Political Parties: Funding (Hansard, 30 July 1984)

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)
My Lords, it would not, in the Government's view, be either practicable or necessary to require that the views of all members of a union, or all shareholders, must be established whenever a trade union or company proposes to make a contribution to the funds of a political party.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply, but is it not objectionable in principle that deductions should be made from an individual's pay, handed over to a trade union and then given to a single political party, unless the individual concerned has first indicated positively to his employer that that is his wish? Also, why should shareholders have to tolerate any part of money they have invested in a company for the development of that company being given to a particular political party, again without their express consent?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, an individual trade unionist can contract out of the political levy and the present Trade Union Bill contains provisions for a decennial ballot of a union's membership on whether or not the union should retain its political fund. Company shareholders, for their part, have freedom of choice in their investment and they can make their views known by the choice of the companies in which they invest.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, in the light of the noble Viscount's first reply—I may have misheard him—would he confirm that it is a legal requirement that members of a trade union must be consulted in a nation-wide ballot if they wish to start a political fund? That does not apply in any way to company shareholders. Is this not, again, an argument for taking another look at the Houghton Committee's proposals on state aid to political parties?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, I have stated as I think the noble Lord will appreciate, the position so far as trade union members are concerned perfectly plainly and I have done the same so far as company shareholders are concerned. In my past incarnation in another place, I have had frequent discussions on state aid to political parties and I can only say to the noble Lord that those proposals, too, cause considerable difficulties and considerable problems.

§ Lord Aylestone
My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government omitted to include "contracting-in" in the Trade Union Act, which was given Royal Assent last week, would the noble Viscount, on behalf of the 531 Government of which he is a distinguished member, give an assurance that this will be included in the next edition of trade union legislation?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, whether or not I am a distinguished member of this Government, I do not think I can give any such assurance in respect of any Government as to any trade union Bill in the future.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, as regards freedom of choice, is it not the case that a trade union member can contract out but a person who is indirectly a company shareholder, through benefiting from a pension fund, has no means of control over the matter whatsoever? Is not this a matter which ought to be looked into, having regard to the vast sums of money which are now being invested all over the country, without any effective control by people, in pension funds, investments in unit trusts and so on?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, everything the noble Lord has just said has made me even surer that the difference between a trade union member and a shareholder in a company is very great indeed.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that under the law as it stands there is a great contradiction in that a member of a trade union could be paying a political levy from choice, yet could be employed by a company that was formerly nationalised and is now privatised and he may have to pay donations to the Conservative Party not from choice? Therefore, under present legislation he could be paying to the two main parties: one from choice and the other not from choice.

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, he could do that no doubt; but of course you have to take into account the fact that he might be paying through his taxes for state aid to parties when he did not want to pay anything to any of them at all.

§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, the difference between a trade unionist and a company shareholder may be very great, but are they not both equally entitled to object to their money being used, without their consent, for purposes of which they disapprove?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, yes they are; and both are able to do so.

§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, could the noble Viscount say under what statute or other document that protection applies to company shareholders?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, the answer is that they can go to the annual general meetings of their companies and get up a complaint if they wish.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, if I may say this respectfully to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House: will he understand that, as with our present unfair electoral system, so with the funding of the political parties, the inequity that is inherent in the 532 present arrangements means that sooner or later those arrangements will have to be altered?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, I can understand, naturally, what the noble Lord says, but I do not happen to agree with it; nor do I believe that it will prove to be correct in the long run.