Representation of the People (Amendment) (Hansard, 19 March 1996)

§ Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts; and for related purposes. I am grateful for this opportunity to seek the leave of the House to introduce this measure. Against the background of the great concern that Members of Parliament should act with probity at all times and that the working of the House should be beyond reproach, we have taken a number of decisions to bring about change. However, there is one area which falls beyond the scope of our new regulations on standards and interests and which we need to address. That is the payment of money to individuals seeking election to this place directly to assist them with their careers.

There are occasions when philanthropic or otherwise paternalistic assistance is to be encouraged. Equally, I have no problem with the sponsorship of candidates by trade unions and other bodies, provided that it is properly declared, and a candidate does not sacrifice his or her integrity or right to speak and vote without hindrance. However, what does concern me is a recent practice by which potential candidates are paid money on the basis that they will promote certain views and exercise their influence in this place to further the interests of those who pay them. That is an abuse of the House, and a corruption of the institution of Parliament.

On this occasion, I point the finger of accusation directly at EMILY and those behind that organisation. EMILY is an acronym for "Early Money is Like Yeast"—which makes dough rise—and it involves the payment of money directly to candidates—and for their training and expenses—who support the Labour party and are pro-abortion.

More specifically, Emily's List leaflets state: Applicants for sponsorship must fulfil Labour Party Parliamentary Criteria, support the programme and values of the Party, and be pro-choice in line with the 1992 Labour Party election manifesto". That 1992 manifesto commitment was to increase access to abortion so that it was equally available in every region". This move financially to assist women candidates, we were told by The Scotsman of 4 February 1995, involved payments of £1,000 to candidates, coupled with an additional £650-worth of training. The same article tells us that a number of Opposition women Members, including several who are on the Front Bench, were founding members of the organisation, and it is widely held that tacit support and possibly preferential treatment is given to Emily's List women during the Labour party's candidate selection process.

What concerns me and should concern the House is not that there are those who are willing to assist women Labour party candidates, but that there are those seeking election to the House who believe that it is acceptable effectively to sell their souls in this way to achieve selection, and ultimately election.

Many hon. Members in all parts of the House hold views that differ widely from mine on the issue of abortion and the sanctity of human life at its most 176 vulnerable. I do not share their views, but I have no reason whatever to doubt the honesty and integrity with which they are held. I am sure that many hon. Members who take such a pro-abortion stance will endorse my condemnation of a practice that effectively denies women candidates in the Labour party access to preferential advancement unless they will sacrifice their principles. Surely that cannot be right, and must be stopped. Would we tolerate the Ford Motor Company being able to pay candidates who gave a commitment to vote for the abolition of vehicle excise duty?

Lest there be any doubt that I am other than accurately reporting the position, let me quote from a letter, published in the Brentford, Chiswick and Isleworth Times, from Ann Ward, a committee member of Emily's List: our donors have the right to know how the women they are supporting would vote on the pro-choice issue in the House of Commons". Anyone has the right to ask candidates how they would vote on any subject, and I encourage them to do so, but to pay money to people who give a commitment to vote a certain way is different. In passing, I record in particular my concern that a major retailer such as Tesco has allowed its name to become tarnished by being associated with the sponsorship of events for that organisation.

Furthermore, there can be no suggestion that EMILY is operating without the tacit support and endorsement of the Labour party. The April 1994 edition of EMILY News tells us that all Labour party regional women's committees are invited to send members to the Emily's List UK selection committee, and that other parts of the party are also invited to nominate members, including the parliamentary Labour women's committee and Labour Members of the European Parliament.

The defence to the accusation of "vote purchasing" usually deployed by Emily's List—for example, when challenged on radio by my good friend the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who has done such stalwart work in exposing this hypocrisy, humbug and corruption—is that it cannot hold a member, once selected, to a commitment given in return for cash. What a bizarre defence that is—my contract to corrupt Parliament is no ground for concern, because I find that I cannot necessarily enforce it.

The first report of the Nolan committee on standards in public life, which quoted from the 1947 declaration of the House, observed: It is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituency, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of the House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such an outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament". Paragraph 50 of the same report states that it would be unsatisfactory and possibly a contempt of Parliament if a Member even if not strictly bound by an agreement with a client to pursue a particular interest in Parliament, was to pursue that interest solely or principally because payment, in cash or kind, was being made. All existing Members are honourable. I seek the leave of the House to continue that tradition by amending the Representation of People Acts to require candidates receiving financial support from Emily's List to declare 177 that fact in their election address or on the ballot paper, so that, before deciding how to vote, the public will know that candidates have already sold their soul.