| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: Drug traffickers are among the most evil people in our society. As I have seen as Home Secretary in the past three months, their ruthless ability to break every law in the land, intimidate and commit acts of violence in pursuit of their trade has no limits. It is appalling and such people need the most severe punishment. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the seven-year sentence that I announced today, which will be implemented later this year, is a minimum. The maximum for drug trafficking is, I believe, life.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): Will the Home Secretary go slightly further than he did in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in respect of prison places? I ask not least because Lewes prison is in my constituency. I hope that, in the new spirit of co-operation between our parties, he will be able to respond positively. How many new prison places will be required as a consequence of his statement this afternoon? Is the £43 million to deal with existing overcrowding or is it intended also to cover the consequences of the statement?
It is absolutely right that criminals who need to be locked up to protect the public should be in prison, but what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that those who should not be in prison--fine defaulters, for example--are released into the community, providing space for those who should be there?
Mr. Straw:
The £43 million that I announced last Friday is to deal with existing overcrowding. We hope that the proposals that I have announced today will come
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of my proposals on prison places. All the detail is in "The Audit of Prison Service Resources", which was published last Friday. I thought it right to publish it well in advance of this statement so that right hon. and hon. Members would have time to study it beforehand. From recollection, the prison population is estimated to rise to about 68,000--an extra 6,000 places--by early 1999. I should be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the audit.
The previous Government did a great deal of effective work in reducing the number of fine defaulters who were detained in prison, and we supported them in that. In any one day, there are now usually fewer than 100 prisoners who are there for fine default. I should like to put in place other measures for fine defaulters that we supported in the previous Parliament, but it must also be acknowledged that if people carry on defaulting, they will have to be sent to prison, because there is no ultimate alternative.
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire):
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Obviously, justice hinges on catching criminals and convicting them, and a critical issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said, is that of obtaining witnesses and ensuring that they feel secure in giving evidence.
To do that, we must ensure that court facilities are appropriate, so that, for example, witnesses can be separated from offenders and their friends; that is a problem in Derby, and I should welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on it. Local justice is also important. Having to travel significant distances to court at inconvenient times of day is a disincentive to witnesses.
A critical issue in Derbyshire is the inequity of resources between it and the neighbouring constabularies. In Derbyshire, 20 per cent. more people have to be covered by a typical officer than in neighbouring counties.
Mr. Straw:
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problem of witness intimidation. All Crown courts are now covered by witness services, but many magistrates courts are not. Some magistrates courts are, however, taking steps properly to separate prosecution from defence witnesses. For example, at Redditch there is a locally funded witness service that has been doing effective work. I hope that that example can be followed elsewhere.
The police grant is a new, mystical science which produces winners and losers. It is probably a better way of allocating resources than the system that went before, but, since resources are limited and will remain so under this Administration, for every winner under the police grant system there will be some losers, and I cannot but apologise for that.
Madam Speaker:
Order. We must now bring the statement to a close.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the Home Office and the Home Secretary. Have you had any application from a Home Office Minister to make a statement to the House about the crisis that could arise if hundreds of Somalis arrive by Eurostar at Waterloo claiming asylum? Many of them are bogus and have come from safe third countries. I understand that all are entitled to full benefits. They may continue arriving throughout the summer recess. Has any Minister suggested that the Government propose to take any action?
Madam Speaker:
I have not been informed that a Home Office Minister, or any Minister, seeks to make a statement on that matter today.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following my question yesterday, I have taken advice. Has the Minister of Transport asked you to allow him to come to the Dispatch Box to correct an inaccuracy at Question Time yesterday? I pointed out to him that unilateral action to ban bull bars would be illegal under European Union law. The Minister replied that it would not. It has since come to my attention that that is inaccurate, and that such action would be illegal under EU law. The Minister has, albeit inadvertently, misled the House. He should come to the Dispatch Box immediately to correct the inaccuracy.
Madam Speaker:
As the hon. Lady knows, I am not responsible for comments that Ministers make or policy commitments that they give. The hon. Lady is making not a point of order but a challenge to the Minister of Transport. She must find means other than points of order by which to pursue the matter with the Minister. Perhaps those on the Government Front Bench will make the Minister of Transport aware of the hon. Lady's comments today.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I do not usually take further points of order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in bull bars, but I will not allow a debate on them. I have answered the hon. Lady's point of order, which was reasonable.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Wales said that he would like to come to the House to make a statement, following the announcement by Roy Hughes yesterday that he was to be elevated to the House of Lords, and the article in the Western Mail which states that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) has repeated the allegation that he was offered a peerage to vacate his seat to make way for one of the Prime Minister's loyal supporters? That statement was then
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain)
rose--
Madam Speaker:
Is the Minister seeking to make a further point of order before I respond?
Mr. Hain:
Yes. May I suggest that this is yet another bogus and false point of order from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
Madam Speaker:
I have not been told that a Minister seeks to make a statement, but it seems to me that I ought to make a statement and say that it is almost bucket and spade time for the House.
Mr. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath):
I beg to move,
The purpose of the Bill is to correct an anomaly in company law that has existed for far too long. The Bill contains four main provisions. First, it requires publicly quoted companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 to establish, after approval has been sought by a ballot of shareholders, separate political funds, should that company wish to make donations for political purposes.
Secondly, the Bill clearly defines political purposes as payments to any political party or any organisation that engages in promoting or campaigning for political parties. Thirdly, it defines a percentage of dividends payable to shareholders that can be put into a company political fund. Most important, it provides the facility for those shareholders who object to payment of part of their dividend into the company political fund to have the right not to contribute, and to receive the full value of their dividend payment.
Under the Companies Act 1985, directors must state in their annual report contributions of more than £200 made for political purposes. The report, together with the company's accounts, is laid before the shareholders at the annual meeting, and approved or rejected in its totality. If, however, any shareholder or group of shareholders wish to object to payments made by the company for political purposes, they have no option but to vote against the resolution to approve the report and accounts of the company.
Shareholders are therefore placed in an extremely difficult position should they disapprove of any payments made for political purposes by that company. Were they to reject the director's report and accounts, that would amount to a rejection of the commercial management of the company. If that company were listed, such action would result in a catastrophic fall in the company's share price, and could have serious commercial repercussions.
No shareholder who invests his money in a company for commercial reasons would wish to precipitate such a situation. Under current law, the shareholder would have little alternative but to act in that way if he profoundly disagreed with donations made by the company for political purposes.
Under current law, a dissatisfied shareholder could move a resolution at the company's annual meeting to censure the board for making any political donation. Such a course of action is costly and administratively difficult. For example, the resolution would have to be circulated to all shareholders, and the company could require the proposers of it to pay for the cost of circulating it. For that and other administrative reasons, shareholder resolutions are seldom submitted at annual meetings.
The purpose of the Bill is to rectify that anomaly by obliging companies that wish to make donations for political purposes to establish a political fund that is entirely separate from the commercial activities and accounts of the company. Shareholders will know how much of each dividend is paid into the company's political fund and what payments are made from the fund, and, if they wished, they would have the right to opt out from contributing part of their dividend payments to such a fund.
The central issue behind the Bill is the extension of shareholder democracy. After the privatisations and building society flotations, there are now between 16 million and 18 million individual shareholders in the United Kingdom. Not only are they shareholders: they are stakeholders in our economy. Those shareholders have the right to a say about how their money is spent if it is spent for purposes other than those for which it was invested, and spent on causes to which they may be deeply opposed.
Without express separate shareholder approval, boards of directors should not spend shareholders' moneys on non-commercial purposes. As I said, the Bill is about the extension of shareholder democracy. It is needed because the current situation is wholly inadequate as the means of protecting shareholders' rights.
The question of political donations has moved high up the political agenda. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to introducing a policy of transparency, and not before time. They are committed to dealing with donations from foreign sources. I commend the new leader of the Conservative party for announcing that his party will no longer accept foreign donations, such as those made by Mr. Asil Nadir.
It is time that publicly quoted companies operated according to clearly defined criteria which uphold the rights of their shareholders. Since 1967, companies have been obliged to disclose in their annual reports any gifts of moneys above £200 for political purposes. There has been no obligation on companies, however, to seek the prior approval of shareholders for such donations.
Between 1980 and 1991, 66 of the largest companies in the United Kingdom made political donations which totalled £13.6 million. I make no comment on the fact that 85 industrialists connected with those 66 companies received peerages or knighthoods during the same period.
I welcome the fact that a number of companies have of late decided to end their practice of making political donations. The fact remains, however, that, according to a limited survey of the top 300 United Kingdom companies, in 1995-96 more than £1.5 million was paid out by such companies for political purposes. The vast majority of those moneys were paid away with little or no regard to the wishes of individual shareholders.
My Bill would enhance the rights of millions of shareholders by allowing them to determine whether the companies in which they invest their money should be allowed to use part of their profits to engage in political activities. It would not deny any company the right to make a political donation, providing it has established a political fund with the approval of its shareholders. The Bill will enhance shareholder democracy, and as such I commend it to the House.
4.34 pm
4.37 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require ballots of shareholders of companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 in respect of proposed donations for political purposes; to define political purposes; to require political funds to be established for the payment of such donations; to specify how such political funds will be funded and the qualifications for receipt of donations; and for connected purposes.
Before we move on to our buckets and spades, I should like to move this motion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |