| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be straying into areas that are well beyond both the Queen's Speech--[Hon. Members: "Defending Lord Archer?"] I am defending no one; I am asking for a ruling as to whether such matters should be raised in this place, in this debate.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the Home Secretary was developing a point by example. He is a long-standing Member of this House, and knows as well as I do about dealing with the motion and the amendment on the Order Paper.
Mr. Straw: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for anticipating my reply. Lord Archer was a major fundraiser for the Conservative party. On Monday's "Newsnight", George Walden, the former Member for Buckingham said:
- "Inside the Conservative party, you know, the culture of toleration, to put it mildly, where people like him"--
- "and Jonathan Aitken are concerned.
In his case--
- "he's a celebrity populist with a hell of a lot of money. And the party is in constant need of money. So the Conservative party did not go out of its way, to put it mildly, to be too inquisitive."
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford) rose--
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
The Conservative party refused to legislate in that area, or even to refer the issue to the Nolan committee. The Opposition now say that they welcome our proposals following the recommendations of Lord Neill but, before the general election, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her party fought tooth and nail to avoid the airing of the issue in this way.
Even after the election, in evidence to the Neill committee, the Conservative party continued the same old evasion, the same old secrecy. Here are some quotations from the evidence that the Conservative party gave to the Neill committee:
Mr. Straw:
I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
The Home Secretary spoke about a lack of inquisitiveness on the part of the Conservative
Mr. Straw:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to whom I think the hon. Gentleman is referring, made a full disclosure. He paid a very high price for that. It would be straying too far from the terms of the motion to get into some of the murkier history of the Conservative party, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks a bit about some people who resigned, as he said, in disgrace and came back, he will remember that that did happen between 1979 and 1997.
Our political parties, elections and referendums Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitments to end foreign donations and ensure disclosure of large donations, as well as spending limits for elections, a new independent electoral commission and shareholder approval for company donations.
Extraordinarily, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald claimed that we were being unfair with our proposals in respect of limits on referendum spending. I say two things. First, we are going beyond the recommendations of the Neill committee to establish limits on referendum spending. Neill said that they were impractical; we did not accept that. Secondly, I have worked hard to try to ensure that the limits are fair. As far as I can judge, it is not possible to have a single limit for one side or another in a referendum campaign; experience in Canada suggests that.
I want, if I can, to achieve arrangements that are agreed by all parties. The right hon. Lady has had a very long time to respond to our White Paper on that, but I say to her again: if she has proposals that she considers practical, I shall be very happy to sit down with her and discuss them, to see whether we can find a way through on this.
The Representation of the People Bill will make important changes to the way in which we vote. In a badly researched speech, the right hon. Lady said that we should not rush the proposals in the Bill because we published the Bill only last week. That is true; we did publish it only last week, but it is based on the unanimous recommendations of the final report of the working party on electoral procedures--chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department--on which sat representatives of the Conservative party. They are signed up to those recommendations.
I wrote to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She sometimes complains about the time that it takes to obtain from the Home Office a reply on a difficult immigration case; I do not blame her. I wrote her a simple letter, saying, "I assume that, as you have signed up to this, you will be supporting the Bill." I have reminded her about that but, although months and months
have passed, we have had no reply. She is running only a small business compared to the big businesses that we are trying to run.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke):
Is there anything on "The Widdyweb"?
Mr. Straw:
I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned "The Widdyweb", because I had almost forgotten about it. I have now trawled through "The Widdyweb" and, if I were a sensitive soul, I would think that the right hon. Lady had something of an obsession with me--but one can only live in hope. However, whatever search engine one uses to trawl through "The Widdyweb", there is not a word about the Representation of the People Bill, nor about when I will get a reply to the letter that I sent her months ago.
The Representation of the People Bill is an important advance. It will enable local authorities to pilot schemes to test the effectiveness of weekend polls and electronic voting in supermarkets and railway stations. There will be a new rolling register and better arrangements for voting by post.
All of us have an interest in ensuring that as many of our constituents as possible take part in the electoral processes. I very much hope that, despite the indolence of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald in replying to my letter, the Bill will receive widespread support.
As we know, a key part of our constitutional programme this Session is the Freedom of Information Bill. I have listened to the concerns of the Public Administration Committee and of the Committee in the other place, and the Bill has now been published. However, I am aware that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members may have continuing concerns about the Bill and I look forward to a lively and rigorous debate on it.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
I understand, and the Home Secretary will have the same knowledge, that a draft Bill or proposal on this subject is likely to be published in Edinburgh this week. There will, therefore, be a debate on both sides of the border on freedom of information. If, in the light of that debate, it becomes clear that there is a very strong case for improving the Bill along the lines recommended by both Select Committees--one in this House and one in the other--can the Home Secretary at least tell the House that his mind is not closed and that the Home Office will be open to extending the freedom of information provisions?
Mr. Straw:
My mind is not closed on this issue; my critics should at least give me the benefit of the doubt on that. The issue is about securing difficult balances. If the argument made in Edinburgh or anywhere else is strong, we should change, but we should not change because the argument is made in Edinburgh. Instead, we should celebrate the fact that devolution means difference and diversity, and let us be absolutely clear about that.
Tackling discrimination and promoting equality have long been at the heart of the Labour party's vision of a fairer society. It was my party that introduced the ground-breaking race relations legislation of the 1960s and the 1970s--legislation which has made a valuable and
positive contribution to British society. I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are introducing a further measure this Session.
"We believe that there is a perfectly honourable case to be made for anonymity . . . We believe that there is an argument in favour of a form of blind trust . . . we reject the argument that company donations should be treated in the same way as those of trade unions."
It has taken a Labour Government to take action and begin to restore the public's faith in the system of party funding.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |