Draft Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland political parties) order 2018
Debate between Simon Hoare and Owen Smith(7 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am listening with great attention to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He mentioned newspapers. In my edition of The Irish News—a publication with which I am sure he is familiar— of 14 July, he is quoted as saying,
“the decision not to back-date”—
that is, the decision of the Secretary of State—
“funding transparency to 2014 was the best decision, because it had the support of the majority of North’s parties.”
That is what the hon. Gentleman said to The Irish News in the middle of July this year. Either he is flip-flopping on the issue now, or he is playing fast and loose for party political reasons on a sensitive issue at a sensitive time. Which is it?
Owen Smith
It is very simple. When the facts change, I change my mind. I make no bones about it. When the political parties in Northern Ireland change their view about the rationale for concealing this and for leaving the date as only prospective not retrospective, I change my mind. I will explain why I changed my mind about this. The truth is that there was no political pressure from the parties in Northern Ireland for the Government to get on with introducing this legislation after 2014—I completely and freely concede that. Nor was there— as the Minister rightly points out—in the submissions made by the political parties in response to the Secretary of State’s letter of 4 January 2017, any indication that they would like it to be retrospective other than in the submission from the Alliance party. What has changed since that date is that there has been growing concern about the source of the £425,000 donation to the DUP, and about the lack of transparency around that source.
Owen Smith
That was the point I was making. I have seen both £425,000 and £435,000. I thought I would err on the side of caution and conservatism and plump for the lower number. I think that £435,000 might be the total donation, and £10,000 was spent in Northern Ireland specifically. However, the point that my right hon. Friend makes is precisely the point that I was making. Concern has emerged over the last year, and certainly over the last six months.
Owen Smith
I will give way in a moment; the hon. Gentleman has made his intervention.
Owen Smith
Not unlike the hon. Gentleman because those were my opening words to the Committee today, so the Minister really ought to listen. But the Electoral Commission is profoundly disappointed that the provision will not be retrospective, which is also my view. Ann Watt, the head of the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission, said:
“While all reportable donations and loans received from 1 July 2017 will now be published by the commission, we would also like to see the necessary legislation put in place, as soon as possible, to allow us to publish details of donations and loans received since January 2014.”
Her predecessor, Séamus Magee, who retired in 2014, said:
“The deal on party donations and loans must be part of the DUP/Conservative deal. No other explanation…Every party in Northern Ireland understood that the publication of political donations over £7,500 was to be retrospective to Jan 2014.”
I put it to the Minister that part of the reason that some of the political parties did not respond saying that they wanted it to be retrospective is that they naturally understood that that would be the case, given that that was what the legislation allowed for. When the Minister responds, I am sure she will tell us why she has arbitrarily picked the date of 1 July 2017. There is no reason that I can see, either in statute or in ministerial comments, for coming up with that date.
Let me read some of the views of the parties. Conor Murphy, a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Newry and Armagh, said on behalf of Sinn Féin:
“The British Government’s refusal to backdate new laws on political donations is aimed at covering-up so-called Brexit ‘dark money’ that was paid to the DUP”.
He also said:
“If the DUP and the British Government were serious about transparency in government then they would support the retrospective publication from January 2014 of all donations over the reportable threshold.”
Robin Swann, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, has told me in writing today that his party would not oppose retrospective introduction of the legislation, and a similar view is now held by the Social Democratic and Labour party. In addition, the view of the Alliance party, which was clear back in January, was that it, too, wanted publication. The truth is that the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland and those of the Labour party have changed as a result of growing concern about the DUP donation.
Simon Hoare
For the hon. Gentleman’s interest and information, I am a Catholic Unionist who was on the remain side, so I am not necessarily particularly keen on what the money was spent on, but can I just take him back to his own words? He talks about January and about a donation in the referendum. That quote was in The Irish News in the middle of July this year. He was clearly behind the curve compared with all those people who were saying from January that it should all be backdated. Why is he flip-flopping?
Owen Smith
I will have to live with the terrible accusation that I was behind the curve—I freely confess that to the hon. Gentleman. However, we are now up with the curve. Our view is now very clear, which is why we will oppose the statutory instrument today.
The very simple question is this: why are people concerned about this DUP money? The reason is that the money came from something called the Constitutional Research Council—a little-known, recondite, Scottish-based Unionist think-tank of sorts—which is interesting because it had never before made a political donation of any sort. In the institution’s history, it has made one declarable donation. It does not have a website or accounts, and it seems pretty shady to me in lots of ways. It is one of those unincorporated associations that have been used to channel money to the Tory party in previous general elections.
There are significant doubts about the source of the money, and questions about what it was for and where it came from. Was it from overseas? Was it a legal donation? Of course, the DUP could clear all this up by telling us the exact source of the money.
Universal Credit Work Allowance
Debate between Simon Hoare and Owen Smith(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith
No.
Disabled workers will lose £2,000 a year, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) reminded the House, the worst affected group will be single mothers. A single mother working full time on the new, shiny national living wage will be £3,000 worse off. How have the Government justified that? They have made a series of attempts to defend it. The first was to refer to their manifesto and say, “We said we were going to deliver £12 billion of cuts from welfare, and here we go.” What they did not say at the election, as I recall, was that they would be stripping the money from working families. I do not recall them talking about nursery nurses, security guards or shop workers on the minimum wage as the sort of wage scroungers they now seek to vilify, yet those are the very people who will be scragged by the change.
Welfare Cap
Debate between Simon Hoare and Owen Smith(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith
I would have been mortified had I been the Chancellor responsible for such a terrible U-turn and such an extraordinary, humiliating, screeching U-turn.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Again, in this great spirit of festive tidings, let me say that if that is really the best that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can do on such an important issue, he and his party really have not got a cat in hell’s chance of ever being back in government.
Owen Smith
I thought I was doing rather better than that. I thought the House might enjoy a bit of Christmas spirit.
The real crime that Macavity is hiding from today is not the breach of the welfare cap, however embarrassing that may be. The real larder that has been looted is universal credit. Opening the debate, the Minister said several times that the Government would meet the welfare cap in 2019-20 and he is right that the OBR confirms that, but he signally failed to tell the House how they would do it. I suspect that that is because of the other reason that the Secretary of State did not wish to address the House today. We know precisely how he will meet the cap: through the £10 billion cut to the work allowance that we will see by 2020; a cut of £3 billion a year, nearly making up for the £3 billion that was to be taken away in tax credits, butchering the work incentives that are supposed to make universal credit worth while.
Who are the victims of this crime? The Secretary of State is for one, because he has had his budget raided once more—the seventh time, I believe. However, the true victims are the millions of constituents in Labour and Tory seats who will still lose thousands of pounds as a result of the Chancellor’s cut to universal credit. Some 500,000 people will be on UC by next April, and according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2.6 million households will lose £1,600 by 2020. They are the victims of this crime, the people who are paying for the Chancellor’s hubris with £3 billion of their own money in 2020 and every year thereafter. They are the people being fleeced by the postcode lottery that is being created in support for low-wage workers, whereby those lucky enough to stay on tax credits will be massively better off than their neighbours on universal credit.
A single mother working full-time on the new national minimum wage with two children will be £2,981 worse off than another mother, perhaps living next door in precisely the same circumstances but still on tax credits. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position, “What about child care?” Yes, if that mother has children who are three or four, she may be better off, but if her children are one, five, seven or 12, they will not be. That is the reality and we should not be misleading the House, from a sedentary position or otherwise.
That disparity cannot be fair and cannot be right. It may not even be legal. We are seeking advice as to the legality of that move. I suspect that is not what the Chancellor told the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) or other Tory Back Benchers when he reassured them that he was making good the tax credit cut, even if it meant breaching the welfare cap.