| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.45 pm
The best way to carry out these pilots is for them to be as uncontroversial as possible, so that there is broad support. We should evaluate them properly, and the House should decide in due course whether to go further. Before we proceed on a broader basis, we should consider the recommendation of the Electoral Commission.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about postage and payment for the distribution of electoral addresses for the Greater London Assembly elections. That brings us back to the debate that we had last week. The Conservatives want the distribution of their election addresses to be subsidised by the taxpayer. The Conservative party has financial problems owing to its lack of support in the country. The hon. Gentleman tries our patience by arguing that decisions on whether taxpayers' money should be spent on subsidising political parties in elections should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and given to the Electoral Commission. I am not easily convinced by that argument.
I suspect that, when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have considered the proposal, they will not be able to endorse it. The House has always jealously
guarded decisions on the expenditure of taxpayers' money. I suspect that most Tories would not endorse handing them over to an entirely independent and unelected body.
The Electoral Commission may, in certain circumstances, be prepared to express a view on that issue, which the House could consider seriously, but the decision on expenditure should always rest with the House.
Mr. Evans:
Our view has nothing to do with the Conservative party wanting money to distribute our publications, but everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)--and everyone knows that, so the Minister's point is a smokescreen. It was a hard-won victory in the other place. We are keen to ensure that the Government take the Electoral Commission's views seriously if it says that it is vital to have free postage to ensure that the electorate are fully informed of the various merits and policies of the candidates.
I understand what the Minister says about giving another body responsibility for the expenditure of taxpayers' money, but he must accept that, for the full workings of democracy, it is important that all candidates can avail themselves of the opportunity to have their publications delivered to every house in London.
Mr. O'Brien:
I am not sure whether this new clause is the appropriate place to debate that issue. I was a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this was nothing to do with the Conservative party, and everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The Conservative party's advocacy of this proposal now seems to have everything to do with its support for the hon. Member for Brent, East. I suspect that Steven Norris would be a little chagrined by the hon. Gentleman's view. The Conservatives moved from supporting Lord Archer to Steven Norris, and now they are supporting the hon. Member for Brent, East. That is a surprise.
The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Conservative party advocated this measure before the hon. Member for Brent, East indicated his intention to stand as an independent candidate in the London mayoral elections. I find his suggestion that this has nothing to do with the finances of the Tory party difficult to believe. In any event, I am grateful to him for his broad support for the Government's new clauses and amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.--[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 15, 90 to 93, 96, 23, 97 to 100, 103 to 106, 111 and 114.
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset):
I am intrigued that the Minister is not speaking to what is a large group of amendments. When we discussed the Bill in the Standing Committee, I was delighted that the Government promised to revisit on Report the two important aspects that are covered in the amendments. One concerns the international links that our various political parties have. Under the Bill as drafted, there is a danger that we may cut ourselves off from the outside world to prevent any money flowing through the international links that our parties have. It is clear that a modern political party should be able to deal with its sister parties overseas.
The second important strand deals with the power of trustees and bequests. Government amendments Nos. 15, 111 and 114 essentially seek to delete the paragraph which states that
I hope not to die too soon, but, if I were to leave a bequest that was managed by trustees on my part and my will said that I would like the trustees at their discretion to make occasional donations to the Conservative party, I would expect my wishes to be carried out. Subsection (4) would mean that trustees would not be able to carry out my wishes; it would not be permissible to make such a donation.
In Committee, the Opposition made it clear that we saw little purpose in banning such donations. I welcome the Government's acceptance of that, as I welcome their acceptance that international links should be preserved and that the money necessary to preserve those links should be allowed to flow.
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove):
For my part, I welcome the direction in which the new clause is going. The discussion in Committee covered many of the points, and I echo what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has said.
One or two loose ends remain. May I ask the Minister to say something on the role of trustees of property? I have done my best to comprehend precisely what the Minister believes he has achieved in that area. I am still not sure that the Government have achieved what hon. Members want them to achieve.
I ask the Minister to say a little more about subsection (5) and how it will be applied, especially as the words used in the subsection are used in many other parts of the Bill. Broadly, however, I welcome new clause 2, and Liberal Democrat Members will support it.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who have supported this group of amendments, which give effect to the prohibition on foreign and anonymous donations.
The Bill currently prevents political parties and other regulated bodies and persons from accepting donations from sources other than permissible donors. One effect of that provision is to prevent not only hon. Members, but party members and party officers from undertaking overseas visits at the expense of an overseas Government or body. That was not our direct intention. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has rightly said, it is important that we maintain our international links with parties of a similar philosophical view. Such links both add to knowledge abroad of this country, and enable us to maintain very important relationships with other countries that benefit the United Kingdom not only politically, but in many other spheres.
Hon. Members undertake many and varied overseas visits in pursuance of their proper parliamentary duties. Such visits are invaluable in promoting hon. Members' understanding of a wide variety of issues, and thereby better equip them to discharge their duties as parliamentarians. A quick glance through the Register of Members' Interests reveals visits paid for by overseas Governments, overseas territories, overseas Parliaments and a variety of political foundations, such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The main point is that, in the Bill as it stands, not all those sponsors would constitute a permissible donor.
The issue is not confined to Members of Parliament. We have had representations from the Green party and other groups about their arrangements, and they have sought the type of changes proposed in this group of
amendments. New clause 2 and the raft of amendments grouped with it are directed primarily at addressing that issue. The key provisions are in subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause, which applies to donations to political parties.
Government amendment No. 100 makes identical provisions for party members, members of associations and holders of elected office.
I very much hope that the House will accept this group of amendments. From the broad support that hon. Members have demonstrated for the provisions, it seems that they will be accepted.
A subsidiary purpose of this group of amendments is, in certain very limited cases, to allow donations from trustees. Clause 48(4)(b) currently provides that a donation received by a registered party from a trustee acting in his capacity as such is to be treated as a donation
Clearly, when a person's will includes a bequest of money or property to a political party, the trustees of the will should be able to give effect to that bequest. Reckless as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) may be to want to give money to the party that he mentioned, I think that he should have every right to do so. Provided that the deceased was on the electoral register at the time of his or her death, the registered party named in the will should be able to accept the bequest.
There may be other cases in which a trustee is simply acting as an agent in passing money or property. Again, it would be legitimate for a party to accept a donation of property provided that the person on whose behalf the trustee is acting is a permissible--that is, registered--donor. In such circumstances, clause 48(7) would apply, and the trustee would be acting as an agent for another person. That other person would be recorded as the donor.
I hope that, now that those points have been dealt with, the House will be able to give strong support to the new clause and amendments in this group.
'.--(1) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this Part.
(2) Any payment out of public funds received by a registered party shall (subject to section 46(1)(a) and (b)) be regarded as a donation received by the party from a permissible donor.
(3) Any donation received by a registered party shall (if it would not otherwise fall to be so regarded) be regarded as a donation received by the party from a permissible donor if and to the extent that--
(a) the purpose of the donation is to meet qualifying costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with a visit by any member or officer of the party to a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(b) the amount of the donation does not exceed a reasonable amount in respect of such costs.
(4) In subsection (3) "qualifying costs", in relation to any member or officer of the party, means costs relating to that person in respect of--
(a) travelling between the United Kingdom and the country or territory in question, or
(b) travelling, accommodation or subsistence while within that country or territory.
(5) Any donation received by a registered party from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the party--
(a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the party, is a permissible donor, or
(b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),
shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.'.--[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
any donation received by a registered party by way of a donation by a trustee, in his capacity as such, shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.
That was at variance with Neill. Although Neill was fairly specific about blind trusts, that paragraph would have covered open trusts. Neill's recommendation 22 was that open trusts should be permitted, and it was my understanding that the Government had accepted that. Paragraph 3.37 of their White Paper states:
In recommendations 22 and 23 of their report, the Neill committee addressed the wider issue of donations to individual members of political parties or to unofficial groups within a party, as distinct from donations to political parties as such. The Government sympathises with the view that the principles of openness and accountability should apply equally to such donations.
Consider the case of a trust that was set up as a result of a bequest, the purpose of which was to donate funds for political purposes. To suggest, as the clause does, that that would not be a permissible source flies in the face of Neill and in the face of what I regard as natural justice.
from a person who is not a permissible donor.
That provision sits uncomfortably with clause 48(3), on donations made in the form of a bequest.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |