electoral legislation and the possibility of their changing it. We have had discussions at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, but I am not aware of any proposals from the Irish Government to introduce changes in their electoral legislation, although they have considered that. I have discussed the issue with my counterparts in the Irish Republic at ministerial level.

In the event of the Irish Republic bringing forward any such changes, the Bill enables powers to be given to the Secretary of State to make amendments to the scheme, which the House will have to endorse, to enable those changes to be reflected in the changes that the Committee is considering now. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members have raised concerns about the Irish Republic’s role, but we have set down clear standards in the Bill. If an individual is an Irish citizen, they can donate to political parties in the north of Ireland for the purposes of electoral contests. We do that for the special relationship with the Republic of Ireland, for the historic nature of that relationship and in accordance with the Belfast agreement.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that, as he indicated, the issue has been discussed on several occasions with his counterparts in the Irish Government? Can he confirm the transparency of the current situation, as regards donations to Irish political parties, including Sinn Fein, in the Republic of Ireland?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In the discussions with the Irish Government, I have shared, as a matter of course, information regarding the intentions of the British Government in relation to the electoral changes that we are making in the north of Ireland. At BIIGCs, we have shared with them the details of the legislation that, potentially, will come before the House, as one would expect. We feel that it is important to do so on matters that affect the island of Ireland. I have shared with them our intentions and I understand that the Irish Government have looked at the potential for changes in their legislation. At present, there are no proposals from the Irish Government, but they are keeping the matter under review. In due course, they will discuss with the British Government our perspective on their electoral policy and legislation.

This boils down to an honest disagreement between me, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South and other members of the Committee, and Opposition Members and Members from the Northern Ireland Unionist parties who have spoken in the debate. We have banned foreign donations and will continue to do so, but it will be a matter of special interest that the Republic of Ireland still has a role and responsibility, given the historical agreements made in Belfast on Good Friday and the historical nature of the relationship between the Republic and the north.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

There is common ground with the Minister in that we agree that Irish citizens should be able to donate to parties operating in Northern Ireland, and also that there should be a ban on foreign donations, but it concerns me that the measure is such that it may permit a foreigner to donate money to an Irish political party and that money may then be spent in Northern Ireland. Can he clarify the situation regarding foreign donations—that is, from people who are neither British nor Irish—to an Irish political party, with the money ending up being spent in Northern Ireland?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Again, at the moment, the measure is framed so as to ensure that Irish citizens can donate to Northern Ireland political parties. We have banned foreign donations; we accept in the legislation that Irish citizens can donate to parties in the north, for historical reasons. I hope there is agreement with the Liberal Democrats. I say to the hon. Member for East Antrim that it may benefit Sinn Fein or the SDLP, but is he telling me that there is no single person in the population of the Republic of Ireland who may wish to donate to his party, the party of the hon. Member for North Down or the Alliance party in Northern Ireland? I cannot rule that out. It is perfectly legitimate for an individual resident—let us say someone in a border area of Northern Ireland, or an Irish citizen who believes in the Union—to donate to the party represented by the hon. Member for East Antrim for those reasons. There is no reason why that cannot be done.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Perhaps if I put a scenario to the Minister he may understand. He talked about an Irish citizen, but proposed new section 71B(2) refers to

“a body of that description or category would be entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party.”

The scenario works in one sense if we are talking about the nationalist party. What if a Unionist party chose to register a body incorporate, which is in the Irish legislation, in the south of Ireland and a foreign donor—perhaps a British citizen living in the United States or a Saudi Arabian donor or whoever we like—donated to an Ulster Unionist party based in the south, which passed that donation, through the Irish legislation, to Northern Irish politics, which would be perfectly admissible? The problem is that anybody can take advantage of the Irish law to get foreign donations into the system.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman will know that that could be an issue that might need to be examined. The position of the legislation is clear: we ban foreign donations to British political parties operating in Great Britain and the United Kingdom as a whole, including Northern Ireland. Irish citizens are potentially able to donate to parties operating in Northern Ireland because of the historical nature of the position between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I would not expect there to be any situation whereby under Irish law and British law foreign individuals could subvert British Government legislation to secure donations to British political parties operating in Great Britain and/or in Northern Ireland.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

It is not subverting Irish law; Irish law allows overseas donations. They can come from either an Irish citizen overseas or a support group of an Irish-based political party overseas. It is not a matter of saying that we can just let Irish citizens donate. No, we cannot do anything. We do what the Irish say because that is in the second part of the legislation. It allows overseas donations into Ireland, so it allows overseas donations via that route into the United Kingdom Northern Ireland political environment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Parties that operate in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland are separate legal entities. Like individuals, they will be party to British law. Irish citizens can donate Irish-based resources and Irish-based finance from Irish citizens to political parties in the north, but that precludes donations from overseas individuals who are not Irish citizens. The position relates to the fact that Irish citizens, but not citizens of other nations, can support political parties in the north.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The discussion reminds me of what happened on the Floor of the House: the longer the Minister spoke, the more agitated the Opposition became. I shall explain why. Does he not see that there is nothing theoretically to prevent the Labour party from setting up something in the south of Ireland and getting foreign donations into that part of the corporate organisation, transferring the money to the north and bringing it into the rest of the United Kingdom?

The Minister must accept that he is vulnerable because of the recent experience that showed that political parties will do anything to get round the conditions. What guarantee do we have that the legislation will not fail to achieve standardisation and elimination of foreign donations?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The simple, straightforward reason that United Kingdom law bans foreign donations, with the exception of Irish donations from Irish individuals. That resource cannot be laundered through an Irish individual to a British political party or to a party operating in the United Kingdom. It is about individuals who are resident and Irish citizens being able to donate on the island of Ireland to support political parties in the north. There is an honest disagreement in Committee about the Bill and the role of Irish citizens in supporting parties in the north.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister emphasised proposed new section 71B(1)(a) and the role of the Irish citizen. Will he comment on proposed new section 71B(1)(b), which refers to

“a body which is of a prescribed description or category and in relation to which any prescribed conditions are met.”?

Does that not cover the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that a party in Northern Ireland could set up a body in the Irish Republic and receive donations from a foreign donor through that body into Northern Ireland?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, it does not. There is an honest disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me on such matters. I believe that the situation ensures that Northern Ireland political parties and GB political parties are separate legal entities from those in the Republic of Ireland. Under the Bill, an individual who is an Irish citizen and involved in the Republic of Ireland can donate political party resources to parties operating in the north, as indeed, under Irish law, can bodies. However, the two are separate entities and United Kingdom law on foreign donations will apply to that, with the exception of Irish-based citizens and bodies. From my perspective, that means that money cannot be laundered through the Irish Government and Irish political parties or individuals to support British political parties or Northern Ireland political parties, because that would be illegal under United Kingdom legislation.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

The Minister is generous in giving way. The disagreement is about a technical, legal position that is either right or wrong. It is not a disagreement about whether we should or should not accept the provision. It is not illegal to donate to a Northern Ireland party if the body undertaking the donation is either an Irish citizen or a body under the rules of Irish electoral legislation. It is therefore not illegal for a body in the south to give money to a political party in the north, even if the money that the body is donating comes from abroad. That is a fact, not an angle of disagreement. This concerns the reading of the legislation.

If the Minister tabled an amendment to remove the provision on bodies donating and said that that had to be done by an Irish citizen, that would go some way to alleviate the problem. He could—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s interventions are getting longer and longer.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There is an honest disagreement between us. In my view the matters relating to this are tight in the sense that we have supported the Irish Government’s definition of Irish citizens and their definition of donations to political parties. We do so because we wish the Republic of Ireland to be able, as part of the Belfast agreement, to support Northern Ireland parties should they so wish. It is meant to be ring-fenced around the Republic of Ireland. I believe that that is the effect of the Bill. I believe that hon. Members have a fundamental disagreement with the citizens and bodies of the Republic of Ireland donating to parties in the north of Ireland. That is what motivates them in Committee. That is why I will ask my hon. Friends to support the clause as drafted and to reject the amendments.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I have listened patiently to the Minister and to remarks that have been made by other hon. Members. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, South. If I could briefly put on my Northern Ireland Affairs Committee hat, I should tell the Minister that in our first foreign overseas foray we visited Dublin. It was part of our inquiry into organised crime and the hon. Member for East Antrim was also there—[Interruption.] I beg his pardon. He was not present on that occasion.

We were particularly struck by the witnesses’ concern about the Northern bank robbery and how it affected the way that Sinn Fein’s operation in the Republic was perceived. Until the recent robbery in the south of England, it was the largest bank robbery in British history: £26.5 million or thereabouts was stolen just before Christmas 2004. The Police Service of Northern Ireland believes that a substantial amount of that horde of cash was taken to the Republic of Ireland and some notes are believed to have been traced.

It was very notable that witnesses in the Irish Republic did not refer to the murder of Robert McCartney by the provisional IRA or those connected with the provisional IRA in Belfast. For them the most undermining event that had taken place in Northern Ireland had been the bank robbery. I find it unbelievable and I am offended that the Minister chose to rely upon the Belfast agreement, an agreement which I supported, as a defence. I would be amazed if he could turn to a specific phrase or clause that entitled the Irish Government to support Irish parties in “the north”—that was the unfortunate phrase he used: it is Northern Ireland and it is part of the United Kingdom—if they so wished. That is not my recollection of the agreement for which I voted. I should be delighted if the Minister could bring in a copy of the agreement this afternoon and point out that phrase.

Given the disquiet felt by very senior members of the Garda about how the political system in the Republic of Ireland can be wholly undermined by one party—Sinn Fein, connected with the IRA—by simply buying influence through a bank robbery, I refuse to give my consent to this clause.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Lady agree that what we have seen once again is a Minister who is doing his best to defend a piece of legislation that clearly has a flaw in it? I do not blame the draftsmen for this because I believe that the Government want to keep this loophole. Would she agree that we effectively have here a piece of legislation with such a large loophole that it will not do anything to assist the law-abiding parties who obey the principle and spirit of the law, but will give an open gate to any party that wants to continue with foreign donations to do it through the back door?

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, I agree.

It is written in the Bill that there will be an exemption for Irish citizens. The Minister has confirmed that an Irish citizen could be in the Republic of Ireland and make a donation of whatever size. There will be no limit on the size of a donation, and no suggestion of any criteria that would be imposed. I cannot in conscience accept that Sinn Fein can not only distort the political system and undermine it in the Republic of Ireland, but that I should ask them, invite them and encourage them to do so in Northern Ireland, the part of the United Kingdom I love so well. I cannot and will not do it. I shall not withdraw the amendment, and want to press it to a vote.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I have just one thing to say: I do not want to rehearse the debate again, but the Minister is obviously so confused that he thinks that the Liberal Democrats are supporting the Government in opposing the amendment. When he looks at the record, he will see that the previous debate covered an amendment that was pretty much identical to the one that we just supported. That is a concern about the clause, and I think that the Minister is now confused about its intent.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am only making the point on clause stand part. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute spoke in the last debate in favour of Irish citizens donating to Northern Ireland parties, and then he and his hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire voted against the same thing in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down. As ever, the Liberal Democrats have faced both ways at the same time.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

My concern is that the Bill would allow Irish bodies to give money and those bodies could, frankly, be money laundering. I am not opposed to donations from Irish citizens, but my concern about the wording of the clause is the reference to other bodies.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The only money in this clause stand part debate is a sixpence, because the hon. Gentleman has just turned on one.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

In speaking to the question that the clause stand part, I would urge the Minister to come back with some details about the Irish legislation that has been mentioned. I also want to point out that this is not about some hidden agenda to stop that, and the Minister’s accusation was rather insulting. We should do what is right and what is within the power of this Government and Parliament, without relying on the Irish Government. We could give even more benefit, if we wanted, to the parties of the nationalist persuasion, because it is in our power. To accuse us of trying to undermine things is disingenuous.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disingenuous of the Minister to say that he simply cannot see the difference between having sensible legislation that achieves what we want and ignoring the loopholes? All we are asking is that the Government have a sensible conversation with the Government in Dublin to ensure that everything fits together. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is clearly the Minister who is panicking?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

The Government are certainly on the back foot at the very least. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, we are asking only whether we can do something in British law to close down overseas donations via bodies in Ireland. It seems likely that the Minister was not aware that the issue arose in the Bill until we mentioned it. I would be interested to know whether he or any of his officials have the Irish legislation beside them, because he has been challenged to mention bits of it, but nothing has come back. The Government have clearly rushed things through, trying to win hearts and minds in Sinn Fein, and the losers will be the other parties, which play by the rules. All we are trying to do is introduce British legislation to ensure that a loophole that is not within our control is not exploited. If the Minister cannot see that, the issue will rise to the surface in three or four years’ time and he will have only himself to blame.

Clause 17

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 12, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 13.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (3).

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

We will probably speed up again now, and there will probably be greater consensus than there was on clause 15.

Amendment No. 3, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, is designed to meet a specific concern. As we said, we are disappointed by part 4. Under clause 14, Northern Ireland political parties will have to disclose donation returns on a confidential basis, but that will still not achieve the full transparency that we would all like. Under the Bill, full disclosure will not occur until 2010; indeed, the Government might decide to muck about with the provisions and postpone it even further. The more I hear in Committee, the more likely I think it is that they want to give themselves wriggle room to string the loopholes out even further.

That is why we are particularly concerned that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State the ability to delay full disclosure by extending the prescribed period, during which parties need disclose their donations only to the Electoral Commission. Ideally, we want the system to be as close as possible to the one that operates in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want openness and transparency to be achieved as soon as possible.

Standing Committee B

Clause 17

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 28, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (3).

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Welcome aboard, Mr. Atkinson. You join us at an exciting, nail-biting moment in proceedings.

First, I apologise to the Minister. I recognise that the poor, poor Minister of State for the Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), always seems to get the bum’s rush when it comes to this sort of legislation, with the Opposition becoming increasingly annoyed with the Government’s position. I also assure him that although I feel great warmth for him personally and have a lot of respect for his capabilities, we do not seek to provoke him or the Government for any spurious reason. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) genuinely feel the concerns that we have raised.

I move swiftly on to conclude my points about amendment No. 3. In essence, the recent history of politics in Westminster in relation to the Government’s fundraising efforts shows how any political party will seek to gain advantage using any loophole that it is possible to find. The Government should not be surprised that we are so concerned about giving Ministers the opportunity to extend the prescribed period under the clause. We should remember also that at least one party in Northern Ireland has considerable previous form when it comes to taking advantage of what one might call illegitimate fundraising techniques.

The Minister’s position would carry more gravity if he were willing to accept that the exercise is one in risk management rather than risk elimination. What slightly irks us is that the Minister seems to suggest that the Government’s solution is perfect and our concerns are not necessarily legitimate. When the Minister responds to my amendment and to amendment No. 28, which seems to do much the same, will he be a little more balanced in recognising that our concerns are legitimate and they come down to matters of judgment? When it comes to such matters of judgment, those on the Opposition Benches and the Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland have plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that if things are not tied down tightly and made transparent, that opaqueness will be used to maximum advantage by those who have taken much more dramatic and illegal measures to raise money before.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

It is a pleasure to sit under your chairmanship this afternoon,Mr. Atkinson. It is not long since some of us sat under your chairmanship in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, in a lively meeting if I remember correctly. This afternoon might not be so lively, but I am sure that it will be well conducted.

I rise to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and also to speak to the related amendment No. 28, which I tabled.

Clause 17 is an interesting provision and has to be read in conjunction with schedule 2. Clause 17 declares in the definition section:

“During the prescribed period, the 2000 Act”—

that is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—will apply

“in relation to Northern Ireland subject to the modifications in Schedule 1.”

That application is a welcome one.

I will not go into the modifications in schedule 1 in detail, because we will have an opportunity later, but they mean that for the first time political parties will have to notify the Electoral Commission of donations, in secrecy. It is the Electoral Commission’s duty to keep strictly confidential the detail of donations given to political parties and disclosed to the commission by political parties in Northern Ireland during what is intended to be and is described as “the prescribed period”.

According to clause 17(2):

“‘The prescribed period’ means the period—

(a) starting with 1st November 2007, and

(b) ending with 31st October 2010.”

My amendment would remove the following damaging proviso in clause 17(3), whereby:

“The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph (b) of subsection (2) so as to extend the prescribed period.”

I do not wish that provision to appear in the final legislation for several good reasons. The first is the Secretary of State’s statement on Second Reading. I shall quote his words directly. This is not an invention by the Ulster Unionist party. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave the House an assurance that

“the Bill will require Northern Ireland parties, for the first time, to comply with the rules set out under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which require donations over a certain amount to be declared to the Electoral Commission. However, to take account of the continuing concerns about the possibility of donor intimidation in Northern Ireland, for a transitional period, donations to Northern Ireland parties will be checked privately by the Electoral Commission...That period will run from November 2007 and”—

these are the important words—

“pave the way for full transition to complete transparency, as in the rest of the UK, in October 2010, which remains the Government’s goal.—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1175.]

That was the clear assurance given to the House.

The difficulty with the clause is when it is read in conjunction with that statement. It was unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not continue in his remarks on Second Reading to explain that through subsections (3) and (4), he, as the Secretary of State, may extend the prescribed period so that it does not end on 31 October 2010. Subsection (4) states that instead, he may by order extend that period every two years:

“The power to make an order...may be exercised on more than one occasion, but the prescribed period must not be extended for more than 2 years at a time.”

The Secretary of State may extend once, twice, three times—indefinitely.

I hoped that when the Secretary of State said to the House on Second Reading that as in the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland was in full transition to complete transparency in October 2010, the Bill would put that into effect. On close scrutiny of this clause, particularly subsections (3) and (4), however, that will not be the effect. Full transparency could be delayed indefinitely on the whim of the Secretary of State every two years by an Order in Council. I refuse to allow that power to be given to the Secretary of State, and I therefore wish to see the Minister adopt the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I join the other members of the Committee in welcoming you to the Chair for this afternoon’s sitting, Mr. Atkinson. You may or may not be needed for a further sitting later in the week or next week. Who knows?

I thank hon. Members for raising their points and tabling the amendments before us. For the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Montgomeryshire, I shall put on record straight away that it is the Government’s wish and intention that Northern Ireland becomes part of the overall regime on transparency of donations as soon as is practicable. We have provided under clause 17 that the period between 1 November 2007 and 31 October 2010 will be the prescribed period. For reasons that I explained earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), we have disapplied the regulations on publication of donations, because there is the potential for intimidation and there are concerns about threats. The situation in Northern Ireland, although becoming more stable, remains potentially unstable, and we have disapplied the order for those reasons.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Bearing in mind the much quoted—particularly by the Northern Ireland Office and Government Ministers—statement from the IRA that

“Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever”,

where does the Minister anticipate the intimidation of those who donate to political parties coming from?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. She will know that I anticipate and very much hope, as will every democrat in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, that the next two to three years and beyond will see the continued building of stability in the security situation in Northern Ireland that is potentially there. The hon. Lady will know also that because of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, there is still potential for the intimidation of people who donate to political parties, for long-held enmities to continue, and for that to be manifested in intimidation or, as has been put to me by political parties during the discussions, threats to businesses that donate to political parties and others.

I hope and appreciate that normality will continue to grow, but the Bill includes a provision for the anonymous registration of donations, monitored by the Electoral Commission for that three-year period from 2007 to 2010, because the threat of that intimidation may still exist and be of concern. Legislation can be changed, but the provision is there for the Secretary of State to have the power to make the order post-2010 for a period of up to two years. Although I accept fully that the situation may be normal by 2010, and the Secretary of State may not need to apply the power, I would rather include it in case a situation arises in 2010 whereby the future Secretary of State, for whatever reason or judgment, determines that he or she cannot make those applications and funding documents public—as is done in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends—and must continue to disapply the order.

I do not expect that we will reach that situation. I expect fully that by 2010, we will be in a situation of normality in which the Secretary of State can say that in Belfast, North Down, Foyle and Belfast, South provisions will be applied in exactly the same way that they are in my constituency and in that of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South(Mr. Woodward). I fully expect that to be the case. However, if the Bill did not include the provision for the Secretary of State to make those decisions, which the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for North Down seek to delete, and in 2010, we reach a situation whereby we feel it is not practical to lift the disapplication, we would have to bring primary legislation before the House. This clause provides the Secretary of State with the order-making power to take the decision to extend the disapplication for a maximum of two years, if he so wishes. That power would also be subject to the confidence of the House of Commons and another place through a vote.

The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for North Down are concerned about giving the Secretary of State powers to extend the order. The Secretary of State will not want to exercise that power, because our wish is to achieve normality in Northern Ireland on a par with my constituency and those of my hon. Friends. The power is there in case that situation does not arise and the Secretary of State at that time needs to extend the disapplication.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. I may have misheard him—I do not think that I did—but he stated that the Secretary of State will have the power to extend the provision for a maximum of two years.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

On each individual occasion.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Precisely. I just wanted the Minister to confirm that a Secretary of State will be able repeatedly to extend the provision for two years at a time, which is the wording in the clause.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Lady did not mishear me. I said that the Secretary of State can undertake to extend the order by a maximum of two years at a time. Each time that he does so, it must be confirmed by this House and by another place in an order before the House. I have said to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that provision for donations in Northern Ireland is put on a par with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The disapplication period will last for three years in order to cover the points of concern that have been put to us, for instance, by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South.

That disapplication period will end in 2010, but if at that time, the Secretary of State judges that they need to extend it, he, or she, can do so for two years, subject to a vote in this House and in another place. But that will be the case only if that is the situation at the time, which I do not expect. I hope that it will be recognised that our intention is to apply the provision uniformly across the United Kingdom. That is the Bill’s intention, but we have the reserve power, in order to save further primary legislation, if the situation deteriorates.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I understand the Minister’s position. I have two thoughts about that. First, the irony of the Government’s intention is that the provision will give the paramilitaries the opportunity to determine Government policy because as long as the paramilitaries are willing to intimidate people who give money to parties, the Government will have a justification for extending the provision that we are discussing.

Secondly, I have another, perhaps even greater, concern: I have warned the Government repeatedly that as long as it looks like there is a plan B, plan A will not get as much support as it otherwise would. Everything that the Minister has said suggests to me that the Government are planning for a potential impasse or failure, or a situation in which such intimidation persists.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that neither I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, South and for Basildon (Angela E. Smith) nor my noble Friend the Lord Rooker, are spending our time trying to work towards a failure. We are working for success, a peaceful situation in Northern Ireland and restoration of the Assembly, but this provision is there in case the Secretary of State, at that time, judges extensions to be necessary.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I detect a hint of irritation in the Minister’s voice. I do not want to provoke him because I do not want to give the evidently false impression that I think that the Government expect failure. Nor do I think that he is anticipating that the legislation will fail. But to be equally precise, I observe inclause 17, as I have in his language, a desire to keep the option open.

Anybody who has been involved in such matters for a long time will agree that the Minister needs to recognise that when the Government keep their options open, they keep open also the options of those who would resist what the Government want. That is the difficulty with having a plan B—I am always advising the Government not to build one in as a subtext to the primary message of legislation.

I do not think that the Minister his hoping for, or expecting failure, or anything like that. However, by saying, “We need to keep the provision in case something goes wrong and we have to extend the prescribed period,” he is adding to the culture of expectation demonstrated repeatedly by those who resist the process and who will say, “Okay Government, you have given yourself a way forward here, even if we disagree, go ahead and use that extension order.” That is why I am opposed to this part of the legislation. I think that the hon. Member for North Down has a slightly different take on the matter, but at the end of the day, the sum total is the same.

It is not worth dividing the Committee on the matter, but I should like to reserve the right to return to it on Report, following further consultation with Ministers. I have made my points, and I am not satisfied that the Minister took them seriously. Nevertheless, for the convenience of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 1

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 23, line 34, at end insert—

‘“71F Location of donation reports

A Northern Ireland report must not at any time be kept in any office of the Commission in Northern Ireland.”'.

The amendment is very simple and could be described as a probing amendment. I would like, as I believe would many others, to be reassured by the Minister that information that is given to the Electoral Commission will be held in a safe place, preferably in London rather than Belfast. The reason for that is simple. In the period between now and 2010—and afterwards if necessary—there will be a serious risk that information that has been disclosed, but not publicly disclosed, will be leaked. We would like it not to be leaked, but if it is, we do not want the wrong people to be blamed. We do not want staff in a Belfast office automatically getting the blame.

More fundamentally, we are fully aware that paramilitary organisations have sought at times to gather information in the public sector. As I said in our debate this morning, a member of the Real IRA was convicted in October 2004 after he had accessed a number of personal details from records held at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. There have also been times, dare I say, when there have been leaks from the Northern Ireland Office to hon. Members across the Committee. It appears that in 2002 the IRA was operating a spy ring inside the NIO. Those are some of the reasons, and they are enough justification to say that information kept in Belfast might not be as safe as it would be if it were kept elsewhere.

I am keen to have some reassurance from the Minister that information that has been disclosed will be kept in a safe place. Should I get that, I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I fully understand what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, and I have some sympathy with the points that he makes. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to put such things in primary legislation; that should be an operational matter for the Electoral Commission. My officials in the Northern Ireland Office have discussed with the Electoral Commission the location and security of any records that might be made under this legislation. It has indicated that so far as it is aware, provisionally until the Bill becomes law, the intention is that it should not hold any donation reports from Northern Ireland in premises in Belfast. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. The security of information is particularly important to the Commission; it takes it very seriously and is aware of the sensitivities in relation to Northern Ireland. While it is an operational matter and I hope that the legislation will not fetter it, the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed are understood by the Electoral Commission and, having discussed the matter with my officials, I have every confidence that it will act appropriately.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister kindly enlighten the Committee about the estimated cost of the Electoral Commission’s providing the security that will be its responsibility once this is on the statute book?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do not have to hand an estimate of the potential cost, but let me put it into context. The Electoral Commission is already undertaking that role for parliamentary constituencies and for parties in Scotland, England and Wales. We are adding to its burden by some 18 parliamentary constituencies, and the political parties that operate in Northern Ireland. While I do not have an estimate of the costs involved, I suspect that their overall impact on the legislation will be marginal, because they will relate to an operation that the Electoral Commission already undertakes.

If I have any figures to hand in due course, I shall write to the hon. Lady. However, the costs are marginal and the commission is content to undertake the work. Given that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am very happy to do so, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 18

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Atkinson. I apologise for arriving slightly late for this afternoon’s sitting. I do not want to speak for long on the clause, but I am slightly concerned about the power that it gives to the Secretary of State. I was wondering whether the Minister would explain why it is necessary. As one or two hon. Members have commented to me, we spend time on a Bill and then we reach clause 18, which shows that it can all change by order.

Clause 18(2) states:

“The provision that may be made under subsection (1) includes provision amending or modifying—

(a) any provision of the 2000 Act;

(b) Schedule 2A to the 1983 Act”.

The clause is wide-ranging. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to have such wide-ranging powers?

Conservative Members feel that if issues are important enough they should be in the Bill. We can then see what we are considering passing or rejecting, and have the opportunity to debate the issues, not just in statutory instrument Committees, which inevitably contain only a limited number of hon. Members. If things are in the Bill, the whole House has the opportunity to discuss them. So, will the Minister explain why clause 18 is necessary?

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It isa pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,Mr. Atkinson. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). We spend time scrutinising legislation, and we reach this clause, which gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to amend Acts of Parliament. We are creating a culture of the Secretary of State being given sweeping powers, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland business.

I do not understand why such powers are necessary in this case. The Secretary of State has powers under the previous clauses that we have debated. I do not see why we need this sweeping clause, which gives him the power to do more or less anything he likes to various Acts of Parliament.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the points that have been made. The simple fact is that we have proposed that the Secretary of State have this power because we hope that the situation will improve and that we can introduce the regulations before 2010. The provisions give the power for the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission and by order before the House of Commons and another place, to change the provisions in clause 17.

I have said all along that the disapplication period in clause 17 applies until 2010, and we have given the Secretary of State powers to extend that if the situation is worse. The provision in clause 18 allows him to amend the previous clauses by order confirmed by this House, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, if we feel that the provisions of the legislation need to apply at an earlier date.

I hope, as I am sure other hon. Members present do, that the situation will arise whereby we are able to bring normality to the funding situation in Northern Ireland earlier than 2010. The provision simply gives the Secretary of State the power to do that. I hope that offers an explanation. Hon. Members might remain concerned about the matter. I must repeat that the Secretary of State cannot just exercise the power. It will be exercised in consultation with the Electoral Commission. If hon. Members know Mr. Younger, its current chairman, they would know that the Electoral Commission would have strong views should the Secretary of State exercise the power in an inappropriate way.

If the Secretary of State were to determine that the scheme should be brought forward or ended because the situation had improved, he would need both Houses of Parliament to endorse his decision. That is the reason why the clause is included in the Bill. Given that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will allow it to stand part of the Bill, as drafted.

Clause 23

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 23, page 16, line 5, leave out ‘2010’ and insert ‘2008’.

In this most miscellaneous of miscellaneous Bills, we are now moving on to something completely different. This clause takes us away from donations to political parties, away from the Chief Electoral Officer, and into part 6 of the Bill, which is headed “Miscellaneous”. The first of the miscellaneous items that appears under clause 23 is arms decommissioning. I say with some sadness that once again we are being asked to extend an amnesty period.

I wish to bring to the Committee’s attention the words of a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:

“In the face of IRA decommissioning, I cannot see what possible reason loyalists now have for retaining their weapons. They certainly need not do so for the protection of their communities, which is the rightful preserve of the police and the security forces. They used to argue that they would decommission if the IRA made the first move. Well, the first move has been made: the crucial act has been carried out. It is now up to loyalist paramilitary organisations to demonstrate their support of peaceful and democratic ideals.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 45-46.]

I am sure that every single person in this room would say, “Hear, hear,” to that. Was that the current Secretary of State? No. Was it his immediate predecessor? No. Those words are in fact five years old. They were delivered by the current Secretary of State for Defence over five years ago. On that occasion, the House was being asked to consider, yet again,the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill to extend the original decommissioning period for five years.

Five years ago, the then Secretary of State made it quite clear that in a democracy politics and violence do not mix. He insisted that if the IRA had moved on decommissioning—and it had at that stage—then loyalists had no excuse for not doing likewise. I am exceedingly concerned and disappointed that the Government now choose, under clause 23, to send completely mixed messages to loyalists.

The Government, the Northern Ireland Office and the current Secretary of State all love to quote from the Independent Monitoring Commission report when it suits them; if I might, I shall refer to the IMC’s eighth report, published on 1 February 2006. I know that there is another current IMC report involving both Governments, but it has not been published and made available to the wider world in time for our consideration.

Let me just remind Members about the activities of loyalist paramilitaries. Where do I start? There are so many—the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red Hand Commando, the Loyalist Volunteer Force. They were responsible for the feuding that led to the deaths of four individuals. East Belfast members of the Ulster Defence Association were responsible, in the view of the IMC, for the murder on 4 October of their fellow member, Jim Gray, who was on bail following his arrest. Unfortunately, the litany of carnage caused by loyalist paramilitaries continues, according to the IMC, and the statistics are well known.

The current Secretary of State challenged loyalist paramilitaries on 21 September 2005, when he said:

“The choice for loyalist paramilitaries is clear: play the political role that you claim as your motive, or face the rigour of the law as the mafia organisations into which you seem to be degenerated. You will not be allowed to terrorise your own community”.

If that is what the Northern Ireland Office really expects of loyalist paramilitaries, why in heaven’s name is it at the same time sending out the contradictory message to them and others—the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA—that a deadline for arms decommissioning is not really a deadline and that there will continue to be an amnesty not just for five years, and then another five years, but right up to 2010? I am sure that, at that stage, the Secretary of State, whoever it is, will bring more legislation before the House to extend the amnesty.

For once, could the Government just mean what they say? Pledges were given to the people of Northern Ireland not so long ago that the amnesty period had a cut-off time of 2007. Instead of now extending it to 2010, let us just delete the reference. I know that my amendment substitutes the date 2008, which tries to find a middle way, but I just want a clear message to be sent, particularly to loyalist paramilitaries: “Enough is enough; get on with the decommissioning.”

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I admitted earlier that I was pleased to serve in the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson.

We in the Social Democratic and Labour party share the frustration of the hon. Member for North Down that decommissioning has been such a long drawn-out process. We are outraged that many of the groups have not decommissioned at all. Dissident republican factions justify their refusal to end violence and destroy their weapons, based on a fairly warped understanding of Irish history which Irish people do not generally share. They claim that in making their bombs, as they did last week in Lurgan, they are somehow upholding the will of the Irish people.

The people of Ireland, whether nationalist or Unionist, want and deserve a peaceful future. If dissident republicans care anything, or have any respect for what they claim to be the will of the people, they have no option but to destroy their weapons now and go away.

As for loyalist paramilitary groups, as tomorrow’s IMC report will doubtless make clear, they remain active and, to my mind, dangerous. They are dangerous to themselves and each other, but far more importantly, to the general public. The UDA and the UVF have yet to decommission a single bullet. Their spokesmen openly say that that is not even on their agenda. It is disgraceful that the Democratic Unionist parties and the Government have, at best, not put them under any serious pressure to get rid of their arms and ammunition. In some cases, they have offered ready-made excuses for them.

I shall give an example. Last February, after a meeting with the international decommissioning body, the DUP leader predicted that the IRA had held on to some guns and said that loyalist people should be forearmed to meet what was going to happen. In other words, he predicted that there would be a further outbreak of IRA violence. Whatever was meant by that, those who carry guns and call themselves loyalists will have only one interpretation of it: “Hold on to your guns, guys, because you’re going to need them.” Such inflammatory remarks have shown a serious lack of leadership on the part of the leader of the DUP and a reckless disregard for the safety of the public.

There is only one message that needs to be given to the loyalist paramilitary groups, and I appeal to hon. Members on the other side of the Committee to give it. It is the same as the one that we are giving and have given loud and clear to republicans and to dissident republicans. We loudly, clearly and unambiguously say: “Wind up all your activity. Destroy your guns now, and leave people in the island of Ireland, both nationalists and Unionists, to the peaceful and democratic future that they all deserve.”

I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Down. 2010 is a long time for the amnesty to continue, but as I understand it, just because the option is there to allow an amnesty until then does not mean that it will be allowed to go on until then. Is the Minister prepared to give some sort undertaking that, even though there is an option to keep the amnesty until 2010, it will not necessarily be left until that very backstop position? Such an assurance from the Minister would go a long way. I would find it difficult not to support the Government. But 2010 is a long way off and we need a strong reassurance that that is the final backstop position and that there will be no further extensions and excuses and that no further allowances will be made.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a vain request. My whole frustration on the previous amendment was that the Government do not really take the red line sufficiently seriously. We know already that whatever deadline they impose will be extended, such that the Minister passionately argued for the Secretary of State’s right to do so in our previous substantial discussion on clause 17 and again on clause 18. I have one question for the Minister. Given that once again we are discussing something that sets a deadline, why should we even bother to pretend that that deadline will be taken seriously? Is there anything that the Minister can say that would make the deadline any more plausible than all the other deadlines that have been breached, including this one in 2002?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I want to respond to the atrocious comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. It is appalling that any hon. Member of this House would deliberately attempt, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), to recast the words that he used on that occasion and to put some military or violent connotation on them.

Not only was the position abundantly clear in the context in which my right hon. Friend made his remarks, but because the hon. Gentleman and his party at that time made similar comments to those that he makes today, it was explained over the airwaves so that everybody could hear what the clear intention of his remarks was. The history of decommissioning has been a very long and tiring one for the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. All the people of the Province have suffered in one way or another from the existence of illegal weaponry. We have lost thousands of our fellow citizens. Tens of thousands of them have been maimed and mutilated by those weapons.

We are not talking about some academic issue here. We are talking about the equipment that killed and injured many thousands of people in Northern Ireland to the extent that barely a family was untouched by the impact of those weapons. There is an urgency about the matter. It is important that those weapons are taken away from those who hold them and are destroyed. As far as the IRA is concerned, my party and I regretted the cavalier fashion in which the SDLP regarded the IRA’s weaponry. It regarded it as being all right for the IRA to hold on to its weapons and still to have its representatives in government. That is not a position that my party holds or will ever hold.

Our view was consistently that the IRA should not allowed into government until there was complete decommissioning. Regrettably, the SDLP and others took representatives from the IRA into government while it still held on to its weaponry and took away the urgency that was required for decommissioning to take place. That urgency still eludes the Minister, as he wants to stretch out into the far distant future the limits on when it might be possible to have decommissioning.

My party and I see no moral distinction between the IRA holding on to weapons and a loyalist organisation holding on to weapons. There is no distinction whatever: all those weapons should be handed over. All of them should be destroyed at the earliest moment. I do not take the view, which some hold, that we no longer need to look over our shoulders at the stockpiles of the Provisional IRA.

I immediately indicated that I considered the decommissioning act that took place recently to be substantial decommissioning. There is no doubt that the IRA substantially decommissioned on that day. Two witnesses saw the event and, in very vague terms, reported the fact. General de Chastelain saw it and, in imprecise terms, reported the fact, but it is at least clear from what those witnesses said that a large quantity of weaponry was destroyed. However, General de Chastelain and the two Church witnesses immediately embarked on a spinning operation, telling the community that the IRA had completed decommissioning and destroyed all its weapons. When asked to produce some evidence that all the IRA’s weaponry was involved, they relied on the fact that the IRA had told them that.

General de Chastelain and the two Church witnesses might satisfy themselves with the word of the IRA but my party leader quite rightly did not, and nor did the IMC, which, on obtaining evidence that the IRA still held on to some weaponry, reported it in its eighth report. The IMC indicated that, although the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning had been prepared to turn a blind eye to the IRA holding on to its weaponry, it was not. The IMC noted the fact that weaponry had been retained and also gave some descriptive terms, indicating that the IRA had held on to a range of weaponry.

I cannot predict what the IMC report might say when it is published tomorrow, but as always the two Governments have been attempting to get their retaliations in first and spinning the report as best they can in the hours leading up to its publication. One of the leaks of the report seems to indicate that the IMC will hold to its position that the IRA still has illegal weaponry. If the report is accurate, it will indicate that the IRA leadership did not sanction the holding of that weaponry—I am sure that that will bring some comfort to people who will face the barrel of one of the guns—and that it was held by local cells, organisations, quartermasters or whatever grand title they give themselves.

That being the case, the book is not closed on Provisional IRA decommissioning. More has to be done. If some cells or units have held on to weaponry and that was not sanctioned by the IRA, the IRA has to deal with that issue. It is responsible for decommissioning all its weapons.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

If the IMC, either tomorrow or at some future date, said that it believed that the process had been concluded, would the hon. Gentleman regard it as credible?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do regard the IMC as a credible body. I have the highest respect for it, in spite of the fact that although there is a republican on it there is no Unionist, nor anybody with whom the Unionist community in Northern Ireland would readily identify. I have met the IMC, and it has issued reports that I am sure the Government did not like and which they would have preferred to be put in a different way. I understand that they will indicate that there has been some measure of progress. No one would be happier than my colleagues and I if there were progress in the reduction of paramilitary and criminal activity in Northern Ireland. That is what we want, but it has been painfully slow. However, the body that is charged with the decommissioning of weaponry is not the IMC, but the IICD and it is regrettable that, rather than admitting that it was wrong when it indicated that all weapons had been destroyed, it still wants to cover up the fact that some weapons are still being held.

I turn to loyalist paramilitary organisations. Apart from a very small decommissioning exercise on the part of the LVF, which was the first decommissioning of guns that had had their best days, there has been nothing on the part of loyalist paramilitaries, nor has there been any indication of intent by the loyalist paramilitaries to decommission their weapons. It is unfortunate for loyalist paramilitary organisations—I point this out to the hon. Member for Belfast, South—that whereas pressure can be put on the Provisional IRA to decommission in that the party that represents it is of a size that merits positions in government under the d’Hondt system and the existing structures, there is no such enticement for loyalist paramilitaries. Concessions were given hand over fist to the Provisional IRA to hand over its weapons, but nothing of the sort has happened for loyalist paramilitary organisations, nor do I ask the Government for that. I do not believe that they should have bought guns from the Provisional IRA, nor do I believe that they should buy guns from the loyalist paramilitary organisations.

I want to put it clearly on the record that all loyalist paramilitary organisations must hand over their weapons and that those weapons must be destroyed. Our community does not need illegal weaponry and it is in everyone’s interest to destroy weapons. I must tell the hon. Member for Belfast, South that, by and large, the trend in the future will be that any weapons held by republican organisations are more likely to be used against those who live in nationalist areas than against those who live in Unionist areas. Equally, loyalist paramilitary weapons are more likely to be used against those in Unionist areas for territorial control. It is in all our interests to see all illegal weaponry out of existence.

That brings me to the heart of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down. I presume that its sole purpose is to try to introduce some pace and urgency into the process and to persuade the Government to apply themselves tothe earliest possible date. At the moment, the Government’s attitude is that if they do not come up with the weapons they will just add on a few more years. We will never get to the end of the road with that attitude in the Government. We must apply some urgency to the matter and the hon. Lady’s amendment deserves support if it does nothing other than to persuade the Minister to roll up his sleeves and get down to work.

The Minister is pointing to the Under-Secretary who has already taken off his jacket. I hope that some urgency will be introduced into the process and that we can tackle the matter once and for all and close the chapter, knowing that the guns have gone and that the prospects for peace are heightened.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I join other hon. Members in welcoming you to the Chair,Mr. Atkinson. This afternoon’s debate reveals that your expert chairmanship is needed as we steer through these difficult waters and decommissioning.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down rightly raises the debate and we welcome that. The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 contains order-making powers for the Secretary of State to extend the amnesty period during which paramilitary arms may be decommissioned. The amendment seeks to reduce the proposed extension of the order-making power so that the latest permitted date of the amnesty would be February 2008. We believe that retaining the option to use the order-making power for a further three years until February 2010 is a better way forward.

I am not suggesting, despite what other hon. Members have said, that we should anticipate that loyalist groups will take a further three years to decommission their weapons. If the order-making power is not needed, it will not be used. Despite the apparent differences between the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Belfast, South, they are to an extent both right. Of course the matter is urgent. In giving ourselves the power to extend the time to 2010 we still recognise that. However, we are approaching the matter realistically and avoiding the need to return for primary legislation in the event that things cannot be achieved as quickly as we should like.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Have any discreet private overtures been made by officials in the Northern Ireland Office to members of the UVF or the UDA to try to encourage them to begin the process?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

Huge progress is being made. I remind the hon. Lady that many people would, obviously, have wanted decommissioning to have happened many years ago. The fact is that it has taken a long time to get to the point that we have reached, but that does not mean that we should not have gone on trying. It is precisely such powers as we are discussing that have contributed to our making the progress we have made. We can raise all sorts of questions and judgments about the nature of the IICD, although the Government absolutely respect—and adhere firmly to—its judgments, but huge progress was made last year.

The decommissioning by the IRA was historic. It took longer than everyone would have liked—that is self-evident—but it was achieved. Yes, we should like others to make the same progress, and it may take longer than we should like, but that does not change what we want to do or our confidence that it can be done. The reason for our extending the order for three years is not that we want the process to take three years. We do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire on the matter; we are optimistic.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was slightly mournful in his view of the prospects for achievement. Perhaps he was up a little late last night reviewing the papers for “Sky News”, but the fact is that we believe we can make progress. We are being responsible. I know that the Liberal Democrats like to keep all their options open, but we are keeping open one option, which may take slightly longer than we should like. The hon. Gentleman is desperate to intervene.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I thank the Minister for staying up long enough to watch me on Sky, but he misinterprets what I have been saying when he perceives it as a sign of pessimism. I am saying that the Government’s obsession with building in insurance policies in case of failure turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it gives those people who are sceptical and resistant to the process the assurance of knowing that the Government themselves entertain the prospect that things may not work out.

The Minister must surely accept that on several occasions paramilitaries and other organisations have called the Government’s bluff about whether they have a plan B and said, “We don’t believe you”—and the Government have given in. Does the Minister accept that my argument is that by giving themselves wriggle room all the time they end up giving the same wriggle room to everyone else?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I do not accept that at all. The extraordinary and historic decommissioning last year is evidence of why the power is absolutely necessary and that it works. Our recognition that although we should like to move even more quickly, things may take slightly longer, is simply prudent contingency planning. By fixing a three-year sunset, rather than the customary five years, we are sending a signal that we expect decommissioning to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The past years have brought about massive progress towards lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, following the full decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. The Government are determined to build on that progress by doing all that we can to secure the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons, and encouraging loyalist paramilitary groups to make the transition from conflict to peace.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister deal with the point about the NIO appearing to give conflicting signals, particularly to loyalist paramilitaries? In September, as I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State indicated that the full rigour of the law would be thrown at loyalist paramilitaries if they did not move to begin decommissioning and co-operation. That was in September 2005. Has the full rigour of the law been thrown at loyalist paramilitaries, and if not, why not? Will it be done before 2010?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I say first to the hon. Lady that despite her observations, we believe that there are no conflicting signals whatever. Those who retain weapons should not do so. That is the reason for the decommissioning order. Our objective is absolutely clear.

I am at one with the hon. Member for Belfast, East. He is right: there is no moral distinction to be made between republicans and loyalists who retain weapons. It is immoral and they should not do it, and we want them to hand in those weapons. The way forward is simple. Getting there will not necessarily be easy, but our objective is clear. All paramilitary groups, republican and loyalist, must commit to the peace process. That involves not holding on to illegal weapons.

The Government’s view on the matter is pragmatic, but we retain a crystal clear objective. We believe that it can be realised. For that purpose, we are extending the provision. If we do not have to use it, we will not return to Parliament every year to seek its renewal, but none the less we are making a prudent contingency plan in case we need it, based on what has happened so far and the time that it has taken. We recognise the urgency, and for that reason I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I have listened patiently to the Minister’s response and I say calmly to him that he will have heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. The Minister should also have noted some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South on the Democratic Unionist party. I must say that I was most disconcerted by those remarks. However, other remarks that he made were valuable.

The Minister should listen carefully to the representatives of Northern Ireland constituencies. We are saying loudly and clearly to him that the people of Northern Ireland cannot be expected to tolerate the continuing existence of private armies, whether republican or loyalist, that are armed to the hilt and engage in serious criminal activities. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to intimidation and extortion, as did the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). A catalogue of illegal activities are undertaken by both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. The people of Northern Ireland are sick, sore and very weary of it. They want paramilitaries from all sides off their backs.

This Government—our Government—should send a clear message to the people of Northern Ireland, who are part of the United Kingdom. I will therefore be pushing amendment No. 30 to a Division, because I wish a clear message to come from at least the Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I assume that Tory and Liberal Democrat hon. Members will also support the amendment.

The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve an end through the full rigour of the law to the Northern Ireland Office’s attitude of tolerance toward paramilitary organisations. That is what the Secretary of State pledged in September. With respect to the Minister, who is the security Minister, we have not seen much of that. We would like to see more of it.

Clause 25

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

It was my pleasure to spend two years studying the Great Britain energy market, and very detailed and complicated it was too. I must confess to having not spent a great time studying the position in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland, but I want to make one or two remarks about it. People in Northern Ireland pay more for energy than we do in Great Britain. I want to explore why that is so and whether the Bill holds out prospects of cheaper electricity for people in Northern Ireland.

Members of the Committee will remember that it was the Conservative Government who brought about privatisation, but that it was the Labour Government who took it further and introduced NETA—the new electricity trading arrangements—which, under the Energy Act 2004, became known as BETTA—the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements. The Government were right to introduce the change because it moved the position away from the old pool system of electricity that was based on long-term contracts to a much more fluid system that operated more like the stock market than it had previously. As a result, electricity prices in Great Britain fell considerably in relative terms to the extent that it became a slight problem in that, at one point, there was a shortage of investment in electricity generation because the price was so low and there was no incentive for companies to invest in generation. During recent months, there has been an increase in the price of electricity and gas, although that is a slightly different issue. It has been due to the world market that has been affected heavily by the oil situation. As much as anything else, it is a readjustment of the prices of fuel rather than a failure of the market. The trading arrangements that the Government introduced did a good service to both producers of electricity in the long term and domestic and industrial consumers.

Changes are planned, but the benefits did not extend to Northern Ireland in the way in which they should have done, nor am I sure that they will do so under the clause. Although the clause is headed “Single wholesale electricity market”, having discussed it with the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland my understanding is that the regulation of the market is being changed rather than a market being created. I would be glad to be corrected. There is not even one overall body being created; I understand that there will be an attempt to harmonise the regulation of electricity in Northern Ireland with that in the Republic. We will not move towards the type of market that we enjoy in Great Britain, so the benefits will not flow to consumers in Northern Ireland in the way that they have to those here. Again, if I am wrong, I will be pleased to be corrected.

I am a little concerned about the creation of north-south bodies, considering what the Government said in their recent statement. I hope that the Assembly does get up and running because of the Bill that we will consider tomorrow, but I did not like the insinuation that there could be a strengthening of cross-border bodies even if the Assembly is not running. That was not what was agreed in the Belfast agreement, and I have some concern about it.

I do not want to be seen to be urging the creation of a north-south body, given the uncertainty of the situation, but there are possible benefits in the creation of a bigger electricity market across the whole of Ireland, just as there would be in one that covered both the UK and Ireland. I am as anti-EU as one could wish to find in the House, but there could even be benefits in creating a bigger electricity market across Europe. That does not necessarily mean that regulation would have to be as one, although there would have to be some harmonisation.

There are great difficulties in energy at the moment. The UK increasingly has to get its energy from further afield. Not long ago we were a great producer of gas from the North sea; we are now net importers of gas. The places from where that gas is coming are slightly worrying: Russia, Algeria and other countries that might not be considered politically stable. Russia has recently ended its supply of gas to a couple of countries, which cannot be a good thing.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Gentleman, who is giving an interesting exposition of the energy situation, but can he bring his comments back to the clause, which refers to Northern Ireland?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I apologise for straying away from Northern Ireland. The point that I seek to make is that I am not convinced that the clause will move us towards greater security in the supply of electricity or cheaper prices for consumers in Northern Ireland. We need to look further into the future than the clause apparently does. I would be pleased to be corrected, but from discussions with authorities in Northern Ireland, I understand that the clause is modest. Maybe the Government are planning ahead, or maybe they intend to leave the issue to the Assembly, but I would like to hear the Minister’s response to my points.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I endorse the broad context of the remarks of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. If time permitted, I should like to talk at length, as he did, not just about the content of the Bill, but about east-west connections between Britain and Ireland, and those with continental Europe. I shall forgo doing so, however.

The clause and the Bill implement an ambition on which all parties agreed when the Assembly was functioning. I sat on a committee there that moved forward energy issues. It had nothing to do with constitutional politics, and there did not seem to be any threat to anybody’s political interest.

The situation in Northern Ireland is serious. Historically, we have had severe stranded costs, caused by the privatisation of power stations and the setting of prices at levels that are much too high by today’s standards. The cost of producing electricity had dropped for a period, but now it may be going up again. The severe stranded costs will continue until 2010 or 2012. The clause probably does not go far enough, but I see it very much as opening a door to create the space for serious discussions, which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred to earlier in more depth. I would like those discussions to be pursued, because the island of Ireland as a whole has fewer than 2 million people in the north and 4 million in the south. We need 12 million people for a serious energy market. We have some connection with the grid in Scotland. We have a connector there, but it is fairly fully occupied and we need another connector. It could be between Wales and southern Ireland, or we could have a second connector between Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The clause is a prelude to such discussions, and it will facilitate their opening. It will create confidence for players in the market. Opening up and facilitating a discussion is the political intention of the House, and I think that the commercial interests want to see a clear indication that that is happening. From that point of view, I endorse and support the clause.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The vague terms that have been used so far show that none of us is sure how the single energy market will operate or indeed what the implications will be. I made it clear from the outset that the DUP considers that, if there are grounds for north-south co-operation on issues that are of economic benefit to people in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, we will not stand in the way. Indeed, we would be foolish to do so.

I want to ask the Minister several questions about this clause, however, as I do about clause 26. First, the single energy market will create a pool into which generators will supply their electricity, which will then be sold to the various distributors. Every half-hour of the supply into the pool will be monitored. The demand and the price will be set accordingly.

There are some hidden dangers that I want the Minister to address, perhaps when we come toclause 26. Creating a middleman—the pool in the single energy market—means that there will be additional capital costs, including initial capital costs. Can he say what they will be? They have been estimated at between £10 million and £30 million. There will then be ongoing monitoring costs, because both the input to the pool and the output to the various suppliershave to be monitored, after which there will be billing arrangements and so on. The revenue costs and the initial capital costs, together with any change inthe arrangements during the time, are likely to add to the overheads when it comes to supplying electricity to the consumer.

Before we go down such a route, I want to be assured that, instead of looking at the political glow that might come from a single market, we actually examine the harsh economic realities. If they do not stand up to rigorous economic analysis, it would be better to steer away from the arrangement.

My second point relates to subsection (2)(b), under which the provisions would

“confer powers on bodies or persons specified in, or appointed under or by virtue of, the Order, including powers to make statutory rules (within the meaning of the Statutory Rules)”.

There is a worry for the existing generators in Northern Ireland, because the consultation paper entitled “Northern Ireland’s Generators — Managing Security of Supply in a Period of Transition” said that the implementation of a single electricity market could lead to existing contracts being revoked. That has caused grave concern.

There are two major generators in my constituency of East Antrim, and that statement has caused major concern for those who have already invested heavily on the basis of the prices that they anticipated and the revenue streams that they expected to receive from the electricity that they generated and supplied to the grid. It has severe implications for them.

If the Bill enables the proposed body to revoke those contracts willy-nilly, it will have an implication for future investment as well. Investors want to know that when they invest, rules are set down that will continue to apply and will not be changed at the discretion of a newly created body or through some new rule that it decides to introduce. Otherwise, companies will not have the confidence to invest.

As the hon. Member for Belfast, South pointed out, there are capacity problems in the market as a whole. Over the next number of years, additional capacity must be added to the system for the whole island, both for Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. If investors see that contracts have been changed, what guarantee will we have that we will get the stability of supply that we need? Will new generators come into the market to provide diverse means of production and security of supply over the longer period? Will the Minister reassure me as to the meaning of clause 25(2)(b)? How far will the powers extend for existing contracts?

My third point concerns a matter that will require legislation in the Irish Republic. We discussed such matters when we debated the arrangements for donations to political parties. If legislation is not introduced in the Irish Republic to provide the same safeguards as are provided in Northern Ireland, it will have serious implications for the single market. Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the Government in the Irish Republic to ensure that the legislation that is required in that jurisdiction reflects the provisions made in Northern Ireland?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I shall try my best to answer the points that have been made by hon. Members during this short debate on clause 25. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for East Antrim welcomes the provision in the Bill. I understand that his party will adopt a pragmatic approach to these matters, and the clause will bring great benefit to Northern Ireland in the long term. I shall also try to deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Tewkesbury, as well as those of the hon. Member for East Antrim.

I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), who is taking the lead on dealing with this matter as a policy issue. She has day-to-day responsibility for these matters outside this Committee with officials from the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Clause 25 will enable Her Majesty by Order in Council—I am afraid that again it is by Order in Council—to give legal effect to any agreement that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can achieve between the British and Irish Governments relating to the creation of a single wholesale electricity market in Northern Ireland and the Republic. I hope that I can reassure all hon. Members that in the event of an agreement being reached between the Irish and British Governments, it will be presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for information and confirmation.

To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Irish Government hope that a memorandum of understanding, rather than a formal treaty, will be established between the British and Irish Governments to put in place several safeguards and ensure that the key elements needed to establish a single wholesale market will be put in place. Although that memorandum is still subject to discussion with the Irish Government and the electricity operators—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim—it is still being consulted on and discussed with them. However, in the event of an agreement being reached, it is hoped that the memorandum of understanding will cover a range of issues, such as regulatory arrangements, the role of the market operator, dealing with market power and dominance, sharing information between the Republic and the British Government, licensing arrangements and access to the market.

We have taken an assessment of the costs of the exercise that could be undertaken, subject to the agreement between the two Governments. An early estimate is that, if the single market were established, the total implementation and operational costs in Northern Ireland would be in the region of £34 million over a 10-year period. The cost during that period would be offset by a potential saving of £30 million, so at the end of the first 10-year period, if the agreement is reached, the net cost to Northern Ireland would have been about £4 million. However, after 10 years, savings accruing to Northern Ireland would, I hope, be passed on in the long term to the hard-pressed electricity payer in Northern Ireland.

I have to say to all hon. Members who have raised this question, including the hon. Member for Belfast, South, that in the short term I doubt whether the ordinary electricity payer in Northern Ireland will make savings as a result of this exercise. In the long term, however, there are potential savings to be made, and after the 10-year period, they will accrue in ever increasing amounts, subject to ever-rising electricity prices, which are causing problems in all hon. Members’ constituencies, not least those in Northern Ireland.

The market will bring greater competitive opportunities as well as efficiencies and economies of scale. The most important thing to emphasise to the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for East Antrim is that, potentially, after 10 years the economies of scale and efficiencies that can be made for generators and suppliers will lead to savings that I hope will, in due course, be passed on to ordinary individuals in Northern Ireland. Again, I emphasise that energy will ultimately be the responsibility of the Assembly. I would hope that, in due course, when the Assembly is reconstituted—as I hope it will be—it will monitor and take forward this aspect of policy provision.

I hope that that has answered some of the points made by hon. Members. I am attempting to answer them on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who I am sure would be happy to meet colleagues in the event of the agreement being progressed.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I appreciate the point that the Minister made regarding the cost; I suppose that he can give only an estimate. However, will he address the issue that I raised about how secure the current contracts will be with the advent of a single electricity market? Will it be possible for the operator to revoke those contracts, or will they be guaranteed to run to end of the relevant period?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I shall return to that point in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.

As I mentioned, the £34 million cost over the 10-year period will be taken into account with the£30 million of savings. The hon. Gentleman made a good point with regard to the current operators, with whom the matter is being discussed. The memorandum of understanding, if agreed with the Irish Government, will take into account all those matters.

The Order in Council that proposes the memorandum will be subject to consultation.Clause 25 simply gives to the Government the power to make that agreement, but the agreement and its potential implications for existing operators regarding savings or otherwise and for the relationship between the Irish and British Government will all be subject to the order, which will itself be subject to consultation.

To get back to the basics, the clause will give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary legal backing to negotiate the memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government and to introduce an Order in Council to bring that into effect.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I realise that this is a specialist area, and I appreciate the Minister’s attempts to explain a difficult and complicated situation.

I shall reiterate what I was trying to say: the regulation is one thing, but the actual opening up of the market is another. The existing long-term contracts present a bit of a problem because they could end up keeping the price of electricity high, but as the hon. Member for East Antrim said, it is important to honour those contracts. I hope that the Minister will speak to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because it is important that we move as quickly as is fair towards an open market in electricity, and not just harmonisation of regulation.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I anticipate that the current contracts will operate certainly until 2010. After that date, they will be a matter for discussion and consultation; discussions on the single electricity market and how it will operate and affect contractors in the future are under way already with existing operators.

Clause 25 will give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the power to negotiate the memorandum of understanding and to bring it back here after consultation for execution by this House and implementation beyond that date. I understand the concerns that current operators will have, and I hope that the reassurance of 2010 will be of assistance to them. Those matters will be subject to consultation, at which stage the hon. Member for East Antrim, with his constituency interest, is welcome to make his points.

Clause 26

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

On this occasion, I shall attempt not to stray on to the issue of Russian gas supplies.

Let us compare the renewables market in this country with that in continental Europe, where the supply of renewable energy is far more prevalent. Continental Europe generates far more electricity from renewable sources than we do. As hon. Members might well be aware, the renewables obligation covers Great Britain, but we manage to generate only about 3.5 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources compared with the target of 10.4 per cent. by 2010.

Now that it is 2006, that target looks very ambitious, but it does not seem awfully high when we consider the necessity of moving towards the cleaner generation of electricity, for which the necessary technology has been around for some time. For Northern Ireland there is the non-fossil fuel obligation, but that will be set at only 6.3 per cent. by 2012, which is not terribly ambitious. At the moment, the figure is about 3 per cent.

I accept that there are problems with the promotion of renewable energy in Northern Ireland that do not exist elsewhere in Great Britain, where there is perhaps more potential for the generation of renewable electricity. In encouraging renewable electricity in Great Britain, the Government have made the mistake of depending far too much on windmills. Although they have their place in electricity generation, several problems are associated with them. The biggest is that they are intermittent—when the wind does not blow, we get no electricity. That might seem like an obvious statement, but the wind tends to blow only 30 per cent. of the time, so we get electricity only during that time. The great problem with electricity is that it cannot be stored, so if the wind blows twice as hard one day, we cannot get twice as much electricity and store it for a day when the wind does not blow.

For two years, I have tracked the Government on energy issues and shadowed the Minister for Energy and I think that we need a much broader approach to developing renewable energy. There is far too much emphasis on wind power—

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman again, but I am anxious not to have a general debate on the merits of wind power versus nuclear or otherwise. The clause touches on promoting wind farms in Northern Ireland, and his comments must relate to the Northern Ireland situation.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. Having visited a wind farm in Northern Ireland, I felt slightly qualified to discuss the issue. I am merely trying to suggest that the Government take a much broader approach to developing renewable energy in Northern Ireland than they have in Great Britain. The approach that they have taken in Great Britain has left us struggling to meet the targets, and I do not want the Government to fail to meet the modest targets in Northern Ireland. If they are serious about developing renewable energy in Northern Ireland, they need to be much more focused than they have been in Great Britain.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have a couple of points relating to the purposes of the financial assistance and the aims listed in subsection (2) of the clause. Those aims are admirable, but the existence of a single energy market poses a particular threat. The biggest player in that market will be the Electricity Supply Board—the electricity generating body from the Irish Republic. Contrary to the current situation in Northern Ireland, it will be not only a generator, but a supplier, transmitter and distributor, and it will control at least half the market. Given that the electricity that goes into the pool will be based on half-hour transmissions, such a large supplier will have the potential to distort the price to its own advantage, which is particularly worrying.

What steps will be taken during the negotiations to deal with that issue? Attention must be paid to it to ensure that one large player, which will not only supply the pool, but buy from it, does not distort the market. What steps will be taken to ensure that that does not happen? The danger is that ESB could drive out some of the smaller generators by influencing the price. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, the energy market on the whole island—in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic—is quite isolated. Some power can be brought in through the interconnector from Scotland, but by and large the island is quite isolated, so the loss of one generator could greatly distort the market and greatly increase price volatility. That is one of the reasons why I said at the start that although in theory a single energy market would be welcome—

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but we are again straying rather wide of the clause. As its title says, it is about financial assistance for energy purposes. I should be grateful if he related his speech to that subject.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. I was dealing with subsection (2), whose first purpose is

“to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply”.

If steps are not taken to address the power and influence that can be exercised by one supplier and distributor controlling 50 per cent. of a single market, that purpose will not be achieved. It will be possible for that one supplier to influence the price and affect in the long term the number of generators in the market.

I should appreciate some guidance from the Minister on what discussions have been held on the matter. One way around the problem is a fairly generous capacity payment mechanism, whereby generators would be paid to keep some surplus capacity so that peaks and troughs could be dealt with and sufficient generating capacity would exist during peak periods to ensure greater price stability. I do not know whether discussions have been held along those lines, but that is one solution that generators have suggested. They have a vested interest in being paid for surplus capacity, of course, but it would be equally beneficial to consumers in that it could even out price peaks and troughs during the year or the day.

Attention must be given during negotiations to the ESB’s ability to distort the market and to affect the working of something that should be beneficial to consumers, rather than going in the long run against some of the purposes in clause 26.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am conscious of the time, but I feel that it would be remiss of me not to welcome the clause warmly, as I welcomed clause 25. Renewable energy and diversity of supply are important issues for us in Northern Ireland, and from where I stand, I see a gap. The Government must have the ability to intervene to develop the market and to encourage those who are uncertain about investing in renewable energy to move forward.

I do not wish to delay the Committee unduly, as other business is on the schedule, but I want to endorse strongly the broad principles of the Bill and urge the Minister to see that those principles are applied to ensure a stronger renewable energy sector. We need diversity of supply, because the present circumstances do not do enough to encourage and create that market. I warmly welcome the clause.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The clause is important for the reasons that hon. Members have mentioned. Developing renewable energy is crucial to the alternative energy sources required to help improve Northern Ireland for the future. At the moment, Northern Ireland is at99 per cent. of the quota on imported fossil fuels and other energy sources. We need to examine alternative energy.

For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced early this year that he would allocate a £259 million support package to develop alternative energy sources during the next few years. The clause gives legal effect to the amendment of existing legislative powers so that financial assistance can be provided for energy purposes. It will enable the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to assist in a wide range of energy provisions, including renewable development. I hope that it will be welcomed by all hon. Members.

The target in Northern Ireland is for 12 per cent. of electricity to be supplied from renewables by 2012. I accept that that is an ambitious target.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The Minister has access to far more information than I have. I was told that the obligation was for 6.3 per cent. with an aspirational target of12 per cent.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Indeed. The renewables obligation is 6.3 per cent., but the Government target is to try to make it 12 per cent. by 2012. We need to support renewables effectively. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government’s attempt to develop renewable energy. Far be it from me to reflect that, as I recall it, when the £59 million that the Government are allocating was announced in the Budget, the hon. Gentleman voted against it. I welcome the fact that he is committed to supporting renewable energy, but I wish that he was committed not only in his aspirations but in his voting.

Having said that—let us not be churlish—the hon. Gentleman said that wind power is important. Yes it is, but that is not all that the Government intend bringing forward under the Bill. If the clause becomes law, we intend to give powers to the Secretary of State to ensure that research on generating energy from waste products is undertaken, with a £15 million fund; there will be accelerated deployment of solar power; and over the next couple of years, the Housing Executive will be installing 600 solar heating systems in social housing and increasing to 10,000 the number of homes that receive energy from solar power through a number of energy efficiency measures under the warm homes scheme. We will also build market capacity with an investment of £2.5 million, and we are underpinning the knowledge economy by investing in such areas. I would certainly say that the clause is important. It gives legal backing to the power to achieve those results.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South mentioned ESB—an important point. [Hon. Members: “East.”] I apologise; I meant to say the hon. Member for East Antrim. I know the difference between Antrim, South and Antrim, East; I have seen both of them kicking around in the park on several occasions. It was a slip of the tongue.

As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, ESB will have nearly 60 per cent. of the generating capacity in the new market, and we need to consider how to prevent ESB from abusing its market power. The dominance of ESB is a challenge to the operation of the new markets, and the Irish Government too are considering the position of ESB in their review of the Irish electricity sector. The Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has taken a close interest in the matter, and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, will be considering it carefully.

In recognition of ESB’s current position, the regulators are developing a market power strategy to address the potential for market abuse by participants that control a dominant segment of the generating plant capacity. Again, I hope that that will be a matter for further discussion, and I am sure that, if required, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will support a meeting with the hon. Member for East Antrim to discuss the matters further.

I commend the clause; it is valuable, and I am grateful that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee support it.

Clause 27

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 27, page 18, line 27, at end insert—

‘(1A) Section 112 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (power to direct a person to leave a place) extends to Northern Ireland.'.

I am delighted to speak to yet another miscellaneous provision in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The clause covers for the first time a subject that has not been mentioned—the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The amendment is fairly obviously a probing amendment. It proposes extending to Northern Ireland section 112 of that Act.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Before Lady Hermon resumes, I shall say that I intend to adjourn the Committee for a short period for a dinner break at 7 o’clock. I hope that that might focus minds.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I apologise, Mr. Atkinson, if I appeared to hesitate earlier. I had not heard the Division Bell because I was so excited by the anticipation of what the Minister would say aboutthe delay in extending to Northern Ireland sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and in particular sections 60 to 67, 69 and 70, which are belatedly being extended by clause 27.

I have considerable concern about that point. The Minister, who is a diligent Minister and takes his responsibilities seriously, will have noted that immediately before the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill came before the House there was yet another report from the highly respected and regarded Independent Monitoring Commission, which he and his colleagues are so keen to quote to us. They will doubtless do so again before the end of the week.

I shall quote from the November 2004 IMC report, which I recommend to all members of the Committee if they have not already read it. Paragraph 5.5, on page 27, is pertinent to discussion of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. It states:

“The Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force has stated that there are some 230 organised criminal gangs believed to be operating in Northern Ireland.”

I shall repeat that: 230 organised criminal gangs.

“We have been advised that about 60 per cent. or some 140 have paramilitary links and that, of the top 25 criminal gangs involved in international activities operating in early 2004, 17, some two-thirds, had paramilitary associations.”

The next sentence is the most striking on the entire page.

“Seldom in the developed world has this high proportion of the most serious criminals been associated with groups originating in terrorism, with an organisational structure and discipline, and the experience of planning, learning and conducting sophisticated clandestine operations, methods of handling money, and with traditions of extreme violence.”

That was the report as recently as November 2004.

I was astounded that, in 2005, despite that report having highlighted the seriousness of the situation in terms of organised criminals and the gangs that operate in Northern Ireland—let me remind all members of the Committee that Northern Ireland is a small part of this United Kingdom—many provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act were not immediately extended to Northern Ireland by way of primary legislation. It concerns me greatly that now, two years later, clause 27 belatedly extends to Northern Ireland only sections 60 to 67, 69 and 70.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State described the chief purpose of the Bill. He said:

“The Bill will chiefly allow maximum flexibility in the arrangements for the future devolution of policing and justice functions to the Assembly”.—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1167.]

Had it not been for their overriding purpose of devolving to the Assembly the decision about when it wishes to take responsibility for policing and justice, when in heaven’s name would the Government ever have got round to extending to Northern Ireland the important provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which ought to have been extended at the time of that Act in 2005?

The amendment would extend to Northern Ireland section 112 of the 2005 Act, which deals with the ability of a constable to order a person to leave an area. For example, there has been a series of high-profile cases in Northern Ireland in which men—and let us assume that the vast majority of people who commit domestic violence are men—have been released, had their names included on the sex offenders register there, and gone on to commit serious offences. My amendment would extend to constables in Northern Ireland the section’s powers in, say, the case of a convicted criminal who had been told to stay away from the victim of sexual abuse. The key question is when the Minister intends to extend the other key sections of the Act to Northern Ireland. When will the Government get their minds around to that? I shall listen intently to the Minister’s response.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I welcome the hon. Lady’s amendment and the debate that she has raised. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept the amendment, but perhaps I may crave her indulgence for a moment, so that she will understand why—and why, none the less, we are interested in her ideas.

The powers referred to in the amendment are part of a package of exclusion powers that include exclusion orders and, where appropriate, electronic monitoring, all of which, as the hon. Lady recognises, are available in England and Wales under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and previous legislation, but not currently in Northern Ireland. Although the amendment is well intended, it would, even if technically correct, raise practical issues about how to apply it.

At present the necessary legislative building blocks are not in place in Northern Ireland to allow us to adopt the amendment as it stands. To extend section 112 of the 2005 Act to Northern Ireland now could require the creation of a much more substantive package of sentencing powers in the Bill, which is not what the Bill was designed for. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is now carrying out a review of the sentencing framework for Northern Ireland, including consideration of, for example, electronic monitoring. We hope to publish proposals for separate measures in due course, and in that context we shall of course carefully consider what the hon. Lady has said.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I appreciate the assurance that the Minister has given. I posed two questions, and I accept the answer about why the amendment cannot now be accepted, but my first question was why the provisions that clause 27 extends to Northern Ireland were not extended to it when the Act was first passed.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

Because at the time the exclusion orders were being developed for England and Wales, Northern Ireland was in the process of a criminal justice review, in the wake of the Belfast agreement. It was therefore deemed inappropriate to proceed with those powers for Northern Ireland. Things have clearly moved a long way since then. That is one reason for the review being conducted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

We are very mindful of the fact that the success of some of the relevant powers here could apply in Northern Ireland, and we are taking that into consideration. We do not think that this Bill is the right vehicle for a comprehensive set of measures, which would be necessary in the case of exclusion powers and exclusion orders. There is a better place to do that in light of the fuller sentence review. That is why, given those assurances and the fact that we are conducting the review, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am sorry that I seem to have given the Minister the wrong impression in my intervention. I warmly accept his assurances. I am surprised, as we draw towards the end of our consideration of the Bill, to have had an indication that a Minister—one, at least—has been listening to our suggestions as to how it can be improved for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland.

My intervention concerned the extension, under this clause, of the SOCAP provisions to Northern Ireland. The investigatory powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions—the powers spelled out in sections 60 to 67 and 69 and 70—were available to be extended to Northern Ireland in 2005. My question was, when on earth would they have been extended to Northern Ireland had it not been for the fact that the Government were adhering to a commitment to Sinn Fein to give an indication that they would devolve policing and justice to the Assembly?

That was the chief purpose of the Bill, but it has turned into a ragbag of all sorts of things. Of course I welcome the extension of some parts of SOCAP to Northern Ireland, albeit so late in the day. I am just sorry that the Minister did not take the opportunity to explain to me why the measure was so delayed, when it was meant to concern just the DPP—not exclusion zones; not legislation that did not extend to Northern Ireland; and not the review that is currently being undertaken by the Minister of State.

However, the Minister has given me an undertaking that a review is being conducted and that he will look positively at our suggestions for further action. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 4

Schedule 5

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in schedule 5, page 38, leave out lines 26 to 30.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 15

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

These are minor amendments relating to the removal of clauses 10 to 12, which was considered on the Floor of the House last week.

Clause 32

Clause 33

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your couple of hours in the Chair this afternoon and your co-Chairman, Mr. Taylor, for his efforts this morning. I must confess that I am pleased that we managed to complete our proceedings on the Bill in Committee today. I thank the Clerks for their patience and hard work, and I thank our colleagues in Hansard for their ever present recording of our utterings and mutterings. I thank my colleague the Under-Secretary, and the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling(Mr. Coaker), for their contributions. Finally, most of all, I thank my hon. Friends, the members of the Committee, for their unfailing support, patience and commitment, and their renewed interest in the events and affairs of Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. I echo the Minister’s thanks to you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Taylor, and to your staff. I thank my colleagues who have contributed today. The Minister referred, I think, to the silent majority when he thanked his Back Benchers, but it is always interesting to take part in these debates, and I look forward to further debates this week.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. I thank you and your co-Chairman,Mr. Taylor, for conducting us efficiently through the Bill. I thank also all the staff who have assisted us and made the debate possible.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. I, too, on behalf of my group, who have been markedly absent today—they have deserted me—thank you for the expert way in which you have guided the Committee and for the last-minute incentive you gave us to rush through the final parts of the Bill. I thank also the Clerks and other staff who have steered the Committee through our proceedings.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to your kind chairmanship this afternoon, and to that of your co-Chairman, Mr. David Taylor, this morning. I must single out for comment the Whip, the hon. Member for Gedling. He happens to be in the Government party, but as an Opposition Member, I note that he has been very kind to all members of the Committee and has been receptive to the odd text message from the hon. Member for North Down, asking him why I have not been notified of certain matters. He always tries to keep us very well informed, and I single him out for thanks.

I commend also Hansard and the other officials. I commend Hansard for its speed, because when asked in a note in a brown envelope to submit the Secretary of State’s quotation from September, I did so, and when, within minutes, I needed it back, it had already gone. I commend Hansard staff for their efficiency and speed, and I look forward to reading what the hon. Member for East Antrim said in his long contribution on electricity. I am sure that I will understand it better on a second reading.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. I add my thanks and appreciation to all involved. However, perhaps the best way of showing that to staff would be to shut up and let them out of here. I add my thanks to you personally, Mr. Atkinson, because I am relatively new—I have less than a year under my belt—and I have appreciated your understanding and flexibility towards me as I am not quite up to speed with procedure.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I thank the Committee for being so co-operative with my co-Chairman and me. I am sure that we are all delighted not to have to come back at 10.30 on Tuesday morning.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.