| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lord, will the Minister comment on my query about the Lusaka peace accord? Is it still in place? Is there a peace in existence for that accord to underwrite?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am sorry I did not address that issue. The accord is in place. Some of the disagreements that have occurred about electoral districts and who may or may not run in them has put it under some strain in the past couple of weeks. That is one of the reasons why I have been in discussion with the principal players in the area to ensure that they carry on in peaceful discussion rather than re-engage in military action while the issues are worked out. I asked them in particular to desist from any return to violence while President Mbeki visits the leaders in order to mediate between them. I believe that that mediation is going on as we meet.
Political Parties: State Funding
11.16 am
Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce state funding for political parties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, political parties in the UK already receive varying degrees of state support for their activities that, according to a recent House of Commons research paper and figures from the Electoral Commission in the financial year 2004–05, amounted to £6.8 million. There is an ongoing debate on party funding, but as yet there is no consensus on the way forward.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she recall the title of the Labour Party 1997 manifesto, New Labour because Britain deserves better? Does she also recall a commitment in that manifesto? It states that,
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1347
and says that reform of party funding will be a priority to end sleaze. Is she aware that a recent opinion poll showed that 82 per cent of people considered this Government to be as sleazy or sleazier than their predecessor? In those circumstances, how long shall we go round this merry-go-round of crisis and revelations until we realise that funding from millionaires is corrupting of individuals and institutions? We must have a system of state funding—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: Speech.
Lord McNally: I know you are embarrassed, Bob. I would be if I were you. Unless we have a system of state funding that caps individual donations and rewards both party membership and votes won, we shall visit the issue again and again to the damage of our democracy.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, as he knows. In a sense, he is making an important point of principle about which the Liberal Democrats feel passionately and strongly. They have argued very well that they believe that state funding should be considered. There is no question in my mind that recent press reports will lead us to have that debate, certainly in your Lordships' House, and I look forward to participating in it. However, he loses a little of the strength of his argument in the way in which he describes it. I well remember the 1997 manifesto. I believed then that Britain deserved better; I think that Britain got better. In education, health and all the policies for which we have been responsible, we can point to dramatic improvements and changes that are an inspiration to people.
As the noble Lord will know, there is no doubt that opinion polls will tell us many things. I declare my interest: I live with a pollster. Opinion polls pass through my household every day. Therefore, I understand that issue.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I am not in the least embarrassed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Will the Minister take into account the immense strides that have been made on transparency of political funding in the past years? Nevertheless, does she agree that there must be absolute transparency? No one disagrees with that. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I mean the Minister. Does she feel that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, perhaps protests too much?
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1348
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I have already indicated, the noble Lord, Lord McNally has consistently taken that view on state funding. Perhaps I am disagreeing with the method of his protestation rather than his absolute right to protest in your Lordships' House. I agree with my noble friend that transparency is vital.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those in this House and another place who deeply fear the degree of ascendancy that the present Administration have established over Parliament are anxious that we must be very careful how we travel down the road of extending government patronage?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I think that I understand the noble Lord's point. In the light of recent debates in your Lordships' House and another place, I am not sure that ascendancy over Parliament is something that the Government have successfully achieved in all circumstances. Parliament plays a full role in the life of our democracy and in ensuring that government policies are scrutinised appropriately, and nowhere better than in your Lordships' House. I would have thought that he would agree; I see he does not.
Lord Soley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that all three political parties have taken money from millionaires—loans and handouts—including the Liberal Party, which took £2.5 million not long ago? They have all done it, and we will all have to go on doing so as long as we want to run a modern democracy unless we go down the road of state funding, which I have considerable sympathy for. The people of this country need to understand that we fund parties either in the way that we do now or by some sort of state aid, but it is important that we open up the system, which is what we did. I would like the Minister to confirm that, if all three parties got together, we could solve this in the greater interest of democracy and of the political parties themselves.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this is something that all political parties need to consider and probably need to think about together. I also agree that there is an issue of debate, a debate that we have had in your Lordships' House and outside in the wider community, about the relationship between public money being used to support political parties—democracy, one might say—and the ability of individuals who feel passionately committed to their political party to be able to contribute. That is where the debate has to settle.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the light of the request—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is our turn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is actually the turn of the Liberal Party, but we have plenty of time.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of recent disclosures, does the Minister agree that it is now time
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1349
that all loans to political parties, at whatever rate of interest, should be treated as donations and disclosed accordingly? Does she believe that people ever lend money to political parties because they think it a good commercial investment?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not know the basis on which people determine where to loan money in any circumstances. I hesitate to say that we should take what is still being looked at and largely speculated on and determine what ought to be the future policy. It is clear, though, that we need to look at the issue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the timing of this Question. In the light of the request for greater transparency from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which was endorsed by the Minister, will she comment on the remarks made by the treasurer of the Labour Party yesterday about a lack of transparency and the fact that he was never told of various loans made to the party before the last election?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the timing of his Question, because it enables us to have an important discussion. I am not going to comment on the remarks made by Mr Dromey, the treasurer of the Labour Party. He made his position perfectly clear; he has indicated what he knew and did not know. We now have to wait and see what further action is taken.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |