House of Lords: Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That, in the opinion of this House, the resolution of the House of 30 July 2002 (Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties) should have effect, in relation to the giving of financial assistance, with effect from 12 May 2010, as if—

(a) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(a) the references to the second largest opposition party were omitted, and

(b) paragraph (8)(b) were omitted.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, this is an important resolution. It is cloaked in technical terms and it affects the way in which opposition parties are funded in this House to help them perform their parliamentary duties. Sadly, no one would know that without recourse to Hansard and to the resolution of 2002 that the Government seek to amend. I regret that. Where public funds and parliamentary accountability are involved, the Government need to be more transparent.

I believe that the Motion before us is more than a tidying-up operation. Rightly, it recognises the changed fortunes of the Liberal Democrats; wrongly—unless I am corrected—it implies a severe cut in the distribution of Cranborne money to the opposition parties in this House by no less than 30 per cent. At the same time, it does less than justice to Cross-Benchers, whose independence will always disbar them from office and who operate on a shoestring.

The Cross-Benchers came late to the party when Cranborne money was distributed for the first time in 1997. They had to wait two years. By that time, the cake had been cut and they were handed the smallest slice—a meagre slice, some would say. Cross-Benchers received £10,000 out of a total allocation of £291,000. Our relative position has improved slightly, but it remains at a subsistence level. I am really quite shocked at the disproportionate way in which Cranborne money has been divided during the past 13 years. To some, the Cross-Bench share was almost a joke.

Eight years ago, when Lord Williams of Mostyn increased the Cross-Bench allocation to £35,000, he laughingly remarked:

“I stand amazed at our generosity”.—[Official Report, 30/7/02; col. 820.]

My colleagues were grateful all the same.

Last year, the Cross-Bench Convenor, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, received the princely sum of £61,003—a substantial percentage increase, you might say, but that was only because the starting point was so low. Cross-Benchers had trailed so far behind they were almost out of sight.

The £60,000 a year allows our Convenor to employ one full-time and one part-time assistant to administer her office and respond to the needs of the 187 Cross-Bench Peers. She also represents us in consultations with the Government and other parties. She sits on some nine House committees. I pay tribute to her fortitude, but it is wrong that she should have to bear so heavy a burden without adequate support.

In contrast, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats last year shared the rest of the Cranborne money on a 2:1 ratio. In 12 months, they received £770,000. If that is not lop-sided, I do not know what is. Sinn Fein received more than the Cross-Benchers for its non-performance in the Commons. Despite the refusal of five Sinn Fein Members to take the oath of allegiance, Sinn Fein netted £96,000 to finance what the previous Government described as “representative business”, a term capable of many interpretations. I take these figures from an excellent research paper on the public funding of opposition parties produced by the Commons Library. The section on the way in which the Cranborne money operates makes eye-popping reading.

Sadly, unless the Leader of the House enlightens us otherwise, this Motion makes matters worse. In the absence of further information, the Government appear intent on returning to the Treasury the funds previously allocated to the Liberal Democrats. If that is right, the total amount of Cranborne money available to the Opposition will be reduced by nearly a third, all without reference or explanation to this House.

A clever lawyer might argue that the Cross-Benchers are entitled to all the Cranborne money that went to the Liberal Democrats—not that I would think such thoughts, of course. But the pecking order set out in the resolution of 2002 is clear. Then, the Cross-Benchers were in third place; now, they are in second place. It is a position that the Government choose to ignore to save money and—who knows?—perhaps to reassure their junior partner that its entitlement to Cranborne money is secure if the coalition fails. I do not challenge Labour’s entitlement to the £475,000 which the Conservatives received as the Official Opposition last year—that is, of course, on top of the salaries paid to their Leader and their Chief Whip. Nor do I begrudge Ministers the command of resources needed to formulate their policies, run their departments and present their case as persuasively as possible. I do, however, believe in fair play and hope that the Government do too.

As the House knows, we on these Benches belong to no party. We have no common platform or agreed policies, and no leader. We speak and vote according to judgment and conscience, without the discipline of Whips to guide us through the Lobbies, and we may be swept away if this House is replaced by an elected Chamber. However, while we are here Cross-Benchers will, I know, do their duty to Parliament and to the country. They need adequate resources to do so. We are not partisans but share the same principles and, I believe, perform a useful role.

