---

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trimble. I am sure that his experience in Northern Ireland will greatly enhance our deliberations when we discuss the business of Northern Ireland in this House. Broadly speaking, we welcome the Bill. We support the principles behind it. We have some concern about the intention in Clause 1 to introduce anonymous registration in Northern Ireland to mirror Clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill. That would allow an elector to register anonymously if he feared that his safety or that of another person in his home was at risk if he were identifiable from the electoral register. Given the changing threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we feel that the number of people for whom that provision may be necessary will be small and will decrease over time. We are concerned about how the Government intend to achieve that. The clause allows the Secretary of State, through an Order in Council, to achieve anonymous registration. In another place, the Minister gave some explanation of why it was not possible simply to extend the current provisions of the Electoral Administration Bill to Northern Ireland. We are concerned that Northern Ireland will not be able to benefit from that proposal at the same time as people in England and Wales. Can the Minister tell the House when the Government intend to lay the Order in Council before Parliament? We are very disappointed at the Government’s intention to abolish the annual canvass, which was introduced in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The annual canvass has proven to be successful in Northern Ireland. The introduction of individual registration with personal identifiers in Northern Ireland has led to a much more accurate and robust electoral register than those compiled under the system of household registration. Currently, 1,162,492 people are on the register, which is an estimated 91 per cent of the voting-aged population. We understand the Government’s concern at the continued decline in the number of people registering. We must ensure that the procedures are not so onerous as to discourage people from registering; but we fear that by extending the period of time between canvasses to 10 years, the Government have back-pedalled far too far. Can the Minister explain why a period of 10 years was chosen? Would it not be more sensible to have a shorter period of, say, four years, to ensure that the registers are comprehensive in advance of Assembly elections? The system of individual registration has worked in Northern Ireland; it would be wrong to undermine it now. We are also most disappointed by the provisions of Part 3. Although that part aligns donations in Northern Ireland more closely with those in England, Scotland and Wales, it does not achieve full transparency. Northern Ireland political parties and regulated donees will continue to be exempt from the full donation controls until October 2007, after which they will be required to comply with most of Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. From November 2007 until 2010, the measures will require Northern Ireland parties only to submit donation returns to the Electoral Commission confidentially. We fully appreciate that concerns still remain about the publication of the names of donors in Northern Ireland and their safety. The new measures are a step in the right direction, but can the Minister guarantee that full disclosure will be achieved by 2010? We are still concerned about extending the categories of permissible donors. In 2000, when the Political Parties and Referendums Act was passing through Parliament, we recognised that, in the absence of any similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, it would be somewhat ineffective to include Northern Ireland in the ban on receiving foreign donations, as parties that operated on an all-Ireland basis could receive such donations through their offices in the Republic.  We agreed to the exemption of Northern Ireland from those provisions on the express condition that the Government would urgently seek to persuade the Government of Ireland to introduce similar legislation, or to find some way to exclude parties that also operate in Northern Ireland from their funding arrangements. We are still unclear about the funding arrangements in the Republic, and I should be grateful if the Minister could explain them for the benefit of the House. After all, given the public concern over party donations in Great Britain, it is difficult to understand why Northern Ireland parties are to be excused from similar scrutiny. The Electoral Commission also has concerns about the provisions. Its view is that:"““it is difficult to achieve openness and transparency with such a regime””." The commission has stated that it would like the regime to be clarified in the Bill and has accordingly asked for a clear definition of the acceptable tests of Irish citizenship so that recipients of donations can check the permissibility of donors. Will the Minister take on board those concerns and accordingly table amendments in Committee? I now turn to Part 4, which deals with arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice matters to the Assembly. We Liberal Democrats are a devolutionary party. It has been our party policy for a number of years to devolve those functions to the Assembly. We welcome the clauses that will enable policing and justice arrangements to be devolved in any form that the Assembly chooses. We are further pleased about the reassurances that the Government gave in another place about how and when such functions will be devolved. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, it is vital that such functions are transferred only when the Assembly is stable and we can be confident that it will remain so for the long-term. However, we have some concerns about the detail of how nominations to that ministerial office will occur. We will table amendments in Committee to clarify the situation. Clause 25, which was introduced on Report in another place, places a duty on public authorities to act in a way that contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. We welcome that provision; it is an aim that we support. However, another duty should be placed on public authorities. That is to act in a way that contributes to the achievement of the aims of A Shared Future. We welcome the Government’s publication of the first triennial action plan—it is a start—but we were disappointed that, although the Government have been ambitious in their environmental aims, they seem not to have been so ambitious as to promote sharing over separation in every department. I am most grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made reference to the progress that we hope to be achieved in the negotiations between the Northern Ireland parties and the two Governments about the restoration of an Executive. After all, that is central to some of the provisions of the Bill. Progress is important because it will inform the attitude of those of us on these Benches to the variety of orders that will be laid before the House during the next few weeks. I conclude by saying that I am aware that the usual channels arranged the time for this debate, but it is very unfortunate that we have a Second Reading debate on these important issues so late in the evening. It happens too frequently that Northern Ireland business is given the fag-end of the day, especially on Second Reading. I hope that, in future, we contrive to give greater priority to such legislation.