On-the-Runs Scheme

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

It is, of course, important for all crime to be properly investigated in Northern Ireland and for those guilty of offences to be brought to justice, regardless of whether or not they have an OTR letter.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

We all want to see people with a strong case against them standing trial to see whether a jury will convict them. Will the Secretary of State revisit her legal advice on her statement that these letters should not have any great effect on a trial, to make sure that, in the light of this new decision, it remains correct and there is no need for further action by this place?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am certainly happy to do that, and I discussed the matter with the Chief Constable yesterday. Just to reiterate, the Northern Ireland Office stands ready to take any further steps that might assist in removing barriers to prosecution. My current view is that the best way to guard against future problems in relation to abuse of process is a clear statement that these letters should not be relied on, and that is what I have made and issued to this House in September.

Stormont House Agreement

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I expect the House to receive news on legislation on corporation tax in the very, very near future. We are working on how the structure of legislation in the Assembly and Westminster on the rest of the package is precisely to be formulated. The procedures for review and monitoring are set out in paragraphs 73 to 75. In relation to inquests and the provision of information to families, it is crucial that we all work on this. The agreement has a commitment to reform. There is an acknowledgement that the current inquest system is not meeting the needs of the families effectively enough and not delivering the Government’s obligations under article 2 effectively enough. That will be a hugely important priority for the UK Government. We hope to work closely with the Department of Justice in the work that it will no doubt be doing on this.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that an agreement was reached, but will the Secretary of State set out exactly how much extra money has been given to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make the deal happen? Does she regret that, yet again, we have shown that if the parties of Northern Ireland hold out for long enough, Westminster will eventually cave in and send more money over?

[Mrs Villiers]

I can outline the financial package, but it is a fair one. It was not a blank cheque. It recognises that Northern Ireland faces specific problems that the rest of the United Kingdom does not. In outline, it involves £150 million over five years to help to fund work on the past; flexibility to use £700 million of capital borrowing to fund a voluntary exit scheme for four years; a contribution of up to £500 million over 10 years of capital funding for shared and integrated education; £350 million of borrowing for capital infrastructure projects; and the flexibility to use the receipts from asset sales and capital funding to repay the welfare shortfall payments.

Northern Ireland (All-party Talks)

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

May I agree with the Secretary of State’s earlier sentiment that the solution to every problem in Northern Ireland cannot be more money from the English taxpayer? Will she now confirm that there will be no bigger offer than the £1 billion that was talked about last week to get this deal over the line?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said many times, the solution to these problems cannot be a big cheque from the UK Government. That is partly because it would not solve the problems, and partly because there is no more money. We have made it clear that we are not prepared to subsidise a more expansive welfare system for Northern Ireland. We are certainly prepared to continue to discuss the funding of matters such as new institutions on the past.

Hallett Report

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously taken a close interest in this matter, and he is right to view today as drawing a line under it and reaching an end to what has been a painful episode for many people. On the evidence given to NIAC by Jonathan Powell, I think it is a matter for him whether he chooses to apologise. As I said in relation to the scheme, although I would not necessarily have done everything in the same way as the previous Government, or necessarily agreed with their overall approach to OTRs, I recognise that they were striving for a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland, and dealing with an extremely difficult situation and difficult judgments.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. At its start she mentioned that she discussed this issue with the various authorities in Northern Ireland. At the Select Committee last week I asked whether she would consider asking those authorities to make a similar statement, so that we could be sure that the courts in Northern Ireland accept that this status is for the whole of the UK, not just the Secretary of State, given that she has no power over the courts in Northern Ireland. Has she taken that on board and ruled it out?

[Mrs Villiers]

I did give that suggestion some thought and I discussed it with David Ford. I continue to be of the view that these statements were made by the UK Government—largely by the Northern Ireland Office, and by No. 10 in a couple of instances—so it is for the UK Government to clarify their status. The key factor is that this is the Government’s statement of what the letters now mean. In those circumstances I do not think it is necessary for an additional statement to be published by the Department of Justice or the devolved authorities, but, as I have told the House, they agree that this is the best way forward to do whatever we can to try to remove barriers to prosecution that might be created by the scheme.

Hallett Review

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s offer of sympathy to all the victims of terrorism. As the representative of a constituency that was, sadly, the site of many horrific murders during the troubles, he is well placed to understand the pain that has been caused to those victims. I acknowledge that his party has always made it extremely clear that no amnesty would ever be acceptable, and I entirely support that position. As I have said, Heather Hallett’s report has confirmed today that there was no “get out of jail free” card. We will act as swiftly as we can to remove barriers to prosecution but, reflecting on the report’s findings, we should be under no illusions as to the legal complexities and sensitivities involved. We certainly do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past by acting in an over-hasty manner. We will keep in close touch with the Police Service of Northern Ireland on these matters, while always respecting its operational independence.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be an opportunity to question the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on these matters. That is really a matter for him and for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. On the publication of names, I have said throughout the debate on OTRs that I did not believe that such publication would be appropriate. There are many legal and privacy concerns involved, as well as questions relating to article 2, which is why I am not proposing to publish any names relating to either RPMs or OTRs.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

In her statement, the Secretary of State said that we needed a process that is “transparent, accountable and balanced”. I hope that she would agree that this scheme was none of those. We have an open justice system and we generally know who is being arrested, charged, prosecuted and acquitted. It is not clear to me why we should not know who felt the need to seek one of those letters. If we believe in a transparent system, we should be able to find out who has received one.

[Mrs Villiers]

I understand my hon. Friend’s perspective. There are probably many reasons why people put their names forward. Something that comes across clearly in the report is that a number of the individuals concerned were not known to the PSNI at all. I will reflect on what he has said, but I continue to believe that it would not be helpful to name the individuals who were processed through the scheme. In all other respects, however, we need to be as transparent as we can about the steps we will take to remedy the serious errors identified by Heather Hallett, and we need to do all we can to learn from them.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that clarification of the possibility of appealing in that case. That certainly was the advice that I received yesterday from an eminent QC—

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I am a little confused. I thought that the reason for the lack of an appeal was that there was no realistic prospect of success, not that there was no process by which an appeal could be made. Is the position that there was no possibility of an appeal for technical reasons, or is it that the appeal had no chance of being successful?

[Mr Robertson]

My understanding from our discussions yesterday was that a stay cannot be appealed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I do not think that anyone would disagree with what the Attorney-General has just said. The problem is that the judgment in the Downey case appears to have taken the political situation into account, and that is what concerns everyone. Royal pardons appear to have been given, but I do not know what they were given for or which crimes were being overlooked. If that was not done on a political basis, I do not know what constitutes a political basis. The point that we are trying to make is that such decisions should be made on a legal basis, not a political basis.

The one good aspect is that the judgment has blown open the whole issue and drawn attention to what has been going on. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill was introduced in 2005, presumably because it was felt necessary to put the scheme on to a statutory basis, to give it a public airing or some respectability. It now seems that the scheme had been running since 1999, but it was six years before the Bill was introduced. The Bill was dropped, but the scheme continued. Was the scheme legitimate for all that time? If it was, why the need for the Bill?

As the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, the 1998 legislation—some of which I also voted against, for all sorts of reasons—addressed very unpalatable issues, but at least we could debate and vote on them publicly.

[Nigel Mills]

There was a referendum on it.

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend, who is a valuable member of the Select Committee, points out that a referendum was held on that legislation. That was completely in the open, so why was this scheme not made public? We will need to look at that issue.

It is claimed that the letters were just assurances that no one was being looked at by the PSNI; it was just an administrative scheme and simply a matter of informing people that they were not wanted. But we are also told that the scheme was crucial to the peace process and if it had not been done, the whole peace process would have somehow unravelled. Both those statements cannot be correct. If it was just a matter of clearing the police computer and moving things on, it cannot have been crucial to the peace process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, which I do with a level of concern. I am not a victim of the so-called troubles or a resident of Northern Ireland. I am especially cautious about interfering in the legacy of a past that is not entirely mine.

I join the various sympathies that have been expressed to the victims of the Hyde park bomb and their families and friends. This is a terrible way to end any attempt at a justice process for them. It does great damage to the reputation of justice in the UK, both on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, that we have evidence to prosecute someone, but for a rather unfortunate reason cannot have a fair trial in a public court to see whether they are guilty. The families deserved that in the Downey case.

As many Members have said, there is an issue with the whole process. Somehow, our system of justice, of which we should be proud, has gone horribly wrong. We need to ensure that we know the extent to which it has gone wrong and that no further injustices are done. The point was made earlier that the idea of the royal prerogative of mercy was to correct miscarriages of justice, not create them. I fear that this process has created some miscarriages of justice. That is the last thing we should have done.

We are all entitled to expect a fair and transparent legal and judicial process, with a trial in an open court by one’s peers where everyone knows what happened, everyone can hear the evidence and everyone can understand the verdict to which the jury comes. In a closed, invisible process, not only do we not get a trial in a public court, we do not even know who has had these letters or why, and we do not even know who has had the royal pardons. That cannot be right. We need to get to a stage where the process is transparent, and where the people of Northern Ireland and the mainland know who has had these letters and what they say. Transparent justice is the only fair situation.

On the background to the case, what strikes me as important, both in the case and in the verdict, is the intent behind the administrative process. What was the idea of issuing the letters? As was mentioned earlier, we appear to have two extreme views on that. One says that the letters were essential to making the peace process work; that Sinn Fein desperately needed them to play a full part in the process. The other extreme is that the letters were merely a factual statement of the state of inquiries that did not confer new rights on anybody, and that if there was a change of heart or new evidence was found—perhaps if a more competent file review was done and evidence was pieced together—there could still be a prosecution. With my layman’s non-lawyer logic, I would assume that the letters were largely worthless—yesterday we were not looking for a certain individual, but perhaps tomorrow we will be—and that nothing in them could be relied on. That does not appear to be the status of the letters in the very comprehensive Downey judgment.

[David Simpson]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the royal pardons and royal prerogatives. Does he agree that, apart from all the letters that were issued, the greatest insult to the victims and to the people of Northern Ireland is that royal pardons were given to people who were potentially murderers or bombers?

[Nigel Mills]

It clearly is an insult. I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether it is the greatest insult. I am not a victim, I was not involved and I do not live in Northern Ireland.

I can fully understand that to achieve peace people on all sides had to hold their noses and swallow some things they really did not want to swallow. Perhaps this is something that people ought to have had to swallow. Perhaps we should have been transparent and said, “Look, there can’t be any peace without some solution on on-the-runs.” Perhaps that should have been in the Belfast agreement, and perhaps it should have been in the referendum. It was not, however, and that means that it should not have happened. It should either be there, with everyone knowing about it and accepting it, or it should not be done. The secrecy is perhaps one of the greatest insults: justice has been circumvented in secret.

What I cannot get over is why this process was entered into. Why did the process exist? Why would Sinn Fein want the process and apply for letters unless everybody involved believed that it conferred some right or new situation whereby one would no longer be prosecuted for something one would otherwise be prosecuted for? I have no reason to go on the run and I am not aware that I have done anything that would require me to go on the run—

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The Whips may have something to say about that.

[Nigel Mills]

The Whips may have those ideas.

If I was genuinely fearful that I might be prosecuted, I might not wish to remind the authorities that I existed unless I thought that a valuable assurance would result from the process. Reminding them to have a look at my file, which may have been buried in some long forgotten cabinet, gathering dust, would be a strange thing to do if I was below the radar in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. I can only assume that the process was meant to confer a valuable right or assurance that the individual was free to come back to the United Kingdom, or to be more visible in the United Kingdom, and would not be subject to prosecution.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Just to reassure my hon. Friend, the letters did not confer an amnesty. They are not “get out of jail free” cards. It was always the case that there were statements of facts about a person’s status in relation to the police and prosecuting authorities at a particular time. The reason for the judgment in the John Downey case is that he was sent a letter that was factually incorrect. The letter said that he was not wanted by the police when he was. It was the fact of that mistake—the fact that the letter was incorrect and that Mr Downey acted on that letter—that was the basis of the judgment in the Downey case. It was not the fact of the letter itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. That still leaves me in a situation where it is hard to understand the purpose of the letter, if it was not meant to be something one could rely on. This gentleman was carrying this letter around with him every time he entered the UK. Why would he do that if it could be superseded at some point?

[Mark Durkan]

If we are to place any burden on what the Secretary of State has just said, does that not create a very serious danger that the case law arising from this case in future will be that anybody can claim an abuse of process based on any mistake in communication they received from a Government official at any level?

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, there is a real question about what the legal status of the letters is now. We can argue about whether they were intended to be amnesties. The question has now become: has this judgment somehow elevated their status to something that was not intended?

The end of paragraph 45 of the Downey judgment refers to a letter sent by the then Prime Minister, which said:

“The Government is committed to dealing with the difficulty as soon as possible, so that those who, if they were convicted would be eligible under the early release scheme are no longer pursued”.

That is basically saying that somebody who could have been prosecuted and would have got a two-year sentence would now no longer be pursued. I am not sure how I can construe that as just being a factual statement. It appears that the intention of the Prime Minister at the time was to give some assurance that people who had gone on the run would not be prosecuted in that situation. That strikes me as being an amnesty under any other name. As the old saying goes: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. This looks very much like it was intended to be an amnesty.

[Naomi Long]

It is constantly raised that the letter was issued in error. However, in the judgment the real influence came from the content of the letter combined with the testimony given as to what the effect of the letter ought to be. Personally, having read the judgment, I think that the issue of the erroneous nature of the letter was in many ways a red herring. If another letter, accurately written, had been presented with the same testimony from the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and the others who gave testimony, the effect would have been exactly the same.

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, I think the hon. Lady must be right on that. The judge seemed to think that the process was meant to confer some kind of assurance on people and that the letter had to be read in line with that, but I am no expert.

We ought to look also at the concerns expressed at the start of this process by the then Attorney-General, who is quoted in paragraph 36 of the judgment. He said that he was

“seriously concerned that the exercise that is being undertaken has the capacity of severely undermining confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland at this most sensitive of times. Individual prosecution decisions have to be justifiable within the framework in which all prosecution decisions are reached and I am not persuaded that some unquantifiable benefit to the peace process can be a proper basis for a decision based on the public interest”.

Those concerns have not arisen retrospectively; there were concerns at the time about what the process would really mean and what it would be seen to mean to various people in Northern Ireland. That is why I welcome the inquiries into this situation.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend is niggling not in a bad way, but in a great way, on this process. If, as the Northern Ireland Secretary has just said, these letters are not “get out of jail” cards or amnesties, can we have all those who have received them put before a court of law?

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One thing that needs to come out of the various inquiries is what the current legal status of the letters is in the light of the judgment and, if we are not happy with that legal status, how we can get to a legal position that we are happy with. It might be possible—I am not a lawyer; I do not know—for the Northern Ireland Office, the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General or the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to write to every recipient of such a letter and say, “Just to be clear, you can’t rely on these things to avoid prosecution if there’s evidence that justifies a prosecution.”

This all prompts the question: what was the point of the Historical Enquiries Team—now part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland—going back and re-investigating all those old cases if, I assume not to its knowledge, 200 or so people whom it might have been investigating as part of that process had a letter saying that past evidence would not be used to bring a prosecution? What was the point of that process?

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on the odd timing of Mr Downey’s letter? We know from the judgment that it was signed off on 20 July 2007. I would briefly remind the House that in 2007 we had a successful First Minister, Ian Paisley senior, sitting with the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. Indeed, so good was their working relationship at the time—they took up office at the beginning of May 2007—that they were unfortunately nicknamed the “Chuckle Brothers”. However, the peace process in Northern Ireland was very secure in the early spring of 2007. Sinn Fein had come on to the policing board, and the IRA had decommissioned in 2005. What was there to save in the peace process by signing off Mr Downey’s letter in July 2007?

[Nigel Mills]

I suspect the hon. Lady knows the position far better than I, so there is not much need for me to add anything to what she has said.

To return to the status of the letters, if we do not like it, we need to discover the process for, if anything, restoring the position to what we think it should be—that they do not confer any kind of amnesty. If that requires a Bill to come before this House, perhaps we should do that. Given the devolution of justice, it might require something to go through the Assembly. I suspect that that might be a political challenge under the circumstances, but it is important that one of the outcomes of the inquiries is getting the legal position to where it should be, in the interests of fair and transparent justice for all the victims, on all sides.

I do not see how we can have a process that applies to only one community and not the security services. I think that was a grave mistake in entering into this process. Clearly it would have been better to have a full debate on the amnesty. We could all have had a vote on an amnesty—if it had not gone through, everyone should have been prosecuted where there was evidence; if it had gone through, it would be put behind people. That is clearly a debate that can be had now—it was had nearly a decade ago—but we have to take the assurances of all the Northern Ireland Members who are here for this debate that that is not something that would be welcomed in Northern Ireland. There is no desire for that amnesty.

I have no great knowledge of Northern Ireland law. However, having sat through some inquiries on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland that looked at the equalities position in Northern Ireland and the power of the law to prevent one community from being favoured over another, I cannot see any way under Northern Irish law that there could be a process with any legal effect that so obviously favoured one community over the other. If I was a loyalist who feared prosecution or who perhaps was being prosecuted, I might be arguing and saying, “Wait a minute, there’s been this process for one side that ought to have applied equally. I should have had the right to apply for that letter. If I had been given that letter, I could have my prosecution stayed.” Indeed, I believe that might be the subject of a case. If I was a member of the security services who might face prosecution, I would be making that exact point as well: “Wait a minute. Why wasn’t I given the chance to write in 2000 and ask if I was being investigated and whether there was any evidence against me? If I had received my letter, I could have had my prosecution stayed.”

We have created a mess, and not just for the recipients of these letters. We might not like the position they are in now, and in every prosecution of someone from the security services or the loyalist side, I am sure the first thing their lawyer will do is try to get their prosecution stayed on the grounds that the process did not apply equally to all members of the community. We have created a mess, and the actions of the then Prime Minister and Secretary of State—which, as is clear from the judgment, deliberately created a process that was designed to achieve that—are thoroughly shameful to British justice.

This is perhaps one of the bleakest episodes that we will ever see, because it has tarnished a peace process that did not need tarnishing—a process that is working and needs to work. It was heartening that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party was clear earlier that he did not want the institutions torn down—he did not see that as a solution or something that would give a political advantage—and that the institutions need to be made to work. Whatever the outcome of the inquiries, I hope that all the parties stick by that. The best way forward is for the process to advance and the institutions to get stronger, not to try to unravel them, no matter how shameful this case was.

Haass Talks

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

As the sovereign flag of the United Kingdom, of course the Union flag must have special status in Northern Ireland. One of the challenges that Dr Haass encountered was that it seemed difficult to distinguish symbols of identity from symbols of sovereignty when it came to an expression of Irishness. It is important that consideration continues on those matters, and I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that, of course, the Union flag will always have a special status as the national flag as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast agreement makes it clear that Northern Ireland will stay part of the United Kingdom unless and until its people vote otherwise.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

In the absence of a long-term solution on parading, does the Secretary of State believe that the new Parades Commission has sufficient confidence from all sides in Northern Ireland to ensure that this year’s parading season does not end in the awful scenes that we saw last year? Does she think that any action is required on her part to ensure that such scenes do not happen again?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is timely to remind the House of the vital importance of obeying Parades Commission determinations. We have had an extensive debate about reforming the adjudication system for parades, but unless and until an agreement on that is reached and implemented, the Parades Commission is the lawfully designated authority and its determinations must be obeyed.

Northern Ireland

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Parades Commission is the lawfully constituted authority; its determinations must be obeyed and the rule of law must be respected. Visiting her constituency, I saw the devastating impact that disorder had during the flags protest, and I know that the continuation of violence over recent days is deeply depressing for her constituents, not least for the businesses whose trade is disrupted.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

While not condoning the violence over the weekend, does the Secretary of State not agree that there is a fear that the Parades Commission ruling placed the police in an impossible situation, having to police an unpoliceable order, and that with hindsight it might have been better to use the mechanism in place for exceptional circumstances to try to find a solution for the march that was acceptable to all sides?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said in my statement, the PSNI was confident at all times that it could police whatever determination the Parades Commission made, and in those circumstances it was not appropriate and my powers to intervene were not triggered.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

The hon. Lady is correct to say that the Electoral Commission for Northern Ireland supports the amendments and believes that they would be practical in providing adequate support and advice to donors and political parties to make them fully aware of the change by January 2014. No substantive reasons have been given for this move not being able to proceed by 2014. Given all the issues surrounding transparency, and the public concern about the opaque nature of political funding in Northern Ireland, it is important to take this opportunity to make it clear that we want maximum transparency for the public there. We want the kind of transparency that the rest of the United Kingdom already enjoys, but which, for security reasons, we have been unable to enjoy until now.

For me, this is a matter not only of amendments 7 and 8, which I have tabled. I also want to refer to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 2 differs from those amendments, in that it seeks to set in stone the lifting of the veil of secrecy on party political donations in Northern Ireland by October 2014. It would not entirely remove the Government’s ability to extend the period further in an emergency. The Bill could, for example, include an order-making power to ensure that the Government could come back to the House in an emergency and reinstate the existing provisions, but they would need to have a substantive reason for doing so and they would have to bring their argument to the House and gain its support.

I put on record at Second Reading, and I want to do so again today, that this is not about being cavalier or dismissive about the security situation in Northern Ireland. Nor is it about dismissing the potential threat to those who donate to political parties. It is about accepting that that should not automatically, as of right, outweigh the public’s right to scrutinise donations to political parties. If we lift the bar and allow donations over £7,500 to be published, in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, people will factor in that decision when deciding whether to make such donations. Given that all the political parties have said that they get very few donations of that size, the proposal would not impede the normal democratic fundraising capacity of the Northern Ireland parties.

It is also important to confidence and trust that the public should believe that their elected representatives are not available for sale. The only way to convince people of that is to maximise transparency around these issues. No political party can defend itself against that charge while the secrecy continues to exist, because the information will not be in the public domain and available for scrutiny. My own party reveals such information voluntarily, and we encourage other parties to do so, but I believe that as of October 2014, we should be moving towards a more normalised situation for donations. The onus should be on donors to decide whether they wish to donate, knowing that their donation will be made public.

I shall listen carefully to what my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party say about amendment 6. My understanding is that their intention is to remove entirely the possibility of donations to the Northern Ireland political parties from the Republic of Ireland. I cannot support that, and I want to explain why. Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances are reflected not only in our constitutional arrangements but in the fact that some parties operate on a Northern Ireland-only basis, some on a UK-wide basis and others on an all-Ireland basis. Taking that into account, I believe that it would be unfair completely to close the door to donations from the Republic of Ireland. A situation could be created in which parties that operate on an all-UK basis could receive donations from Dundee, Devon and Derby, while those that operate on a Northern Ireland-only basis would be unable to receive donations from Donegal or Dublin. I think that would be unfair.

I have a degree of sympathy, however, with the concerns expressed by the Democratic Unionist party on Second Reading about the potential for overseas donors to put money through the Republic of Ireland, essentially circumventing the rules on foreign donations. Indeed, I supported the Select Committee recommendation in paragraph 44 where we set out our concerns about that. Although we stopped short of recommending that all donations from the Republic of Ireland be stopped, we did recommend that the Secretary of State should seek to include provisions in the Bill that would close that particular loophole. I would be happy to support measures to do that, but I do not feel that it would be just or right to support measures that would simply put a bar on any donations from the Irish Republic, even if those people are resident and are donating to a party that operates on a Northern Ireland basis. That would not be fair or just.

I encourage all Members to consider amendments 7 and 8. Some might not agree with amendment 2, but I do not believe that the hands of the Secretary of State are in any way tied with respect to security judgments. I believe that amendments 7 and 8 will ensure clarity for donors, who will know that any money above £7,500 donated from January onwards will be subject to publication at whatever point in the future the Secretary of State decides that it is safe to declare the information. Clarity will be provided for members of the public who will know that we are moving in the direction of full transparency, in the same way as any other region of the UK. This draws the line under what has been a very tortured issue for a very long time. I hope that when the opportunity arises, Members will vote in favour of increasing transparency on these matters.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I rise to speak to amendment 2, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and myself. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady’s speech, and I am grateful to her for supporting the amendment that I proposed—one that is obviously consistent with the recommendations of the Select Committee on the matter of transparency for larger political donations. This recommendation was not disputed in the Committee and there was no vote or dissenting voice, as can be seen in the report. Looking back over the evidence given to the Committee by every Northern Ireland political party, it becomes clear that there is little evidence that the parties are receiving many donations above this specified amount, so it is not as if we are talking about a large number of people potentially at a security risk.

A fair number of the parties favoured transparency, and the hon. Member for Belfast East has pointed out that her party already publishes its donations, while the Green party and Sinn Fein said they were in favour in the evidence given to us. It is not quite so easy, however, to find on Sinn Fein’s website all of its donations. Some of us have tried and have asked, but the information does not quite seem to be there.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am very impressed with the hon. Gentleman’s comments so far. Will he confirm for the record that the Conservative party, which organises in Northern Ireland, is now going to be fully transparent in respect of all the donations received by that august body?

[Nigel Mills]

If only that were not so far above my pay grade, I would be happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter that he will have to put to party officials. I have never had the pleasure of campaigning for my party in Northern Ireland, so I have not been made aware of those rules. I think that transparency is the right thing and that such matters should be disclosed, but I have no problem saying that the hon. Gentleman would have to ask somebody else about how my party operates in Northern Ireland.

The issue before us today is how to find a balance between transparency and the security threat. It is right that the Committee should have a say on that today. We should be reflecting on the fact that it is 15 years since the Good Friday agreement, and on how much progress has been made. The G8 summit in Northern Ireland was held without a hitch; and we had the Queen’s jubilee tour last year. I had the pleasure of being there to see it, and it was amazing to see that Her Majesty did not need to go around with all the bullet-proof glass of the past. That shows all the progress we have made, yet we seem to be saying that 15 or 16 years on from the agreement, we still do not dare publish the largest donations made to political parties.

The amendment refers to donations of more than £7,500. I think all the parties agree that that is a rare event, but there must come a point at which the level of a donation is such that members of the public begin to suspect that it is buying some kind of influence. There should be a threshold beyond which the public are able to see what donations are being received, so that they can be sure that no influence is being bought.

I have no reason to doubt that all the parties in Northern Ireland are entirely fair, that they are not for sale, and that they do not change their policies to suit donations. I am not sure that all the people in Northern Ireland are quite as confident of that as I am, but it is for them to be cynical. Their view on the subject may not have been greatly enhanced by a BBC programme that was shown in Northern Ireland last Thursday evening, and which I believe has prompted some doubt about the entire propriety of what happens.

It is possible that those who wish to make small donations will not be able to risk the threat to their security, but those who choose to donate more than £7,500 should do so in the knowledge that the fact that they have done so will be published, on the basis that it may be suspected that they are buying some kind of influence. We want to ensure that it is absolutely clear that they are not doing that, that none of the parties would do that, and there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing.

If it is not robust enough now and will not be robust enough in October 2014, when does the Minister think that the security situation will be robust enough to allow the publication of information about larger donations? What must change between now and the point at which we shall be able to publish that information? What criteria will the Government use under their new power to bring about more transparency? I am not certain that anyone fully understands what the obstacles are now, and what improvements would be necessary for us to provide that increased transparency, which I think every party that gave evidence to the Select Committee agreed was, in theory, desirable.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee has discussed this issue on many occasions. Our party, along with nearly all the others, wants transparency, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that in parts of Northern Ireland today, to be a Unionist is to be an outcast. Subscribing to a political party could still put someone’s life in danger.

[Nigel Mills]

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise, but surely he agrees that such people can choose whether to donate a large amount to a party. If my amendment were passed, they could still donate £7,499 every year without their names being published. Surely he agrees that a donation can reach such a level that the donor must accept that it should be subject to transparency, because of the amount of influence that that donor might be exerting. The amendment provides that, in just over 14 months’ time, any donation that exceeds £7,500 will be made public. That would give an individual 14 months in which to make any large donation to a party that he or she wished to make—without the information being published—which would presumably tide the party over.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

This topic is very important to those of us who are involved in the political process in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is necessary to balance the security risk against the public good, and that in this instance the public want transparency and accountability in politics?

[Nigel Mills]

Yes. I made that point at the outset. The need for absolute security must be balanced against the need for transparency, and I decided that the level at which the balance tilted towards transparency was £7,500. The hon. Lady might choose a different figure, but there must be a point at which donations are seen to buy influence, and the details should therefore be published.

The leader of the hon. Lady’s party gave some of the most compelling evidence to the Select Committee. He said that his big fear was that if a small business man gave £1,000 to his, and her, party, another party might knock on the door and demand £2,000, because that business man was clearly willing to donate. I think that there is a risk at that level. That is why I did not table an amendment proposing that all donations should be made public, and I think that that is why the Select Committee recommended the £7,500 threshold as well.

Fifteen years after the Good Friday agreement, with all the progress that has been made, can we really justify maintaining the secrecy of all the large political donations to Northern Ireland parties when in the rest of the UK we have the publication of much smaller donations with no trouble? We accept that there is a unique situation in Northern Ireland. The security situation there is clearly different from what those of us representing seats in the mainland face, but for how many more years can we tolerate there not being this transparency in politics in the UK?

[Naomi Long]

Even if we judge that the risk now is high, the point is that there will never be a point at which we can say there is no risk. This provision is about transitioning and saying that the donor must now take some responsibility for judging whether to take that risk, and that that risk should not always outweigh the public interest.

[Nigel Mills]

Absolutely, and if this amendment were passed, a donor would still have 14 months in which to make any donations they wanted to make and have them not made public. I suspect that would get the political parties through the 2015 general election, and that if they planned things carefully, they could get enough funds to get through the 2016 Assembly elections, so there would be no detriment to party funding until perhaps the 2020 elections in terms of the need for very large donations. That would give everyone a large amount of time to adjust to these new transparency rules.

I therefore ask the Minister to set out why the Government are apparently reluctant to go down this route even for the largest donations. I note that in their response to the Select Committee they said they would carefully consider any restrictions on transparency after October 2014. It would be useful to understand what their criteria are for making that decision. I accept, however, that the Minister cannot, and should not, tell us the specific intelligence he has about security threats.

Northern Ireland Members obviously understand Northern Ireland politics better than I do, but it is my understanding that the details of anyone who nominates a candidate or who stands for a council are published. If we have not had any evidence that there is a real security threat to people participating in those aspects of Northern Ireland democracy, why do we have this threat in respect of donations? It is worth asking how credible it is to have those two opposing situations, whereby it is safe to nominate or stand but it is not safe to donate money. I am not sure whether there is a very convincing argument for that.

[Lady Hermon]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have the privilege of sitting on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. When we took evidence on this issue, we took evidence privately and in public session, and we took it in written as well as oral form. Did we ever receive evidence from a donor to any political party or to any independent Member of the Parliament that they felt at risk of being targeted by terrorists or anyone else for donating?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

No, of course we did not receive any such evidence. We do not know who the donors are, so we could not go and ask them. That question was raised with some of the parties; they were asked whether they had any evidence from their donors that could be put on an anonymous basis, and I do not recall any evidence along those lines being received.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman drew comparisons between elected representatives and donors, but elected representatives chose to put their names forward—in the same way as some of us on this side of the House chose to wear the uniform of the Crown, and served in Northern Ireland. That is a choice we made. The donors do not necessarily make a choice to have their names and addresses and businesses all known. That is the difference. The difference is between those who make these choices and those who donate and do not want to make anybody else aware of that. Derbyshire is not like South Down. Amber Valley is not like Belfast. They are two different places—there are different situations and different circumstances—and, with the greatest respect, I am a wee bit unsure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of all the background in Northern Ireland.

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, people who make donations before October 2014 should not have their details published, as that would not be their understanding of what would happen. My argument is that if they choose to make a large donation after 1 October 2014, they would be doing so on the understanding that they will be named—they would be choosing to be in that situation. I have no desire to force someone into a position that is not what they understood it to be, as it would be entirely wrong to do so.

I do not doubt that my constituency is very different from that of the hon. Gentleman and I do not want to underestimate his understanding of those risks, as they are clearly far greater than those in my constituency will ever be. However, we are all asked, as Members of Parliament in the UK, to vote on this Bill and to make these choices. We need to be in a situation where there is sufficient normality in Northern Ireland to be able to publish details of these donations. I am not convinced that we have not reached that point now and that for large donations it would not be the right way in which to tip that delicate balance, especially when we are not getting credible evidence from anybody that there is a real threat or that any past incidents would give us real cause for concern. Perhaps that evidence exists and just cannot come into the public domain. I have no doubt that the Minister will have information that is far stronger than the Committee could get its hands on or perhaps should get its hands on.

On the current balance of the arguments, I think we should be publishing details of those larger donations. I accept that we are not in a position to do that in respect of smaller donations, but let us make that change. Let us say that we have progressed far enough, 15 or 16 years on from that historic agreement, to think that the situation in Northern Ireland is strong enough for us to be able to publish details of those large donations. Let us go for transparency for the whole political process, and let us show that it is clean and that people cannot be bought. Let us not continue any longer with this fear or misunderstanding that the process is corrupt. That is where we are, and the events of last week and that television programme have raised again fears that something is happening which should not be happening. We all sincerely hope that it is not.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. First, I wish to discuss amendment 6, which stands in my name and that of my colleagues, and then I will comment on the other proposals in the group. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) put a legitimate point of view, one that had support in the Select Committee but has not found favour with the Government, so I look forward to hearing the Minister speak on it. It is also worth making the general comment in relation to all these matters that the Bill did go through pre-legislative scrutiny. That is not to say that it cannot be improved or that we cannot debate it and tease out the various issues—that is what we are here to do. The hon. Gentleman referred to recent programmes and, of course, we also have to bear in mind the recent “Panorama” programme and The Sunday Times exposure of issues relating to Back-Benchers here and members of the other place. All these issues are very pertinent and need to be examined, too.

Our amendment 6 would repeal section 71B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Political parties in Northern Ireland currently follow different rules from parties in Great Britain. Many people in the UK—UK taxpayers and voters—might be slightly surprised that a different set of rules applies on donations to people who can be elected to the House of Commons to make laws for the whole of the United Kingdom if they are in political parties in one part of the UK. The 2000 Act was passed to prevent foreign influence through donations being made without transparency, openness and all the rest of it and to ensure that donations were made by legitimate donors—donors who reside in the United Kingdom or who have locus in the UK, because, after all, the political parties to which they are donating are making laws for the UK. By logic, therefore, the same rules should apply across the UK to all the political parties represented in this House. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

In Great Britain, donations are permissible only from individuals or bodies in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland parties, exceptionally, are allowed also to receive donations and loans from the Irish Republic. The amendment would end that exemption and put Northern Ireland on the same footing as the rest of the United Kingdom. One argument that is made over and over by many people, quite validly and properly, is that Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Usually, that argument is applied to the question of transparency and the revelation of the identities of donors—I shall come to that in a short while—but it never seems to be raised in the context of this glaring loophole, which preserves a special position, effectively for the benefit of nationalist parties. Let us be frank: that is why it was brought in originally and why it was lobbied for.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and I understand where she is coming from. I understand the argument she advanced and the way in which she advanced it. Her concern was more to do with the loophole whereby donations come not so much from citizens or organisations in the Republic but from individuals or companies who are used as a conduit for political donations to parties in Northern Ireland from outside the Irish Republic—from the United States, or wherever. That is the real problem. It was identified by the Select Committee, which recommended that the loophole be closed.

The purpose of our amendment is to highlight that glaring loophole. We cannot have an exception that allows donations to come in from abroad and thereby allows them to come in from even further afield than intended—from America, Australia, Canada, other parts of the European Union or wherever else. That issue must be addressed. It is entirely unacceptable, when we talk about transparency, openness and all the rest of it, that in Northern Ireland parties that are represented or may be represented in this House could be funded by bodies, individuals and organisations in other parts of the world yet we would never be able to find out because of this exception.

I appeal to the Minister to consider the issue, to consider very carefully not just what we have said but what the Select Committee has said and to take the matter away and see how the loophole can be closed. If we are trying to move forward and bring the law on donations gradually and cautiously into line, we must do it across the board, not just on the issue addressed by clause 1 and the other amendments but on the issue we are raising through amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

I have asked the Minister to take the matter away and consider it, but the fundamental point is that we are talking about the United Kingdom. When it comes to laws on donations, the electoral system for this House, and the way in which Members of the House are treated, right across the board, I believe that we are a Parliament of the United Kingdom, and Members of the House should all be equal, regardless of where we come from.

As far as the political set-up in Northern Ireland is concerned, there is absolutely nothing to stop political parties getting donations from any part of the United Kingdom, although I have to say that it is not common for Northern Ireland parties—the hon. Lady can bear this out—to be inundated with donations from other parts of the United Kingdom. I think that parties on this side of the water have that market well and truly cornered, whatever the source of the donations. We certainly do not get donations from the unions in Northern Ireland, either.

This is a point of principle for us, I suppose. The hon. Lady may not agree with it, and she has a perfectly valid perspective, but our view is that we are part of the United Kingdom, and we should all abide equally by the rules of the United Kingdom. The fundamental point is that the situation is not only wrong in principle but wide open to abuse; a coach and horses could be driven through the provisions, in ways that run contrary to the reasons for introducing the measures in the 2000 Act. They were brought in to pander to Sinn Fein in particular. Whatever the reasons may have been for that, years ago, those reasons have long since ceased to apply, and everybody should be on a level playing field.

[Nigel Mills]

I have sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. One of the concerns of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was that his amendment would effectively contravene the provisions of the Good Friday agreement—that freedoms allowed there effectively enable an all-Ireland party to operate, and what he is trying to do would stop that happening—and that is perhaps not the way Parliament ought to go.

[Mr Dodds]

Nothing in the amendment, or in our proposal, would prevent a party from operating in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Likewise, there is nothing to stop a party from operating on a UK-wide basis, if it wished to. All the provision does is put Northern Ireland parties in exactly the same position as those in the rest of the United Kingdom, so that we are subject to the same rules and scrutiny. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view, which the Minister needs to consider.

Amendment 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) means that after 1 October 2014 all protected information should be published in relation to all donations over £7,500. Protected information is anything that could identify the person or organisation that made a donation during the prescribed period of donor anonymity. The amendment would remove the protection after 1 October 2014 and would remove all discretion from the Secretary of State so that, as the hon. Gentleman said, after that date all donors and their details would be published.

We discussed the issue generally on Second Reading and the Government set out their position, which was opposed to that of the hon. Gentleman. Generally speaking, we welcomed the Government’s approach, which was one of caution but of cautious progress. We made it clear in the House that we want to see Northern Ireland on all fronts—not just, as some people have it, selectively—moving forward and coming into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Right across all fronts we wish to see that.

We welcome the fact that amendments 7 and 8, as well as amendment 2, safeguard the anonymity of those who have donated up till now. Some have argued that that should not be accepted, but it is accepted by everybody and rightly so. The question is whether the Government should still have regard to the circumstances in October 2014, or whether we should make a decision now that as of that date, regardless of the situation or circumstances, the discretion is taken away.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Nigel Mills]

I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to the quotes he gave about the commercial risk of a boycott if someone is exposed as a political donor. The leader of the UUP and the First Minister both said that it was the security risk that justified the lack of transparency and that the commercial downsides of a boycott alone would not be a sufficient threshold. Does he agree that it is only the security risk that justifies the lack of transparency?

[Mr Dodds]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. I refer him to paragraph 23 of the research paper on this matter produced by the House of Commons Library, which says:

“Mr Robinson, Mr Nesbitt and Mr Elliott all argued that security and commercial risk to donors were intrinsically intertwined”.

The responsibility for setting the timetable for removing anonymity must, in our view, remain with the Secretary of State, as is the current position under the Bill. We would urge caution as to when the decision is considered, as we noted on Second Reading, when the Secretary of State gave us an undertaking that there would be consultation not just with the Electoral Commission but with the security forces and political parties. That is absolutely right and proper.

For those reasons, we support the consensus behind the Bill and urge colleagues to consider carefully the importance and significance of our amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. It is unfortunate that the noise blotted out all the praise that I was heaping on the Government, because I am just about to stop and start to highlight areas where they have not been quite so generous. However, I do appreciate that these issues are being addressed. I very much support that, as did the Select Committee.

These provisions are being proposed for a very good reason. Serving in two legislatures involves the physical challenge of being in two places at once. The conflict in sitting times between the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly means that Members who wished to be here today for this business would have to be absent from the Assembly, where they could be questioning Ministers and holding them to account. There is significant evidence that that creates a democratic deficit either there or here.

The problem is not restricted purely to Members who sit in the House of Commons. I recognise that the House of Lords is not structured in the same way as the Commons. Its Members do not have an electoral mandate and therefore do not have the same demands on their time with regard to constituency business. However, as a revising Chamber with a primary focus on legislation and scrutiny, it is hugely important that its Members are free to dedicate themselves to that task without the interference of a constituency burden and the other legislature that they would have to deal with when they are at the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree with the hon. Lady. Does she accept that, as I propose in amendment 3, this must apply even more to the European Parliament, which is even further away and has some kind of elected legitimacy, at least while we are in still in the European Union and it is relevant to us? I cannot see how someone can serve in Brussels and in Belfast at the same time.

--- Later in debate ---

I think that that stands the test of scrutiny and hope that even at this stage the Minister will be able to offer us some comfort on these matters.

[Nigel Mills]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady and I agree with most of what she said. Indeed, when the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee considered the Bill we welcomed the Government’s decision to legislate to abolish double-jobbing between this place and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and we suggested that if the Government were going to go down the route of legislating on one lot of double-jobbing, they should do so for all manner of double-jobbing in order to be consistent. It is welcome that the Government listened to the Committee on the issue of Members of the Irish Parliament. If it is right to block Members of this Parliament from being Members of the Assembly, it would have been iniquitous to not also block Members of the Irish Parliament. That is a welcome change.

We accept the need to legislate to end double-jobbing between the Parliament in London and the Assembly in Belfast, but I find it difficult to understand why the Government think there is no need to end it in the context of the European Parliament in Brussels. I see from the Government response to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report that they see no need for that because no concern has been raised.

The Government consider that if that was done, it should apply across the United Kingdom and not just in Northern Ireland. However, the same argument would apply to ending double-jobbing between this place and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, but the Government are proposing legislation only for Northern Ireland. I believe that legislation is planned for Wales, but I am not sure of the position on Scotland.

It is therefore hard to see the logic of legislating to stop Members of Parliament sitting in the Assembly, but not to stop Members of the European Parliament sitting there. Surely if we think that that is wrong, we should legislate on it as a matter of principle and say that people can choose whether they sit in the Assembly or another Parliament, but they cannot do both. That is the simple logic behind amendment 3.

I see no reason to detain the Committee. The hon. Member for Belfast East set out all the good reasons for banning double-jobbing. The people of Northern Ireland think that that should happen and all the parties over there have voluntarily agreed that it will happen from the next general election. In my view, that should also apply to the next European Parliament election, which is due to take place in just under a year. I therefore commend amendment 3 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It is a pleasure, Ms Clark, to work under your chairmanship for the first time this evening. Yet again, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate—some of it within the scope of the Northern Ireland Office’s remit and some outside it. Perhaps I can address straight away one of the areas of debate we have had this evening because, although I fully respect the view, it falls outside the scope of the Bill and of my portfolio. The question of whether an MLA can sit in the European Parliament is a matter for the Cabinet Office and the UK Government as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) can take it up with the Cabinet Office, if he wishes, but I have been strongly advised that it falls within its remit and not mine and that I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

[Nigel Mills]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mike Penning]

If I may, I will make some progress. We have a lot to get through this evening and not a lot of time, even though it looks like we do. We have not made much progress down the list of amendments.

The Government listened to the Select Committee and changed our mind about whether someone could be an MLA and a Member of the lower House in the Republic. We listened carefully to the debate and accepted that suggestion.

I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). My personal view, as well as that of the Government, is that there is a difference between a person elected to this House with a mandate—the words in the explanatory notes were put there for a reason—and a Member of the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords do not have a mandate: they are not elected; they do not have a constituency; they do not have constituents. However, the Government’s view is not fixed and if, when the Bill passes to the other place, the House of Lords has a view on that, we will consider what comes back to us. At present, the reason behind the change is to do with mandates and not to do with whether Members are in another Chamber.