§ 9. Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations have been made by the Trades Union Congress and other bodies about the financing of political parties; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Tom KingFollowing discussions with the Government, the TUC general council will tomorrow be considering a statement of guidance which is designed to ensure that union members are fully aware of their statutory right not to pay a political levy and that they are able to exercise that right freely and effectively. I have made it clear to the TUC that, provided the statement is adopted by the general council and issued with its committed support, I shall not bring forward amendments to the Trade Union Bill to change the law on contracting out. However, I must emphasise that if the TUC guidance proves ineffective I have made it clear that the Government reserve the right to legislate.
§ Mr. SkinnerWill the Minister extend that statement of guidance to the Tory party and to the big businesses which allocate millions of pounds to it each year? Will he also extend it to the Social Democratic party, as I have just seen a statement of its income for the year ending 31 March 1983? Although there has been a drop of £175,000 in members' subscriptions, there has been an increase in other donations to the tune of £310,000. Where does that money come from? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will conclude his question.
§ Mr. SkinnerAs the Social Democrats and Liberals are so keen about freedom of information, does the Secretary of State not think that everyone in the country has a right to know where the money is coming from?
§ Mr. KingAs I understand that every effort is being made to encourage the hon. Gentleman not to go to Chesterfield, I wondered what his supplementary question would be. Very little of what he said has anything to do with me.
§ Sir John Biggs-DavisonIf there is to be this anachronistic political levy, would not any up-to-date trade union with a due regard for the long-term interests of its members see that it is paid to the Tory party?
§ Mr. KingI agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend, but we must recognise that, in a free society, it is for union members to decide. In our manifesto we told the country clearly that we would ensure that union members had a free and effective right of choice and that we would invite the TUC to discuss the matter with us. That is what I have tried to achieve.
§ Mr. FatchettWould not the Secretary of State have a better chance of persuading trade union members of the even-handedness of the Government if the Government were prepared to introduce legislation to subject political donations by companies to the Conservative party to equal scrutiny, and if shareholders were given the right to opt out from paying into the Conservative party?
§ Mr. KingThat has the fairly dread ring of a re-run of the debate that I have heard elsewhere on a certain Bill currently before the House. At present, directors of companies are liable to the criminal law with regard to 687 their duties in respect of disclosure of political donations. I have no proposals to bring trade unions within that same rule.
§ Sir William ClarkWill my right hon. Friend at last kill the myth that the Conservative party is financed purely by big business? Will he confirm that, of every £1 spent by the Conservative party, 82p comes from the doorstep, and about 18p only comes from large donations — [Interruption.]—whereas in the Labour party something like 85 per cent. comes from the trade unions, and only 15 per cent. from the doorstep?
§ Mr. KingI should like to say to my hon. Friend that some fairly active myth-killing is taking place upstairs in the Committee dealing with this matter. The degree of ignorance on the other side of the Committee on this matter is depressing, but I think that we are getting through.
§ Mr. Wrigglesworthrose—
§ Mr. SkinnerTell us where you got the £300,000.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Just because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was interrupted, he must not interrupt the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SkinnerI had to go through it. They had an increase of £300,000—
§ Mr. WrigglesworthMaybe the hon. Gentleman would like to look at our published accounts a little more closely, and he will learn a great deal more about it.
§ Mr. SkinnerThree hundred thousand pounds — where did it come from?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that, if he continues in that vein, I shall have to—
§ Mr. SkinnerThe hon. Gentleman did say—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I call the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth).
§ Mr. WrigglesworthThe Secretary of State and his colleagues have poured scorn upon solemn and binding agreements of a voluntary nature with the TUC. Will he therefore tell the House why he will not introduce the only fair system applicable to the political levy, namely, a system of contracting in, which abolishes the inertia selling of the present system?
§ Mr. KingI have to say to the hon. Gentleman—and I hope that it is not too big a shock to him—that Conservative Members believe in carrying out the Conservative manifesto. We specifically promised the country that we would institute proposals about periodic ballots for political funds, a provision that is included in the Bill currently before the House, and that we would have discussions with the TUC on the lines that I have set out. As the hon. Gentleman will also have heard, and as I have told the House, I have made it abundantly clear that, if the guidance does not prove effective, the Government reserve the right to legislate.
§ Mr. NichollsWhat does my right hon. Friend make of the indignation of the alliance about this issue, bearing in mind that, when alliance Members of Parliament were in the Labour party, they voted for the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act in 1974, which was the most pro-union, anti-individual piece of legislation that the House has ever enacted? What has changed since then?
§ Mr. KingI have always found it difficult to explain the actions of the alliance, and I fear that I must disappoint my hon. Friend once again.
§ Mr. John SmithAs the Secretary of State has confirmed that trade unions are subject to unique restrictions, in that they must have a separate political fund, they must have a ballot, to be repeated regularly, and every member has the right to opt out, why are they singled out for special treatment? Why are the same restrictions not applied to companies?
§ Mr. KingAs I sought to make clear, and as I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, companies and company directors are uniquely exposed to the risks of the criminal law, so there is no parallel in that respect.