Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance) (Hansard, 4 November 1993)

HC Deb 04 November 1993 vol 231 cc595-617 595 8.32 pm

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)
I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:

§ 1.—(1) Financial assistance to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 1st January 1993 if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or
(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000.

§ (2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any period shall be the aggregate of

(a) the first relevant amount for that period multiplied by the number of seats won by its candidates at that Election; and
(b) the second relevant amount for that period multiplied by one-two hundredth of the number of votes cast for its candidates at that Election (rounded down to the nearest whole number).

§ (3) For the period beginning with 1st January 1993 and ending with 31st March 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be £4,080; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be £8.16.

§ (4) For the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be the sum of £3,442.50 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be the sum of £6.89 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

§ (5) For any subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April

(a) the first relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

§ (6) The appropriate percentage for any period is the percentage by which the retail prices index for the month of March immediately preceding that period has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

§ (7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) above to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this paragraph those references in that sub-paragraph shall be construed as references to any substituted index or index figure published by that Office.

§ (8) In consequence of this paragraph, the Resolution of 21st June 1988 shall not have effect with respect to any time after 31st December 1992.

§ 2.—(1) Without prejudice to the' generality of paragraph 1 above, financial assistance towards travelling and associated expenses necessarily incurred by an opposition party's spokesmen in relation to the party's Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 27th April 1992 if at that time one of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 above is satisfied with respect to the party.

596

§ (2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred in any period shall be such of the available amount for that period as may be allocated to the party in accordance with any apportionment under sub-paragraph (3) below.

§ (3) The available amount for any period shall be apportioned between each of the opposition parties in the same proportions as the maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given to each of them under paragraph 1 above for that period or for any period forming part of that period; and any such apportionment shall be made to the nearest pound.

§ (4) Any reference in this paragraph to the available amount for a period is a reference

(a) in the case of the period beginning with 27th April 1992 and ending with 31st March 1994, to £100,000;
(b) in the case of the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994, to the sum of £100,000 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and
(c) in the case of each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April, to the available amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

§ (5) Sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of paragraphs 1 above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.

§ 3. Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;
(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and
(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

§ 4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election

(a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election and
(b) the period beginning with that date,

shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1(1) and (2), 2(1) to (3) and 3 above as separate periods.

§ (2) In relation to any such separate period

(a) the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest penny) of the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for the year in question; and
(b) the available amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest pound) of the available amount for the year in question.

§ (3) In relation to any such separate period ending immediately before the date of the Election, paragraph 3(c) above shall have effect as if the 31st March referred to were a reference to the day immediately before the date of the Election.

§ (4) In this paragraph "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.

§ 5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: Members' salaries etc. Vote.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I apologise to the House: it has been a long couple of days. Of course I meant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was beginning to wonder as I listened for a while—before retreating—to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) whether the Labour Whips were as out of control tonight as they were last night. Fortunately, it seems that they are not.

597

§ As the House will know, the motion provides for the revision of the amounts of money paid in support of the Opposition parties—which is perhaps ironic, given the circumstances of the past two days. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Thurrock has the grace to smile at that. This money has come to be known as Short money after the Labour Leader of the House who first instituted the payments in 1975.

§ The purpose of these payments is to assist Opposition parties in carrying out their essential parliamentary duties at Westminster.

§ At the last review in 1988, the then Lord President, now Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords, carried out a thorough review of the workings of these funds and introduced new arrangements for accountability. My proposals are rather less sweeping. I seek not to review further the scope or purpose of the main Short money, but merely to update the sums paid. I think that the principle of these payments is both accepted and well established.

§ It has been customary to review Short money in the early part of each Parliament. The current formula was agreed in 1988 and provides that Opposition parties should receive £2,550 a year for each seat gained at a general election, and a further £5.10 for every 200 votes cast for the party. A party is, for this purpose, defined as having at least two Members of Parliament and having received at least 150,000 votes at the general election.

§ Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)
I am somewhat confused about the votes criterion. The Liberal Democrat party may have had more than two hon. Members elected, but each of its candidates said something different to each elector in his constituency, so does the party qualify for the money, and if so, how should it be paid, given the disparity among its members?

§ Mr. Newton
A good question.
The proposals have three elements, which are a good deal simpler in principle than the lengthy motion would imply. They are, first, that the two elements of the formula should be uplifted by 35 per cent. to allow for inflation since the last settlement in 1988. Secondly, from 1994 onwards, Short payments should be inceased every April by reference to the retail prices index. Thirdly—an entirely new element—a fund of £100,000 should be established for Opposition travel in connection with Front-Bench duties, to be distributed on the same basis as Short money and uprated in the same way.
On the main Short money, the Government propose an uplift of 35 per cent. to take account of inflation since the last settlement and to take effect from 1 April 1993. From 1 April 1994, therefore, taking account of the regular review proposals that I have introduced, the formula's two elements will be updated annually by reference to the retail prices index.
This reflects the view that I have held for some years —it was reflected also in my proposition to the House last night on Members' pay—that it is much more sensible to have a regular uprating mechanism for payments of this kind than to leave them for several years and then to have what looks like a large increase but actually is not so large, given what has happened in the intervening period. Whatever views people may have of these payments, I 598 hope that it will be generally agreed that it is sensible to have a regular mechanism to keep them reasonably up to date.
The new element is the establishment of a separate fund of £100,000 for Opposition travel, to be distributed pro rata to Short money among Opposition parties. As with the main Short money, the resulting figures are maximums for expenditure incurred. In the previous Parliament the Rowntree trust, believing—it has proved, rightly—that there was a gap in our provision in this area, undertook an experimental project, not using public money, in which limited grants were made in support of Opposition travel for legitimate parliamentary purposes. Approaches from the trust and discussions with Opposition leaders have convinced the Government that there is a genuine case for provision of this kind, recognising the growing need for more Opposition spokesmen to travel in the United Kingdom and Europe, and the needs of their spokesmen on foreign affairs, defence and overseas development to travel if they are to do the job that our system expects of them—regardless of whether we always like what they say.
The provision for annual uprating of the travel fund will be on the same basis as Short itself—by reference to the RPI in April of each year. Arrangements for claiming and accounting will be in line with those already in place for Short money. The amount available for overseas travel by Select Committees is much larger than this fund, running at about £600,000 a year.
Those are the bare bones of the proposals. I shall not attempt to run through all the details of the motion, except to point to one detail that I know has given rise to some confusion. In paragraph 1(3), the motion refers to a period of 15 months from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1994 and to amounts in the formula that do not correspond to the percentages that I have quoted. The figures £4,030 and £8.16 comprise 12 months at the revised rate for each figure, plus three months at the old rate. The effect is to change the start of the accounting year from 1 January to 1 April and to provide amounts for the resulting 15 month period to correspond with the proposals.
The proposals come well over a year after the start of the Parliament and are the product of extensive discussions through the usual channels. I hope that they will be welcomed by representatives of those channels as giving them properly provided support in our system for the work of Opposition parties. I also hope that the mechanism that I have suggested to the House will mean that we will not need to return to the issue in the near future. I commend the motion to the House.

8.41 pm

§ Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)
In March 1974, the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson said: No Government have anything to gain, and certainly the country has nothing to gain, from Opposition parties lacking the necessary facilities, financial and otherwise, for doing their job in the House."—[Official Report, 12 March 1974; Vol. 870 c. 72.] As Prime Minister, he was proposing the funds that we are presently discussing.
The Rowntree Trust had made funds available then for a pilot project to help the Opposition with the costs of carrying out their parliamentary functions—an initiative which led to those whose posts were funded by that means to be known in Labour party circles as chocolate soldiers. 599 The spokesmen for the Opposition at that time, now Lord Prior, in response to the Prime Minister's statement, drew attention to the fact that one of the benefits of the change in Government in recent years"— a benefit that is rather overdue at present— is that it has brought to the notice of Governments the very great difficulties from which Oppositions suffer, particularly Shadow Ministers."—[Official Report, 29 July 1974; Vol. 878, c. 33.] From the onset of the scheme, some hon. Members have legitimately' objected. 'Some clearly confused it with the separate principle of state funding for political parties, as previous debates show. My party and I support such funding for exactly the reasons that led in the first place to Members of Parliament and their staff receiving a salary from the taxpayer. Without such funding, membership of the House would be restricted to those with private wealth or to those who have attracted financial support on a personal basis from others with wealth and power. I repeat, we are not discussing the principle of public funds for political duties—not state aid for political parties as discussed by the Houghton committee and the Society—but support for some of the parliamentary work of the Opposition.
The idea of providing such funding has been repeatedly endorsed by the Top Salaries Review Body in its examination of the financial support provided by Members of Parliament. As long ago as the 1987 Parliament, it expressed the view that it should be "regularly updated" and it pointed out that at that time the support declined in value in relation to individual allowances for all MPs.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that money for Opposition parties was not necessarily such a revolutionary step, bearing in mind that candidates are subsidised for general election campaigning and that many hon. Members who are opposed to state funding of Opposition parties, as they are opposed to state funding generally, do not, I notice, object when they are subsidised as candidates at a general election when they receive facilities for which they would otherwise have to pay? Is not there an apparent element of hypocrisy in standing up and denouncing the subject of this debate?

§ Mrs. Beckett
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that sometimes people fail to see such subjects in the round and where they are being inconsistent in their attitude to one thing rather than another. I take the point of my hon. Friend that one such inconsistency is the way in which all hon. Members benefit from such funding.
The Top Salaries Review Body suggested that there should be regular updating of the support and that it should be carried out on what it calls a realistic assessment of need. By drawing the analogy between the funding received by every Member of Parliament for their office costs and their staff and the way in which the TSRB support for the concept of separate Short money was expressed, it addressed another point that has been made in previous debates.
I refer especially to a notion that has found favour with Government Back Benchers occasionally in the past—that, as the office costs allowance has been increased for all Members, the need for separate funding for the parliamentary work of the Opposition has been eroded or removed. That view is clearly rejected by the TSRB, as it 600 has regularly been rejected when it has assessed the enormous extra work load that is carried by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and their staff.
The board specifically drew attention to the discrepancy between the treatment of Short money and that of funding the parliamentary work of Back Benchers; in doing so, it highlighted an important issue that still has validity, which the settlement, whatever its merits, fails to address. The settlement before the House derives its validity, as the Lord President correctly pointed out, from the fact that it recognises the movement of inflation over the past six years since the 1987 settlement. The settlement also addresses—for which we are grateful to the Lord President —the thorny issue of the future movement of inflation, by linking the settlement to the retail prices index.
As there is so little public knowledge and the correspondence that Front-Bench spokesmen receive from the public makes it plain how little knowledge exists outside this place—and, often, not very much within it —about the background against which the settlement has been awarded, it is right to place one or two facts on the record for the benefit not only of hon. Members but of students of our affairs.
As the Lord President said, the settlement in cash terms increases the figure awarded in 1987 by 35 per cent. Since 1987, the office costs allowance paid to all Members of Parliament has increased in cash terms by 87.5 per cent. Since 1987, the costs of the Prime Minister's office have just about doubled in cash terms. In that figure, the increase for other costs—presumably equipment, travel, employment costs and other overheads—has more than doubled. The increases in salaries was less, at a mere 87 per cent. —closely analogous with the figure for the office costs allowance.
The final and perhaps the most significant myth, which previous debates have shown is also cherished by Government Back Benchers, is that only the Opposition draw taxpayers' money to fund parliamentary advisers and staff and their work. The Government also employ political advisers—a move which I wholeheartedly endorse. It is right that political advice and political work should be carried out by political staff and not by the civil service. The Government say that they are not able to tell us the overall cost of employing some 40 members of staff in those capacities to supplement the work of civil service staff and advisers. However, we know that the bill for their salaries alone has also about doubled since 1987. In 1993, that bill will amount to £1.37 million, slightly more than this settlement provides for the entire costs of the Labour Opposition.
On the basis of the Prime Minister's office, where salaries represent less than a third of overall costs, it would appear that the proper support services provided for the Front Bench of the Conservative party cost the taxpayer between £4 million and £5 million, as opposed to the £1.33 million that the settlement provides for the Labour Front Bench.
Part of the unquantified costs of the Government will be the cost of travel and accommodation properly met for advisers accompanying their Ministers on Government business in the European Community and overseas. In the previous Parliament, as the Lord President identified, funding for one visit a year to the institutions of the Community was provided for the first time to every Back Bencher. The same provision was made available to the Opposition Front Bench, but no further such provision.
601 Also in the previous Parliament, as the right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to acknowledge, the Rowntree Trust offered the Opposition a small travel fund to help defray such extra costs. The trust did so with the explicit recommendation that such a facility should be taken up by the Government as a proper charge on public funds. I pay tribute to the Lord President for his work in persuading his colleagues to accept that notion. The Rowntree Trust said in its letter to him that it was right for such funds to be provided so that Opposition Front Benchers were not beholden in any respect because the costs were not borne by vested interests in the form of foreign governments and/or professional lobbyists. It said that the matter was important, and I share that view.
The settlement enshrined in the order does not offer the Opposition any real opportunity, except in the area of travel costs, to expand and improve services to the official Opposition. We certainly cannot match the improvement in services to the governing party and to Back Benchers that have been supplied since 1987, but the settlement will at least allow us to maintain the service that we currently provide.
That is particularly important because, as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—I still think of him as the hon. Member for Oswestry—a former Leader of the House, identified recently in an article in The Guardian, the role of the Executive has become more and more powerful. All hon. Members are having greater and greater difficulty in getting answers to parliamentary questions. Answers that we used to get from Ministers tend to come from agencies, and Ministers seem increasingly reluctant to answer even those questions that they accept as being valid to them. That places considerable difficulties in the path of all hon. Members, and especially those whose role it is to shadow and scrutinise the movement of Government policy.
I shall give my last couple of examples of what the standstill in our parliamentary funding means. I appreciate that we are at least able to stand still and not to go backwards. For the Leader of the Opposition, when he was shadow Chancellor, we were able to provide from public funds money to employ one adviser to shadow the Treasury and the Chancellor's political and other advisers. For the shadow Foreign Secretary, we were able to provide from public funds money to employ one adviser to shadow the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Secretary's political and other advisers. I could go through the Departments to show that the position is the same for all of them, but I shall not.
For Opposition Front Benchers who match—in my view they over-match—the parliamentary work of Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries in, say, the Department of Health, which alone employs 12 press officers, we are able to provide from public funds, nothing. For Opposition Front Benchers who match the work of Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries in all the other Departments of State, we are able to provide from public funds, nothing.
In all those Departments that my colleagues shadow, thousands of civil servants back up the work of their Ministers every day, and we parliamentarians with our very few staff match them every day. We appreciate the 602 work of the Lord President in presenting this settlement to the House, but I know which party in this place gives value for taxpayers' funds.

8.53 pm

§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
I appreciate that, on the 239th day of this Session, hon. Members will not wish me to speak for too long. I shall endeavour to puncture in the gentlest way the congratulatory bonhomie between Front Benchers on this subject. We are debating the use of public money, and we are entitled to examine a little more closely how it is used.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was concerned that the official Opposition, and I dare say the Liberal Democrats, were underfunded and were therefore not able to give as good a service as they would like to the constitution. The right hon. Lady did not need the assistance of Short money to prepare her speech. She had only to ask her PPS to go to the Library, or she could have gone herself, to pick up the document that I have here.
Opposition parties and all Back Benchers have the advantage of the Library and House of Commons research facilities. Hon. Members who are sufficiently interested to check tomorrow's Hansard will find that the right hon. Lady quoted almost verbatim great chunks from the House of Commons research document.

§ Mrs. Beckett
I used two quotes from Hansard which are contained in that document. If the hon. Gentleman has read that document, perhaps he will tell me where it contains the rest of the material that I used about funding that the Conservative party receives from the state. If he can show me that or any of the rest of the material that I used, I shall be grateful to him.

§ Mr. Garnier
I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady will be very grateful to the Government and to other Conservative Members over the years.
I should like to remind the House of the original purpose of the Short money. As the right hon. Lady has done us the courtesy of quoting from Hansard, as quoted in the Library research document, I need not refer to those passages again, save to say that it was Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, the former leader of the Labour party, who as Prime Minister set out in Hansard of 12 March 1974, vol. 870, column 47, as the right hon. Lady has just done, the purpose of Short money, although it was not called Short money at that time. The right hon. Lady also quoted from speeches by Edward Short, now Lord Glenamara, who also set out the purposes for which Short money was to be used.
There is a need for a properly funded Opposition set-up, and that is not in dispute between any of the parties. It is one thing to be in government, but it is another to make sure that the Government justify themselves, and if the Government are to be tested, the Opposition parties must be ready and armed in intellect, research documents and so on. [Interruption.] I note that Opposition Members are concerned about their ability to oppose the Government.
Although there is no dispute about the need for proper funding for parties, the public at large are entitled to know whether they are getting value for money. Large sums are involved. Reference to this excellent document prepared by the Library shows the amount to which the Opposition are entitled under the new uprating system. It may be of interest to many people outside to know that, in 1992, the 603 Labour party received just under £1 million in Short money. The amount was £946,250. I do not know how many hospitals could have been—

§ Ms Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West)
How much did the Government receive from such money to do the same job that the Opposition did?

§ Mr. Garnier
The hon. Lady is confused, although I am not surprised. The Government do not get Short money.
The 15 months ending March 1994 will bring to the Labour party £1,577,000. For the year of 1994–95, it will get £1,331,000.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
Does my hon. Friend realise that those sums are about what an average American Senator receives for his personal staff? Does he really think that it is wholly unreasonable that the party in opposition—whichever party—should have something a little in excess of that?

§ Mr. Garnier
I am sorry if I have confused my hon. Friend. What is at issue is not the principle that the Opposition should have some money to do the job required of a loyal Opposition, but whether the public are getting good value for the huge sums of money distributed to them. The sum of £1,577,000 over 15 months is a Pot of money in anyone's book, whether one is an American senator or a British Member of Parliament.

§ Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)
I must have misheard my hon. Friend, but I thought from the figures that he gave that the Opposition parties were to get a rise of 50 per cent. over last year, which seems rather generous in view of the other settlements in the public sector. Perhaps he can correct me.

§ Mr. Garnier
My hon. Friend may have misheard me. Let me repeat the figures so that he gets them on board. For the year 1992–93, the Labour party received £946,250 in Short money. Under the new proposals, over the 15 months ending March 1994, the figure will be £1,577,344 and, for 1994–95, it will be £1,331,173.
The Labour party is not alone in receiving Short money. The Liberal Democrats, who I am glad to see will be able to speak with one voice tonight as only one member of that party is here, received in 1992 just under £200,000—£199,420. In the 15-month period ending 1994, they will get £326,384 and then on an annualised basis for 1994–95, they will get £275,536.
I am as delighted as anyone that the Opposition parties should now have access to travel funds. However, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether that will enable the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to charge to the public purse his Cobbett's rural rides, or whether that cost will be borne by him personally or by the funds of the Liberal Democrats.

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
Does the hon. Gentleman recall the one occasion on which I spoke to him? He was seeking a pair so that he could attend a court case in the Caribbean. Does he think that it is appropriate for him to preach about value for money when he is not a full-time Member of Parliament, given that he was pursuing another profession during the debates on the Maastricht Bill?

604

§ Mr. Garnier
The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the point that I am trying to make. Value for money is everything. The case that I was hoping to get to, but could not, was not in the Caribbean.
The new proposals under clause 4(b) make it clear that the accounts have to be properly audited by a professional auditor, as has always been the case. That is good, but to what extent must there be detail in the audited reports presented to Parliament and the regulatory parliamentary authorities? Would it be permissible for the Opposition simply to say, "Opposition work" or "Work of the Shadow Cabinet"?

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Or "Work in the courts".

§ Mr. Garnier
Indeed, or in the courts. I believe that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen work in the courts. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is a regular attender at the courts as a barrister when he is not working terribly hard on behalf of the Labour party. Whether the hon. Member who represents the other bit of Brent goes to court, I have no idea, but I will leave him to deal with that himself.
I am concerned that, for example, on page 15 of the House of Commons Library brief, which is available free to all hon. Members without the use of Short money, reference is made to the money provided to the Labour party. The Shadow cabinet received 36.5 per cent. of the Short money going to the Labour party, the parliamentary Labour party staff 33.3 per cent., and the leader 21.2 per cent.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
How much do you earn in the courts?

§ Mr. Garnier
I do not know what Mr. Deputy Speaker earned in the courts last year.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye, he may do so. Mr. Garnier.

§ Mr. Garnier
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am deeply grateful to you.
May I perhaps also, when discussing value for money, ask whether the public realise exactly what the official Opposition do when they seek apparently to oppose Her Majesty's Government. Let us take the example of last night's activities and ask Members of the House whether they appreciate exactly what was going on and whether the public are getting good value for the taxpayers' money. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you will deprecate it as much as I do, that last night, during the course of the various debates—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are principally dealing with a motion about updating of funds. While it is acceptable to make allusions to the scope and purpose, I do not think that we can really go into details of events that are in the past.

§ Mr. Garnier
I modestly claim to be a student of history and there is much to learn from the past when trying to sort out what is best for the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you or the public are aware that the Short-funded Opposition parties, both Labour and Liberals, blocked the doors to the voting Lobby last night. Is that a new definition of the block vote?

605

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Hon. Members must be aware that the Chair is well aware of what happened in all parts of the House, but those matters took place yesterday. We are not here to discuss them this evening.

§ Mr. Garnier
I am concerned that the public at large are not aware of the sums of money that are devoted to the Opposition parties and the way in which the Opposition abuse the money that they are getting by abusing the procedures of the House. If the public knew exactly what the Labour and Liberal parties did with the money and how they spent their time, they would wish us to take a much closer look at the way in which public moneys are spent on them.

§ Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North)
My hon. Friend seemed to be saying a moment ago that the purpose of the Short money was thoughtful research by Opposition parties. Does he agree that not many members of the public would think that the sort of thoughtful research that they might be doing was into how to lock a lavatory from the outside so that the Serjeant at Arms could not get in?

§ Mr. Garnier
I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard what the Deputy Speaker said about yesterday's events and I will not be drawn down that passage—if I might so call it—again. I would ask the House to bear in mind before they pass this resolution, with or without a vote, that the public are entitled—

§ Mrs. Beckett
I was hoping that before the hon. Gentleman left this most interesting discussion, he would deal with another important fact that perhaps he will not find in his free copy of the document from the Library, which is how we get value for money from the costs of the Prime Minister's office, which are now running at £10.7 million a year.

§ Mr. Garnier
As I recall, the right hon. Lady has had to stand in for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on a number of occasions during Prime Minister's Question Time. She has never used that opportunity to ask that question. I should have thought that that question would have been better asked on such an occasion than of me this evening.
I know that a great many Members of the House wish to speak on this most important matter this evening and I will not detain the House for very much longer. Suffice it to say that the public are entitled to expect the Members of the House to consider rather more carefully the way in which money is provided by the taxpayers for the Opposition parties, and to ensure that the money is properly spent and accounted for in a public fashion. Then, at a general election, if the Opposition are right when they say that they give good value for money as an Opposition, the public will have the opportunity to keep them in opposition so that they continue to give good value for money.

§ 9.8 pm

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I had seen the brief before, but, I had never heard the advocate. The brief might have been worth something, but I do not think that the person to whom it was given would get paid a lot for that performance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not even in the Caribbean."] Not anywhere. I do not know whether the electors of Harborough would think that it was great value for money either.
606 I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is not here. He is the relevant usual channel for the Liberal Democrats and the other minority parties. He would be here were it not for the fact that, after the most recent meeting of our parliamentary party, which was extremely abstemious and held in the precincts of this place, he was struck by something like food poisoning and has not been around, apart from voting yesterday. He sends his apologies and I trust that the Leader of the House and the deputy leader of the Labour party will understand.
We are debating these matters now because we did not index-link Short money in 1987. Had we index-linked Short money in the same way as we have now linked other payments concerning Members' pay, we should not have had to return to it today.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who intervened a few minutes ago, clearly was not present for the speech by the Leader of the House. We are discussing the first increase since 1987. It reflects the changes in the size of the Opposition parties. The amount that parties get reflects their size in the House. If the Labour party gets more this time, it is because it has a larger number of Members in the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) seems to have some obsession about Liberal Democrats.

§ Mr. Burns
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not opened my mouth in the past five minutes. It was not me.

§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)
It was me.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) can put down his hand.

§ Mr. Hughes
I shall make no comment about what the hon. Gentleman was doing in the past five minutes, but it sounded as though he had said something.
It has also taken a long time for a settlement to be reached. That is regrettable: it has been a long parliamentary Session since last summer and it has taken until now to agree.
All those who understand democracy in Britain agree that there should be funding for the work of Opposition parties in this place. I should stress to the hon. Member for Harborough and his colleagues that the system was introduced by the Labour party when it was in government, and the Conservative party was the first to benefit from it as the then Opposition. It may not be long before Conservative Members are in need of it again, and they will be grateful that we have passed this motion tonight.
It is far better to have this system than what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) rightly called the chocolate soldiers precedent. The Rowntree Trust helped us out, but that is not the proper way to fund a political system.
It is also a completely different issue from either the state funding of parties or of members. It is so that political parties in this place can have some collective specialist ability to do their job. It does not fund more than a single figure number of staff for my party. There are about seven or eight paid staff and some equipment to serve the whole panoply of Departments for those of us who have parliamentary spokesmanship jobs. I shadow seven or eight Ministers in this place. [Laughter.] That is true, as there are about 100 Ministers. Many of us fund research for 607 that from our own office costs allowance, topped up considerably from our salaries, in my case for every year in 10 years.
The right hon. Lady was right to say that the bill which the Government charge the taxpayer both in terms of the conventional running of the Prime Minister's office, the press officers—hundreds of them for all Departments—the civil service and now the political advisers runs into seven-figure sums. The total figure for the largest Opposition party, at something over £1 million, is a relatively modest contribution.
Let me remind the House and anybody who reads this hereafter that we are debating the measure on the basis of the Government getting millions and millions of pounds of public money when at the last election they got 41.9 per cent. of popular support, with the Labour party getting more than one third or 34 per cent. of the vote and getting only the Short money figure that the hon. Lady enumerated. My colleagues and I had 17.8 per cent. of the vote and will receive about £300,000 for the entire year. Five other parties, which have not yet been mentioned, also benefit from the order—the two nationalist and three Irish parties. They receive funding commensurate with their size and with the votes cast.
The last justification is that increasingly we have a more difficult job to do. European and domestic legislation is more technical. I accept that the Library service does an extremely good job, and I am on record as paying tribute to it. However, at short notice it often cannot respond to demands to provide information necessary to a political party.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who has been helpful, courteous and efficient throughout. His has been a difficult job in defending the interests of the House when there has been such pressure on him from both the Treasury and his colleagues. It is a tight public expenditure round and the settlement is fair. We all owe much to the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope Conservative Members realise it —for providing a settlement which, from now on, will look after hon. Members in their official duties within their parties. It will do so in a fair and reasonable way and without the need to return to the House for a further order.
The postscript is that the travel fund is hardly an enormous sum, given the duty on political parties to keep up with the responsibilities of Government and Parliament.
The country expects us to be well informed and to do our job properly. The motion is reasonable and fair. It is also modest. It will ensure that we do our job better and serve the nation better in the days ahead.

9.16 pm

§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)
I shall not detain the House for long, but there are a couple of points that I wish to raise. I do not want to go into the detail of whether any funding should be given to Opposition parties to pursue their duties. I accept that, to some extent, there may be some requirement for that. However, I do not always understand why. One element of the fund is for research and I accept that there may be some need to find out a little about what is going on—but to what extent? What is the research for? I shall return to that matter in a moment.
Another element of funding is for travel. I wonder what the Opposition parties do when they go to other countries. What do they talk about? There used to be a convention that, when overseas, Opposition Members did not talk 608 about how rotten the Government were. That convention has now been broken. Perhaps we should link to any funding a requirement that Opposition Members are a little more delicate in what they say about this great Government of ours. I think that that would be a fair requirement. I do not benefit too much from overseas travel at the moment, probably for reasons to do with the Maastricht debate. I suspect that I will not benefit for some time.
I want to comment on the transparency of the whole matter. I am concerned about what happens to some of the funding for research, which is a fairly loose word. I accept that if the funding is applied directly to research in matters to do with the House, it is reasonable to provide such funding. However, I am concerned that some of the money might find its way outside the House to party organisations.
My borough, Waltham Forest, is Labour-controlled, and I am greatly opposed to its policies. I should not want some of the funding to find its way to that council. At a recent council meeting, there was a clash about the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act—legislation recently passed by the House. In particular, there were statements of objection that turned into a downright refusal to implement legislation that is on the statute book. One councillor said about the requirement to check whether people are in this country illegally: I'm not going to grass-up people for being illegal immigrants if they choose to live here. It is quite clear from the Asylum Bill, which we passed and in which the Opposition were involved, that this is something they dare not do.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Duncan Smith
I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may be straying from the subject.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I was giving the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. He was going to relate this to Opposition research expenditure, but he has not so far managed to do so. I wait with anticipation.

§ Mr. Duncan Smith
I was going to say that there was a possibility that the outrage in Waltham Forest might have had, at some stage, links with research work carried out here for the Opposition parties to support their ability to say these things. I denounce outright any group that defies the laws on the statute book. I am sure that the Opposition parties will want to do the same.
We should know more about where the money goes. We have a clear insight of things like office costs, but we do not have it here to the same extent; I would like to know more about where the money goes across the board. Transparency is a good thing, and I am keen to see a requirement for a more detailed inventory.

9.21 pm

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition needs lectures from Tory Members of Parliament, about 200 of whom make money moonlighting in the law courts or as directors of as many as five, six or seven companies, and lining their pockets left, right and centre. Some 19 ex-Cabinet Ministers are now directors of 59 different companies. About six of those have moved into private companies, and many of them were Secretaries of State when the relevant legislation went through.
I want to deal with a philosophical argument about the money. It has nothing to do with the way in which the 609 money is spent by my right hon. and hon. Friends; it is about the direction in which it is spent. Some Tory Members of Parliament are trying to suggest that somehow or other we get money in the same way as them. We do not get money from Asil Nadir or Greek fascists—we do not get any of that kind of money. I find it hard to believe that the Tory party is £19 million in debt, although I keep reading about it. I reckon that it has some more money stashed away in Liechtenstein, probably from the same bloke.
When the Short money was introduced in 1978, the Tories were the first recipients. They did not argue the toss about it, but were happy to take the money and run. I know, because I was here; I watched them and listened to them. What worries me is that we have had the money since 1979 and never won an election.
I have always held the view that the money could have been directed in a different way, not that it has been ill spent. That view is contrary to the view of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I said at the time that the money should have gone to the Labour party. I would rather it went to Labour party headquarters to pay for research assistants at national level and the regional Labour party headquarters. In that way, the whole party would benefit.
When the money was introduced, the Liberal party switched funds and switched certain personnel from the Liberal party headquarters down to Parliament in order properly to qualify for the money. I am not saying that the Liberal party was doing anything wrong, but we certainly did not do it. I was a member of the Labour party executive at the time, and my argument has always been that, as the Liberal party had shifted its personnel from its headquarters to work in Parliament, there is a case for the money to be used at that level. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) knows about those discussions and is aware of the arguments that prevailed at that time.
We do not need Government lectures on spending because their own expenditure is enormous. No one can argue that is not the case. Some £10.7 million has been spent on the Prime Minister's office. When sunny Jim Callaghan left, the figure was £1.25 million. I know there has been some inflation, although according to the Tory Government there has been hardly any. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between £1.25 million at the time that Jim Callaghan left No. 10 and the £10 million being spent on the present Prime Minister.
The Government also spend more than £6 million a year on travel all over the world. There are more jaunts today by the Prime Minister and other Ministers—especially if they want to escape answering questions—than at any other time that I can recall. I am not arguing whether such expenditure is right in terms of the money being available —I just wish that money had been spent differently.
I do not imagine that the Short money will win us the next election. I am sure that we will win it anyway. I well understand why the Leader of the House is concerned about the money, because he knows that his party will be the recipient next time. He will probably be able to wear that top hat a lot more when we push through legislation.
I suspect that the special travel allowance is connected with the Common Market. Everyone knows my view that 610 the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. The Government allow Back Benchers to travel to Strasbourg or Brussels once a year, but I will not go there. You will not catch me knocking on Common Market doors. It worries me that there is some connection.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
Yes, there is.

§ Mr. Skinner
The hon. Gentleman should know, because he is always on about proportional representation and the unfairness of the present voting system. Short money is PR in inverse proportion to the number of seats and votes won. There are about 20 Liberal Members of Parliament and every one of them is a parliamentary spokesperson.

§ Mr. Hughes
All except two.

§ Mr. Skinner
That means that 18 out of the 20 Liberal Members of Parliament will receive the travel allowance. Of the Labour party's 270 Members of Parliament, only 85 will receive the allowance—provided that it is not confined to members of the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say who will qualify. I have already established that 18 Liberal Members of Parliament out of 20 will get the money.

§ Mr. Hughes
It is only £15,000 a year.

§ Mr. Skinner
Yes, but they will share that between them as well. The hon. Gentleman has seven jobs. How much Short money will he get?
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman also examines the car allowance. If the leader of the Liberal party has three free cars, the others should share the rest between them.

9.28 pm

§ Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the principle was reasonably well established. That is typical of the insidious comfortable consensus that sometimes emerges from members of both Front Benches. This consensus is a particularly unpleasant 1970s consensus, from a dark age when fundamentals were not addressed. The Opposition parties are perfectly consistent and philosophical. They believe that public money can be spent on anything—that it does not belong to the taxpayer and is at the disposal of the state.
Political parties are voluntary organisations. To the Conservative, it is peculiar in principle that voluntary organisations should use the inquisition-type powers of the state to compel payments to them. It is fundamentally startling and wrong in principle.
Let us take the argument one stage further. Even if it is wrong in principle, what the motion proposes is bizarre.

§ Mr. Winnick
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves what he considers to be matters of principle, will he answer two questions? First, if it is wrong to subsidise, why does he accept a salary? After all, it could be argued that the taxpayer should not subsidise those who freely decide to take a chance on being elected to this place. Secondly, does not his constituency party receive a subsidy at a general election, to which, presumably, the hon. Gentleman does not object? That is taxpayers' money. Why does not he say that he is willing to pay and not the taxpayer?

§ Mr. Evans
The hon. Gentleman's arguments are fundamentally bad in principle. We have never objected to 611 the payment of hon. Members. What is wrong is the payment of informal voluntary organisations by the use of bizarre subsidies.
It is a peculiar anomaly that a nationalised industry—the Post Office—allows candidates to have freepost during elections. All candidates take advantage of that service. It is an old anomaly and it cannot be defended.
Paragraph 1(1)(a) refers to at least two hon. Members of the party who were elected after contesting the previous election as candidates of that party. That led to bizarre consequences in 1981, when members of the Labour party defected to the SDP and a specific resolution had to be passed to deal with that contingency. A special resolution had to be passed for Liberal Democrat Members who had not fought the preceding election as members of that party.
The point of constitutional principle is that, traditionaly, the constitution recognsies individual hon. Members, not political parties. The provisions of the motion are direct shackles on the freedom of hon. Members to leave parties and to form new one. That is not constitutionally right.
The second aspect is even more bizarre: paragraph (b) of the resolution. Plaid Cymru, mercifully for it, has enough Members of Parliament to get over the hurdle in paragraph (a). But under paragraph B, the point of principle is even more bizarre. A party with one Member of Parliament must have had the aggregate of at least 150,000 votes cast in favour of all its candidates. Even if we do not take it as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) put it—about parties where all the candidates say different things—there is a problem in Wales; Plaid Cymru attracted abut 156,000 votes. It got over hurdle (a), so this does not arise, but if it had not. three of those candidates were joint Plaid Cymru-Green candidates. We want to know in Wales whether it is one party—Plaid Cymru—or two parties: Plaid Cymru and the Green party. In fact, 170,000 people voted green at the last election, but they did not elect a single Member of Parliament, so this does not arise.
These are arbitrary and indefensible distinction; that arise because a scheme has to be set up to allot public moneys. We all know that, when it comes to allotting public moneys, principle is soon lost and adverse and unsatisfactory compromises result.
The third feature that is so wrong is what the money is spent on. The Library brief, which has been referred to, shows that little information has been published. It gives us some helpful information that apparently was volunteered by the Liberal and Labour parties. Figures for the most recently available year show that 21.2 per cent. of Labour's expenditure from these moneys went on its leader. We do not know whether that was to provide the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) with a golden palanquin and liveried servants to get to his place in the House. The Labour party does not choose to publish details of such expenditure. If public moneys are to be expended, I would argue that there should be proper public accountability.

§ Ms Armstrong
The hon. gentleman's comments beggar belief. His party publishes nothing about its spending. We know nothing of how the Government are using the money that they receive for the Prime Minister's office or for political advisers to Cabinet members, but that money also comes from the public purse—and in much greater amounts than anything given to the Opposition.

612

§ Mr. Evans
They are payments for the Government and they are fundamentally different in character from payments for political parties. It is a completely different issue.

§ Mr. Duncan Smith
Does my right hon. Friend agree with my previous point, that transparency is all and that the Opposition parties should not be scared of it? Transparency would enable us to ascertain whether they were receiving money from socialist councils such as mine in Waltham Forest, which I decry.

§ Mr. Evans
Transparency and accountability are fundamental in the expenditure of public as opposed to private moneys. The current method is startling.
I have two final objections to the motion. First, this is the wrong time, and we are all familiar with that argument. The second objection is constitutional. It was taken up by the former hon. Member for Tiverton when the issue was first debated. There is no enabling Act of Parliament or proper statute to authorise the payment of moneys under this motion. That has important constitutional consequences.
Resolutions must now, due to the passage of time, be in order, and no one is suggesting otherwise. However, because the payments are made by resolution, they are not justiciable in the courts just as, I imagine, on the same principle, the standard spending assessments and the revenue support grants under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 are not challengeable by way of judicial review. In other words, the House is acting unilaterally and without judicial check in the courts in order to defray public moneys when we do not know in detail what they are being spent on. That is a constitutional abomination, and I shall certainly oppose the motion.

9.37 pm

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
When I came to listen to the debate, I did not expect that I should be speaking in support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and against some of my eccentric colleagues. In my estimation, the entertaining, witty and amusing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) qualifies him for immediate promotion to the Whips Office.
In the late 1970s, we were the first recipients of this largesse, small as it was. We put it to extremely good use: in two years we had returned the Conservative party to power, where it has remained ever since. The fact that the Opposition have perhaps not put it to such good use does not invalidate the concept.
There is a serious issue of which every hon. Member should be aware. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I referred to the money that is available to legislators in the United States and many other countries. We must remember that we are not talking about the funding of political parties. If we were, I would disagree with the right hon. Member for Derby, South because I do not favour public funding of political parties. We seek to increase the level of information and intelligence in the Chamber and to 613 facilitate better debate. One might say that it has not always been terribly productive and that recent occurrences support that notion.
However, I believe that this is an extremely modest provision. It is sensible and fair to give to an Opposition party which has a very real national responsibility a relatively small sum of money to enable it to discharge its responsibility. After all, we are talking about Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. The quality of legislation in this place can be improved only if there is detailed scrutiny by people who know what they are talking about.
In recent years, Parliament has suffered because legislation has not been examined with sufficient scrutiny. There are many reasons for that. The fundamental reason is that in recent years, both Labour and Conservative Governments have broken their election pledges that they would introduce less legislation and not more.
I very much hope that, in two weeks' time, the Queen's Speech will include far less legislation and that we can really get on top of that legislation. No hon. Member, whether he or she be an Opposition Member or a Government Member, can honestly say that he or she honestly understands all the legislation that comes before this place. However, it is of fundamental national importance that the Opposition parties and particularly the official Opposition, should be able to do that.
I am not a critic of the civil service. I believe that this country is exceptionally well served by its civil servants. It is one of the great jewels of our system that we have a civil service that remains with the Government if the governing party changes. Our civil service is of great quality. However, when we consider the resources that the civil service provides for the Government and the meagre, modest resources which the motion provides for the Opposition, we cannot do anything other than support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if we look at the matter fairly and objectively.
I would include just one amendment to the motion. I believe that the money should be a little more widely spread. I should like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be able to go abroad and to visit all the countries of the European Community. [Interruption.] The Opposition Chief Whip may want him to go permanently, but many hon. Members would not really want that to happen. We would love to see the new breadth, enlightenment and vision that would burgeon forth from Bolsover if the hon. Gentleman had a little Short money to take him round the world. I appeal to the Opposition to find some way to send one of the most endearing of all parliamentary characters on his travels.

9.42 pm

§ Mr. Newton
I have followed the debate with considerable interest. However, it is difficult to find points to which I can add a great deal more than what I said earlier. Without upsetting the Opposition, I must tell my Conservative colleagues that I found entirely understandable their concern expressed in the wake of last night's events. On the other hand, it is right to balance those concerns with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), which were the points on which I tried to focus in my opening remarks.
614 I do not accept all the comparisons made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). However, she knows from our discussions that I thought that she made several legitimate points, as did the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am grateful to learn that they think that this settlement, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said is not overwhelmingly generous let alone profligate in comparison with the sums paid before taking account of inflation in the intervening period, is fair and reasonable and provides a base for a continued acceptance of a settlement along these lines.
I shall say very little more. I should reveal to the House that the only reason why I spoke at all was that there was some anxiety about whether the House was prepared for the next business—a task which I occasionally had to encourage others to do in my days as a Government Whip. But it enables me to put on record one point.
I realised during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) that I inadvertently misled the House in my opening speech by a slip of one word. I said, I think, that a party is for this purpose defined as having at least two Members of Parliament and having received at least 150,000 votes at the last general election. As those who study the motion will see, it should have been "or" rather than "and" in the middle of that sentence.
It has not been absolutely clear in the debate, but it should be placed on record as my last remark in the proceedings, that a proportion of the money goes not only to the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, but to the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionist party, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Social and Democratic Labour party on the same formulation as is applied for the main Opposition party and the Liberal Democrats. That should be clear to everybody, and it interrelates with the point that I am making in correcting the inadvertent slip in my opening speech.
With those remarks, I commend the motion to the House.

§ Question put:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 15.

615

Division No. 402]	[9.45 pm
AYES
Allen, Graham	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Amess, David	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Armstrong, Hilary	Harvey, Nick
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Baldry, Tony	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Barnes, Harry	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Llwyd, Elfyn
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Lynne, Ms Liz
Boateng, Paul	Mackinlay, Andrew
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	McLeish, Henry
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Maclennan, Robert
Burns, Simon	Maddock, Mrs Diana
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Malone, Gerald
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Michael, Alun
Chapman, Sydney	Morgan, Rhodri
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Page, Richard
Cormack, Patrick	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Prescott, John
Foster, Don (Bath)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Fraser, John	Rendel, David
Fyfe, Maria	Robertson, George (Hamilton)

615

Roche, Mrs. Barbara	Wallace, James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Waller, Gary
Short, Clare	Walley, Joan
Sims, Roger	Welsh, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis	Wilson, Brian
Soames, Nicholas	Winnick, David
Spellar, John	Wood, Timothy
Steen, Anthony	Worthington, Tony
Strang, Dr. Gavin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Mr. Michael Brown and
Tyler, Paul	Mr. Derek Conway.
NOES
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Spink, Dr Robert
Bates, Michael	Steen, Anthony
Elletson, Harold	Stern, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Thomason, Roy
Gallie, Phil	Trotter, Neville
Garnier, Edward
Heald, Oliver	Tellers for the Noes:
Kilfedder, Sir James	Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith and
Oppenheim, Phillip	Mr. Roger Evans.
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

§ Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or
(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000.

§ (2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any period shall be the aggregate of

(a) the first relevant amount for that period multiplied by the number of seats, won by its candidates at that Election; and
(b) the second relevant amount for that period multiplied by one-two hundredth of the number of votes cast for its candidates at that Election (rounded down to the nearest whole number).

§ (3) For the period beginning with 1st January 1993 and ending with 31st March 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be £4,080; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be £8.16.

§ (4) For the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be the sum of £3,442.50 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be the sum of £6.89 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

§ (5) For any subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April

(a) the first relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

616

§ (8) In consequence of this paragraph, the Resolution of 21st June 1988 shall not have effect with respect to any time after 31st December 1992.

§ 2.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 above, financial assistance towards travelling and associated expenses necessarily incurred by an opposition party's spokesmen in relation to the party's Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 27th April 1992 if at that time one of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 above is satisfied with respect to the party.

§ (4) Any reference in this paragraph to the available amount for a period is a reference

(a) in the case of the period beginning with 27th April 1992 and ending with 31st March 1994, to £100,000;
(b) in the case of the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994, to the sum of £100,000 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and
(c) in the case of each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April, to the available amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

§ (5) Sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of paragraphs I above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.

§ 3. Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;
(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and
(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

§ 4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election

(a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election and
(b) the period beginning with that date,

shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1(1) and (2), 2(1) to (3) and 3 above as separate periods.

§ (2) In relation to any such separate period

(a) the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest penny) of the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for the year in question; and
(b) the available amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest pound) of the available amount for the year in question.

§ (4) In this paragraph "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.

§ 5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: Members' salaries etc. Vote.