§ Madam SpeakerI have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I seek the co-operation of the House in the hope that hon. Members will exercise voluntary restraint on the length of their speeches so that I may call all hon. Members who seek to be called.
§ Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)I beg to move,
That this House records it concern at the revelation that Asil Nadir and his companies made nine separate donations totalling £440,000 to the Conservative Party, which were undeclared in his company accounts and undeclared by the Conservative Party itself; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to endorse the Charter for Party Political Funding published by the Labour Party, in particular its demand that all political parties should publish fully audited accounts which disclose the source of all large donations and should refuse any donations from individuals who are neither British residents nor British nationals, any donations from foreign Governments or their agents and any donations from foreign companies not registered in Britain; and urges Her Majesty's Government to commence proceedings against any company which has made a political donation without declaration under the Companies Act 1985 and to invite all parties to submit their list of company donors to the Department of Trade and Industry to assist in ensuring compliance with company law.Britain today is a country in turmoil. Its people, perhaps slowly emerging from three long years of recession, feel anxious, beleaguered and insecure in their employment. All too many of them are insecure in the possession of their homes, conscious that there is no such thing as a safe job or a secure profession and increasingly fearful that there are all too few safe streets. The people of our country know that last April they were deceived and their confidence was betrayed by the Government and the party in which they placed their trust. As they gaze with dismay on the failures of the Government, their confidence is further eroded not only by the crass incompetence that they see the Government displaying but by the atmosphere of sleaze and the odour of corruption that they exude.For years, Conservative Governments have listened to no one. For years, they have used the power and patronage of government, at least in part, for party political advantage. This is a Government who have ceased to be able to tell the difference between the country's interests and their own—perhaps they have even ceased to believe that one can be distinguished from the other. For years they steadily placed, honoured and promoted those who saw things in the same narrow compass, until it would appear that there is no one to blow the whistle, no one to see the line of proprieties being crossed and no one to call a halt.
There is a remarkable coincidence between the Government's placement of honours and donations to the Conservative party. The top ten corporate donors—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I should say at the outset that I cannot force right hon. and hon. Members to listen, but what I can enforce is that whoever has the floor during this debate will be heard, and I hope that my cautionary remarks will be taken on board by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
§ Mrs. BeckettSince 1979, the top 10 corporate donors to the Conservative party are as follows. United Biscuits has given more than £1 million and the honours received were one peerage and one knighthood; Hanson, £852,000, two peerages; Taylor Woodrow, £837,362, which is remarkable precision, one peerage and one knighthood. British and Commonwealth gave about £823,000—I shall leave out the odd figures—and received one peerage; P and O gave £727,000 and received one peerage and three knighthoods; Glaxo gave £600,000 and received two knighthoods; Trafalgar House gave £590,000 and received one peerage and one knighthood. There is a remarkable coincidence in the placement of honours and the placement of money—
§ Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton)While the hon. Lady is giving us the figures, will she tell us how much the National and Local Government Officers Association spent on its misleading and grubby advertising campaign at the last general election?
§ Mrs. BeckettThe money that NALGO spent on its election campaign—or in the campaign that it ran at the time—[Interruption ] I am quoting the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton (Mr. Streeter). It was his description, not mine. That money will be found declared in NALGO's accounts, which is more than can be said for many of the donations to the Conservative party.
As I was saying, given the placement of people and the award of honours, there seems to be no one who will tell the Conservative party when to call a halt.
§ Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)Will the right hon. Lady give way?
§ Mrs. BeckettNot for the moment.
How else can we explain the Treasury's extraordinary decision to pay the then Chancellor of the Exchequer's legal fees in a private lawsuit? How else could the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—since promoted to be Secretary of State for the Environment—have thought it uncontroversial to allow a major company to pay to have his grounds improved? How else can we have reached the position where it is so widely believed as to be no longer a matter of much remark that, as the list that I quoted shows, honours given in the name of the Crown are regularly assumed to be purchased by financial contributions to the Conservative party? How else can it ever have been thought—
§ Several hon. Membersrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members should not persist. The right hon. Lady is making it clear that for the moment she is not willing to give way.
§ Mrs. BeckettHow else can it ever have been thought acceptable that the party of government publishes no proper, independently audited accounts, acknowledges that more than half its funds come from sources it is not 177 prepared to reveal and now admits under pressure that a large part of its campaign to secure the election was funded from overseas?
§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)Will the right hon. Lady give way?
§ Mrs. BeckettIs the hon. Gentleman going to tell me where the money came from?
§ Mr. OppenheimI thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. Does the Labour party ever accept money with strings attached—yes or no?
§ Mrs. BeckettNo, certainly not. [Interruption.] I have given the answer.
How else can it be thought acceptable for the party of government to react as it did for months, with complete indifference, to the discovery that it was paid almost £500,000 in a fashion which breached company law by someone now a fugitive from British justice?
In his evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs the other day, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—I am pleased to see him here today because I hope that he will answer the questions that he did not answer in that Committee—said:
I am not in the business of looking for ways round the laws of the country",as, of course,Mr. Nadir did in the donations he made to the Conservative party. However, perhaps I can draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that of the House to a story that appeared in Scotland a year or so ago.James Sneddon, the former director of the Conservative Board of Finance Scotland, who is no doubt well known to Conservative Members, said:
The attraction of the British United Industrialists arrangement"—this is for the payment of donations to an organisation outside the Conservative party—is the exclusion of any disclosure of such a payment as a political donation in the statutory accounts of your company.That is the advice that the gentleman gave to those whom he hoped to seduce into giving money to the Conservative party through that indirect route, a way around the law. It was advice being given by the Conservative party about the way around the law.
§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)Will the right hon. Lady please tell me why a man who took £750,000 of Maxwell pensioners' money without any real work being done in exchange is given the honour of sitting on the Labour Front Bench in another place?
§ Mrs. BeckettThe hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation about the circumstances in which someone was employed. I am not responsible for the employment of someone in a company in which, as I understand it, he did work for which he properly received remuneration. The hon. Gentleman cannot show that the Labour party received money illegally from companies, as we now know that the Conservative party has.
§ Mrs. BeckettIn a moment; I want to say a little more about British United Industrialists. I do not want to leave the point before I have made the matter clear.
Advice was given by the Conservative party that it was a means of companies paying money to the party without 178 shareholders being told. I hear some Conservative Back Benchers saying that the organisation does not exist. I understand that it may have been wound up but, for many years, Conservative Members asserted that donations made in that way were nothing to do with them. Indeed, in a debate in another place not so very long ago—in 1989, I believe—the then treasurer of the Conservative party implied, and may even have stated, that such an organisation was not a means of channelling money into the Conservative party.
§ Mrs. BeckettJust a moment; I am about to give the hon. Gentleman some information that I know he wants.
Despite the denial by the Conservative party in the House of Lords and for many years outside, when talking of indirect means the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said:
British United Industrialists has been mentioned—everyone understands the role of the recipient and realises that a large proportion of the funds paid to it are passed to the Conservative party. There is complete openness and accountability."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 May 1989; c. 7.]Conservative Members may say that that organisation did not exist, but it did, and it was a means of channelling money to the Conservative party.
§ Mrs. BeckettI shall say a little more about breaches of the law rather than about the implications.
Other breaches of the law occur among those who support and give money to the Conservative party.
§ Mr. David Shawrose—
§ Mrs. BeckettThe Financial Times revealed—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has had his intervention. I understand that he will seek to catch my eye later, so he might do one of two things for which I asked earlier: he might at least listen.
§ Mrs. BeckettThe Financial Times revealed that in 1990 a company called Sovereign Leasing made a donation of £100,000 to the Conservative party. It failed to declare the payment in its accounts, thus breaching the law. The donation came to light only because the company was taken over by the Bank of Austria, which presumably had slightly higher standards.
There is also on record a company called Hartley Investment Trust. In the run-up to the 1987 general election that company gave £167,000 to the Conservative party, which was the largest corporate donation to the Conservative party ever recorded—so far, at any rate. That company is breaking the law. It should have filed accounts for the year ending March 1991 by the end of April 1992, and for the year ending March 1992 by the end of April 1993. It has failed to do so. That company is chaired by Alan Lewis, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox)—the chairman of the 1922 Committee and a member of the Conservative party's board of finance—is a non-executive director. So let us hear less from the Conservative party about the people who legally give money to the Labour party and declare their donations.
§ Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)rose—
§ Mrs. BeckettThe background to the way in which the Conservative party receives its money is the reason why we have proposed a charter for political party funding, to apply to all political parties in this country. However the issue may have arisen, we believe that it is right that such a charter should now be introduced, but from the evidence so far it appears singularly unlikely that the Government have either the will or the guts to do that.
The presence on the Government Front Bench of the Secretary of State for Employment is a clear sign of how the Government propose to handle the debate—and on how they have handled the matter from the beginning, when it was first revealed that the Conservative party had taken money illegally, in secret and from overseas. The Conservatives say nothing about the way in which they are funded—
§ Mrs. BeckettAll they do is talk about the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions.
§ Several hon. Membersrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I have to take a point of order.
§ Mr. AshbyThe suggestion has been made, Madam Speaker, that Conservative Members of Parliament have acted illegally. That is a most dreadful slur on Conservative Members, and the fact is—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. A number of Members may not be listening as carefully as I am listening. I have been listening most carefully, and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is talking about the corporate structure of the Conservative party. I ask hon. Members at least to give a hearing to the Front-Bench speakers from both sides. Indeed, I insist that they do so. If hon. Members listened a little more carefully, they might hear a little more clearly what is going on.
§ Mrs. BeckettWe already know how Conservative Members will respond to the debate.
§ Mrs. BeckettNot for a minute.
Conservative Members will respond as they respond to every criticism or concern, no matter how well founded or by whom expressed. First, they bluster that it is an outrage that they should be criticised at all. Then they say that all the comment is misplaced and results from ignorance or malice. Finally, they assert, as they are asserting today, that no matter how flimsy or non-existent the evidence, their critics are not merely as bad as they but far worse, and hence should say nothing at all.
The trouble is that Conservative Members probably believe that. It was said of the inhabitants of the Nixon White House at the time of Watergate that part of their problem was that they had become so out of touch with general expectations about standards of behaviour and what was acceptable in political life that they thought that everyone was behaving in the same way as they were but was just not being honest about it.
My suspicion that that is the attitude of the Conservative party is reinforced by some information that came my way on Sunday courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). At the end of 180 last week, I am told, the companies division of the Department of Trade and Industry sent a request to Companies house for the civil servants there to go through the files of 12 of the late Robert Maxwell's companies to see whether they could unearth any undeclared donations to the Labour party. I hope that that means that we will at least be spared in this debate the dubious proposition advanced by the chairman of the Conservative party that it is no concern of the Government whether or not companies obey company law.
§ Mrs. BeckettI must tell the Secretary of State that I find it a somewhat doubtful manoeuvre that civil servants should be asked to do the Conservative party's dirty work. The Conservatives have every right to seek information from Companies house, but why do they not send along someone from the Conservative party and pay a search fee like everyone else?
§ Mrs. BeckettThe Labour party's position is simple and clear: every year we publish independently audited accounts. They are reported and debated in full at our annual conference.
§ Mrs. BeckettI am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to hear this.
Much of our funding comes, as the world knows, from the trade unions affiliated to our party. Indeed, that is so well known that the Conservative party in government has made repeated attempts over the past 14 years to reduce the funds and remove, if it could and at the very least restrict, the Labour party's access to those funds. In my opinion, that in itself is a rather dangerous use of political power for partisan, party political advantage. That is the kind of thing at which we raise our eyebrows when it happens in third world countries.
Our relationship with the trade unions is known, public and voluntary. It is governed by the Labour party's rules and constitution and by those of the affiliated trade unions. It is also rigidly controlled by law and supervised by a special officer of the courts. There is no question of a casual disregard for trade union law as there evidently is for company law.
§ Mr. Clappisonrose—
§ Mrs. BeckettSix million trade unionists voluntarily pay political levies and 4.5 million of them belong to unions affiliated and contributing to the Labour party. Incidentally, they are British—
§ Mr. RiddickWill the right hon. Lady give way now?
§ Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West)Give way.
§ Mrs. BeckettNo, I have not finished—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. It is pretty obvious, even to someone as thick-skinned as me, that the right hon. Lady is not giving way. Therefore, hon. Members should not persist when that is made clear.
§ Mrs. BeckettThose trade unionists live here and vote here and their interests are bound up with the future and well-being of Britain. They have no other axe to grind and no other interests to serve.
As it happens, the income that we receive from the trade unions is today a declining share of the Labour party's income. Taking the position overall, in 1991 they contributed just over 50 per cent. of the Labour party's income. By a remarkable, although unfortunate coincidence, more than 50 per cent. of the income of the Conservative party in election year came from undeclared sources.
The trade unions contributed just over £7 million to our general election campaign" 68 per cent. of those funds. The Conservative party apparently received £7 milli on in overseas donations alone for its election campaign—that is the heart of the matter. I say "apparently" because, although the former director of the Conservative party's board of finance, Major-General Wyldbore-Smith, has admitted as much, and its former treasurer, Lord McAlpine, has said on the record that money was paid to the Conservative party through "tons" of offshore and overseas accounts, none of this information is properly in the public domain.
The British public had no idea, when they cast their votes just over a year ago, that the money for all the seductive and untruthful advertisements attacking the Labour party came, in secret, from outside these islands.
§ Mr. RichardsThe Labour party's accounts for 1991 show an entry of £228,000 accredited to high-value donor activity. Would the right hon. lady tell us who the donors were and how much each paid?
§ Mrs. BeckettThe hon. Gentleman can find that information, as he said, in the Labour party's published accounts for 1991. That is the sum total of high-value donations that the Labour party received; it is half of what the Conservative party received from one man alone.
The hon. Gentleman should take on board the fact that we are not going to accept the total double standards of the Conservative party in this matter. Almost every penny of the money that the Labour party receives is identified by organisation—because most of it comes from organisations and fund raising. We do not give the name of every pensioner who sends us a tenner, or the name of the school caretaker who writes to me every month and donates the tiny sums that he raises for the Labour party. If the Conservative party tells us who pays even half of the funds it receives, we will certainly publish the names of our contributors.
It is because of all this that we have proposed and published a charter for party political funding. One of our main proposals is that every political party should publish properly audited accounts, refuse donations from people who are neither British residents nor British nationals, and decline ever to take money from foreign Governments or their agents.
I understand that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the Conservative party has a rule that it does not take money from foreign Governments, despite the many, many rumours to the contrary. It is not clear to me, however, from the reports that I have received of the right hon. Gentleman's evidence when exactly that rule came into force.
§ Mr. RiddickWill the right hon. Lady give way?
§ Hon. MembersName him.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I understand that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye later in the debate. He ought to contain himself for the moment because it seems to me that the right hon. Lady is not prepared to give way to him.
§ Mrs. BeckettIt is not clear to me when exactly that rule came into force.
§ Mrs. BeckettI am happy to give way to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make a clear statement on this matter.
§ Sir Norman Fowlerrose—
§ Mrs. BeckettI shall give way in just a second.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's evidence to the Select Committee was that such a rule now exists. It is not clear to me that he said clearly to the Select Committee when it came into force. Will he tell us, now, when it came into force?
§ Sir Norman FowlerIt has always existed; it exists now and has always existed. Will the right hon. Lady, now that she has raised this question, dissociate herself from the comments that she made this morning about this totally unsubstantiated story about the Saudi Arabian royal family? She has slurred that family. Will she now withdraw her comments?
§ Mrs. BeckettMadam Speaker—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Lady is at the Dispatch Box. I want to hear what she has to say—whether the House wants to or not.
§ Mrs. BeckettThe right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield should re-read his copy of The Guardian. I see no cause for, and I do not have the slightest intention of, withdrawing what I said. What I said was clear and specific.
Serious allegations have been made—not by me—that the Conservative party took money from agents on behalf of foreign potentates. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, other allegations have been made that the Conservative party took money from agents of foreign Governments. Those allegations are important and serious and should be discussed. I said that they should be denied if they were untrue. The right hon. Gentleman has denied them, so what is he complaining about?
§ Sir Norman FowlerDoes the right hon. Lady accept that the allegations made in The Guardian this morning are totally untrue and that her comments, like much of her speech so far, are simply rumourmongering on her part?
§ Mrs. BeckettThere has conspicuously been no answer to other questions put to the right hon. Gentleman by people such as John Latsis and others, and I shall come to that in a moment. The reason why the rumours exist and the stories are—[Interruption.] I will not withdraw.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.
§ Mrs. BeckettThe reason why the allegations have been made goes to the heart of the debate. The Conservative party will not tell the people of the United Kingdom where it got the money. When Conservative Members tell us that, there will be no need, no cause and, presumably, no further rumours.
Before the last general election, when the Prime Minister was, as he puts it, "batting for Britain" on a two-day visit to Hong Kong at the expense of the British taxpayer, he devoted a large chunk of his time to batting for the Conservative party, attending a dinner at which large sums were raised for his election campaign. One of those said to have been present is Li Ka-Shing, who is a close associate of the Chinese Government. Many of those said to have been present are reported to have contributed substantially to Tory party funds on that occasion and others. That must, self evidently, have been at least without the disapproval of the Chinese Government and it has been alleged that it was at least partly with money to which they gave their consent. [Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The Box is not the responsibility of the House.
§ Mrs. BeckettMy hon. Friends are concerned that information has been passed from the Box on what they regard as a party political matter.
It has been said that one of those present is a large contributor to Conservative party funds. I find it a rich irony that money was given to the Conservative party certainly without the disapproval of the Chinese Government.
The Labour party has frequently been accused without there being the slightest word of truth in it. I hear Conservative Back Benchers making such comments today, although I notice that they do not have the guts to stand up and say it. The Labour party has often been accused of benefiting from what used to be called Moscow gold.
§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)The right hon. Lady said that she wanted to come clean about trade union contributions to the Labour party. Would she kindly tell the House about the massive contributions that the trade unions make to marginal constituencies in which trade union officials work full time during election campaigns? How much did that cost and is it fully declared?
§ Mrs. BeckettThe problems of Conservative Members are, first, that they assume, as I said earlier, that what they are doing must be what everyone else is doing and, secondly, that they do not understand how the structure of the Labour party works—[Interruption.] There are strict rules about how much funding and support can be given by trade unionists to any constituency and any constituency party.
§ Mrs. BeckettNo. I am in the middle of a passage. As I was saying, the suggestion that the Labour party receives money from overseas has always been described in thrilling accents as Moscow gold. The notion that Chinese communists give consent to funding of the Tory election campaign would be hilarious if it were not serious.
Of course, the Prime Minister's much reported visit to Hong Kong is not an isolated example. My hon. Friend 184 the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) obtained through parliamentary questions—[Interruption.]—therefore, the information was extracted with difficulty from the Government—has shown that between 1988 and 1991 there were no fewer than 35 ministerial visits at taxpayers' expense to Hong Kong, of which 16 certainly involved party political activity by the Ministers in question, and a further three probably did.
§ Mrs. BeckettNo.
Apart from the Prime Minister's visit and the money that was raised from Hong Kong, other allegations have repeatedly been made about a variety of donations, some suggest from Dubai and others suggest from Saudi Arabia and so on.
But I say again that the heart of the matter is that such allegations are made and they can be made because of the secrecy that surrounds the source of the Tory party's funds. In election year it spent £26 million.
§ Mr. ClappisonWill the right hon. Lady give way on that point?
§ Mrs. BeckettI notice that Conservative Members always rise to their feet bellowing when we mention the word "secrecy". I wonder why.
§ Mr. Clappisonrose—
§ Madam SpeakerI ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. He has risen about a dozen times. If the right hon. Lady does not wish to give way, he must resume his seat. Does the right hon. Lady wish to give way? No.
§ Mrs. BeckettAs I was saying—I am anxious for the House to hear it—in election year the Conservative party spent £26 million. Of that, £15 million was from sources unknown. The Government's case is that none of this matters because those who give such large sums secretly to the Tory party do so without reward or even the expectation of reward, out of the sheer kindness of their hearts.
It must be a touching scene. Picture, for example, the famous meal in Hong Kong or the lunch held in Downing street just before the election. The talk turns to the shocking state of Britain. So poor, it cannot fund the Conservative party to run a decent election campaign. I wonder whether the Prime Minister allowed a small, brave, manly sob to cross his lips; a friendly arm round his shoulders, "My dear boy, don't say another word. What is a million pounds here or there to me?"
There is no doubt that Conservative Members will have to eat all those harsh words that they have said over the years about do-gooders. There they are exposed in the ranks of their own friends doing good for the sake of it and, in classic fashion, doing it by stealth.
What is truly remarkable about the Government's version of events is that it is the overseas contributors in particular who understand that they will receive no reward except in heaven for their noble gesture. That is remarkable because we know that it has not always been so clearly understood by some nearer to home, who should in theory be more familiar with the way in which these things work.
185 Lord King is often described as the ultimate insider. He is the man who successfully persuaded the Government to privatise British Airways, from which he, it would be fair to say, has profited enormously. One would think that he must have understood the delicacy of the relationship between donations to Tory party funds and political decision making. But after all those years of close association, he understood so little that he actually withdrew funding a year or so ago, linking that withdrawal explicitly and publicly to a disagreement over Government policy as it affected British Airways.
Indeed, one almost gets the impression from a report in The Guardian on Monday of a reported conversation between the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev that the Prime Minister forgot for a sheer microsecond, because he is said to have mentioned to Mr. Gorbachev that he was raising the matter because he had promised Lord King that he would. even though British Airways did not give money to the Tory party any more. Of course, as the Prime Minister and his colleagues have explained, that has no relevance as it does not make any difference whether or not money is given to the Tory party.
§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)The right hon. Lady will recall the explosive issue of routes to Tokyo and slots at Heathrow, when British Airways did not get what it wanted despite the money it paid to the Tory party—[Interruption]—which surely proves that one cannot buy influence. Does she agree that that proves that influence cannot be bought from the Tory party?
§ Mrs. BeckettI did not hear—[interruption]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The House must come to order.
§ Mrs. BeckettI am not sure that I heard the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but what I heard of his remarks was well worth hearing.
The Prime Minister said last week that companies donated money to the Tory party because British business
believes that our policies are right for British business, the British future and British jobs"—[Official Report, 17 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 990.]Again, those who might be expected to be aware that that was the only reason for giving money to the Conservative party do not always seem to realise it.During the Guinness dispute with Distillers, Ernest Saunders got quite the wrong end of the stick. As he said on television:
One of them, a very senior figure … said he noticed we did not contribute to the Conservative Party and when were we going to … I think there were three occasions during the period … when it … came up, not in any way as a threat. But it came up sufficiently for me to realise that if we were going to go on rolling, I would have to put this matter to the board and our policy would have to be re-thought.The interviewer asked Mr. Saunders what he thought the comment had meant and he replied—[interruption] I am sure that Conservative Members want to hear the reply, which was:I took it … to indicate that if one was going to need political access at the highest level, and political support, then an ongoing … relationship which involved contributions, would have to be part of the agenda.We now know that he was just being reminded of the wonderful opportunities for charitable giving. It all makes a truly amazing story, some might even say an incredible one. Of course, that is just what it is—incredible, literally beyond belief. It is no longer tolerable that the party of 186 government should take such large sums of money secretly and refuse to reveal to the British people whence they come.
§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)Is it not significant that the two cases where the evidence is at its clearest—Sovereign Leasing and Asil Nadir—came about through extraneous circumstances, that is, the receivership and the take-over of the company? So is it not likely that there are bodies buried all over the place? Surely it is right in a democracy that the governing party should come clean and show us where those bodies are.
§ Mrs. BeckettMy hon. Friend is entirely correct in his observation that most of the matters of which we know have emerged only incidentally and the Conservative party has not revealed the source of the money.
What is infinitely more serious than the award of honours—itself a minor scandal to which I have referred—is the influence that such secret donations buy on the policy of the British Goverment. In 1990 and in 1991, when debating the Finance Bill, we raised the issue of the generous tax treatment of offshore trusts. We said that the costs to the British taxpayers of such measures were estimated to be between £1 billion and £2 billion, and sought to persuade the Government to make a change of policy. First, the Government poured scorn on the figures. They then refused to make a change. Finally, they claimed in 1991 to have completely resolved the matter. That case was not accepted by independent commentators and accountants.
I wonder whether it would have been so readily accepted by the British press if it had known that it was through such trusts and accounts that money, which at the time the Tories desperately needed, was being channelled into Tory party funds from overseas. Similarly, the tax treatment of investors not domiciled in Britain makes this country, together with countries such as Luxembourg and Switzerland, one of the most generous in the world to the seriously rich.
Ministers boast of Britain being a tax haven. This year's Finance Bill further loosened the law on tax avoidance for those with available accommodation in the United Kingdom who may not now need to be taxed as residents. Meanwhile, the Government's utterly incompetent management of our economy has left us in debt up to our ears, and Ministers are attacking the unemployed, those with disabilities and pensioners. Those who give the Conservative party money are benefiting at the expense of those who have only votes to give.
Other questions about the effects of the process on Government policy are bound to arise. Why do we not ban tobacco advertising, as all medical advice suggests that we should? Is it because of the money that tobacco companies give to the Tory party—and at what cost to the British taxpayer through the health service? Why does the British taxpayer pay for an army training facility in Dubai when swingeing cuts are being made in defence expenditure? Is it, as has been alleged, as a quid pro quo because the Sultan of Dubai donates to Tory party funds?
§ Mrs. BeckettYes, it is sleaze.
Why have the Government so singularly failed to police the Companies Acts? Even more outrageous, why does the Tory party advise companies on how to get round the 187 existing legislative curbs and make donations to the Tory party by the back door so that their shareholders are kept in ignorance of what is being done? We know that it has recently done so.
The policies of Britain's Government should be decided by what is in the interests of the people of Britain and should never be subjugated to what is in the interests of the Tory party. If that is not happening, what do the Government have to hide? Why do they not publish full accounts? Why do they not adopt our charter proposals, which are simple and straightforward? I think that Conservative Members have forgotten that this is not the first time that the Government have had the opportunity to clean up their act.
In January 1989 the House of Lords carried an amendment to put the treatment of donations by companies on much the same footing as the treatment of donations by trade unions to the Labour party. That amendment was rejected in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield—who has made a lot of noise today, but all from a sedentary position—was the man who moved to reject the amendment. He said that the issue would have to be placed on an annual general meeting agenda, would be a nuisance and shareholders could get rid of directors if they chose. He said in Committee:
That is why I believe that it would be wrong in principle to clutter the agenda of annual general meetings in this way"—[Official Report, Standing Committee, 16 May 1989; c. 8.]What an important consideration—a major and terribly worrying matter—that it would be wrong in principle for shareholders to be bothered with the little matter of whether their company gives hundreds of thousands of pounds of their money to the Conservative party, with or without their knowledge!The suspicion unquestionably exists that, if the Conservative party will not reveal from where it obtains more than 50 per cent. of its money—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Labour party does not."] We reveal from where we obtain almost every single penny that we receive. More than 50 per cent. is undeclared, secret, large parts of it from overseas. If the Conservative party refuses to make that declaration, the suspicion must arise that the damage that would be done to the Conservative party by the British people finding out from where it obtains its money is even worse than the damage that is being done today by secrecy.
The call for reform comes not only from the Government's political opponents, but from within the ranks of the Conservative party itself. The Conservative party's organisation, the Charter Movement, says:
The Conservative party should not be financed from abroad. It should not be financed by or on behalf of foreign governments. It should not be financed by those who have no vote in United Kingdom elections. It should not be financed in a furtive way.Those are the words of the constituents and members of the Conservative party and they would be ashamed if they saw the way in which their representatives are behaving in the House of Commons today.Lord McAlpine said on British television the other evening that he did not know that Asil Nadir was, as he put it, a crook. But if his donations had been publicly 188 declared from the beginning, it is highly probable that word would have got back about the questions being asked.
There is in all this a terrible danger for the health and well-being of democracy in Britain, a danger of which Conservative Members have no inkling or understanding. If the British people come to believe that the very processes of democracy are being insidiously suborned, to their existing disillusion with the blatant casual betrayal of all the promises that the Government made them at the election might be added that deep corrosive cynicism that, wherever it is found, saps public confidence in democracy and creates profound public unease.
This is a shabby Government, a deceitful Government, a Government unworthy of the trust that the British people placed in them last year. Their weaknesses and deceits permeate and disfigure the very fabric of British life. It is time that they went.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not it an ancient tradition in the House and in the country that the civil service is non-political and apolitical? During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), eight civil servants sitting in the Box have been passing notes to the Minister on political points. Is not that an example of the stinking corruption of the Government and do not you, Madam Speaker, have the power to remove civil servants who are being tainted by such an example?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give credibility to what he has just said. We must bear in mind the fact that those to whom he refers cannot answer for themselves.
§ Mr. HughesFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand perfectly that those who serve the Government cannot answer for themselves. That is all the more reason why they themselves should make it clear that they are not associated with the Government's political fortunes. If you, Madam Speaker, have no power to remove them and if the Government do not have the decency to remove those civil servants from temptation, might not it be better if the civil servants took their own action to protect their own order?
§ Madam SpeakerThat is not a matter for me.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt)I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'believes that the principle of voluntary funding underpins the strength of democratic political parties in this country; records its concern at the purchase by trade unions of votes in the election of the Labour Party leadership, the selection of candidates and of votes on policy at Labour's Party Conference sufficient to secure binding commitments; and calls upon the Labour Party to end the control over its policy, organisation and leadership wielded by a small number of trade union leaders.'.I have been in this House for about 17 years, but I do not believe that I have ever heard such a shabby, irresponsible, miserable speech. What a waste of an Opposition day this is. Gone suddenly are the demands by the right hon. Lady for debates on public expenditure, Bosnia and unemployment. It is amazing what a little good news will do. The right hon. Lady calls herself the deputy Leader of the Labour party. I believe that she will grow to 189 be quite ashamed of her speech, which was riddled with rumour, innuendo and smear. She referred to an atmosphere of sleaze. The only atmosphere of sleaze that exists after her speech is to be found among Opposition Members.Why are we debating political funding today? I know the answer. From the depths of Walworth road has come some rather bad news. The general election defeat has left the Labour party with the most serious financial crisis in its history. I hear someone say that that is not true. I have here the report of the national executive committee of the Labour party, which says:
The general election defeat has left the Labour party with probably the most serious financial crisis in its history.Now we know why we are having this debate. The Labour party wants to get its paws on the public purse. It wants the taxpayer to bail out its sinking ship. Enough of the pretence. That is really what this debate is all about. It is about the Labour party's desire to have state funding of political parties. But the confidence trick is exposed for what it really is—just a ruse by that party to get its hands on taxpayers' money. That is the party's secret agenda.The saddest aspect of this debate so far is the willingness of the main Opposition party to strike at the heart of our political system and our democracy. They are trying, by a series of slurs and innuendos, to bring our democracy into disrepute. In recent years they have not only opposed the Conservative Government but sought to undermine the very foundations of our political system. In doing so, they destroy their own credibility. They now attack everything. They do not have policies any more; they just manufacture political smears.
Let me give some examples. Despite the words of the Lord President at Prime Minister's Question Time today, the right hon. Lady maintained the allegation contained in The Guardian of this morning, which is now being exposed as a slur. The allegation has been shown to be completely without foundation. A statement issued earlier today, which was referred to by the Lord President, made it clear not only that no such meeting as had been alleged took place but that neither Prince Bandar Bin Sultan nor anyone connected with the Saudi Arabian Government has made donations to the Conservative party, directly or indirectly, or has been asked for such donations. Why, then, did not the right hon. Lady withdraw that disgraceful imputation?
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)Will the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)Will the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. HuntI will give way later.
In her speech, the right hon. Lady sought not only to uphold the credibility of that baseless allegation, but to raise a number of other unsubstantiated allegations. I believe that Labour Members will fail in their attempt, because the integrity of our system shines through all that they say.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWill the Secretary of State give way?
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat; the Secretary of State is not giving way now.
§ Mr. HuntLike so many good things in this country, that integrity is recognised everywhere else in the world, but not on the Opposition Benches.
§ Several hon. Membersrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members know very well that, if the Secretary of State will not give way, they must resume their seats in good time. Hon. Members must be patient.
§ Mr. HuntI am proud to be part of a British political system that has stood the test of time throughout the ages, despite the Labour party's attempts to undermine it.
§ Mr. Tony BanksWill the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton)Will the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. HuntJust one moment.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Derby, South made a very serious error of judgment when she attacked the honours system.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWill the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. HuntOne moment.
The Labour party alleges that, in this country, money can buy honours and favours. That may have been so some years ago, but it is not true today. In fact, on 4 March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a series of measures to improve the system, including making the means of nomination for honours much more open and widely known. What is not sufficiently well known is the rigorous scrutiny that is conducted to maintain the integrity of the system.
§ Mr. Bryan DaviesWill the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)Will the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. HuntJust one moment. Let me finish what I wish to say about the honours system.
Our honours system gives the nation an opportunity to recognise the enormous contribution that so many people make to our way of life. The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for many years. That whole system is subject to a series of safeguards, which I will explain to the House.
Scrutiny is carried out independently and impartially. If the right hon. Member for Derby, South or any of her chums doubt that, let them come out and say so. Let me explain how the system works. All recommendations for policital honours are examined carefully by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, which is composed of distinguished Privy Councillors; all three major parties are represented. Its members are Lord Pym, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Thomson of Montifieth. It is no accident that two former Labour Cabinet Ministers are among their number—although one has now joined the Liberal Democrats.
When the leader of any party nominates any individual for a political honour—[Interruption.] I shall come to the other honours in a moment. It is important that I put the record straight, in view of the right hon. Lady's disgraceful attack on the system.
In those circumstances, it is the duty of the Chief Whip of any party to provide the Scrutiny Committee with a 191 statement detailing any payments—or expectation of payment—given to any party by any individual concerned, directly or indirectly, with such payments. In addition, the Chief Whip must provide an assurance that those donations were made without expectations of an honour. All other names—apart from those receiving political honours—come forward through a system of repeated scrutiny, on which political interests are not represented.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWill the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. HuntJust one moment.
My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) extended the system so that all names added by the Prime Minister for senior honours should also be scrutinised, in the same way as political honours.
§ Mr. Tony BanksWill the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. HuntJust one moment.
That system is founded on a combination of non-partisanship and inter-party consensus. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition and his Front Bench that any attempt to undermine it will have profound constitutional consequences.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) gave the House an absolute undertaking that the Conservative party had not received any moneys from the Saudi authorities—the Saudi Government. Will the Secretary of State now answer a question? Has any Saudi-sponsored agency, any Saudi-based business man or any Saudi national arranged to lend, lent or given large sums to the Conservative party—or any Conservative party funding organisation—in the past three years?
§ Mr. HuntI am not aware of any such circumstances. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I consider it disgraceful for Opposition Members to throw out accusations in this way without naming the individuals concerned.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursAnswer.