| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Richard: My Lords, if I were not to do that it would not be an exception.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as usual, the Labour Party honours its rules, once again, more in the breach than in the observance.
I turn now to the Motion itself. It is interesting for another reason. With his usual courtesy, the noble Lord gave the House plenty of notice of his
intentions. He tabled his Motion as early as Thursday, 16th January. It stood on the Order Paper for well over two weeks in all its pristine glory. Let me remind your Lordships of its wording:
- "To move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to refer the issue of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life".
However, on Monday last something rather curious happened. The noble and scholarly Lord changed the terms of his Motion. As your Lordships can see it now reads:
- "To move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to refer the issue of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life or some other appropriate body".
Your Lordships will undoubtedly wish to know what extraordinary event occurred to induce the noble Lord to redraft his Motion so hurriedly and, perhaps, at the last moment. The noble Lord himself gave us a somewhat elliptical version of what happened for, of course, he is far too modest to explain to your Lordships how he came to demonstrate yet again his virtue of flexibility under fire. Fortunately I am in a position to enlighten your Lordships.
The difficulty that the noble Lord encountered was this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, to whom the Whole House should be extremely grateful for his persistence in sitting and listening to the whole of our debate, has said that he did not want this matter referred to his committee. It is true that the noble and learned Lord has expressed his personal opinion that,
- "Party funding is a subject that needs looking at after the election".
- "in so far as it raises the possibility of funds being paid in, in return for favours or the expectation of favours",
- "would like to see it go to a parliamentary House of Commons Select Committee".
So there you have it, my Lords. If your Lordships will forgive the mixed metaphor, the noble and learned Lord had three-quarters killed the fox of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the noble Lord found himself in imminent danger of being more Catholic than the Pope.
I quoted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, as saying that the next Parliament should examine the question of party funding in another place. Your
Lordships will know that another place will decide what it wishes its Select Committees to examine, as always. We know that its Home Affairs Select Committee examined the question of political parties in the current Parliament. The next House of Commons may well wish to follow the noble and learned Lord's advice and return to the subject. That is and will remain a matter for another place in the next Parliament.Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I, for one, think that that would be an attractive mechanism to employ if it were felt that another examination of the question were needed--certainly better in my view than, for instance, a Royal Commission. I have ventured to observe to Your Lordships before that, although commissions and inquiries clearly have their place--and I am sure that the Whole House would agree that the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord is a very good example--it is a pity that over the past few decades they have been used so extensively. There are, it seems to me, some matters that Parliament should decide rather than surrendering responsibility to some commission of the great and good, however eminent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, certainly acknowledged that by implication when he made it so abundantly clear that Sir Gordon Downey should report to a committee of another place. The question of funding of political parties is surely also a matter which Parliament should examine, debate and decide, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway clearly said.
Our present system ensures that political parties are principally supported by voluntary organisations, albeit with some help from the state as has already been noted by a number of noble Lords. As we have heard this afternoon, a number of people, including certain noble Lords and notably the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose experience in such matters we all respect, feel that the present system is open to abuse. Indeed, some more than suspect--for example, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made an accusation about as direct as even he has been known to make--that substantial donations are made to political parties in exchange for undue influence for honours.
I hope that it is not too unworthy a thought to say that it is of course very much in the interests of opposition parties to make that accusation. Like my noble friends Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Laing of Dunphail, whose powerful speeches I personally found rather more impressive than perhaps a number of Opposition noble Lords did, I am highly doubtful as to whether the problem really exists in the form to which, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, elevated it.
We have made considerable progress so far as honours are concerned; indeed, especially since the Liberal Party was last in power. As a number of speakers observed, a committee of three eminent Members of your Lordships' House scrutinises nominations and the Chief Whips of the parties concerned sign certificates undertaking that no impropriety has taken place under an Act which would mean that they would lay themselves open to criminal prosecution if they were found to have erred. I know from personal experience just how extremely seriously those safeguards are taken and regarded.
In view of the direct accusations that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, levelled at my party this evening, I ask the Labour Party this: can it assure me that there is no Member of this House sitting on the Benches opposite who has never given a large sum to the Labour Party? In view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, this evening, I can only assume that he will be able to rise and assure me that the answer is no. I am perfectly willing to give way to the noble Lord if he feels able to deny that, or answer that question in the negative.
As regards undue influence, we should be careful here. I see no reason why bodies such as the trades unions should not support a political party--indeed I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in what he said--or why companies should not also support a political party. Indeed in view of this Government's record on unemployment, it would be entirely understandable if the trades unions transferred their allegiance to the Conservatives. It has been accepted that it is right that such donations should be made public and it is only sensible that members and shareholders should know where their contributions are going. That is common ground between us.
By those who make the accusations, however, two solutions are advanced. First, some say that the details of all substantial donations should be declared to the public--many have said that this evening; and, secondly, that public funds should be used to help finance political parties. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, repeat his doubts this evening about that solution. Of course these two solutions are not necessarily incompatible. I shall discuss the question of public financing first. I shall not weary the House by repeating at length the arguments I attempted to put before your Lordships 18 months ago. However, I believe there are great virtues in making political parties rely on voluntary contributions rather than the public purse. I am sorry that I find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on that point.
Not the least of these virtues is that the system ensures that the political parties are not further institutionalised as part of the state itself. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I do not believe that these parties should run--I think I quote his phrase exactly--the apparatus of the state. It seems to me that that is for Ministers to do supported by the Civil Service. I add in parenthesis that this is of course an argument also against PR based on party list systems.
We know from our history that in the long term parties wax and wane in strength over and above the more short-term changes the electorate imposes every four or five years. The previous time this happened was in the early decades of this century which saw the Liberal Party give way to the Labour Party as the alternative government to the Conservatives. It is a process which took some time. I hope the Labour Party will allow me to comment that it is all the stronger for that because it had more time to establish itself in the context and in the thoughts of the electorate.
I believe the process would have been less likely to happen had the Liberal Party been institutionalised by financial support from the public purse. I can quite see
that some Liberal noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon--certainly not the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins--might regret this lack of public finance. But, after all, their party's electoral record since the early 1920s does not suggest that the voters agree with them. Rather, the direct financial link between public and party helps ensure a responsiveness from the party to those who vote for it. The figures that my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook gave merely serve to underline that view, as did the eloquent description by my noble friend Lady Byford of the daily life in Conservative associations.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |