| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Bill would regulate the funding of political parties, which most people would accept includes donations. Indeed, I am happy to discuss party donations. However, the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) is exploring at length how parties spend their money. I wonder whether that is in order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order. Second Reading debates are quite wide.
Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman had got a copy of the Bill--
Mr. Spellar: It would help if, instead of waving it, the hon. Gentleman read it. Clause 1(2) refers to
- "duly audited accounts of income and expenditure in a prescribed form."
That seems fairly self-evident, and it should cover his point.
At least the donations that I have just described could be regarded as in-house and from within this country. What about the really sordid part of Conservative finances which my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned--overseas donations? Several of our fellow democracies are clear on this. They proscribe donations from overseas whether from individuals, companies or Governments. In our consultation it appeared that there were some difficulties in formulating the exact words to handle the matter. However, if we are able to do so in time before the Committee stage, the matter could be dealt with by means of a new clause.
What are the scandals with which we seek to deal? One is the question of tax exemptions. One of the benefits given to a number of donors was a tax break for foreign business men. They were given tax exemptions while resident in the United Kingdom equalled only in Switzerland, the Channel islands and Luxembourg. Estimates of the cost to the public purse of that benefit run to more than £1 billion a year. We are aware that there was a fund-raising dinner for some of those individuals and that the question of tax-exempt status was raised.
Mr. Deva:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware--I am sure that he is--that about 45 per cent. of inward investment into the European Union comes to Britain and that many foreign companies are interested in investing in Britain and creating employment? If they believe that the Conservative party would create the best climate and best look after their interests, what is wrong with their investing here and also supporting the Conservative party if they so wish?
Mr. Spellar:
Companies in Britain would not be covered by the exemption. That is an issue that the hon. Gentleman might like to take up. So far as I am aware, none of the major investors into Britain, such as Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Sony and Fujitsu, is a donor to the Conservative party. I am talking about rich individuals and their tax-exempt status. That is nothing to do with inward investment. Incidentally, if the hon. Gentleman talks to companies that invest here, he may find that the most attractive feature is that we speak the English language, which is their language of business. I have spoken to several companies about that. If I go any further on that, you will pull me back, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The key area is donations not from those who may be temporarily resident in this country and take advantage of tax-exempt status but from those who are overseas. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, visited Hong Kong. It appears that the then high commissioner in Hong Kong was extremely concerned that some official engagements were turned down so that Ministers could go to a major fund-raising dinner in Hong Kong. Why was Mr. Li Ka-Shing, a major figure in Beijing as well as in Hong Kong, such a major donor to the Conservative party? One of the problems of the Conservative party is that, with the cooling of relations with China, some of those donations have ended.
Mr. Jenkin:
A business man in Hong Kong might have regard to the fact that the ultimate responsibility for the Government of Hong Kong lies with the elected Government of this country. Therefore, he has an interest in ensuring that a sensible Government are elected in Britain, instead of a silly one from the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Spellar:
That argument might convince the hon. Gentleman but no one else would agree that people who do not live, or have the right to vote in, this country should be able to give huge sums to a political party. People find that proposition extraordinary, as they do in many other major countries.
It is interesting that it can still be argued that people who are not resident, or who are not voters, in this country should seek to be able to buy influence and policy. The hon. Member for Colchester, North is saying that they should be able to buy the Government they want by donating money to enable a party to compete in elections. That involves not only Hong Kong but United States foundations and even, possibly, overseas Governments. They are all potential or alleged donors. In the case of Hong Kong, there are more facts about donations designed to keep one party in power in Britain.
Mr. Cox:
We have already touched on Asil Nadir, but I hope that we have not left him completely. It is all on the record; this is not, as Conservative Members are suggesting, just innuendo. We know from parliamentary answers from the Attorney-General that when Mr. Nadir, before he fled the country, was being investigated by the serious fraud squad, Cabinet Ministers, who were not his parliamentary representative, met the Attorney-General. We can only guess why, when they were not his parliamentary representative, they should go to see a Law Officer. We know from replies to parliamentary questions that seven Back Benchers approached the Attorney-General about the serious fraud case against Mr. Nadir.
