| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 229
political parties would then have given their evidence, and we could then have reached conclusions and informed this debate rather better.Mr. Mullin : It might have been better, but the fact is that we are having this debate today. It has been prompted not so much by the Select Committee's deliberations as by the departure of Mr. Nadir to northern Cyprus. I do not have any influence over his timetable. We are having this debate today, so we should try to address the issues today. Disclosure is fundamental, and it is not a controversial issue in other democracies. One of the puzzling things is that issues that have been tremendously controversial here do not appear to be controversial in other countries.
The second principle is that company donations should be placed on a footing similar to that for donations from other organisations, such as trade unions. That point should not be controversial. I shall probably get myself into trouble somewhere for saying that I am not all that disappointed that a Conservative Government passed legislation that obliged trade unions to hold a ballot on political funds every 10 years. That does not give me much trouble, and I believe that it was a healthy move.
As it turned out--I have no doubt that it was not the Government's intention--it was healthy for the trade unions. The trade union leaders had to get out and about among their members, and justify the political funds. They did so successfully, to the extent that one or two trade unions that had not had a political fund voted to have one. We should be grateful to the Conservative party to that extent. Another simple principle is that there should be a limit on the size of donations. In the United States--I hope that hon. Members will correct me if I have got it wrong--the limit is about $250. We can have a debate about what the size should be. Some favour limits of between £5,000 and £10,000. That is not realistic. I favour some limit, although I do not lay down precise figures. We all have different figures in our heads. However, there should be a limit on the size of donations.
Mr. Kirkwood : The $250 is the figure that must be disclosed.
Mr. Mullin : I am sorry, I was wrong. In the United States, the figure of $250 applies to what should be disclosed. I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The figure that must be disclosed should be about $250, although we shall need to debate exactly what it should be.
There should also be a limit on the size of donations, whether by individuals or organisations which, of course, would be more than $250. We can have a debate about what the figure should be. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said--this point has been made in evidence to the Select Committee--that individuals should have a right to dispose of their properly taxed income as they please. I agree up to a point that individuals should have that right, but I believe that there is another right in a democracy. That right is for the electorate to know who is funding the organisations whose various programmes are contending for recognition. No absolute rights are involved, and one right has to be balanced against the other. Although we can argue about where to draw the line, a line should be drawn.
Column 230
A point on which all democrats should be able to agree is that there should not be foreign donations. People who are not entitled to take part in our elections should not be allowed to contribute to the funding of one of the parties involved in political campaigning in elections. That is a simple principle which is readily accepted in other countries.The Secretary of State for Employment said that the integrity of our system shone through, which was a surprising remark in light of the debate. Whatever else one can say about today's debate, one cannot say that it has shown up the integrity of our system. We have an opportunity to improve the integrity of our system and I want our system to be respected elsewhere in the world. Regrettably, that is not the case at the moment.
I shall be disappointed if our Select Committee divides on partisan lines on those simple points on which every democrat should agree. One objection that may be made is that, if the proposals are accepted, the amount coming into the main parties will go down. That is very possible. However, it may be a good thing rather than a bad thing for less money to be spent on the political process.
If the result of shedding daylight on the funding of our political system is that contributions go down, I for one as a democrat will be able to live with that. I believe that our political system will be healthier as a result.
7.34 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : I profoundly agree with some of the points made by previous speakers, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I also noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), my constituency neighbour and the chairman of the party, said. It was a robust defence and a necessary defence. It was important for me and, I suspect, for hundreds of thousands of Conservatives that he laid to rest some of the scandals, rumours and charges that have gone careering around our public life. My only comment is that it was a defence of the system as is. That is what is under challenge. I shall give a good reason why I think that it is profoundly unsatisfactory as is.
It is profoundly unsatisfactory to watch the Prime Minister of Great Britain go to an international conference in Copenhagen which is important for our interests and to see him, the representative of us all--we all wish for the well-being of our country in its external relations--being besieged by inquiries about the funding of the Conservative party. It was a massive distortion and a deflection from purpose in government.
I give the other instance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment fell into saying "we the Conservative party". Those who sit on the Conservative Front Bench are the Government of the United Kingdom. They have to act in the national interest and, from time to time, they have to rise above the mere partisan exchanges into which we enter with such vigour and, sometimes, enjoyment across the Floor of the House. It is not right that a Minister should defend the fund-raising activities of the Conservative party of which I am a member. My right hon. Friend is Her Majesty's Secretary of State and that in
Column 231
itself shows the confusion in the public mind between the financing of a political party and the business of our country, as exemplified by the Government of our country.There are matters of considerable principle behind this debate. Several hon. Members have identified the fact that we are discussing our public system. It is the only way in which, in a democracy, we can transmit our purpose through our institutions and through our Government. It is, therefore, the most basic principle that those institutions should be seen not to be corrupt in any way. I have used the expression, "like Caesar's wife" ; like Caesar's wife, the Government should be above suspicion. When challenged on that point, I cannot think of any Caesar's wife who was above suspicion. In fact, they engaged in regicide as often as not, if I remember sufficiently my Suetonius. However, the principle is right. Governments should be above suspicion.
In the mass of charges and counter-charges, I, like every other hon. Member and certainly like every Conservative Member, wish to defend the integrity of my party. I am unable to defend it, because I cannot point to any published list of where the funds come from which would exorcise the malignity of the charges. I make that point as my principal purpose.
Political funding or contributions to funding are not, as the former Chancellor Lord Hailsham said, a matter merely of privity or the fact that we have a right to dispose of our money as we wish. I accept that it may be true of charities in general : charities such as the Red Cross and a number of others actively seek funds. The motives of the givers in all instances can be questionable. They may be honourable ; many people give to charities in the hope of aggrandising themselves in the eyes of the community. The givers may subtly be trying to reach for honour and recognition. Many give for honourable reasons, but political parties are different because they are contending for the Government of the country. They therefore hold public policy decisions in their hands.
It is important that the public--that is you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and everyone here--do not think or cannot conclude that there is something essentially corrupt in the process. I appreciate that these are grand words, but our suspicious minds will always lead us to do just that. As long as donations are hidden and screened by the arguments that the right of privacy gives us the right to donate very large sums to political parties, there will always be a question mark. Public policy should dictate that large sums of money should be identifiable in the accounts of a party.
The wider question, which has been touched on today, is that of integrity in public life. As a Conservative, I have to say that a seediness has been perceived by Conservatives in my constituency. It is with some diffidence that I mention the members of the Conservative Front Bench. I mention them because at the heart of our system--as I emphasised at the beginning of my remarks--is integrity in public life. I am not interested in private lives ; we are all entitled to one. That integrity must be manifest in public life. I can only report to the House and to my party what my Conservative association and my constituents have identified.
There have been three Ministers of the Crown whose activities I cannot understand in the light of procedures for
Column 232
Ministers published by the Cabinet Office. I cannot understand a Minister of the Crown accepting a holiday financed by the head of a foreign state. I cannot understand a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--now the Secretary of State for theEnvironment--accepting the gift of moneys towards his pond. When I was growing up, the sense of integrity in public life would have meant that an honourable man would have resigned. Perhaps I am wrong. He would not only have been out of the Cabinet but out of public life because the demonstration of the flame of integrity is the one trust that the public have.
If we become disillusioned with our political processes, they are worth nothing. Our cry should be that the integrity of the institutions of state is the defence of each one of us as individual citizens. We look to the officers of the law for fairness because therein lies our freedom. The confidence with which we can look to the officers of the Crown is the confidence of our state. We diminish ourselves, but, much more, we diminish those whom we represent. This is a great country ; it is a great democracy. Why are we trying to defend the status quo and yesterday when the world is swimming in an avalanche of--for all I know--the most profound lies ? Why should we be diminished by that when we can call a halt to it today ? The chairman of the Conservative party could say tomorrow that we will open our accounts. I hope that he will do so. We are a political party ; we have battles to fight and causes to maintain. We could then say that a political party has to cut its coat according to its cloth--perhaps that is what we should be doing too.
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke of integrity in public life. It has come to my notice that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) misled the House this afternoon when referring to an article in Business Age. I have of course--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse an hon. Member of deliberately misleading the House.
Mr. Mandelson : The right hon. Gentleman has inadvertently and possibly unwittingly misled the House by stating that the article recently published in Business Age was going to be the subject of a full retraction. I have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman through the Government Whip -- [Interruption.] I am sorry for the interruption from the Government Whip. I am told that the editor of Business Age has issued a statement arising from what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. It reads :
" Business Age has never at any stage intended to and will not be publishing a retraction of its story. The gentleman's statement was therefore quite untrue."
I should like to know from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman, having not satisfied or informed himself of what the editor of Business Age was going to do, to have unwittingly misled the House by saying that the magazine was to issue a full retraction, quite apart from any minor corrections to do with any particular personality with which the magazine might deal.
Column 233
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members will be aware that hon. Members are entirely responsible for the statements that they make in the Chamber.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We heard from a member of the Government Front Bench that there was no confirmation of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). In fact, we have given to the Whips Office for communication to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) a copy of the statement from Business Age. The statement is on the magazine's letterhead and comes from Tom Rubython, the editor. It is quite categoric. I merely wish to place that on the record.
7.45 pm
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), especially in view of the sentiments he expressed. Some Conservative Members have called today's debate a silly season or sleazy debate and there have been such elements in it. However, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills raised the tone of the debate, which is much to his credit and that of the House.
I also agree with some of the points made by some Labour Members and by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who said that the motion and the amendment created a dilemma. It creates a dilemma for our party because we can agree with elements of both. I have not yet read the Labour party's charter for party political funding, so I am a little reluctant to give Labour a blank cheque. Basically, we support the principle of the disclosure of donations. I am not sure whether it should be carried as far as requiring parties to publish full accounts, but we believe that donations should be disclosed.
I confess that what I understand to be in the Labour party's charter causes us some embarrassment. I believe that the trip wire for disclosure is a donation in the region of £5,000. I have seen that figure in the public prints. That would cause the Ulster Unionist party serious embarrassment because I am not aware of our ever having received a donation of that order. No doubt the trip wire could be set at an appropriate figure so that we could disclose something.
The principle of disclosure is right. Conservative Members complained about sleaze, smears and allegations. The simple answer to the complaints is that, if there were disclosures, there could be no smears or innuendos. The Conservatives are suffering from self-inflicted wounds in that respect. Secrecy inflames or creates suspicion which could be dispelled.
I may not be fully informed about the niceties, so I say with some trepidation that the position of Conservative central office is somewhat anomalous and dangerous. The controversy attaches not to the money raised through associations, which comes through the national union, but to the direct payments to central office, which is an anomalous body.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) described himself as the chairman of the Conservative party, but my understanding is that that is not his job. Instead the right hon. Gentleman is the chairman of central office--a position to which he was not elected but appointed. Central office has its origin in the
Column 234
private office of the Prime Minister and if we bear that fact in mind we see the danger for the Conservative party. If there is a suspicion regarding moneys going to what is in essence the Prime Minister's private office, that is getting close to home and it is fairly dangerous. I should have thought that for the good of the party it would be desirable to disclose the facts and to put the position of central office on a more regular basis. I know that there are movements within the Conservative party pressing for that to be done and for internal democracy within the party. I wish those movements well. It would be good for the health of the Conservative party and for the health of public and political life in this nation if there were some effective internal democracy.As will be understood from the comments that I shall make later, I do not believe that one can separate the question of funding from the question of structure. The two are related. The line that the Conservatives have taken is simply to blame the Labour party and to say that it is just as bad, or worse, referring to its relationship with the unions. I am sure that Labour Members will acknowledge that there are anomalies in their relationship with the unions, too, which have given rise to some vulnerability.
I make my suggestion with trepidation, as I may not be aware of all the subtleties of the relationship, but I have often thought that there is a simple solution to the charges made and to the problems that the relationship with the unions creates for the Labour party. For historical reasons, that relationship is quite understandable. However, the legislation governing unions now contains the requirement for ballots on political funds and trade union members effectively have to opt whether to pay the political levy. Why does not the Labour party arrange that by saying that opting to pay the political levy is opting for membership of the party? Why do not all those persons simply pay the political levy as members of the party? The Labour party could work that idea through in detail. It would get rid of the problem of a union, or a person controlling a union, appearing to buy votes, because the votes would be the votes of real people who had opted, by paying the political levy, to join the party. That should solve the problem.
I cannot mention the political levy without mentioning what strikes me, as a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, as a serious anomaly. There are trade unionists in Northern Ireland, some of whom opt to pay the political levy and thereby help to finance the Labour party. Yet what does the Labour party do to those trade unionists who fund it? It bars them from membership. Is that creditable? I believe that by now the Labour party headquarters computers are programmed to eject immediately from the system any correspondence with the postcode BT, or automatically to generate a refusal if any such correspondence gseas. The principle behind the reference is healthy, but I understand--I hope that hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong--that the Labour party maintains an organisation which people who live outside the United Kingdom can join to show their support for the principles of the party. No doubt such people pay a membership fee ; there may or may not be a financial relationship. I believe that the membership of the support group, if I may call it that, is not limited to British
Column 235
nationals, but that anyone may join. That creates the anomaly whereby anybody in the world can support the Labour party--except 1.5 million citizens of the United Kingdom--Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Who live in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Trimble : Who live in Northern Ireland and are banned. Those are the only people in the world who are banned from the Labour party.
Mr. Nigel Evans : They are lucky.
Mr. Trimble : As I have said, we cannot separate funding from structure, but there is a serious point to be made about overseas support. I greatly regret that there is no Member in the Chamber who represents the Social Democratic and Labour party, because in that context we must mention the way in which that party not only receives but solicits overseas support. We know of the dinners held in Dublin to raise funds and the efforts made to raise funds from Irish Americans. Irish Americans from across the Atlantic are clearly persons overseas and money is raised from them. In the past the SDLP has accepted funding not only from individuals but from a body known as the National Democratic Foundation, which is closely linked to the United States Democratic party.
I believe that the SDLP received six-figure sums from the National Democratic Foundation, sums in excess of the total income of the Ulster Unionist party. In addition, the party received specialist assistance, training and expertise. Its members were regularly sent to the United States to be trained. That was all done by an element of the Democratic party and now that the party is in the White House that element is talking about sending special envoys to Northern Ireland. That is the degree of the intimate relationship between that element of the Democratic party and the SDLP.
Rev. Martin Smyth : My hon. Friend is referring specifically to the National Democratic Foundation. Does not a large proportion of the money involved come ultimately from Government sources, because it can go through the Republican fund or the Democratic fund ? When we talk about overseas Government funding of political parties, we must mention that anomaly.
Mr. Trimble : I thank my hon. Friend for adding that information and for pointing out that Government funds can be laundered through that foundation, which enables the Government of another country, or a major political party in another country, to interfere directly in the internal affairs of part of the United Kingdom. That is not a healthy state of affairs.
I should add that the funding from the National Democratic Foundation has ceased within the last year or two, causing an immediate financial crisis for the SDLP. However, that is another issue and I shall not go into it now.
I said that one could not consider the question of funding apart from the question of structure. I also assert that we must examine not only funding but expenditure and the reasons for expenditure. As has been illustrated by the frequent references to spending during the general election year, the major item of expenditure for political
Column 236
parties is the general election. The anomaly is that there is no limit on national expenditure and campaigns. Many of the problems would be resolved if there were such a limit.I am sure that hon. Members know that every political party in the United Kingdom, except one, supports the idea of working out limits on national expenditure in general election campaigns. The one party that does not support that idea is the Conservative party, which, of course, adopted that position out of self-interest, because it thought that it could outspend the other parties. However, I am not sure whether it did significantly outspend the other parties at the general election--
Mr. Trimble : If we had full disclosure of expenditure we could resolve the question. I hear hon. Members asserting across the Chamber that the Conservative party did or did not outspend other parties. I am not sure whether it had that financial advantage. If there was a realistic limit on expenditure the need to raise funds would not be felt so keenly. Sometimes fund-raisers may go too far in their efforts. It is curious that we have financial limits on the least important aspect--constituency spending--but no limit on national expenditure. That should be put right.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall make only a few final comments. We do not support the idea of state funding. Some hon. Members have said that Short money is different, but one wonders why. What is needed is adequate support for research by individual members, so that they can fund the research that they need to undertake in order to discharge their duties in the House. If there was adequate research support for hon. Members, there would be no need for Short money.
Reference has been made to trade union legislation and it has been acknowledged that there is a public interest in the regulation of unions because of the important role that they play in society and in the economy. Political parties are also important. There is also a case for regulation, or at least the setting of minimum standards, with regard to the structure and conduct of political parties generally.
I know that that is an awkward topic and not perhaps one that we would want to be resolved by legislation. However, the issue is important and it should be addressed. Perhaps that debate could be carried forward through the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
7.59 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : If a martian were to appear in the Strangers Gallery and it did not know the background to this debate, it would reach a conclusion about the sheer hypocrisy of Opposition Members. The Opposition will regret having raised this subject when there are so many other important issues on the agenda. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and others have referred to state funding. I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann about that. If we were to ask the taxpayer to pay for political campaigning when the Government are trying to rein back on public expenditure in an attempt to control and contain it, we would meet a very negative response. Furthermore, every opinion poll and survey that I have seen shows that at least 75 or 80 per
Column 237
cent. of the public are against public funding of political campaigning. We know very well what the Labour party is after. Labour is broke and it wants the taxpayer to bail it out. It is as simple as that.A great deal has been said today about Asil Nadir. I want to declare an interest because I am one of the 60,000-odd small shareholders in Polly Peck. It has been an interesting topsy-turvy investment. My stockbroker bought my shares for me at about £1.50 without my consent as he has discretion on my account. I recall that they rose to £4, slipped back to £2 and then came down to about 20p. I believe that they are now worth 0.02p. That has certainly been an interesting investment and my holding is still worth something, so I have an interest to declare. No one is more anxious than I am to see Mr. Nadir face charges in the courts of this country.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. At the moment, the only thing that Mr. Nadir is guilty of is jumping bail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a fair point. Polly Pcck was a blue chip company. It was a member of the FT-SE30. The company fooled top merchant banks, and every institution in the City had a holding in Polly Peck. The company fooled them and the Tory party.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Razzall, the Liberal party treasurer, said that the Liberal party would also have taken that money so long as it was properly declared. However, when a party takes money from a company, it does not know at the time that that money is not going to be declared in the accounts. That is why I believe that parties should publish accounts in which they should show what corporate donations they have received. If parties did that, it would meet many of the accusations levelled at the Conservative party in respect of corporate donations, some of which are not being declared, not through the fault of the Conservative party, but because that company or a subsidiary of that company has been negligent in that respect.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said. He said that if there is evidence that the money was improperly procured, it will be paid back. I believe what he said, and it was confirmed by the chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.
If Mr. Asil Nadir really thought that he was buying favours, he was bitterly disappointed. I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), but was prevented by Opposition Members from saying what I wanted to say. I wanted to make a point about British Airways. British Airways had given money to the Tory party for a prolonged period. It was one of our biggest corporate donors.
I recall very sensitive and delicate discussions and negotiations taking place about routes to Tokyo and about slots at Heathrow. British Airways was very disappointed when it did not get what it wanted. It then cut off its subscription to the Conservative party. That is surely an example of the Conservative party, when it forms the Government, not being bought off by a large corporate donor or being unduly influenced.
I had the privilege of being the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State for Transport at the time of those discussions. As one of the parties to the
Column 238
discussions was a donor to the Tory party, Ministers looked even more carefully at the merits of the case and were even more wary. We can see such behaviour across the board. It is clear from certain defence contracts when defence companies happen to be donors to the Tory party. They often do not get what they want. What about the big brewers? The Government have done them no favours in respect of the beer law reforms, yet among their number are some of the biggest donors to the Conservative party. Some members of the Eurotunnel consortia are donors to the Tory party, but I can state quite candidly that we have not exactly done them too many favours. That leads me to the question of private donors. I feel very strongly that if someone makes a donation to a political party, to a charity or to any other organisation, he is entitled to total anonymity, because if it is revealed that he made a large donation that individual will be inundated with other requests.I have made a few small modest contributions to charities in my constituency. On one occasion, although I requested anonymity, the charity gave my donation publicity. Some 40 or 50 other organisations then wrote to me asking for a similar contribution. That is why I feel very strongly that, if any individual makes a donation, it must be up to that person to decide whether that information should be made public.
Exactly the same applies to foreign donors. If foreign donors want to donate money to a political party, why should they not do that ? If they feel that our free market system and policies on employment law and trade unions will benefit their corporation and trade, why should those foreign donors not give money to the party that is likely to form a Government who will further the system of free enterprise that will benefit their companies ? If they want anonymity as private individuals, so be it.
However, if there are particularly large donations to any party, it would probably be a good thing if that individual could be persuaded to renounce anonymity. I certainly would not insist on that and I would not insist on its appearing in a party's accounts. I would certainly not insist on it appearing in Conservative party accounts. We have heard many different arguments this afternoon. No party in the House is whiter than white. We have heard a great deal about how the Labour party is financed by the trade unions and, in that respect, I recall the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence) quoted trade union leaders such as Tom Sawyer and others, including John Edmonds. They pay their money and they expect to have a say in how their party is run. Not only do they pay their money ; they expect to have a direct say in how candidates are selected and in policy formation. Not one corporate donor to the Tory party has ever insisted on that.
Opposition Members have expressed a great deal of cant, hypocrisy and humbug. Let us consider some of the large donors. The Maxwell saga has not yet been unscrambled. What about the four peers in the House of Lords who were on the Maxwell pay books ? Some of them made large private donations to the Labour party, but none of that has come out. The Social and Liberal Democrats have received money over the years from people like Union Jack Hayward and other large donors,
Column 239
including Lord Sainsbury. We also heard again today that the Labour party has taken money from firms such as Northern Foods, B and Q and others.The issue is a simple one and, therefore, I feel that the martian would be appalled by the sheer hypocrisy demonstrated in the Chamber today. The Opposition could have debated one of the great issues of the day, but they chose to pick on party political funding. They will regret that for the simple reason that, if one lives in a glasshouse, one should not throw lumps of concrete around. That is why I urge hon. Members to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to chuck out the motion.
8.9 pm
Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose speech addressed the true issue behind the debate. We should examine the current funding system, because it is not working, and is causing anxiety to hon. Members of every political party.
That concern is easy to understand when we consider what happened during the general election, when tens of millions of pounds were spent on national advertising campaigns. It is not surprising that such activity has been described as sleazy, when one considers the money that was thrown at public relations companies to push forward one political party or another. It is important to recall the massive amounts of money that were spent on advertising billboards before and after the general election. After all, people thought that that election was to be held before the election date in April. It is amazing to hear Conservative Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, making accusations about particular individuals who try to raise funds through certain organisations that have been associated with the Labour party since it inception--the trade unions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who spoke about the funds collected by trade unions in Northern Ireland and the restrictions that are placed on union members. I hope that that system is examined by the Labour party.
It is quite extraordinary for Conservative Members to turn around and throw the blame at Opposition Members. In my constituency, I was sent information time and time again by Conservative party members and supporters which provided me with evidence of meetings and fund-raising activities organised by Lord Beaverbrook to try to raise funds in Mansfield for the Tory party. That money was designed to help the party in its push to win the constituency at the general election.
Those efforts should have had some effect, because in the previous Parliament I had the smallest majority, at 56. They did not seem to work, however, because my majority increased by 16.9 per cent. to nearly 12,000. All I can say is, "Keep sending the letters." It is scandalous for Conservative Members to say that money has not been donated to their party from abroad. It is widely known that, in the past three years, Ministers and other hon. Members have gone around the world to try to get people to register to vote. Their purpose was also to gather money for the coffers of the Conservative party. It is misleading for Conservative Members to say that they
Column 240
have not been involved in such activity.The activities of Asil Nadir and the revelation that he gave such a gigantic amount of money to the Conservative party for its general election campaign funds have caused great concern. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members should try to justify his behaviour. The collapse of Polly Peck did not occur that long ago, but it was not as recent as some hon. Members have tried to suggest today. The warning signs about that company, however, were apparent for some time before its collapse.
We know from evidence that has now been produced that Polly Peck was in a rocky state for some time. Perhaps one reason that Mr. Nadir was not successful in his attempt to get some kind of honour, despite his huge donations to the Conservative party, was that the future of his company looked rocky.
It is no credit to the House to say that the Conservative party is not the only political party to be caught out in political donations that led to honours. Political parties on both sides of the House have put people forward for honours because of donations from those individuals. The sooner that practice stops the better.
We must be honest with ourselves and accept that sleazy activities took place. We should take note of what has happened recently--for example, a Minister of the Crown sending a watch to Mr. Nadir, engraved with the slogan, "Don't let the buggers get you down." That Minister is still in office. What about the expenses-paid trips provided for hon. Members by companies such as that owned by Asil Nadir? Those individuals not only received free tickets to visit foreign parts, but stayed in an hotel owned by Mr. Asil Nadir. In one instance, that occurred two days before he skipped bail and escaped abroad.
Rumours and innuendo are rife that Members of the British Parliament have been loaned, given or offered properties at advantageous prices in northern Cyprus. Some of them are owned by Greek Cypriots, who are now refugees and no longer live in that occupied area of Cyprus. Such is the behaviour that has gone on, yet some people have tried to say that it does not matter. It does matter, because it lowers the tone of the Chamber and the reputation of everyone who sits in it, whatever his party. It is quite disgraceful that such behaviour has gone on.
We must decide what on earth we are going to do about such activities. We need to introduce, as quickly as possible, limits on spending by political parties. We also need to set a limit on the funds that are collected for election campaigns. We also need to limit the size of donations ; otherwise, undue influence could be brought to bear. We must also not be shy about the fact that the shareholders of companies, individual householders and voters have a right to know about funding. We must reveal the wherewithal and the source of donations. We also need to ban donations by foreign individuals.
It is no good the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) saying that the nature of political funding does not matter. It does. Not long ago, we were at war with Iraq, the leader of which is regarded by many hon. Members as an absolute maniac. It would not be beyond his imagination, however, to start to throw a bit of money around in Britain. Before the war, his Foreign Minister used to visit London regularly, and it is a well- known fact that he used to lose up to £250,000 a month at the casino tables in London and elsewhere.
Column 241
Large amounts of money can be thrown around by Governments--at such times, friendly ones, or hostile ones of the future. We must not allow either Governments or foreign business men or women to offer large sums of money to parties as that may influence the political direction of our country.I echo what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has said. It is time for us to clean up our act in this place. It is time for us to get ourselves together and introduce a system which is clean and tidy and which people can trust.
8.19 pm
Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : Opposition Members have chosen a debate that has backfired on them because much of their case is based on lies, rumours and half-truths. However, what is true is that Maxwell supported the Labour party and that there is a peer sitting on the Labour Front Bench in the House of Lords who took £750,000 from the pensioners--it was pension fund money. That peer sits there today with the full support of the Labour party and its leader. He sits there, having been responsible for managing £80 million that went walkabout--that is about the same amount that has gone walkabout in Asil Nadir's company. I hope that Lord Donoughue will have the courage of his convictions and pay back the money. When will those on the Labour Front Bench take away their support for Lord Donoughue? When will they say, "Enough is enough, Lord Donoughue--get off our Front Bench"?
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) failed to disclose the contributions made by Maxwell to the secret fund that was used by Michael Foot to oppose the Boundary Commission. Why was the fund so secret? What bank accounts did the money come from? Was it solely money that Maxwell put up, or did it come from other sources as well? We certainly did not find that out from the right hon. Lady.
The main issue to which I want to draw the attention of the House is what is happening in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The financing of the Labour party in Monklands is in a dreadful state. The trade unions have an iron grip on the party. The Labour executive in Scotland said that the Labour party in Monklands had no rules to run itself. The leader of the Labour party is a lawyer but the Labour party in his constituency has no rules to run itself. The same Scottish Labour party report has criticised the Labour council group for having no rules to run itself.
In those circumstances, is it surprising that about 25 family members of councillors have become council employees? Is it surprising that party members get family members jobs with the Monklands district council? Is it surprising that the highest number of employees per thousand population of any council in Scotland can be found in Monklands district council? Is it surprising that local newspapers in Monklands have described a meeting of the direct works department as being like a meeting of the Labour party because one cannot tell the difference between the works department and the Labour party in Monklands? Is it surprising that a £10 million shopping centre development is now costing pensioners and council taxpayers £1 million a year? There is corruption and nepotism, and there are transactions that have not been explained.
Column 242
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a bit wide. This debate is about the funding of political parties, not the domestic affairs of a specific council.
Mr. Shaw : At the beginning, I was careful to point out that party financing in Monklands and the organisation and structure there is so corrupt and integrated that the decision-making processes of the council are controlled by the trade unions. The trades unions control the Labour party in Monklands and therefore can award themselves more jobs and keep the whole process going by diverting public money to the Labour party through trade union sources. That money belongs to the council and the public.
As has been said, it is also a question of company law. I shall refer to the way in which company law is being abused in Monklands. For example, the leader of Monklands council has loans from Scottish Enterprise which went to one company. However, the money was diverted to another company and, as a consequence, £100,000 of taxpayers' money has been lost. The council leader's brother, who is in partnership with him, is being sued by the Inland Revenue for the non-payment of £44,000 in taxes.
| Next Section
| Home Page |