Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties (Hansard, 29 July 1999)

HL Deb 29 July 1999 vol 604 cc1677-84 1677

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may explain the background to this Motion. The House will remember that in November 1996 the House agreed to a resolution providing for a sum of money to be set aside for each of the two main Opposition parties in your Lordships' House. That became known as the "Cranborne money". The Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Blaydon, in its fifth report on the funding of political parties, made recommendations concerned with the Cranborne money, along with a range of other matters which were covered in the Government's White Paper and draft Bill announced by my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn on Tuesday.
The Neill committee recommended that the parties in the Lords should review the Cranborne money scheme with, a view to increasing it". The House will be pleased to hear that the Government accepted that recommendation. The first paragraph of the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper today accordingly provides that the money available under the Cranborne scheme should be doubled with effect from the start of the present financial year.
The remaining paragraphs of the resolution before your Lordships today propose a new scheme under which the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers would, with effect from 1st October this year, have his own fund to assist him in carrying out parliamentary business on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers. This scheme mirrors the Cranborne money scheme and is very much 1678 in the spirit of the report of the Neill committee and the Government's response to it. I am pleased to say that both Opposition parties have wholly supported the proposal that the Convenor should be funded in this way. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in supporting this recognition of the important work of the Cross-Bench Peers.

§ Moved, 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 and to the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers in this House:

(1) The resolution of the House of 27th November 1996 shall have effect as if paragraph (2)(b) provided for £216,842 and £65,052 respectively to be the maximum amounts of financial assistance which may be given for the year beginning with 1st April 1999.
(2) Financial assistance shall be available to assist the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers in carrying out parliamentary business on behalf of the Crossbench Peers.
(3) The maximum amounts of financial assistance which may be given to the Convenor under this resolution shall be—

(a) for the period beginning with 1st October 1999 and ending with 31st March 2000, £10,000;
(b) for the year beginning with 1st April 2000, £20,000, but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 2000 has increased compared with the index for March 1999, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and
(c) for each subsequent year, the maximum amount for the previous year but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

(4) Any claims for financial assistance under this resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and, in claiming such assistance, the Convenor 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 parliamentary business on behalf of the Crossbench Peers; 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 financial assistance was claimed during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.

(5) In this resolution

(a) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index); and
(b) "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words of welcome for this resolution. No Scotsman ever looks a gift-horse in the mouth, but I have to say that we did think that this might come a little sooner. Although we are very grateful for what has been done, we are interested to see that the Treasury has decided that the up-rating in your Lordships' House should be less than that for the House of Commons. I hope that that is not a reflection of its view of the success, or otherwise, of the quality of the opposition to the Government in both Houses. I am sure that it is not. Indeed, we are grateful for what the noble Baroness has done.
During the days when the Cranborne money was introduced. I felt that it was absolutely right that we should recognise the position of the then opposition, who were having to work very hard on a number of very important Bills with very few resources. It is a sensible, new suggestion for the way that the House of Lords conducts its business. It is equally welcome that the Cross-Benchers are recognised and that some of the Cranborne money goes to the Convenor of the Cross-Benches.
I am happy to say that this is a rare occasion for me, as I am responding to the Leader of the House in the absence of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—or, as he was wrongly titled yesterday in the Telegraph "the Earl of Strathclyde". He is not in fact out receiving his earldom; he is actually attending a wedding. I am standing in for him on this rare occasion, and I am happy to agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.

§ Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank
My Lords, I regret that I must delay the further proceedings of the House for some minutes to explain why, from these Benches, we find the resolution thoroughly unsatisfactory and cannot support it. I should like to refer to the course of events which led to this resolution being tabled, to the substance of our objection to it and to the future of the arrangements of financial assistance to parties in the House—as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, the Cranborne money.
Perhaps I may make it clear that we greatly welcome the help for the Cross-Bench Peers; indeed, we would have been willing to support a proposal for a much larger sum if it had been requested. I should also like to make it clear, as I did to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who explained why he could not be present this afternoon, that we have no objection at all to the quantum, the amount, of the support for the Conservative Peers—namely, £216,842—though it might seem odd to outsiders that this money is to be doubled when the number of Conservative Peers is almost to be halved.
1680 Our quarrel is with comparisons. Doubling the original Cranborne money may be a fair deal for the Conservatives, but I have to say that it is a rotten one for these Benches. In that respect, much as I regret having to say so, I must explain to the House that my quarrel is with the Leader of the House. Perhaps I may refer to the correspondence that I have had with the Leader of the House which led to the resolution before us today.
On 17th March of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wrote to the Leader of the House asking for an increase in the Cranborne money. There was a request from the noble Lord for a discussion "at an early opportunity"; indeed, the noble Lord kindly copied his letter to me. On 23rd March I wrote to be Leader of the House referring to the "Strathclyde letter", and making it clear that I would be happy to join in discussions on behalf of these Benches.
On 24th March, the Leader of the House wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, sending a copy to me, stating that she would welcome "a discussion" After a gap of one month, during which time I heard no further news, I wrote to the Leader of the House again and made a proposal for a settlement. In my letter to the noble Baroness, I said that I would welcome an early discussion. Two months later, on 28th June, I received from the Leader of the House what she called "a final response", which offered a wholly unacceptable solution. There had not been any discussion at any stage whatever, despite my requests and my expectations. I believe that to be totally contrary to the normal courtesies and practice of this House. It was an arbitrary decision. It was only when I said that I could not undertake to support any resolution put before the House that I had a meeting with the noble Baroness, to which I shall refer later.
I turn now to the substance of the issue. Here I make comparisons with the treatment of the Conservative Peers. Again, I am concerned with the differential and in no way with the amount. In my letter of 24th April to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House I referred to the principle of proportionality spelt out in the Government's own Lords White Paper, on the record, fully understood by the House and mentioned in our debates in this Chamber on the Bill currently under consideration. I suggested that, if we were to follow that principle, there would be just over 50 per cent for these Benches of what the Conservative Peers receive. The Leader of the House replied saying, no: she was not in a position to agree with this request". However, at last we did have a discussion. The Leader of the House repeated that she was not able to agree with the principle which I proposed: it was a principle that would set aside the arbitrary nature of the decision; and, indeed, the arbitrary nature of the original decision, welcomed though it was in November 1996. I hoped that the noble Baroness would provide an alternative formula by which these matters might be determined in future. There was a discussion about a reasonable compromise of, perhaps, £20,000 more for these Benches. That was less than I had hoped for, but more than she had hitherto suggested. I thought that that was a reasonable prospect, because at this point the 1681 Leader of the House showed some sympathy with the idea that there might be a settlement which we would be able to support.
However, after an interval of a few days, the answer was, no: not a penny more than she had originally proposed. I break no confidences when I say that the noble Baroness said that the Treasury would not agree. I was once a Treasury Minister. It is inconceivable that, at that time, I would have refused a request for £20,000 from a Cabinet Minister; indeed, £20,000 is peanuts, peanuts, peanuts! In my time, I was also a Minister in a spending department. Had I approached the Treasury at that time, it is inconceivable that I would have been refused such a sum of money. I have to say that either the Leader of the House has no clout with her colleagues—and that is not what I have been led to expect—or she did not really try. With the greatest regret, I have to say that it must be one or the other.
On 8th July, I gladly supported from these Benches the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1999. The order provides for an increase in the salaries of Ministers in this House. I supported it because they deserve it. The order also increased the salaries of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip to £55,000 and £51,000 respectively. I did not, and do not, begrudge that money in any way. But allowing for the Cranborne money, the Conservative Party in this House is sustained to the value of well over £300,000, nearer £325,000, by resolution of this House. However, these Benches will have only the £65,000 mentioned in this order. It is disgraceful.
The role of the third party in this House is recognised. I call it the "third party" but the original resolution of 27th November 1996 referred to the "second largest opposition party". That was defined in paragraph 6 of that resolution. The role of the third party—the second opposition party—is fully recognised on all sides of this House. We contribute to all debates and to the scrutiny of legislation. Custom and practice give us a status here as a third party—a second opposition party—that is not given in the Commons. The Companion to the Standing Orders, which we always have beside us, fully acknowledges our role and our historic position. We are being offered in total one-fifth of the financial help available to the Conservative Party, although in terms of service to the House it should be in the region of 65 to 70 per cent, and I put that modestly.
These are my final words. We must be one of the few parliaments in the world where the government of the day have a free hand in determining financial help to the opposition parties; in other words, deciding how much to give to those who will oppose them. I believe that it is time for a change. If this were the only outcome of our discussion this afternoon, and of the representations I have made to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, it would be a substantial gain for all of us. Indeed, if the Leader of the House is able to 1682 indicate that this proposal is attractive to her, it will do something to soften the sense of outrage we otherwise have.
The principle, the proportionality and also the quantum of support for opposition parties should be decided by an independent outside body. It could be the Neill committee, but if, for whatever reason, the Neill committee is not suitable, an ad hoc body should be established without delay. I believe that that is a reasonable proposition which should recommend itself to all reasonable Members of your Lordships' House in whatever party they sit, or whether they sit in any party at all. The present position, like the resolution, is wholly unsatisfactory, and there is a way of changing it.

§ Lord Ampthill
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I shall gloss over the peculiar lack of grace which I consider the noble Lord has shown in responding to the Motion moved by the noble Baroness. Does he also have it in mind that he is complaining about the sums of money which he is receiving in relation to the party for which he speaks, and in relation to the five or six times greater number of Cross-Benchers who are being treated extremely generously at last? I use the word "generously" as there has been nil before this. Is it not rather odd that the noble Lord has made the speech he has just made?

§ Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank
My Lords, if that was an intervention, I am glad to reply. I do not know whether the noble Lord heard what I said initially when I made it absolutely clear that I supported the support for the Cross-Bench Peers. Indeed, I said that I would welcome giving them more if they had asked for more. That stands—and nothing I subsequently said prejudiced that in any other way. I repeat that my argument is with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House who fully understands that. I do not believe that I said anything in bad grace. We have to face these issues head on. If no one else speaks for these Benches, we have to do it ourselves.

§ Lord Weatherill
My Lords, before the noble Baroness the Leader of the House responds, I hope I may say that we on these Benches are not concerned with proportionality. We number 351 at the moment, which is rather larger than the Liberal Democrat Party. Nevertheless, the sum of money which we have been given, £20,000, will enable my successor as the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers to have a secretary to assist him or her, for which we are deeply grateful.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I hope that I may delay your Lordships for half a minute and possibly give the noble Baroness a little time to compose herself after that somewhat acrimonious speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I sometimes find these somewhat intellectual, economic arguments a little difficult to follow. Can the noble Baroness explain what is meant by paragraph (3)(b)? It states, for the year beginning with 1st April 2000, £20,000, but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 2000 has increased compared with the index for March 1999, and 1683 (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and". I am not quite certain as regards the idea of comparing the relative retail prices indices and what the effect will be.

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I say to the noble Earl that I am quite composed. The paragraph he has quoted simply refers to the requirement to index the primary sum agreed—which will be £20,000 from next April—on the basis of inflation. I agree that it is put in somewhat arcane language, but that is how I understand the position. I believe that that is the straightforward explanation. In our positive discussions, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said that he was prepared to accept £10,000 for this year, starting on 1st October, and that the full sum should be taken on the basis of next April's figures.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, as I understand the noble Baroness, that is straightforward indexation and the index relating to 2000 has nothing to do with the index relating to the previous year.

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, that is an important point. Put in those terms, I am not immediately sure that I can give the noble Earl a precise answer. However, I understand the basic principle; namely, that the £10,000 is agreed, and that the £20,000 from next April onwards has the inflation-related point included in it. However, I shall check carefully the point that the noble Earl has made.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for supporting the Motion on behalf of his party. I believe that it represents a relatively good "deal". I shall not, of course, comment on the relative performance of the Opposition in this House or in another place. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for what he said. It is important that we recognise the significant work of the Cross-Bench Peers and the way in which, up until now, they have organised themselves not on an amateur basis, but on a rather unprofessional basis—in terms of lack of professional support. It is important that that is changed.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I am somewhat disappointed with the response of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in describing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, as less than gracious. The noble Lord expressed a general dissatisfaction with the Cranborne money scheme and the way in which the Liberal Democrat Party has been treated.
There was an opportunity for the noble Lord and his party to make such representations before the discussion was held about the arrangements for this present settlement, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, held his hearings and took evidence. I am not aware that any evidence was given by the noble Lord on the matter of the Cranborne money. I understand that oral evidence was given by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and that he gave a personal, written submission. However, as I understand the position, there was no evidence from the 1684 noble Lord or his party which suggested to the Neill committee that the basis for the Cranborne money should be reviewed. That seems to me to have been the appropriate opportunity to make such representations.
The noble Lord expressed concern about the proportion of moneys as between the two opposition parties under the scheme. All I can say to that is that we are where we are. When the Cranborne money was introduced in 1996, a proportion of money was made available to each of the two opposition parties and that proportion has been maintained in the Motion before your Lordships today.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, personally feels hard done by. He expressed concern that he was not properly consulted about the details of the scheme. I am sure that the noble Lord will recollect that, following the meeting that I had with him, I put forward a number of options to try to cover some of his concerns. Although they had not been addressed in the conventional forum of the Neill committee, I approached the Treasury but there was no more money on the table. I believe that it is entirely inappropriate for him to suggest that I gave him any kind of understanding that there may be. I point out to the House that the Cranborne money has been doubled in less than four years.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, how would making representations to the Neill committee have made any difference if there was no more money on the table?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, if the more general principled points concerning proportionality and the particular virtues and work of the Liberal Democratic Party, which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, expressed at some length this afternoon, were such that he thought they should have been represented in the report of the Neill committee, presumably that forum was the appropriate place to make them.

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.