| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.33 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): What we have just heard from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) was nothing more than malicious drivel. The fact that he spoke about political donations without any reference to the money that the Conservative party received from Asil Nadir demonstrates the impertinence of his proposals--[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is shouting, but I suggest that the hon. Member for Beckenham persuades his friends in the Conservative party to make sure that Mr. Nadir returns the stolen money. Moreover, the Tory party should return the money that Mr. Nadir donated, and as quickly as possible.
In respect of political donations, it is important to bear it in mind that trade unions can donate for political purposes only if they have established a political fund. They have no automatic right to make such donations. That has always been the case, even before recent legislation came into effect. No trade union can donate a penny for political purposes without the approval of its members in a ballot. Surely that is the honest way in which matters should be arranged, but there are no such rules for companies that make political donations to the Conservative party.
There may be a case for a change in the law--indeed, I would advocate one--but certainly not along the lines proposed by the hon. Gentleman. We want a level playing field, equity and the same conditions to apply to trade unions and companies. I do not mind companies contributing to the Conservative party, if they so wish. Surely that is right in a democracy. I question not their right to do so, but the method by which it is done. There is no ballot of shareholders or employees.
If trade unions have been required since 1913 to ballot their members on political funding, why can companies donate millions of pounds to the Conservative party without any reference whatsoever to their shareholders? There is a reference in the accounts, and nothing more. They require no ballot of their shareholders, and certainly no ballot of their employees.
Mr. Brian David Jenkins (South-East Staffordshire):
They buy themselves a knighthood.
Mr. Winnick:
As my hon. Friend says, money given to the Tory party can serve quite a good purpose. Since the present Prime Minister moved into No. 10 Downing street in November 1990, 68 per cent.--or more than two thirds--of the five peerages and 53 knighthoods that have been awarded to industrialists have gone to those whose companies made the largest donations to the Tory party. I consider that a scandal. It is as if we were returning to the days of Lloyd George, when peerages and knighthoods were for sale.
The hon. Gentleman said not a single word about that. Why not? If he is so keen to change the law applying to political contributions, he should recognise the need for equity. That is why my hon. Friends and I are keen that the issue of political donations to be referred to the Nolan committee. The committee was set up to establish decent standards in political life, so why was the Prime Minister so opposed to it examining political donations? Conservative Members know as well as I do that the right hon. Gentleman did not want the Nolan committee to examine the furtive, secret and underhand way in which the Tory party receives its funds.
I consider it a scandal that the Conservative party can be funded in such a manner. No one knows where the money comes from, as they are so reluctant to publish their accounts. It could be said that this was all political bias from a Labour Member, so let me remind the hon. Member for Beckenham that Mr. Eric Chalker, a leading Tory activist, has said time and again that the Conservative party should bring its practices up to date, become more democratic, and publish in full the sources of its funding.
I oppose the Bill because it is a bit of mischief-making and drivel from Conservative Members who are opposed to trade unions. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he was once a trade union activist, but it is absolutely clear that he is concerned with undermining the right of trade unions to donate for political purposes.
I want equity. I want a change in the law so that companies would have to hold ballots and the Conservative party could no longer be financed in secret, underhand ways. All such matters should be above board. Everyone should be able to see what is going on and the donations that are being made--to the Labour party and, certainly, to the Conservative party. There should be no
more selling of peerages and knighthoods to those who give money to the Tory party. Those are the necessary reforms and changes, and that is why my hon. Friends and I will oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |