| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: Unless we were to put walls around different parts of the United Kingdom and abandon the
single currency that was introduced for England and Scotland in 1707, it would be impossible to work out how, in practice, we could prevent donations being made to Scottish political parties by people in the rest of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, I do not believe that to be desirable within what is a union of this kingdom.
The Bill contains clear regulations regarding the donations that people make to political parties in Scotland and elsewhere, and a clear regime for the spending of those political parties. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will not have had time to read the White Paper but, if he looks at page 40, he will see, set out in column D, the proposed spending limits for the Scottish Parliament. Obviously, that figure is pro rata. The limit is £1.5 million for each political party in a general election for the Scottish Parliament, compared to £20 million for parties in a national general election. That is a sensible way to proceed.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is it not downright scandalous that the whole dirty, murky world of party financing was not touched on by the Conservatives for obvious reasons, particularly because they used money that was known to be stolen?
I press my right hon. Friend again on the question of tax exiles. Why should someone who is technically a British citizen and entitled to vote here but who, for obvious tax reasons, ensures that he or she does not spend more than 90 days a year in the UK be in a position to finance a political party? Such a case is, of course, in the news, and demonstrates that the Tory party is almost exclusively dependent on such a tax exile. We need to change that, and I tell my right hon. Friend that, if that is not dealt with in the Bill, some of us will hope to press an amendment, which is likely to be supported by our hon. Friends.
Mr. Straw:
My hon. Friend was entirely right to draw attention to the disreputable record of the previous Conservative Administration in refusing to clean up British politics because they knew that the spotlight would turn on the murky record of the Conservative party.
I am glad to welcome converts, wherever they come from, but I remind Conservative Members that, when the mere suggestion was made that the issue of party political funding should be referred to the Nolan committee, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said,
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
Is not the Government's response to recommendation 89 of the Neill committee grotesquely inadequate? That recommendation established the following principle in these words:
Mr. Straw:
The hon. Gentleman never improves his case by the hyperbolic way in which he presents it. He is wrong. We are putting in place, in statute, restrictions on expenditure by Government that his Government would never have dreamed of. We can have an argument about whether 28 days is the precise period--I am happy to do that--but the 28-day period follows the principles that Governments of both parties have followed in respect of what is call the election purdah period for elections that take place within a Parliament, and we intend to stick to the principles in the Bill, not only to their letter but to their spirit.
Madam Speaker:
Thank you. We are now going to move on. We shall be coming back to these matters again later.
"I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed."--[Official Report, 21 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 95.]
27 Jul 1999 : Column 148
The Conservatives did not want an inquiry because they did not want it to reveal what they knew to be the truth. Their view was the view of Lord McAlpine--that the best way to avoid scrutiny was simply to avoid having any accounts.
I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about people who are tax exiles, but it seems to me that the position of tax exiles must be dealt with through Finance Bills. It is unarguable that, if someone is lawfully on the register to vote in this country, that individual must be allowed to make donations to a British political party that is registered in this country. I do not understand how we could retreat from that principle, although I appreciate that amendments may be tabled to the Bill from all quarters, and I look forward to the argument on them.
"The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case."
There is no mention there of the 28-day limit that the Government are putting in, in their so-called acceptance of that recommendation. Is it not blindingly obvious that the Government intend to raid the public purse on a massive scale in the months leading up to a referendum, stopping only a meagre four weeks before polling day?
5.18 pm
Kali Mountford (Colne Valley): Madam Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a personal statement.
In response to the 10th and 11th reports of the Standards and Privileges Committee published today, I should like to apologise to you and to the House. I regret that I find myself in this position and that my actions have caused difficulties for members of the Social Security Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee. What started out as a genuine attempt to be helpful to the deliberations of the Social Security Committee unfortunately went very wrong.
Unfortunately, because of personal and family problems coupled with a series of health problems resulting from surgery that was not successful, I have not been able to spend as much time as usual in and around the House. Had I been able to be here, I might have had a fuller grasp and understanding of the implications of these procedures and not done things which, on reflection, were rather silly. I have of course sent my resignation to the Chairman of the Social Security Committee and apologised to the members.
I fully accept the findings of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I deeply regret my actions and apologise both for my original error of judgment and my delay in being totally forthcoming in this matter.
Madam Speaker:
Thank you, Ms Mountford.
Mr. Don Touhig (Islwyn):
With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a personal statement.
The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, in its 10th and 11th reports published today, has made criticisms of my behaviour concerning a draft report of the Select Committee on Social Security. I want the House to know that I accept fully the judgments of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and apologise unreservedly to the House for my part in this matter. The circumstances, which are referred to as "mitigating", are set out fully in my statement to the Standards and Privileges Committee, as are my reasons for declining to name a colleague without that colleague's permission.
I believe that hon. Members should accept reports of the House that are critical of them. It is the duty of each of us to take responsibility for our actions, and I do not shirk that duty today. Finally, I am deeply grateful to you for allowing me to make this unreserved apology to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a point of order that goes to the heart of the way in which the Government discharge their obligation to be straight with Parliament and the public.
Last Thursday at Treasury questions, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, in relation to the new individual savings accounts, or ISAs:
Madam Speaker:
That is a matter of argument. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Davies:
At first sight, at least, the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House last Thursday is inconsistent with subsequent reports. Therefore there is great confusion in the press and among the public. I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether the Chief Secretary has given you any indication as to whether he intends to make clear in the House a matter that has been muddled by the Government's unhealthy obsession with spin-doctoring and with--
Madam Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising policy matters with me. He knows very well that I have no responsibility for the comments made by Ministers or hon. Members. Certainly, I refuse to comment on reports in the national press. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench Member, so if he wishes to pursue the matter when we come back, he is free to do so--he has the Order Paper--and if he wishes to pursue it while the House is in recess, he can make written representations to the Minister concerned.
5.19 pm
5.21 pm
"In the first two months following their launch, savers invested more than £4 billion in them--more than twice as much as was invested in PEPs and TESSAs during exactly the same period last year."--[Official Report, 22 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1324.]
This morning there was a raft of press reports on the subject. I quote from page 11 of the Financial Times, which states:
"Gross sales of Isas in the three months to the end of June were £1.6 bn compared with £3.9 bn gross sales of Peps in the second quarter of 1998."
[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not like--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |