Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, which hopefully will have answered some of the specific questions Members have on electoral registration.

The first issue I want to address is transparency on political party donations and loans, which I have raised in the House on a number of occasions over the past few years. Whatever the historical arguments regarding the need to protect the identity of donors, I firmly believe that the time to lift that veil of secrecy has passed. The Northern Ireland public have a right to know the identity of significant donors to political parties, as voters do in the rest of the UK, and then to judge for themselves whether such donations influence the decisions, policies and actions of parties. As long as mystery surrounds that, parties will be open to the charge that they are influenced in that way, but they will be largely unable to defend themselves against such suspicion. Although that is disclosed to the Electoral Commission, it is not made public, and that is key.

The security situation in Northern Ireland, although far from perfect, has improved significantly since donor anonymity was introduced. It is not consistent or sustainable to argue that Northern Ireland is a safe and welcoming destination for tourism and inward investment while at the same time arguing that the security situation is so grave that normal democratic scrutiny cannot be introduced.

Three primary concerns regarding the impact of transparency have been raised. I will briefly address each in turn. First, there is the fear of a threat of violence against a person, their family or property as a result of their association with a particular party becoming known. Despite the genuine concerns expressed in that regard, there appears to be little tangible evidence of specific targeting of donors as part of campaigns. However, nowhere can that be entirely ruled out. Therefore, donors should carefully consider the risk when deciding whether to donate; it is not compulsory. Knowing that their donations will be published will help to inform them as to which decision to make.

I am certainly not oblivious to, or cavalier about, the risk that being politically aligned or identified in Northern Ireland can still carry. My party leader, David Ford MLA, who is the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, is likewise cognisant of the continued risks. However, that does not insulate Northern Ireland politics from the wider public perception that politics is organised for the benefit of the few rather than the many. Notwithstanding any security concerns, if we are to increase trust and confidence in the political system, we need to maximise openness and transparency. As a result, and despite ongoing security concerns, the Alliance party voluntarily publishes our returns to the Electoral Commission on our website and has done so over the past few years, and to no disadvantage. I call again on other parties to do likewise in order to help grow confidence in the commitment to public scrutiny, regardless of a legislative requirement to do so.

Secondly, concerns have been expressed that opponents of a particular party might boycott a business if its owner or company are seen to support a particular party political view. However, in theory the same could happen in any part of the UK. Again, it is a matter that donors should consider carefully before donating, rather than a reason to deny the public their right of scrutiny. In my view, and incidentally that of Sir Christopher Kelly, as expressed in his evidence to the Select Committee, neither risk should automatically be given primacy over the principles that guide public life: openness, transparency and accountability.

Thirdly, as parties are not publicly funded and therefore rely on donations to survive, one could argue that any action that could deter donors could restrict party political activity or even the range of choice available to the electorate. I challenge that on two grounds. In order to stand for election to a council, candidates need the signatures and addresses of residents in the council area on their nomination papers, and those are published. I am not aware of parties being unable to field candidates, even in the worst days of the troubles, owing to people being unwilling to have that information published, despite it being a more direct link to elected politics. People clearly weigh up those risk but still opt to be involved, whether as candidates, canvassers, supporters, nominees or otherwise, and there is evidence that since 1998 the public’s willingness to do so has increased.

Furthermore, most parties have said, including in evidence to the Select Committee, that they receive very few donations that reach the £7,500 threshold for donor names to be declared and instead are heavily reliant on small donations from members and supporters. Even if all of those large donations were to cease, according to their evidence that would not have a disproportionate effect on party finances or activity and would not jeopardise the continued functioning of our democracy.

It is worth noting, as a measure of just how opaque donor information is in Northern Ireland, that it is against the law for the Electoral Commission even to confirm or dispute a party’s claim that it receives few donations of that magnitude. Such anonymised data pose no risk to anyone and would provide considerable insight for the public into how parties are funded and how reliant they are on a small number of donors. I think that the move towards publishing anonymised data in the interim, between now and October 2014, would be good preparation for change.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. and very brave Lady for allowing me to intervene. I understand her argument, but is she asking for that provision on publishing the identity of political donors to be backdated, because that would worry me?

[Naomi Long]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman—

[Bob Stewart]

Sadly not.

[Naomi Long]

Well, given the timing of his intervention, which led perfectly to what I was about to say, perhaps that will be reviewed in due course. I thank him for making that point, because it is an important one.

With respect to the retrospective publication of donor information, I think that it is reasonable that where people had an expectation, even though the letter of the law suggests otherwise, that donations they made during the prescribed period would remain confidential even after the prescribed period ended, that should be honoured. Such historical information should be published only with their express consent, as to do otherwise would be a fundamental breach of trust.

However, I support the Electoral Commission’s proposal that the expectation of anonymity should be removed from the date the Bill receives Royal Assent, making it clear that all donations made after that date will be subject to future publication. Whether the Secretary of State decides that such publication should happen routinely from October 2014, the expiry of the current prescribed period, or chooses again to extend that period, they should be published at a subsequent juncture. I think that that ought to be pursued in Committee, as it adds clarity for donors in the interim and increases public confidence without limiting the options available to the Secretary of State.

With regard to the prescribed period and its continuation, I remain disappointed that a firm commitment has not been given to remove anonymity at the first possible opportunity. The Bill gives the Secretary of State maximum flexibility specifically to increase transparency, and I welcome the presumption in favour of publication, but both fall short of a commitment to end the inequality that exists between Northern Ireland residents and their counterparts in Great Britain. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will be able to give some reassurance in that regard.

Finally, with regard to donations, I believe that there might be merit in considering further whether the threshold for publication of donations to Northern Ireland political parties should be reduced from £7,500 to a lower figure, given the smaller income of most local parties and the likely lower threshold at which donations may be considered large enough to influence a party’s decision. Clearly, that requires the striking of a very delicate balance between the administrative burden that it would create for what are, in the main, small organisations, and increasing transparency for the public. Such matters are not unique to Northern Ireland, so the Bill may not be the ideal vehicle for advancing them, but it would be helpful to consider them at Government level in future.

On multiple mandates, I welcome the clauses that will disqualify a Member of Parliament from also being a Member of the Assembly. I do not believe that MPs should be permitted to continue as Members of the Assembly. The primary argument that they should is that the fledging Assembly structures were unstable and senior political figures who left Westminster for the Assembly could find themselves with no mandate in the event of a collapse. Those points no longer hold true, as the Assembly is in its second successive, uninterrupted term, which represents positive progress.

A further argument advanced in favour of allowing such a dual mandate is that, for key people in party leadership roles or holding key ministerial positions in the devolved Assembly, the direct linkage with Parliament can prove valuable in keeping them fully informed of developments in both places. I do not think that that argument carries much weight in the current situation.

As deputy leader of the Alliance party and MP for East Belfast, it is incumbent on me to keep abreast of developments in the devolved institutions and keep in close contact with Assembly colleagues about the implications of matters discussed in this Chamber and the Assembly. I do not need to sit in both places for that. There are also mechanisms for the Ministers in the Executive who are not MPs to meet their counterparts in Westminster and address issues with them and vice-versa, and the majority fall into that category.

Having fulfilled the roles of MP and MLA, I strongly believe that both jobs are at least full time and require a focus that could not be achieved effectively with a dual mandate and consequently competing demands on time. It is a crucial part of the role of an MLA to be in Stormont to vote on legislation passing through the Assembly, to question Ministers and to hold the Executive to account. Equally, an MP’s work demands that they be in Westminster for a significant and conflicting proportion of the week to scrutinise and vote on legislation and policy, question Ministers and provide a voice for their constituents. Although there is a considerable overlap in the constituency casework element of both jobs, the locations and timings make them incompatible with each other, regardless of the talent, energy or ability of individual Members. Put simply, no person can be in two places at once.

A further benefit of ending dual mandates would be the creation of an opportunity not only for parties to bring forward new talent, but for the electorate to see the electoral cohort refreshed, reinvigorated and made more reflective of society as a whole. Again, Alliance as a party has voluntarily and speedily acted in respect of dual mandates, following through on our pre-election pledges and manifesto commitments to do so, within weeks of election to Westminster.

Three years on, there has been significant time and space for parties to implement fully their pre-election commitments to end dual mandates, yet many have failed to make other than glacial progress in that regard. It is important that the legislation comes forward to ensure that the wishes of the public are taken into account.

Although I recognise that the House of Lords is not structured in the same way as the Commons—its Members have no electoral mandate and no constituency responsibilities—the same conflict exists for Members of the Lords. I am disappointed that currently the Bill does not disqualify Members of the Lords from belonging to the Assembly. Given the important role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber and the burden of undertaking detailed scrutiny of Government Bills, it would be challenging for a peer who was also an MLA, with the legislative, constituency and Committee responsibilities attendant on that position, to commit fully to the discharge of either role.

The situation is exacerbated because the Assembly and the Lords also sit at the same times on Mondays and Tuesdays, further limiting a person’s ability to participate fully in the work of both institutions. I recognise that remuneration for the work of a peer is different and reflects the fact that many peers have careers outside Parliament, some of which may also conflict with the sittings of the House of Lords, so I would have been content for the measures to end dual representation to be considered in the context of wider Lords reform, which would have addressed remuneration and allowances at the same time. However, as that has not been advanced and is unlikely to be in this Parliament, the Government should revisit the possibility of action in this Bill.

If membership of this Parliament is a disqualification for serving in the Assembly, it follows logically that membership of other Parliaments should also be. I welcome the fact that the Government are including membership of Dail Eireann as a disqualification, but just as I believe that membership of the House of Lords should be a disqualification when it comes to membership of the Assembly, membership of the Seanad should also be, regardless of any Irish Government plans for the reform or abolition of that body.

I move on to the structures of the Assembly. We believe that the Assembly and parliamentary elections should be decoupled. The roles and responsibilities of each legislature are separate and distinct, and it is important that the issues pertinent to each receive full and detailed public consideration in advance of the vote. That will be difficult if both elections are running on the same day or without adequate separation, with the risk that one set of elections would overshadow the other.

For example, national coverage of Westminster elections could eclipse Northern Ireland issues and regional focus on the Assembly could lead to inadequate coverage of national issues. Alternatively, the two could become unhelpfully conflated. I am strongly of the opinion that elections should be held separately, preferably a year apart, and that the electorate should be given a full opportunity to engage in issues affecting each legislature. On that, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and I, the Member for Belfast East, find common ground.

I acknowledge that the Northern Ireland electorate are sophisticated and able to deal with the complexity of having not only two different elections but two different voting systems on the same day, but such circumstances are not desirable, although they might be practically manageable. I therefore support the extension of the current term and the change to five-year terms for the Assembly, as ad hoc changes to avoid future conflicts will no longer have to be made. What I propose would regularise the situation just as the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will, and that is welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

Many Members highlighted the major issue of dual mandates, and it is a hot political potato. I can speak with some experience, as I entered public life 40 years ago last month when, after a local government reorganisation in 1973, I was elected to the district council for the area in which I live. I represented my area on the council for thirty-seven-and-a-half years. In 1982, I was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and in 1983—30 years ago last month—I was elected to this Parliament. I have 40 years’ experience of elected office right across the spectrum—district council, first and second Assemblies, the forum in between, and Westminster. I noticed what the hon. Member for Belfast East said earlier about “what the public want”. What did the public want? The people decided that I would be elected: they decided; they made the choice. In Assembly elections they had six possibilities, but they chose me as number one. When it came to district council elections there were five other candidates and I was elected first, top of the poll. When it came to Westminster elections, I was elected top of the poll. People talk about what the public want and we have to be careful about that, but I speak with all those years of experience in public life.

We must remember that during those years Northern Ireland was plunged into one of the most bloody and terrifying IRA campaigns. Many of my friends and constituents were butchered by the provisionals. Some of those who carried out or engineered those acts are now strutting around the corridors of power. At that time, the law-abiding people wanted a voice against terror to be heard, but not their voice—they were too afraid. People were very reluctant to put their heads above the parapet. They did not want to come forward to stand for election for fear of the risk—the very real risk— to their own personal security and that of their families.

When I held dual mandates, that risk was very real. Putting my head above the parapet meant receiving a real bomb on my 40^th birthday from the Provisional IRA. Coming to this House and speaking up for the people I represent meant that 50 bullets riddled my house when my family—my wife and my children—were just going into the house. Every window in our house was a bullet-proof window. For 25 years, I had to drive around in a police car for protection. That is what it cost to be an elected representative in this House, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the district council. Why was I doing it? It was because others put their trust in me and asked me to do it. They were too afraid. They had to have a voice, however, and they were looking for one, and I was honoured and privileged to be it. Thankfully, we have moved on, and in fact after 37 years, although it was a wrench, I voluntarily stood down from the council. I did not need legislation to tell me I had to stand down from the council if I was to be in the House, and I did not need it to tell me to stand down from the Assembly. I voluntarily stood down from the Assembly, too, and others are now taking my place.

It is right that we bring others to this House or the other Chambers to be the voice of the people, but never let us forget that those who had those mandates before held them at great personal risk to their lives and their families. When fathers left in the morning, their families did not know whether they would be back again in the evening, so let us be careful when we talk about those dual mandates. In 1973, when I joined the council, what we got financially did not cover the stamps, so we certainly were not in it for the money. I can assure hon. Members that there were not many others offering to take our places, and what we got certainly did not cover the petrol. We did it because we loved our country, we loved our people, and we wanted to be their voice. It is without apology, therefore, that I look back over those years and I thank God that I had the privilege and that I am still standing here, at the will of the people, to be the voice of my constituents. I trust that I will have the opportunity for some years yet.

[Bob Stewart]

I am sure the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. His bravery and that of many other people who stood for elected office in Northern Ireland was reflected by their families, who must have gone through hell and been worried sick. The bravery of those wives, husbands and children should be put on the record, too.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that. I certainly pay tribute to the wives, husbands and children of those elected representatives who put their heads above the parapet and were willing to stand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North was visiting his child in hospital when they tried to murder him. That is what families endured.

If dual mandates are wrong, this policy of ending them must be implemented evenly throughout the United Kingdom. It would be anomalous to afford the people of Wales and Scotland the right to dual mandates, but deny the people of Northern Ireland the same. We are saying that there must be common ground across the United Kingdom. Not only should Wales follow this lead, but Scotland should put its money where its mouth is and stand behind this proposal, if people believe that it is the right thing to do.

Non-representation also needs to be ended. I lost my seat in 1997. I had been in for fourteen-and-a- half years, but a boundary change—I believe it was gerrymandering, but that is for another day—sliced the constituency of Mid Ulster in two, creating the constituencies of Mid Ulster and West Tyrone. Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness became Member of Parliament for Mid Ulster, so from 1997 until a few months ago, when he stepped down, that constituency had no voice in the House, where decisions were being taken on behalf of his constituents. Despite not coming to represent their people in the House, however, Sinn Fein Members are happy to take the expenses and office costs.

It is time, then, for people elected to the House of Commons from Northern Ireland to make a decision. If they want their expenses and office costs, they need to demonstrate that they are doing the work, and that means taking their seats. MPs are perfectly at liberty not to take their seats, if they so wish, but the situation where people do not take their seats but are allowed to claim expenses must end. In many ways, non-representation in the Commons is a much greater affront to democracy than dual mandates, and the House must shortly take a decision on this issue. I am happy to welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, but this remains a work in progress.