These Benches do not need the hundreds of thousands of pounds that routinely go to opposition parties. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that during Labour’s period of office, the Conservatives received over £4 million in Cranborne money, the Liberal Democrats £2 million and the Cross-Benchers £400,000. I was a Whip in Harold Wilson’s Government when the first public funds were allocated to opposition parties in the Commons. The aim was to improve the parliamentary effectiveness of parties and groups not in government. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will agree that the need to do so has not changed. He is long experienced in the travails of opposition, and I hope that he will review the allocation of Cranborne money in the light of my unashamed appeal for a better deal for these Benches. I do not seek generosity; I seek fairness. Fairness will do for me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I ask for clarity in this resolution. Will the Leader of the House confirm that this resolution applies for the duration of this coalition Government? Now that there is the arrangement with the fixed-term Parliament, would he not consider it necessary to have a sunset clause for the termination of the arrangement?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I am certainly one who would never want to cut across what she says. I am glad that what she said was said with her customary elegance and force. There was also an element of logic behind it. I shall try to deal with all the points that the noble Baroness raised—no mean feat.

I do not share the view of one of my predecessors, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that it was an act of great generosity. I have always taken the view that parties that are in opposition or on the Cross Benches should receive support from the taxpayer so as to fulfil their functions. The noble Baroness said that it was a disproportionate way in which to do things. Her main point, I think, was that there was an unfairness between how the main party in opposition and the Cross Benches were dealt with.

This lies at the heart of how I think the House views the different roles of the Opposition and the Cross Benches. I was in opposition for a long time, so I know perhaps more than anyone else that the Opposition have a difficult task to do. In an unpaid, part-time House, they need to provide a substantial number of Peers to act as shadow Ministers and they do not have the benefit of the Civil Service to provide them with the papers and amendments that are required for the Opposition to function. As I have said many times, it is important that there should be a strong Opposition. That is why a substantial amount of support is provided to the party of opposition in this House, which is now the Labour Party. I do not think that anyone would believe that the nearly £500,000 given by the taxpayer to the Labour Party is overgenerous. It is probably about right and it allows the Opposition to do the work that they are asked to do.

Those conditions do not apply to the Cross Benches. The Cross-Benchers—I say this with the greatest respect—do not have a Front Bench or a central office. They are not involved in the formulation of policy. They do not need to negotiate with their colleagues in another place, because they do not have any colleagues in another place. As the noble Baroness pointed out—and I cannot disagree—the Cross-Benchers come together as a loose alliance for administrative purposes, but they are all individuals, with individual views of how things should be done. It may be that there is not quite enough money to help the Convenor to do her job. I do not wish to be in the least bit flippant about this and I pay the greatest tribute to the work that the Convenor of the Cross Benches does on behalf of her whole flock—indeed, I pay tribute to her predecessors, too. It is faintly shocking that, 10 years ago, the Cross Benches received nothing at all. The amount was reviewed only two years ago and was increased by 48 per cent—a substantial increase—to £61,000. The current amount is, I think, £63,000. I know that that was from a relatively low base, but I am always happy to receive representations from the Cross Benches and from the Convenor about whether that figure should be increased.

My noble friend Lord Alderdice raised an entirely different question, which was about the funding of political parties when they are in government. I am not enormously attracted to that idea. The purpose of Cranborne money, which is the subject of the Motion, was to support the parties of opposition. There is now only one party of opposition. Naturally, consideration was given as to whether the one party of opposition should receive all the Cranborne money, but wise counsel prevailed on both sides of the House. We took the view that, as the Liberal Democrats had joined us in coalition government, both we and they should give up that money. There is a good reason for that. We now have the resources of the Civil Service at our disposal to create policy and to do all the administrative work. We recognise that the civil servants do an excellent job.

Other Parliaments and Assemblies have created different traditions, particularly those that have almost inbuilt coalitions. I have no idea how long this coalition will last, although I hope that it will last for a long time. That leads me to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. He rightly said that, if a second party of opposition should re-emerge, the whole situation should be reconsidered and the position reviewed. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which such a review would not be done in a most positive light, with Cranborne money reapplying to a second party of opposition.

Although the Motion on the Order Paper is slightly opaque, I think that it has now been clearly explained, not least by the noble Baroness, and I hope that we can now agree it.

[Viscount Tenby]

My Lords, the remark of the much lamented late Lord Williams of Mostyn has twice been referred to today. For the record, he made that remark in response to a rather carping comment from me; I was speaking for the Convenor on that day. It was ironic, and there was a twinkle in his eye when he said it.