Mr. Spellar:
My hon. Friend has spelt out strongly the problems that were associated with that case and why we believe that the Government were so reticent about it. It comes back to the principle that is sometimes enunciated by Home Office Ministers in discussing the right to silence, when they say that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. We suspect that the Conservative party has much to fear.
Mr. Garnier:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in its evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Labour party conceded that it was not against its principles to receive foreign donations, and admitted receiving them from citizens of the United States? Does he think that that was wrong?
Mr. Spellar:
I think that we should proscribe donations from abroad. I thought that I had said that clearly not only in this speech but when I sought leave to introduce the Bill. I am pleased to have the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who obviously favours such a provision.
The attraction of money from Hong Kong and other dubious sources for Conservative Members was well expressed by a previous leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in 1927 when he said:
That insurance premium is coming not only from business in Britain, but, worse, from business abroad.
We must consider the matter in further detail so that we can get it right. I hope that the commission will be able to draw on the experience of the United States and Australia in particular. That will be its role. I hope that it will make a better job of it than the Select Committee did.
Let us be clear what the Bill is seeking to introduce. Many thoughtful Conservatives realise that the situation in which they find themselves is untenable and indefensible. They understand that a valid, sensible measure should be introduced, which will open up the matter to public scrutiny.
In the words of an American Supreme court justice,
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
I listened with as much interest as I could summon to the arguments of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar). He is probably the only Member of Parliament who has been known to introduce a Bill and talk it out himself. He has been on his feet for nearly an hour, knowing very well that he had limited time. If he had been keen to get the measure on to the statute book, he would have been more succinct and would have dealt with the interjections of his hon. Friends and Conservative Members with greater celerity, but there we are.
It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Warley, West to learn that the Bill has come up for debate today, not because of some speedy and nefarious deal done yesterday to confuse the other sponsors, but because the Bill between this one and the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill was withdrawn on 3 April. The hon. Members for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), all of whom sponsored the Bill with the hon. Member for Warley, West, are absent and have failed to look at the business papers to ascertain that the Bill in front of this one was withdrawn from discussion on 3 April. That gives us some indication of the seriousness with which the Bill was introduced.
The way in which the hon. Member for Warley, West handled the Second Reading debate gives yet further evidence for and support to my suggestion that the Bill is nothing more than a political stunt. Let us compare the way in which the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the way in which he dealt with it this morning and in Committee. One can draw no other conclusion than that this Bill is a cheap and silly little stunt and a waste of parliamentary time. One only has to consider the way in which that earlier Bill was dealt with to realise what can be done with a sensible and well-meaning Bill that needs to be brought into play.
Since I think that I am the only hon. Member present who was on the Home Affairs Select Committee that dealt with the funding of political parties I must also point out that, if the hon. Member for Sunderland, South--a sponsor of the Bill, who was also a member of our Select Committee--had thought the Bill of such great importance, he would have been here for to give it a fair wind, if that is the right expression when dealing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Warley, West, not least because he and his colleague the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), along with the research department at Walworth road, drafted the minority report, most of which was regurgitated in his speech.
Since the hon. Member for Warley, West chose to concentrate only on that minority report, it is fair that the House should learn a little more about the majority report that dealt with the sourcing of political funds with which clause 1 of the Bill deals. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman bothered to refer to clause 1 in detail, but it states:
There are two issues there--source and amount. The cut-off amount seems to be £1,000.
"Our one great advantage: wealth. Let us use it. Its expenditure should be regarded as an insurance premium."
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant in a democracy."
"The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, require each political party to publish annually details of the source and amount of every donation of £1000 or more made to it in the course of the year."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |