Tony
Lloyd: What the hon. Member for Huntingdon said was
interesting. When asked whether he considered that the commission had
done a good job in respect of unincorporated associations, he said that
he did not have time to consider it. However, he was forthright in his
response to the hon. Member for Cambridge when he said that its
examination of the Midlands Industrial Council had been full and
proper.
Mr.
Djanogly: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point
is simple. I was briefed at a later date by one of my hon.
Friends.
Tony
Lloyd: You would be the first to agree, Sir Nicholas, that
it is a delight to know that, even though the process is slow, the
Conservative Front Bench learns bit by bit—although, in this
case, perhaps not
enough. The
hon. Member for Cambridge was right to point out that trade unions are
unincorporated associations. He might want to reflect on his original
words that unincorporated associations are set up only for the purpose
of funding. It is clear that trade unions are not
set up primarily for that purpose. Nevertheless, he is right that the
trade unions would be caught by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend
the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, which I
support as, among other things, chair of the trade union group of
Labour MPs. The trade unions have nothing to hide in that context, nor
would they want to hide relatively high-value donations. That is a
reasonable position, and it puts the spotlight firmly on organisations
such as the Midlands Industrial Council, which most certainly is set up
only for the purpose of funding one particular political
party. I
asked about the role of the Electoral Commission because it is obvious
to many people that one of the criticisms of it has been its failure
properly to investigate, even with its powers, organisations such as
the Midlands Industrial Council. That is important if we want to
achieve adequate transparency that reassures members of the general
public that they can know who the funders are, particularly the
high-value funders. Even if the amendment were not optimal, I hope that
my right hon. Friend the Minister will take seriously the need for us
to move rapidly in its direction, which would guarantee that all
high-value donors can be known. I say clearly to the Conservative
party, my party and to the Liberal Democrats that there is nothing
wrong with people acting in a public-spirited way and giving money to
political parties, but it is wrong when that is done covertly and is
designed to prevent the public from being reassured that the money
trail is legitimate and is there simply to enhance the benefits of our
party political
system.
Mr.
Tyrie: Perhaps one or two Labour Members will confirm that
I am not completely out of sorts with what the hon. Gentleman is
saying. I just wonder whether he has thought through the full
implications of his argument. Surely, at the heart of matters, is
whether we think that individuals or institutions have a role in
donations. If we are to move to long-term reform, we must reach the
point at which parties are donated to by those who can vote for them,
and that they are individuals, not organisations, trade unions,
companies or intermediaries such as the one that we are
discussing.
Even though I
recognise that it would be hugely difficult in a short period for the
Labour party to adjust, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there might
be merit in it thinking over the long term of moving in the direction
of removing all intermediary institutions, including trade unions and
businesses, as well as bodies such as the Midlands Industrial Council,
from the role of funding political parties in the 21st
century?
Tony
Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has consistently put forward
particular views on these matters. I understand but do not share all of
them. For the record, I do not necessarily believe that intermediary
organisations are wrong, whether they be private companies or
unincorporated associations, as long as it is clear what the flows of
moneys are and who has access to what the public will perceive as
financial influence if those transfers of money are not properly
transparent and properly there to be
seen. We
can differ about the role of the trade unions in funding my party. I do
not agree with the hon. Gentleman that collective giving is of itself a
bad thing, but it
would be a bad thing if the members of a trade union could not dissent
from the political fund, which of course they can do under the law as
it stands. What would be equally wrong with something like an
unincorporated association, even if my party gains from the existence
of such structures, is if a clear audit trail cannot be seen—if
there is not transparency about where the money comes from and who is
seeking to give it—to allow us to elicit at least some sense of
the purpose behind the
giving. Mr.
Tyrie: I am fascinated by that reply, because it seems to
acknowledge the idea that as long as there is transparency, it is all
right for intermediate bodies such as trade unions and such
institutions or, for that matter, companies to donate money with the
purpose of obtaining influence. The hon. Gentleman used the word
“influence” in his reply to my intervention. Does that
not go to the heart of the perception of the problems with such
institutions and the need for reform to remove concern in the public
mind?
Tony
Lloyd: I honestly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
What I sought to say—I will need to read the record to ensure
that what I sought to say is what the words actually say—is that
transparency is necessary so that the public are able to see whether
people are seeking to gain unreasonable influence. We need transparency
so that people are not allowed to draw that conclusion about the
political
process. I
have no objection to the existence of an organisation such as the
Midlands Industrial Council. In a society and democracy such as ours,
it is, at present, part of a legitimate process. What is difficult is
the perception that it is a shadowy organisation whose very existence
is designed to obscure the identity of those who
give. I
do not mind people giving to the Conservative party. I encourage them
to give to my own party through the means available. I do not think
that an intermediary body of itself is the problem because, as the hon.
Gentleman will know, my party went through a long and, I accept,
sometimes tortuous process whereby the concept of the collectivisation
of the giving process was necessary historically to set some kind of
balance against the unfair power of money in party politics. That goes
back to the origins of the Labour party. I do not think that my party
needs to run away from that background as if it were somehow
illegitimate or immoral, because it is
neither. What
the Labour party and the trade unions have to do, as should all
political parties and unincorporated associations, is guarantee that
the public at large and the individuals involved are quite clear on the
question of transparency. That is the spirit that my hon. Friend the
Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire seeks to capture
with the
amendment.
Mr.
Tyrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way
so generously. This helpful exchange goes to the heart of some of the
problems. Nobody on the Conservative Benches seeks to alter the
constitutional relationship between the Labour party and the trade
unions. It is only the issue of influence that may be bought by money
that is of legitimate concern in my view and, I believe, in the view of
most Opposition Members. Indeed, it is the public’s concern as
well. The hon. Gentleman has just confirmed again that he did
not mean to say what he said, but the record will show what he did
say—we will have to wait and see. He said that we need
transparency to know whether organisations seek to gain an unreasonable
influence over the political process, which suggests that there are
donations for which influence at a reasonable level is gained. I
fundamentally disagree with him. That is the division on the issue. We
do not think it is right for people to be able to buy influence over
the political process, full
stop.
1.45
pm
Tony
Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on that. For
example, the question must arise about who funds an unincorporated
association, the Churchill luncheon club, which I believe is a donor to
his constituency, and what their role and ambitions are. After I have
sat down, he might seek to catch your eye, Sir Nicholas, to explain the
role of the Churchill luncheon
club.
Mr.
Tyrie: I would like to catch the hon. Gentleman’s
eye, as he has referred to my
constituency.
Tony
Lloyd: Indeed. I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman can
tell us who the donors to the Churchill luncheon club
are.
Mr.
Tyrie: The Churchill luncheon club makes
about—
The
Chairman: Order. I am not much liking this. There is too
much nitty-gritty about the constituencies of individual Members of
Parliament. May we perhaps concentrate on the matter in the same way in
which it was introduced—succinctly and to the
point?
Tony
Lloyd: Alas, Sir Nicholas, I was tempted by others. As
often happens in this big old world, temptation leads us in the wrong
direction. I will try to correct the error of my ways henceforth and
bring my remarks to a conclusion. I apologise, in a sense, to the hon.
Member for Chichester, because your ruling means that I cannot give him
the opportunity to respond. As a matter of courtesy, I would have liked
to give him that
opportunity. Let
me simply say this: in our political system, it is right that
unreasonable influence is something we all deplore. Inevitably, the
public have suspicions. They have had suspicions about my party in the
recent past when flows of money arose that we have not been able
properly to account for. As a long-standing member of my party, I
regret and deplore that, and I hope that hon. Members from all
political backgrounds would do the
same. The
way to get round the matter is not to get rid of the unincorporated
association—whether at constituency or national level—but
to ensure that we have the transparency necessary to reassure the
public that the exchange is legitimate and not one that seeks to
acquire unfair and unreasonable influence. That is what the Bill ought
to be
about. The
hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the exact conclusions, but it might
well be that we agree with the sentiments behind what my hon. Friend
the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire is seeking to
do.
Dr.
Whitehead: For the purposes of clarity, can my hon. Friend
explain the point on the £1,000 of donations referred to in the
amendment? A distinction appears to be made between the results of, for
example, a lunch where a number of people have contributed some money
in relation to that lunch, which is collected and donated in a
convenient way, as opposed to an arrangement whereby a number of
people, for the purposes of hiding the origin of their donation, donate
large sums of money, which are gathered
together? Indeed,
if the origins of those donations were recorded, there would be no
point in having intermediary activity at all and the organisation
concerned might well cease to exist. As, I think, my hon. Friend the
Member for Battersea suggested, one organisation that might be in that
category may have recently ceased to exist—perhaps in
anticipation of something that might happen in the
Committee.
Tony
Lloyd: I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion by
exploring the line of argument put forward by my hon. Friend. Of
course, he is
right. At
the heart of the amendment is the issue of collective giving at
relatively modest levels—for example, the kind of thing that
might take place at a luncheon club. Such a club may well be legitimate
and beyond suspicion, and I am happy to state that. That also applies
to a trade union. I know of no trade union where an individual gives at
the level of £1,000, but certainly, if the union is giving
collectively, the question about transparency ought to catch
it.
The matter
before us is the perception that all political parties have gained from
shadowy organisations whose purpose is to prevent the transparency that
the amendment seeks. That is why I strongly support the spirit behind
the
amendment.
Mr.
Tyrie: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I seek your
guidance on how I might be able to respond to the allegation made about
my constituency. I completely agree—even if I quietly
disagree—with the point that you made from the Chair, but I
would be grateful if you told me how I might put the record straight. I
do not want to create undue fuss, but I do not think the matter can be
left
entirely.
The
Chairman: I think that there will be a debate on the
schedule as a whole. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman—briefly and
succinctly—may correct the record
then.
Mr.
Wills: The extent and quality our debate on the clause
demonstrate the debt that the Committee owes to my hon. Friend the
Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire for tabling the
amendment. I understand and share the concern expressed on Second
Reading and in today’s debate that we need to do more to promote
greater transparency of donations from unincorporated associations. We
must ensure that such structures are not used to conceal the ultimate
source of donations to
parties. Unincorporated
associations have given money to all the parties represented here
today: the Labour Finance and Industry Group has given money to my
party; the Midlands Industrial Council, as we have heard, is a
long-standing donor to the Conservative party; and
there are historic Liberal clubs, often registered as unincorporated
associations, that give money to the Liberal party. The hon. Member for
Perth and North Perthshire is not present, but if he were I would
remind him that that the Scottish women’s independence fund
trust has donated money to the Scottish National
party. There
is nothing inherently wrong about such associations contributing. Of
course, it is a matter of consensus that such contributions should not
be used to purchase influence—that is abhorrent. The only people
who should have influence over political parties are the voters,
through exercise of the vote. That is the source of authority and power
in our democracy, nothing else. Everyone is agreed on that.
The point
that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central made is
important and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Chichester should
take issue with it. Transparency is the best guarantor for everybody
that such influence is not purchased in our society, and above all that
everybody in our democracy can see that it is not being purchased. It
is not the existence of unincorporated associations that matters; what
matters is that they should be transparent. We have to recognise that
there is enough evidence to show that they are not as transparent as we
would wish.
The
provisions in clause 8 and schedule 3, which apply to unincorporated
associations as they do to other donors, already address some of the
concerns about transparency, which I share with other hon. Members
here. There is a lot of cross-party agreement on the importance of
transparency. I
appreciate that there are continuing concerns and I am willing to
consider actively—indeed, we are considering
actively—what more we can do. Again, I would prefer to move
forward on a consensual basis, as on many areas of the Bill. One way we
could promote greater openness about donations from unincorporated
associations would be to require them to declare the names and
addresses of their members and donors. We must be certain that we are
not putting undue burdens on them and bear in mind the need for
flexibility and proportionality, but we are considering options to that
effect. Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): The Minister has
suggested two groups: those listed as members and those who might be
listed as donors. Is there a reason for suggesting the first
group?
| 
