Oral Answers to Questions
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Villiers
The PSNI is actually receiving additional funds from the Government—£200 million over the current spending review period and about £30 million in 2015-16—and as I have said, discussions continue between the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Executive over whether further funding can be added from the Executive in 2015-16.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Patten recommended that in a peaceful situation, the PSNI should have a minimum of 7,500 officers. Given that Northern Ireland is not exactly in that peaceful situation, owing to paramilitary activity, is the Secretary of State concerned about the PSNI’s ability to recruit sufficient officers?
Mrs Villiers
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee for his question and his important work on this issue. The current number of officers in the PSNI is 6,795. The Chief Constable recently told the Policing Board that the minimum number he needed to perform effectively was 6,963. It is important that consideration be given to how the shortfall can be dealt with, and as I have said, I remain optimistic about the ongoing discussions between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Justice about resolving that budgetary shortfall.
Haass Talks
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Villiers
I echo and thank the shadow Secretary of State for his words on Paul Goggins. Paul’s example is one with which to counter the cynicism about MPs and about politicians, because he illustrated such a strong commitment to decency, integrity and public service. I also strongly echo the shadow Secretary of State’s point that Paul retained a genuine affection for Northern Ireland. He cared deeply about it, I am sure, when he was a Minister, and it was clear that he still did so in his discussions with me as Secretary of State some time after he had ceased to be a Minister. He had strong values, which I am sure were a great support to him in his work in this House and in Northern Ireland.
The shadow Secretary of State’s remarks illustrate that there is a lot of common ground between Front Benchers on a way forward. I agree that getting the parties together and back around the table in a working group to try to resolve the differences between them is the right way forward. That is what I have been urging the political parties to do. I also agree that an eventual solution needs to respect the sensitivities of the different traditions, but that it must also involve compromise on all sides.
It is important to recognise the progress made on the past, which is a particularly difficult issue for all of us, including, in some ways, the UK Government. I believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, that the voice of victims and survivors played a very positive role in taking things forward and that any eventual solution must place victims and survivors at its heart.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the dialogue between me and the First and Deputy First Ministers. I have spoken to both of them in recent days to urge that a way forward be found and that the working group commence.
The legislation to implement what would be needed from the Haass proposals would come primarily through the Assembly and the Executive. The part this House would play would be, potentially, the devolution of parading. The mechanics of setting up the new bodies would be a matter for the Assembly and the Executive.
I have kept in close touch with Eamon Gilmore and the Irish Government—both before and after the talks broke up—on matters relating to the past and all the other issues under discussion in this process, including a discussion on finances. It is very clear that the UK Government face a significant deficit, which means that we have to take care with public spending. We expect the primary resource for the new mechanisms to be found from within the block grant to Northern Ireland, but we will, of course, always consider further applications for funding from the Northern Ireland Executive if they wish to press ahead with the measures. We will, however, be constrained in what we can offer by the need to tackle the deficit we inherited.
On reducing the number of commissioners, I strongly believe that we have a strong new Parades Commission that will do important work in the months to come. I am sure we all hope that a reformed system will take over in the devolved space if the agreements are eventually signed off by all the parties, but in the meantime I am sure the current Parades Commission will do an excellent job.
I wholly refute the perception of disengagement by the UK Government. The UK Government are strongly engaged with the Haass process and with Northern Ireland. We brought the G8 to Northern Ireland—one of the most successful events ever for Northern Ireland—and we followed it up with a strong investment conference. We signed an economic pact that sees us working more closely than ever with the devolved Government, including the commitment to meet the £18 billion of capital spending, and we are determined to press ahead with supporting the Executive in their moves on a shared future. We have responded when the Executive have asked us—for example, to devolve air passenger duty for long-haul flights. We stepped in to assist in the grave situation we inherited from Labour with the Presbyterian Mutual Society. We are continuing to work on the devolution of corporation tax. There is a whole range of ways in which this Government are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
On welfare reform, we will continue our discussions with the Northern Ireland parties, but we believe that the compromises agreed with Minister McCausland are appropriate and will help adapt the welfare reform system to the particular needs of Northern Ireland.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, may I join the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and others in expressing our deepest sympathies to the family of Paul Goggins, who has so shockingly passed away? He was a thoroughly decent and honourable man. When he was a Minister, I had the pleasure of shadowing him for about three years, and I have to tell the House that he was a very competent Minister. I say without any fear of contradiction that without his contribution I do not think we would be here today at this advanced stage of the Northern Ireland peace process, so highly do I value his work.
The Secretary of State is, of course, right in saying that it was the Northern Ireland parties that initiated the Haass process. I think Dr Haass was given a rather impossible task of finding quick solutions to problems that have existed for a long time. Is it not important now that those discussions between the parties in Northern Ireland and, furthermore, with community leaders in Northern Ireland continue, because such engagement is as important as any solutions that may come from those discussions?
Oral Answers to Questions
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of whether all paramilitary organisations are observing ceasefires? Does she agree that if any are not doing so, they are betraying rather than serving the people they purport to represent?
Mrs Villiers
I completely agree, and I think that my hon. Friend puts it very well when he says that paramilitary groups that come off their ceasefire are betraying the communities they purport to represent. My understanding is that, at the moment, no paramilitary organisations have come off their ceasefire, although I am, of course, well aware of the concerns felt about individual members of the Ulster Volunteer Force who are involved in criminality in east Belfast. The police are taking action to counter that.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Naomi Long
I support the amendment, and I particularly welcome the fact that following our debate in the Committee of the whole House the Government have listened to the representations I made, as well as those made by the “Who Pulls the Strings” campaign in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
It is not often that those of us on the Opposition Benches see the matters that we would like a Bill to deal with being addressed. It is even rarer for those of us who sit as solitary Members to see such concerns taken on board. I am particularly pleased that a compelling argument has been made for the amendment. I must qualify that, however, with my slight disappointment that we have been unable to go further to remove the exemptions and rules in Northern Ireland to allow us to move into line with the rest of the UK. There is evidence of huge public demand for that in Northern Ireland. Like in every other part of the UK, and, I suspect, in almost every other part of the democratic world, there is suspicion and a perception in the minds of the public that politics operates for the benefit of the few not the many and that those who have money and influence can wield that to their own advantage.
To rebuild trust and confidence in the political system, it is hugely important that people have transparency about donations and can scrutinise whether donations made to political parties influence policy and decision making at a government level. That is not possible currently because even though donations are declared to the Electoral Commission, they cannot be published. I believe that the time has come for the veil of secrecy to be lifted.
The amendment is a good step in that direction in that it clarifies the position for donors. Those who donate up until the January date will know that their anonymity will be permanent. There was a question mark over that as the powers of the Secretary of State would have allowed those donations to be published retrospectively. I believe that people gave that money on the understanding that it would be handled with confidentiality and privacy, and that expectation should be met by the Government. That is very important.
The amendment also means that those who donate after January will know that those donations will eventually be published. They will not be published right away. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide at the next point of review, which is due, I think, in October 2014, whether the security situation, in her view, would allow her to publish them.
The amendment makes it very clear to anybody making a donation from January onwards that at some point in the future that donation will be open to public scrutiny. It clarifies the situation in their minds so that they know when they make the donation the risk and the public scrutiny that will be involved. They will be able to make an informed decision.
Sir Christopher Kelly gave evidence on the subject to the Committee. He was very clear that he was not convinced by the argument that security should automatically outweigh the right of the public to scrutinise donations that are made to political parties. I share his view and do not believe that security should outweigh that right. Indeed, despite everything that has been said in the House about intimidation and threats against my own party, we continue voluntarily to publish the details of those people who make donations of more than £7,500 to the Alliance party so that people are fully aware of and can scrutinise our policy decisions.
Perhaps I can take this opportunity to encourage the Minister, which I think my colleague the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) sought to do, to encourage his colleagues in the Conservative party in Northern Ireland to join us in voluntarily publishing their donors. Indeed, I urge other parties in this House in Northern Ireland to do likewise. I think that it would help to build trust and confidence in the political system, to ventilate what has become quite a toxic issue in Northern Ireland, not least in recent months, and to move forward on a clearer footing.
My disappointment is that we are not in a position at this point to make more progress on bringing us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the amendment is a good step forward. It will provide clarity for the public and reassurance that the direction of travel is towards openness and transparency. I thank the Government for taking this on board. The assurances given by the Electoral Commission that they can prepare parties and donors to be ready for the change that is about to take place by January has been helpful in enabling things to move forward. I thank the Government and fully support what they are proposing.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Before I discuss the amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may pay tribute briefly to the late Eddie McGrady, who served in this House for many years. It was a pleasure to work with him. He was indeed a decent man with a sharp and ready sense of humour and I know that he will be sadly missed in Northern Ireland.
I join others in condemning the attacks on the office of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is a very valuable member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Having worked with her on that Committee for three years, I know that she will not be put off by the attacks; she will continue to show great determination, and to carry out the work that she has been doing with great distinction.
Northern Ireland
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I thank the Democratic Unionist party for today’s two debates, both of which are very important. I pay great tribute to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has been a friend of mine for many years, for the way in which he introduced the debate. I think that the whole House will have found it extremely moving and very sad when he read out the names, ages and family connections of those murdered 20 years ago today—it really reminds us of what a terrible time in Northern Ireland we have seen. I would like to add my sympathies and condolences to all those who survived that attack and lived with the pain of it—it is unimaginable what they went through then and what they are still going through.
Just last year, I visited Enniskillen with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for the 25-year anniversary commemoration of another terrible atrocity. I was in Dundalk the day the bomb went off at Omagh and have since visited Omagh three times. I have also met the families in relation to the events at Kingsmill and Ballymurphy, and the Finucane murder. Terrible though those atrocities were, it is worth remembering that they all took place some time ago and since then enormous progress has been made in Northern Ireland—it is very important to remember that. We have seen Her Majesty the Queen pay an outstanding, historic visit to not only the Republic of Ireland, but to Northern Ireland, when she shook hands with Martin McGuinness and many other people. We have also seen power sharing and several important events in Northern Ireland which have been referred to already: for example, the G8 meeting was held there and Londonderry is the city of culture. There are many tourism opportunities in Northern Ireland, such as Giant’s causeway and the Titanic centre—there are very many reasons to go to Northern Ireland. We have seen so many changes, even just over the years I have been going there.
It is also right to say that challenges remain, however. There is unfinished business in Northern Ireland and sadly it is still, in some ways, a divided society. For example, there are more peace walls there now than there were 10 years ago, which cannot be a good thing. There are still dissidents attempting to murder members of the security forces and, over the summer and during the flag protests at the end of last year, we saw so-called loyalists throwing bricks at police officers. That simply cannot be right.
Much has been done, but this debate is about dealing with the past. How do we deal with the past? Can we ever do it successfully? There has been a call for an inquiry to be held into the Omagh atrocity, and there are powerful arguments for doing so, but there are also people who do not want such an inquiry because it would bring back the pain and rake over the past. It would risk prolonging the pain.
Perhaps the only way to deal with the past is to build a better future. Since 2010, the Select Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, has been concentrating on the future. For example, it has been inquiring into and making recommendations on economic matters such as corporation tax and air passenger duty—which we shall discuss in a short while—in an attempt to cement the peace that has been achieved by building a better economy, and by giving people greater opportunities and allowing them to feel that the peace process has been worth while for them. This is about building a Province that is very different for present and future generations from what it was in the past.
The Select Committee also considers security matters and issues relating to the past. For example, we are meeting Dr Richard Haass next Tuesday to discuss his work. We will also be meeting the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable to discuss the security situation. Shortly after that, we will meet the Secretary of State to discuss all those issues and more.
One issue that the Committee cannot look into in any detail, because it is devolved, is that of education and schooling. I believe, however, that we need to make more progress on integrated education. We need to bring children together at the age of four, rather than separating them and allowing them to live separate lives. We need to show them that there is no difference between a Catholic and a Protestant, and that what differentiates us is the way we behave rather than the labels that are placed on us.
Kate Hoey
I thank the Chair of my Select Committee for giving way. It is important to remember when we talk about integrated education that many of Northern Ireland’s grammar schools are highly integrated. The idea that the only way of getting Catholics and Protestants to be educated together is through the introduction of integrated schools does not reflect what is actually happening.
Mr Robertson
I accept that the hon. Lady knows an awful lot about this subject, and I accept her point about grammar schools. She will also be aware, however, of the turmoil surrounding the ability of children to qualify to go to those schools. I suggest that there is still a need to move the general principle of integrated education forward in the wider sense.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. I congratulate the Select Committee, which he chairs, on its work. I also congratulate my hon. Friends in the Democratic Unionist party on securing this timely debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to make progress on burying the past would be for Sinn Fein Members to come to this House and take part in debates such as these? It is a matter of great sadness that they do not do so. I appeal to my hon. Friend to make a plea to that effect—
Mr Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. That point was also raised earlier, and I agree entirely. I have in fact taken the matter to the very top, in that I have said to Mr Gerry Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness that that is exactly what they should be doing. They should be coming here to argue their case. They travel to Westminster and hold meetings here in this building, but they will not come to the Chamber to discuss these issues. They are not serving the people of Northern Ireland very well by pursuing that abstentionist policy. Almost a third of the Province is unrepresented here in this Chamber, which is a tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they are republicans or Unionists.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
As a fellow member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he chairs it. Does he agree that we have begun to make progress, in that Sinn Fein has started to attend some meetings of the Select Committee, including when we are in Belfast? We have opened a dialogue of some sort. We have much further to go, but that will be down to my hon. Friend’s activities as well.
Mr Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is true that Sinn Fein has started to give formal evidence to the Select Committee, and I regard that as progress. Despite what I just said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), I must point out that these things sometimes take a little while. There has been progress in that respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) says, and I hope that it will continue because I see it as a positive move. It is sensible for Sinn Fein to make that move, but there are still a number of steps that it will have to take.
I was talking about integrated education, and I am very keen on that concept. I attended a Church of England secondary school, and I am proud to have done so, but I must point out that Bolton in Lancashire is very different from West Belfast—as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker—and presents very different challenges. I want to see a society in Northern Ireland in which peace walls are no longer required, and in which we stop counting and publishing the percentages of Catholics and Protestants in organisations. We need to reach a point at which that does not matter.
We must move towards a society in which, rather than segregating children almost at birth, we teach them to live together. That is the way to achieve a shared future, because a shared future involves sharing institutions and sharing lives. The peaceful future that we all want to build in Northern Ireland will not be secured through treaties or international agreements; it will be secured through changing hearts and minds. That is something that we must try to work towards.
I have mentioned the violence in Northern Ireland over the summer and at the end of last year. I was there during the marches in mid-July, and I witnessed many thousands of people celebrating their culture. There was not a single problem among all those thousands of people. Of course, as ever, the 0.1% did cause problems and, unfortunately, those are the pictures that get flashed across the world. The Select Committee visited America a few months ago, and the people we spoke to told us how disconcerting it was to see the pictures of the flag protests and of the problems relating to marches. We had to point out to them that the problems were due to that 0.1% of the people. Unfortunately, however, those pictures that are flashed across the world lose revenue for Northern Ireland. They lose us tourists and inward investment, and that cannot be right. Those acts of violence cannot be right, whether they are the result of political ambitions related to republicanism or loyalism or the result of pure thuggery, which I suggest some of them were.
Either way, we have to move forward and try to build a better Northern Ireland, so that this generation and future generations do not suffer as those in the past have done, in the ways that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley so graphically described earlier. To summarise, perhaps we can best deal with the past only by building a better future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Villiers
We are concerned on both sides of the House about cost of living pressures. That is why the Government have taken steps to cut income tax for more than 600,000 people in Northern Ireland, have taken 75,000 people there out of income tax altogether, have halved the income tax bills of those on the minimum wage and are freezing fuel duty. Above all, our deficit reduction strategy is keeping mortgage rates low, which is crucial for the cost of living in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Republic of Ireland has announced the scrapping of its equivalent of air passenger duty. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact that could have on airports in Northern Ireland? Will she reconsider the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s proposals that attention should be given to removing the tax on flights to and from Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I know that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has a strong view on air passenger duty. I understand the concerns about competitiveness and the recent announcements by the Irish Government. The Government have not had a request from the Northern Ireland Executive to devolve short-haul APD. We would consider such a request seriously, but it would be an expensive change to make.
Northern Ireland
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Villiers
I very much welcome the comments of the shadow Secretary of State and particularly his joining me in condemning the violence. He is right to identify some of the attacks as deliberate attempts to murder police officers, which is utterly unacceptable and shocking. I will run through his long list of questions.
On the gravity of the injuries, the last update that I received was that overall, the injuries were not serious, although some police officers have been hospitalised. All those who were hospitalised as a result of the riots on 12 July were released from hospital fairly soon afterwards. I am not quite sure of the position on all the injuries that occurred last night, but my impression from my conversation with the Chief Constable this morning is that, thankfully, the injuries are again not of a serious nature. On the distribution of the injuries between mutual aid officers and PSNI officers, the figure for mutual aid officers over the weekend was two. Again, it is not clear whether any mutual aid officers were among those who were injured last night.
On the number of mutual aid officers, about 1,000 have been deployed over the past few days. Some will be going home and fresh mutual aid officers will be coming to Northern Ireland to provide assistance, so the numbers are relatively flexible. The Chief Constable is ensuring that he has the necessary resources.
The cost of the policing operation falls on the Department of Justice. Another damaging consequence of the events of recent days is that they put more pressure on police budgets.
The PSNI will naturally investigate what evidence there is of the involvement of the paramilitaries and assess who needs to be arrested. There has been a claim of responsibility from Oglaigh na hEireann in relation to the pipe bomb improvised explosive device that was thrown from the Ardoyne at police officers.
I agree that meaningful dialogue is the way forward. I have had a range of conversations on parading matters over recent months with residents’ groups, the Orange Order, the First and Deputy First Ministers, and other leading members of Northern Ireland’s political establishment. The Northern Ireland Office also sponsored a conference at Cardiff to promote dialogue and to keep people in touch with the police and one another in an attempt to defuse tensions in such situations.
I have had a number of conversations with the Tanaiste about the current situation and about a way forward, for example through the Richard Haass working group. I look forward to supporting the Executive in respect of the work of that group in whatever way they request.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I condemn the violence of the past few nights, for which, as the Secretary of State has said, there can be no excuse. I pay tribute to the brave men and women of the PSNI who risk their lives every day to try to keep the peace. I extend my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), whom I saw on the morning of 12 July at the Ardoyne. He was doing his best to maintain peace and calm in that area when there was something of a difficult situation, seemingly caused by the determination of the Parades Commission.
I was at several other places in Belfast on Thursday night and on Friday. With the exception of the Ardoyne in the morning, among the thousands of people I saw celebrating, there was not a single problem. Does the Secretary of State agree that the trouble has been caused by a very few people who were determined to cause trouble from the outset? Does she agree that those people in no way represent the good and decent people of Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I agree that we should in no way judge the people of Northern Ireland by the actions of the disgraceful minority who have brought violence to its streets. I acknowledge that many thousands of people on the streets on 12 July were there just to celebrate a cultural event. They caused no problems whatever and were not remotely involved in the violence that followed later in the evening.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a number of very important points. A number of the Committee’s witnesses where asked why donors would be at greater risk than candidates, for example, or those who support candidates in other ways, perhaps by delivering leaflets, displaying posters, canvassing or signing the nomination papers. Why does he think that donors would be at greater risk that those participants?
Mr Dodds
It could be argued that donors are at as great a risk as those who put themselves forward as political representatives and stand for political parties. I suppose that one reason why they might choose to be a donor, rather than a candidate, is that they do not want to attract the sort of public attention that being a full or part-time public representative brings in Northern Ireland. They want to be involved in the political process, to support it and to have their political interests advanced and their views reflected, but they do not necessarily want to get involved in politics directly. However, even being a donor can attract problems for those people. There is a difference between being a donor and standing for election as a political representative. Not everybody wants to be a political activist. I think that there is a significant difference in the level of public attention that people want to attract, and that is human nature.
Mark Durkan
The right hon. Gentleman raises a point that throws up the conundrum that, although we are trying to legislate for Northern Ireland in broad conformity with UK legislation as it is applied for parties here, because of the circumstances in Northern Ireland, the exception is to allow donations from the south. Then there is the discrepancy in the donations rules for people in the south, whereby they can donate under one set of rules to parties in the south and under another set to parties in the north. Perhaps there is a case for saying that we should try to arrive at some conformity on donations across the island of Ireland, or that donations from the south of Ireland should conform to the southern Irish rules as well. I do not have a problem with trying to finesse some of these issues so that we are not left with too many obvious conundrums. However, the answer to the question that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has asked is not provided by amendment 6. It is not the answer to his very valid, pertinent and relevant question about the different standards for people from the south contributing donations.
I made the point on Second Reading that there were many people in the south who were originally from the north, or perhaps from this island, who had a valid and benevolent interest in the affairs of the north and who continued to make a contribution there, often through membership of public bodies. I also made the point that not all of them had been appointed to such bodies by nationalist Ministers. If such people are seen to have a valid role and to make a credible input in the best interests of Northern Ireland by way of a public appointment, I do not see why they should be precluded from doing so by way of donations to political parties.
Mr Laurence Robertson
It is a pleasure to follow all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far. I intend to make only a brief contribution to the debate, as many of the points have already been raised. I note that amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), uses the word “may”, rather than “shall”, which is in keeping with the rest of the clause that he is seeking to amend. The Select Committee feels that we should move forward in this respect, and that we should try to normalise politics in Northern Ireland. I know that that was the ambition of the previous Secretary of State and the previous Minister, and it is fair to say that it is also the ambition of the current holders of those positions. It has been our guiding principle. Each and every political party that the Committee spoke to during the course of the inquiry approved of moving towards greater transparency.
Everyone on the Committee, myself included, recognises that there is a different security situation in Northern Ireland. The Committee has had a sufficient number of meetings, and paid a sufficient number of visits to Northern Ireland, to understand that fact. Further to my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), a question that has frequently been asked is: why should the arrangements be different for donors and for those who participate in the elections? The right hon. Gentleman gave an explanation for why people might want to be donors but not candidates, and I understand that, but I am still not clear why a donor should be at greater risk or under a greater threat than someone who is standing for office for a political party. I would have thought that it was the other way round. People who support a candidate, largely by signing nomination papers, would surely expose themselves to the same risk.
It has been pointed out that if a business makes a donation, it could put them at a commercial disadvantage, but it is up to the business to make that decision. There is a Co-operative store close to my office in Tewkesbury. The Co-op has supported the Labour party for many years, and I have to make the decision whether to go and buy a carton of milk and a newspaper from that shop. It happens to be close to my office and very convenient, so I do that. I do not think that businesses should be able to hide behind the argument of a security risk in order to protect their business interests. If they make a donation to a particular party in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in Great Britain, they should take that commercial risk. That should be part of the normal run of politics.
I am somewhat intrigued by the substantive clause inasmuch as it allows the Secretary of State to increase transparency, but does not allow her to reduce it. Having looked very closely at the provisions, I am still slightly confused on this point. If the Secretary of State increases transparency, can she reduce it at some later date? In other words, she cannot reduce transparency from where it stands now, but can she reduce it if she has increased it in the future?
I make that point because if she cannot reduce it, where have we got to? What would be the difference from what my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley proposes? Let us say that the Secretary of State increases transparency, but in the year after that, the security situation—heaven forbid—got worse, so that she had to come back to introduce primary legislation to change that position. In those circumstances, I do not really see what would be any different from my hon. Friend’s proposal.
The Select Committee and I would certainly be against the publication of any information retrospectively when donors have made donations in the belief that that would not be the case. I am slightly concerned about the wording in clause 1, however, which it states:
“Such information may be disclosed if the Commission believe, on reasonable grounds, that…the relevant person has consented”.
We tried to strengthen that provision, saying that there had to be evidence that the person had consented. The Government response was that if they adopted our proposal, it would create an absolute offence and a mistake could be made. I am not completely persuaded by that argument. I think that the clause does need strengthening to ensure that a mistake cannot be made in this respect and that there has to be a clear indication from the person or organisation that made the donation that permission has been given for any such disclosure. I thus seek clarification from the Minister on those points.
Jim Shannon
I would like to say a few quick words on amendment 2, as proposed by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and to put a different perspective on it. First, however, I wish to say that I have had a number of discussions with the hon. Gentleman and that we have served in the Finance Bill Committee together, as we have on Delegated Legislation Committees. I know that his interest is sincerely held and it is one that I respect. I was nevertheless struck as I read the briefing for this debate by its tone, and I would suggest that there is a reason for caution—anything further being an exaggeration.
My party, the Democratic Unionist party, is very much in favour of openness and transparency. We are also well aware of the security situation in Northern Ireland and of the fact that the dissidents are still very much on operations, which means that we cannot have one-size-fits-all legislation. It cannot happen; it is not like for like. Those who say that the people should stand up to intimidation show only the fact that they do not care or perhaps do not understand that people in Northern Ireland still live a life that carries a degree of anxiety—not just in historical cases, but in issues that are still ongoing today for communities across the whole of Northern Ireland. I accept that it is not to the same extent as in the past, but none the less there are still threats in my constituency and in others across Northern Ireland.
As someone who, like others, works within the community, I understand the real fear that people experience and I do not believe that it can be so easily dismissed as some people have suggested. Our security situation cannot be regulated to a date, as dissidents certainly do not respond to deadlines. Although I fully understand and agree with the necessity for transparency that has been put forward, this cannot be put before the security concerns of people and businesses, which are real and justified. To suggest otherwise would be to hope naively for the best, which is a good thing in principle, but not when people’s lives are at stake.
I have to say—I hate to say it, as well—that extortion of a sectarian nature is not a thing of the past when it comes to Northern Ireland. It still happens today; incidents are taking place. There is a very real possibility that if a business is seen to be donating to political parties, it might come under pressure to donate to other groups, perhaps those of an unsavoury nature. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said to the Committee, businesses can feel that they have been boycotted by customers whom they have had for years. There is a real issue for those people; it is not an exaggeration or a remote ideal. Is this what is intended by the legislation before us tonight? I do not believe so. I do not believe that the Bill is intended to scare off people who wish to contribute to a party. However, that will be a side-effect of it. People will fear that their homes, their businesses or, indeed, their families will be at risk, and that cannot be ignored by any Member in any part of the House.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I thank the Government for putting the Bill out to pre-legislative scrutiny. Analysing it was an interesting task for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I thank the Secretary of State and Minister of State for taking on board a number of our recommendations and for considering the other points that we made. I thank all members of the Committee, many of whom are present in the Chamber, for their hard work and for the benefit of their experience, particularly of those who are from Northern Ireland.
I do not want to single out one political party that gave evidence to the Committee, but it demonstrates the considerable extent to which things have moved on in Northern Ireland that the formal evidence session that we held in Belfast with Sinn Fein was, as I understand it, the first time that that political party had given public evidence to a Committee of the House of Commons. I think that is a significant step forward. I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee in Belfast and in Westminster. As those on the Front Benches have said, things in Northern Ireland have moved on enormously.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Gentleman rightly alludes to progress, with members of Sinn Fein giving evidence to the Committee. Does he agree that that is a good and significant step forward, and certainly beats impeding police officers in the course of their duty in Belfast at the weekend during an Orange Order parade?
Mr Robertson
I agree entirely. It is sometimes a case of two steps forward and one step back. I was in Belfast this morning and the newspapers were full of that incident in which a person was injured. Two weeks ago, members of the Committee visited Washington and spoke to a number of people. There was an overwhelming feeling that much had been sorted out in Northern Ireland, but the incident at the weekend, flag protests and the murder of Mr David Black last November do nothing to attract investment. They deter investment, and that is a tragedy. I hope we can move forward more smoothly.
We made a great deal of progress in attracting Sinn Fein to give evidence to the Committee. I would go further and say, as we did at the time, that it is time that members of that party took their seats in this Parliament so that they can come and make their case here. They claim they do the job anyway, but they do not. They do a job, but they do not do the job of parliamentarians, even though they accept the expenses and allowances that go with it. We ought to be able to move forward a little more in that respect.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares the concern of many of us on these Benches and in the Province that the onus is on elected representatives not only to obey the law, but to do so in public. What we saw at the weekend was a travesty of the law: two elected representatives, one of whom sits on the policing board, clearly flouted the law. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is an onus on elected representatives from Sinn Fein to be more observant of the law?
Mr Robertson
Everybody has to observe the law. The law cannot be applied differently to different people, regardless of who they purport to represent, so I do not disagree with a word the hon. Gentleman has said.
We are in a better place than we were. As the Secretary of State said, it is a welcome change to be considering legislation relating to Northern Ireland that is not a desperately urgent response to a terrible incident. On at least a couple of occasions while I have been a Member, the House has been recalled during the recess to consider such a matter urgently. It is right to move things forward in a more measured way if possible. The Committee looked at the Bill in great detail and supports much of what it proposes. I will discuss three or four issues in my speech, which will be fairly brief.
On donations, the Committee welcomes the move towards normalisation. The objective has to be to move Northern Ireland towards being a normal society and a normal democracy. We have some way to go, but we are slowly getting there. We felt that we ought to move quickly from October 2014 to full publication of who has made donations. We understand that there is a security issue. A number of witnesses and members of the Committee said that there is a risk for people who stand for Parliament, Assembly or council; for those who support them by delivering leaflets, canvassing or putting up posters; and for those who sign nomination papers. The question was whether donating money constitutes a different risk. We were not persuaded that it does, so we want to see greater progress on the publication of donations.
We said, though, that those decisions had to be taken in the light of the security situation. We wanted the Bill to state that the Secretary of State should consult the respective security services before taking such a decision, but she has decided not to include that. I mention that because although we recognise that there are problems, in principle we want to move towards a more normal politics in Northern Ireland in which there is less suspicion, and if everything is out in the open, surely that is a better way forward than the way we have been going so far. We also insisted, however, that anyone or any organisation that made donations prior to the change or notification that those donations would become public should remain anonymous, because when they gave those donations, they depended on that anonymity.
We support the ending of dual mandates. In fact, we would go further, as has been alluded to already. We think that Members of the Assembly should not also be Members of the House of Lords, the European Parliament or the Senate in the Republic of Ireland. I understand fully the points made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has left the Chamber momentarily, about how important it was at the time for experienced politicians to take the peace process forward in Northern Ireland—that was certainly essential —but we have moved on. Before the Assembly was restarted, many decisions about Northern Ireland were taken upstairs in Committee by statutory instrument, which was a very unsatisfactory way of governing Northern Ireland.
As Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson, I attended many of those sessions. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) was often the Minister. Because many Northern Ireland Members had the additional burden of advancing the peace process in their constituencies, many were the times when, through no fault of their own, not a single one of them could attend, and these were Committees deciding very important things for Northern Ireland. It was very unsatisfactory, but we have moved on, and people cannot be in two places at once. There is also the potential for a conflict of interest if somebody sits on two legislative bodies. We would have gone further than the Government, and we would also apply the same rules to Scotland and Wales, although I think that Wales is moving in that direction anyway.
The Select Committee welcomed the changes to the appointment and tenure of the Justice Minister—we feel that the Ministry should be more secure—and the fact that taking the position will count against the number of Ministries a party can hold, but we are a little concerned about what will happen if agreement cannot be reached. We urge the Government to seek a way forward when that happens. Could the Justice Minister be appointed another way without bringing everything down? The appointment of the Justice Minister under a d’Hondt system might be possible, although I understand the sensitivities around that. Nevertheless, we identified that as a potential problem; it has not happened, and I hope it never will, but there is a potential problem.
We disagreed with the Government over delaying the next Assembly elections to 2016. We think that people in Northern Ireland are perfectly capable of voting in two or even three elections, where necessary, and who is to say that the general election will be held in May 2015? We have legislated for it—although I voted against it—but who is to say that the coalition will last that long? It might do, but who is to say that elections will come in neat five-year terms after that? It might be the case, but it might not, so we did not see the need to change that arrangement, although we accepted that it was not necessarily the main part of the Bill.
We held many discussions about government and opposition, and a number of witnesses said that they wanted to see an opposition developing in Northern Ireland. I think I am representing the Committee’s views accurately here, but it is certainly my own view that we have to allow the politicians and the people of Northern Ireland to come forward with their own proposals and solutions to the situation. The Assembly was created in the way it was for a reason, and we all know what that reason was. We must bear in mind the Good Friday agreement requirements for a shared future, and it is difficult to come up with a solution to the problem. We recognise that there is an issue, but we feel that the solution ought to be home grown and brought to this House in the form of a proposal.
We hold a similar view on the size of the Assembly. This is not so much about the fact that 108 Assembly Members represent 1.8 million people; it is more about the fact that there are six Members of the Assembly for every Westminster constituency. Again, we know why that was done—it made the maths easier at the time—but things can move on. We should not throw away the principles of the Belfast agreement, but I do not see why we cannot, with consent, move forward on certain aspects of it.
That is a collection of some of the Select Committee’s thoughts. I should like to thank all the members of the Committee for their work and for their proposals, and to thank the Government for listening to what we have had to say. I wish the Bill well.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful for that undertaking. In Committee, we may return to the question of how the Bill might reflect it more clearly.
Let me now turn to the issue of donations made by individuals and bodies outside the United Kingdom. The Select Committee made the welcome recommendation that the loophole represented by an anomaly, or special provision, should be closed. We will, of course, examine the issue in more detail during the Bill’s Committee stage.
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, political parties registered in Great Britain are permitted to accept donations only from UK residents and bodies. The Act extends to parties in Northern Ireland, but parties registered there may accept donations from citizens and bodies in the Irish Republic. Why was the Act brought into being? It was brought into being so that the public—the people who send us to this place—could have some degree of certainty that those who gave money to political parties had a stake in this country, and in affairs of state here. They did not want political parties to be flooded with money from people in the United States, Europe and elsewhere who had interests in the making of certain decisions, but who did not vote here, represent anyone here, or have any stake in this country other than, for instance, a commercial stake. The Act was introduced for very good reasons, yet an exception was made in the case of Northern Ireland.
Individuals and bodies in the Republic of Ireland can donate to parties in Northern Ireland in a way that contravenes the law of that country. Worse still, however, owing to our inability to regulate donations of this kind, those individuals and bodies can be used as a front for donations from other foreign or overseas countries. The Select Committee’s recognition of that problem led it rightly to recommend that the anomaly be removed.
Here we all are, saying that Northern Ireland should be subject to the same level of transparency in respect of donations and identity as every other part of the United Kingdom. We ask “Why should Northern Ireland be any different?” But why should Northern Ireland be any different when it comes to who can donate to political parties? There is no reason at all why it should. I hope that, as we consider the Bill further in the House and in Committee, Members and, in particular, the Government will look afresh at the issue. If the Government fail to close this loophole, they may rightly stand accused of giving preferential treatment to certain political parties for political reasons.
Whatever the causes for the arguments of the past, those reasons certainly do not exist today. There should be a level playing field for all political parties in Northern Ireland. There should be the same rules for all of them, and there should be the same benefits, if possible, in terms of donations for all political parties. This anomaly was introduced for one reason: to allow Sinn Fein, and other nationalists, to get money from America, channelled into Northern Ireland via the Irish Republic. That is why this was implemented. That is the reason it was allowed, and if it is allowed to continue, that will be an indictment of this House, particularly at a time when people are so concerned about the funding of political parties.
We support the provision to extend the term of the Assembly to 2016. We disagree with the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), on that point, but not because we think people in Northern Ireland will not be able to understand voting in different elections on the same day. Northern Ireland’s citizens have a long and admirable track record of being able not only to vote in different elections on the same day, but to use different electoral systems, and to do so very successfully. The terrible outcome in Scotland recently, when there was a dual election that led to thousands of spoiled ballot papers, has never happened to the same degree in Northern Ireland.
We wanted the extension of the Northern Ireland Assembly term because it has been extended in Scotland and in Wales. In both those jurisdictions, there is now a five-year fixed term. I welcome the fact that today, in this Bill, Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, is being treated like Scotland, Wales and the other parts of the United Kingdom—and quite right too, as there is no logic whatever in saying we should be treated differently. It means that, as the Secretary of State has said, when there is an Assembly election, Assembly issues will be to the fore, and when there is a Westminster election, the issues affecting this House and Westminster representation will be debated, and there will be no confusion of the two sets of issues. That is very important.
Mr Laurence Robertson
There are, of course, two issues here: one is whether this particular Assembly term should be extended, and then whether we should move to five-year terms. The right hon. Gentleman puts a logical case for having five-year terms, but surely the Assembly did not need to be extended in this term. I think that was probably the more important point we were making.
Mr Dodds
Actually, the reason for that is the fact that, given the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2012, we will have a clash in May 2015. That is what makes it imperative that action is taken in this Parliament. The dates of the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections were moved for precisely that reason. If we do not take action, in two years’ time there will be elections on the same day for Parliament and in Northern Ireland. That is why this measure has been brought forward.
Oral Answers to Questions
Laurence Robertson Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Penning
I hope that I did not mislead the House by suggesting that there was any complacency about fuel smuggling, which is a serious matter. However, the original question related specifically to whether it was increasing. We are very conscious—as are the Treasury and HMRC—of the need to establish where the profits from fuel smuggling go, but the taxation issue is clearly a matter for a different Department, and I shall ensure that the relevant Minister is made aware of the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is well over a year since the Select Committee recommended that HMRC should, as a matter of urgency, introduce a new marker in order to prevent fuel smuggling and laundering. Will the Minister meet representatives of HMRC and demand why it is saying that the marker cannot be introduced for at least another 18 months, and will he make it very clear that such a time scale is unacceptable?
Mike Penning
I have had meetings about the matter, and I have been pushing for the introduction of such a marker. Believe it or not, criminals have technology that enables them to remove new markers very quickly, so we must ensure that whatever new marker replaces those that we have at present does the job that it is intended to do. However, I will press my colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that we introduce it as soon as possible.