Conclusion
28. Despite their declining attraction as membership
organizations, political parties perform a vital function in our
representative democracy. It is through them that many political
aspirations are channelled and different streams of opinion are
articulated and refined into a manageable set of propositions
to be put before the electorate. They also play a central role
in the arrangements for conducting business within Parliament.
29. To undertake these functions, parties require
resources, resources which—to the extent that they are not
provided from the public purse—have to be raised privately.
The resources of all political parties in the United Kingdom are
under pressure. The review of the funding of political parties
conducted by Sir Hayden Philips[14]
provides an opportunity to address afresh the question how parties
can best be funded.
30. So long as parties continue to be funded privately
to any significant extent, there will be a need to view their
fundraising activities with realism. Some may find objectionable
the very notion of offering privileged or special access to a
Party's Leader to those who donate generously to that party. However,
access to senior figures and the potential opportunity it presents
to influence party policy is one of the few incentives parties
can offer to encourage sympathisers to turn into financially active
supporters. From the public interest point of view, what is important
is that the sources from which donations come are properly regulated
and made transparent. It is that which the statutory system of
regulation administered by the Electoral Commission (and supplemented
by the House's own rules on the registration of donations to and
sponsorship of Members) is intended to achieve.
31. I mention these points because it is, I think,
important to see Mr Baker's complaint about Mr Cameron in its
wider context. It is also important to understand that the issue
raised by the complaint is not the fundraising methods employed
by the Conservative Party (and matched one way or another by every
other political party) but the narrower issue of Mr Cameron's
use of the offices made available to him from public resources
on the Parliamentary estate in connection with his fundraising
activity on behalf of the party he leads.
32. Political parties are, as I have noted, a vital
ingredient in the life of Parliament. The boundary between what
is Parliamentary and what is party activity is not always a clear
one. It is, however, a boundary which it is important to try to
'delineate' and preserve if public confidence in the way Parliament
functions as guardian of the national, rather than a narrow party
interest, is to be maintained. It is my contention that the use
of parliamentary facilities for or in connection with party fundraising
falls conclusively on the side of party activity.
33. The lack of a specific rule saying that Members'
offices, provided at public expense for Parliamentary purposes,
cannot be used for party political fundraising needs to be seen
in the context of the overarching principle that offices and facilities
on the Parliamentary estate are provided to enable Members to
carry out their Parliamentary duties, that is, to facilitate the
discharge by them of the duties and functions of the office of
Member of Parliament. This principle is, I submit, clear, and
is reflected in the various rules relating to the provision of
allowances and facilities other than offices to Members which
I have set out in paragraphs 10 to 12 above. These rules also
reflect the corollary of that principle, viz. that the allowances
and facilities provided to Members are not to be used for party
political campaigning or party fundraising purposes. Indeed this
is made explicit in the definition of Parliamentary business,
agreed with the Official Opposition, which underpins the expenditure
of Short Money, out of which public resources necessary to run
the Office of the Leader of the Opposition are provided.[15]
34. In his letters of 10 January and 9 March, Mr
Cameron says that, as a leader of a political party, his office,
while primarily used for Parliamentary purposes, is also used
for a wide variety of other meetings. Like his predecessors, he
has always thought it reasonable to use his office to meet all
those it is necessary for him to meet in his role as a party leader
and as Leader of the Opposition, including those who give money
to the Conservative Party, many of whom are also party officers
or advisers. It would be almost impossible for him to carry out
his duties in practice if he had to distinguish in the use of
his office between Parliamentary business, matters to do with
the wider functioning of the Opposition and matters relating to
his party.
35. I accept the argument that, all other things
being equal, there is no problem in principle with Members meeting
donors to their parties in their offices in the House. This is
as true for Mr Cameron as it is for any other Member. To argue
to the contrary would have the perverse consequence that Members
would be severely restricted in where they could meet at Westminster
those likely to be most active in their constituency associations
or parties, or their supporters in the trade unions and industry,
etc.
36. Mr Cameron also argues that, given the intertwining
of the various capacities in which he acts, it would be very difficult,
from a practical point of view, if he, or indeed Members generally,
had to move back and forth between a Parliamentary office and
an office outside Parliament as the business they were conducting
oscillated between Parliamentary, policy or political matters.
I accept this; such an artificial arrangement would in practice
be unworkable and detrimental to the efficiency with which Members
discharged their Parliamentary functions, thus negating the very
purpose for which their offices on the Parliamentary Estate were
provided in the first place.
37. In my view, the House is therefore sensible not
to seek to spell out detailed rules relating to the use made by
Members of accommodation made available to them on the Parliamentary
Estate. Within the overarching understanding that this is provided
for Parliamentary purposes, this must be left to the good sense
and judgement of individual Members in the light of their personal
circumstances.
38. However, as I have implied, the fact that there
is no specific rule in relation to the use of Members' offices
does not mean that any use is permissible. The principle that
accommodation is provided for Parliamentary purposes sets the
context in which Members' specific use of the accommodation is
to be judged.
39. The key issue in the present case is not the
fact that Mr Cameron met donors to his party in his office in
the House, but whether this office was used as part of a fundraising
arrangement or activity on behalf of his party. The fundraising
purpose of the Leader's Group is clear from the promotional literature
circulated at the Conservative City Circle, and the incentives
offered to prospective members specifically include the opportunity
to meet the Leader "in his office after Prime Minister's
Questions". Furthermore, it is clear that this benefit
has been taken up by Group members on a number of occasions. In
my submission the Parliamentary estate is not provided out of
the public purse to be used as part of a device to attract party
fundraising and the suggestion that it is so being used is not
one likely to enhance the public reputation of the House.
40. It could be argued that Mr Cameron's Parliamentary
office is not being used for fundraising because this element
is simply one part of an overall package of benefits from membership
of the Leader's Group, and prospective members will form their
judgment on the basis of the Group's overall aims and objectives,
and not on the basis of individual privileges it confers. I do
not accept this argument. The terms of the invitation issued to
prospective members of the Group make clear that regular access
to Mr Cameron is a core benefit; meetings in his office after
Prime Minister's Questions constitute a central element in this
access; and the primary aim of the Group is to raise "sustainable
and renewable income for the Party".
41. It could also be argued that the literature did
not refer in terms to the meetings after Prime Minister's Questions
taking place in Mr Cameron's office in the House; they could in
theory have taken place elsewhere. However, my view is that, on
a plain reading of the words, this is nonetheless implied, and
seven such meetings have to date taken place in his Parliamentary
office.
42. While there is no reason in principle, I submit,
why Mr Cameron cannot meet, in his office or elsewhere in the
Parliamentary estate, those who donate to his party, what neither
he nor his Party (nor indeed any other Member or party) can properly
do is employ their Parliamentary office as part of a party fundraising
stratagem. In my view, that is, on the facts, precisely what happened
in this case. I therefore recommend that Mr Baker's complaint
be upheld.
19 March 2007 Sir Philip Mawer
6 
