HC Deb 20 March 1975 vol 888 cc1869-77

4.4 p.m.

The Lord President of the Counciland Leader of the House of Commons(Mr. Edward Short)

I beg to move,

1. That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that as from 1st January 1975 provision shall be made for financial assistance to any Opposition party in this House to assist that party in carrying out its Parliamentary business:
5 2. That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
£500 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £150,000:
10 3. That it shall be a condition of qualification for such assistance that a party must either have at least two Members elected to the House as members of that party at the preceding General Election, or that it has one such Member and received at least 150,000 votes at that Election:
4. That any party wishing to claim such assistance shall make to the Accounting Officer of the House a statement of the facts on which this claim is based:
15 5. That the cost of this provision shall be borne on the House of Commons Vote:
6. That parties making claims under this provision shall he required to certify to the Accounting Officer of the House that the expenses in respect of which assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to that party's Parliamentary business:
20 7. That claims under these arrangements shall be made quarterly, and that the annual maxima shall be applicable to claims made in respect of expenses incurred during any one calendar year.
Mr. Speaker

I have to inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Short

I shall speak very briefly in order to allow as much time as possible for other hon. Members.

As the House will be aware, this motion is in accordance with the Government's undertakings in the Queen's Speech to consider the provision of financial assistance to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their parliamentary duties. I originally outlined the Government's proposals in my statement to the House on 19th December.

As that statement indicated, the proposals now before the House form part of a larger programme to consider ways of strengthening our parliamentary institutions.

As part of this initiative, a Select Committee of the House is now considering in what way the facilities available to back benchers, particularly in research on matters coming before Parliament might be improved.

The present motion is concerned solely with the question of whether a measure of financial assistance should be made available to Opposition parties to assist them in their parliamentary work here at Westminster, and I emphasise that it is here at Wesminster only.

I have, of course, held a series of discussions with hon. Members on both sides of the House about these present proposals. I believe that this strengthening of Parliament, through the strengthening of the Opposition parties in carrying out their essential parliamentary duties, would be generally welcomed in the country.

There has to be an objective formula for this to be done. The formula that I propose for the allocation of these funds is £500 per seat and £100 for every 200 votes. It is based on how many seats each Opposition party won at the previous General Election, and also how many votes it received. The vote element reflects the fact that two parties with approximately the same number of Members are likely to have different parliamentary burdens if their overall voting support varies widely. There is. I believe, a correlation between the amount of correspondence coming into a party office and the number of votes that the party received at the General Election. That is why voting comes into the formula as well as seats.

In divising this formula and deciding what allocations should be made to the Opposition parties we have had to make a judgment of how much money they require for their various parliamentary duties. I have, of course, discussed this with the Opposition parties during my consultations with them.

For example, we have taken the view that there should be a maximum which can be paid to any party because the responsibilities of a principal Opposition party are not necessarily greater because it has, say, 250 rather than 200 Members. We achieved the figure for this maximum by costing a modest establishment for the Leader of the Opposition's office and estimating the amount required for assistance in the Whip's Office and for research assistance for Front Bench spokesmen. Those three elements have been costed, and that is how we have arrived at the cut-off or maximum figure. No assessment of this kind can be precise, therefore, but I believe our figures are reasonably based, and we can gain from experience as we go along if the House agrees with this proposal.

The way in which the sums allocated might be spent under these proposals would be a matter for the parties themselves to decide, provided that they were able to certify to the Clerk of the House, as our Accounting Officer, that their allocation had been spent exclusively in relation to their parties' parliamentary business. As I have indicated on a previous occasion, however, I would expect that the principal areas of expenditure would be research assistance for Front Bench spokesmen, assistance in the Opposition Whips' Offices—and Opposition Whips' Offices are becoming extremely expensive to run—and office staff for the Leader of the Opposition.

In these days it is becoming increasingly difficult for Opposition parties to keep up with those who are backed by the vast resources of Government, either in research or in administration. We believe that a healthy and lively Opposition is an essential part of democracy, and we feel that our proposals will go a little way towards redressing the balance between Government and Opposition. The position is becoming increasingly difficult because of the increasing complexity of the issues with which Parliament is faced, and, of course, it is partly due to rising prices.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be willing to reply at the end of the debate to any specific questions which may be raised. At this stage, therefore, I do not wish to say more than that I believe that these proposals, modest and limited though they are in comparison with what is done in many overseas Parliaments, such as Canada, Western Germany, and the Scandinavian countries, would provide an overdue and worthwhile reinforcement of the essential contribution which the political parties make to our parliamentary life.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

The House will have noted that this somewhat surprising motion comes without any enabling legislation. I thought that perhaps that was the matter which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wanted to raise. It is a motion without—

Mr. Speaker

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I am afraid that I made a mistake when I said that I was not selecting the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). When the motion was before the House last time, I gave an indication that I would select the hon. Gentleman's amendment. That was on 13th January. I am reported in column 91 of the Official Report as indicating that I would select the amendment. In view of that, it is appropriate for me to reverse my decision and to select it for the hon. Gentleman to move at a later stage.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may thank you later.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

This motion purports to disburse public money in a new way without any enabling Act, without any Committee or Report stage and, as far as I know, without any Queen's Consent being signified, which is the normal precursor to any legislation authorising expenditure. We should be very careful before entertaining motions of this kind which can result in a considerable extra demand upon public resources in a manner which is definitely not non-controversial.

There will be no opportunity for the House, because of the manner in which it is being done, to accept some of the provisions and to reject others. The motion can be either accepted or rejected in toto, with the exception that we shall have the opportunity of voting on the commencing date in terms of the amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, have now selected in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).

I am most concerned that this will be the first of a series of motions thinking up new ways of disbursing public money at a time when the country is groaning from excessive taxation.

Political parties do not commend themselves to the electorate by failing to do their job of attracting financial support and asking that money should be taken compulsorily from the electorate at large and disbursed in this manner because they are incapable of raising it from those who support the policies that they advocate. That is basically what the motion is about. It is about imposing on the public at large compulsory contributions to political parties which they are unwilling to make voluntarily. If people were willing to make such contributions voluntarily, there would be no purpose in a motion of this kind.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

Does the hon. Gentleman not draw any distinction between the financing of a political party for its purposes outside this House and the financing of that political party and the pressure that that could put upon individual Members for its functions within the House? Does he not draw any distinction between the two?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Yes, I draw a distinction between the two. There is a valid distinction. However, my point is still good. If the Government wish to impose a charge of this kind upon the electorate, they should say so in their election manifesto at the General Election and then introduce that proposal in the form of a Bill to go through Parliament in the normal way, not introduce a measure of this kind which has never been put before the electorate and which it is reasonable to suppose will, with the passage of years, expand into a greater demand, as these things do, not least because of inflation.

We may find similar motions for other bodies. We will be told that other admirable bodies are unable to raise money for themselves, so a motion, not a Bill, will appear on the Paper asking for authorisation to spend this quite unprecedented sum of money.

I know that political parties find difficulty in financing their research, but the inherent nature of that difficulty is surely that their organisation is defective. Indeed, such money as they raise in voluntary subscriptions is often squandered in ways which are totally inappropriate instead of being spent for purposes such as those set out in the motion.

If political parties cannot provide for themselves from those who support their ideals and policies the means of supplying themselves with these admittedly necessary services, they do not deserve to survive. I see no reason whatever, at a time when individuals, businesses and enterprises of every kind are groaning under national and local taxation, for adding yet another straw to that camel's back. For that reason, I shall most certainly vote against the motion.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

In accordance with the principle that the hon. Gentleman has enunciated, may I ask whether he proposes to go without his parliamentary salary and instead to rely upon putting a collection box in his constituency office?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

No, I have no such intention. Nor, as far as I am aware, has any proposal been made to introduce a new burden on the taxpayer by paying Members of Parliament who were not previously paid. There is no such motion, nor am I aware that any such motion is proposed. The hon. Gentleman may not know, but the reason first proposed for the remuneration of Members of Parliament was that people were unable to offer themselves to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons unless they had substantial wealth or were backed by an enormously wealthy body which would enable them to live without income. That was the reason for the salary of Members of Parliament being supplied.

Mr. Cyril Smith

The hon. Gentleman is advocating the motion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

I am not advocating the motion. I am advocating that we should vote against the motion. It is an entirely new principle that if a number of people band themselves into a political party, that party should receive public funds.

What is the likely consequence? There is a huge limit, but a limit, of £150,000. What incentive does it provide? It provides an incentive for a splintering into lots of little groups, each of which will qualify for £150,000. [Hon. Members: "No."] Yes, it does. Until not so long ago, before the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) appeared in this House —the hon. Gentleman has not been here very long—there were on the Conservative benches Members who described themselves as National Liberals. In my view, they were indistinguishable from Conservatives. However, according to the motion, that grouping would have been entitled a separate £150,000.

Mr. Edward Short

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. The £150,000 is the amount that the Conservative Party would get. All the parties are based on a formula. There is a cut-off for the Conservative Party, as I explained. Therefore, the small parties will get only a very small amount of money.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The motion says nothing about the Conservative Party. It does not specify any party. The formula and the cut-off point applies to all parties. The definition of a party is what any group of Members call themselves. There cannot be any other definition. Therefore, any party can qualify up to this limit on the basis of the seats that it holds. It will get £5,000 for every one million votes cast in its favour. The formula refers to £1 for every 200 votes. If the right hon. Gentleman, who was once a schoolmaster, cares to make his own computation, he will find that the arithmetic is correct.

Mr. Short

If the hon. Gentleman will look at paragraph 2, he will see the formula is, £500 for each seat won by the party "in the election plus £1 for every 200 seats with a maximum—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

It does not say that.

Mr. Edward Short

I am sorry. For every 200 votes, subject to a maximum of £150,000. If the hon. Gentleman works that out, he will find that the small parties in this House get a very small amount of money.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman has tabled the wrong motion. If he meant what he said, plus £1 for every 200 seats "—[HON. MEMBERS: "Votes."] That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Cyril Smith

The right hon. Gentleman withdrew it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Exactly. But £1 for every 200 votes is £5,000 for every one million votes, is it not? That is what I said and that is what the right hon. Gentleman denied. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to withdraw his correction?

Mr. Short

I have not worked that out yet, but the formula is clearly set out in the second paragraph. All that I am saying is that the only party in the House at present which would get the maximum is the Conservative Party. The smaller parties would get a very small amount, which would be based on the formula. The hon. Gentleman can work out the amount for the Liberal Party, the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru if he wishes to do so. He will then find that the amounts are very small.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

On a point of simple arthmetic, the right hon. Gentleman intervened quite unnecessarily, first, to deny an entirely accurate point of arithmetic which I put but which he was incapable of working out for himself, and then to misquote his own motion. Any party would get £5,000 per 1 million votes cast. That is the formula in the motion.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in order to receive £150,000, which is the maximum, a small party would have to obtain 30 million votes? Unless there is a huge upsurge in the birthrate, which is not envisaged, it is unlikely that any splinter parties which apply will receive the maximum.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Certainly. The limit is not likely to be reached, but the formula is the same. Whether the £5,000 per 1 million votes is distributed through a large number of small parties or whether it is confined to one large party, the same amount of public money will be paid. That is the point which hon. Members seem to be incapable of grasping. It is £1 for every 200 votes cast, however it is distributed.

The point I was making was that, just as in the past the Conservative Party was, technically, divided into two parties—the Conservatives and the National Liberals—so this motion will tend to promote a splintering of descriptions because that is where the financial incentive lies. We may even have pro-Common Market Socialists and anti-Common Market Socialists. They may even be formally recognised and, indeed, some of them might find themselves in opposition to the Government.

I content myself with repeating that if the Government want to put a measure of this kind before the House, the proper means of doing it is by a Bill which can pass through its Committee and Report stages, and before introducing it they should announce their intention at an election. This motion is an improper way of doing something which is inherently undesirable at any time but particularly undesirable at a time of national stringency.

Forward to