Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance) (Hansard, 26 May 1999)

§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

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 April 1999 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.

I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I think that one or two things should be put on record. The motion gives the lie to many wild and unsubstantiated allegations that the Government hold Parliament in contempt. It is we who introduced the scheme for the funding of Opposition parties, and it is we who are extending and modernising that scheme today.

It is some 24 years since my predecessor Edward Short introduced the scheme that now bears his name. He said then that it was to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their parliamentary duties."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1869.] That proposal came when more demands were being made on our politicians and on our parties for greater professionalism than ever before. The concept of the gentleman amateur was being superseded in politics, as elsewhere in life.

In recent years, those demands have been ratcheted up another gear. More pressure is being put on Members of all parties and on the parties themselves, but it is put especially on the parties of Opposition more effectively to match the Government of the day.

In opposition, we argued for the move to provide proper funding for Opposition parties. For the record, I say, perhaps a little gently, to the Conservative party that many in the party resisted the move for some years. However, it has long seemed to Labour Members that the resources made available properly to carry out the role in the House were inadequate for their purpose. It is for that, among other, reasons that, in government, we set up the Neill committee to examine and to recommend on the matter.

The Government are grateful to Lord Neill and to his colleagues for their work and proposals, to which we have given the most careful consideration. One of their proposals in this area—the proposal for a policy development fund, to which all partes will have access—requires further legislation and will have to await such an opportunity, but I make it plain that the Government accept that proposal in principle, and will legislate on it when parliamentary time allows.

428 Basic Opposition funding does not require such a delay. Hence, I lay our proposals before the House in the order that is before us. They do not mirror the Neill proposals in every respect, but they do follow his most important recommendation that overall funding should be increased substantially, perhaps by as much as three times". The motion increases the constituent parts of the existing formula—one which takes account both of votes cast and of seats won—by a factor of 2.7. It reflects the recommendation that there should be, in addition to the increase in basic Short money, a separately identified sum specifically for the office of the Leader of the Opposition, in recognition of the constitutional role played by, and thus the specific demands on, the holder of that post.

Lord Neill's committee recommended a fixed allocation of money for the official Opposition, irrespective of the outcome of an election in seats or votes, but without making a specific recommendation of an alternative formula, or method of calculation. After very careful consideration, the Government remained of the view that the existing formula, well-tried as it is, still provided the best basis for reaching such decisions.

The principal outcome of the Neill committee's work, in that respect, was the proposal substantially to increase funding for Opposition parties' parliamentary work. The Government have thoroughly honoured that recommendation. There is no doubt that the sums of money being provided for Opposition parties exceed, by a substantial amount, anything that has previously been seen. Indeed, I suspect that they exceed what anyone, including Conservative Members, might have expected. However, Labour Members believe that Parliament will be stronger as a result of the measure. I invite the House to accept the proposition.

§ Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

Like the Leader of the House, we are grateful to Lord Neill and to his committee for their deliberations and conclusions. The right hon. Lady moved the motion in a non-confrontational mode; I shall respond in similar mode—I hope as briefly and quickly as she did.

The view of my party on the proposal is that, while the assistance offered is slightly less than what was recommended by the Neill committee and has been slow in arriving, it is all that we are going to get from the Administration. On that basis, I will support the recommendation. It is certainly preferable to the alternative.

The Neill committee concluded that the funds were inadequate for the purpose for which they were originally intended. Therefore, for the past two years, the Opposition have been surviving without the resources to which the Neill committee felt that we were entitled. However, those on the Opposition Front Bench have made bricks without straw. In the past 10 days, the Government have not had everything their own way. I pay tribute to the Back Benchers who are present, who are here presumably out of altruism because there is nothing in the motion for them, but who have been effective in harrying the Government. Of course, all Opposition parties owe a debt of gratitude to the Library, whose professionalism informs so many debates in the Chamber.

It cannot be right, with government becoming ever more complex and with power drifting away from Parliament to the Executive, for Opposition parties to be 429 under-resourced, particularly when, as the Neill committee identifies, the Government have increased substantially, from taxpayers' money, the resources that they receive for their own special advisers.

The Neill committee identifies the figures. The Government spent £3.6 million on special advisers in the first year of the current Parliament; we received under £1 million. That has now risen to £3.9 million. The increase in special advisers happened virtually overnight, whereas the comparable increase in our own special advisers is having to wait two years.

It would be churlish to criticise the Government for what is happening. I think that the House is anxious to make good progress. A healthy democracy depends on a well-briefed, well-resourced Opposition. That is good for government as well. Our democracy will not be quite as healthy as Lord Neill prescribed, but it is a very good start.

Question put and agreed to.