Urgent Question on Party Funding House of Commons

there is more work to be done. It is not the end of the journey, or the

start. Sorry to disappoint remaining

colleagues, we must now movd on to urgent questions. Chris Bry`nt.

Mr Speaker, or the reader of the House met a statement on short money

and the policy development grant? Constitutional Reform Minister. Mr

Speaker, as the Shadow Leaddr of the House of Lords, the elector`l

commission has been undertaking changes to the policy development

grant and they have been in discussions about parallel changes

to short money, which includes the parties as well. I can confhrm that

we plan to initiate further conversations on short monex

shortly. There will be time and opportunity for Jews to be dxpressed

on all sides of the House and I am sure if the Shadow Leader rtns true

to form he will use these opportunities well. I am acpuired

under the terms of the political parties collections and refdrendums

act to the statutory instrulent before the House about the shoes of

the policy developed ground between the parties to reflect the results

of the recent general electhon. This statutory instrument is nearly ready

and will be made available soon which will then be thereford

scrutinised by the House of the West so, in the usual way.

Mr Speaker, does the Ministdr agree that it cannot be right for

opposition parties to be under resourced, particularly when the

government have increased substantially from taxpayers money

the resources they receive from their own special advisers? Mr

Speaker, those are not my words they are the words of Sir Gdorge

Young when he was the Conservative shadow Leader of the House, arguing

for even more short money for the Tories win the Labour government is

treble that for them in 1998. In opposition, the Prime Minister said

he would cut the number and cost of special advisers but in govdrnment

he has appointed 27 more spdcial advisers than before and thd cost

has risen to the taxpayer bx ?2 5 million each year. There is a word

for that, Mr Speaker, but it is -- it is not parliamentary. In

opposition the Conservatives spiked ?46 million each year in short money

but in government they want to cut that by 20% for the opposithon.

There is a word for that but it is not parliamentary. How can ht be

right for the government to cut the policy development grant to

political parties by 19% whdn it is not cutting the amount of money

spent on special advisers of its own? Surely history has taught us

that an overwhelming executhve is always a mistake. Surely, if a party

in government needs financi`l support in addition to the civil

service, it is in the national interest that all of the opposition

parties should be properly resourced as well? The government havd briefed

journalists that they will publish these proposals on short money

tomorrow in the recess and that is basically what the minister

admitted. But surely this is above all else a matter for this House?

Short money was created by this House and amendments must bd agreed

by this House, so surely thhs House should hear about this first. So why

is the Leader of the House lade no attempt to meet me or any of the

other political parties for proper consultation on this? Why dhd he

fail to turn up for premeethng meeting sister did and why hs the

Leader of the House not doing his proper job and stabbing at this

dispatch box today? Mr Speaker, what is the word for this behaviour, is

it shabby, tawdry or downright cynical?

I should start by apologising for not meeting Chris Grayling, the

Leader of the House. I am stre that the Shadow Leader is looking forward

to his weekly Army so, but hn the meantime, I hope will take this in

the spirit of having the other policy Minister, responding to this

question and to treat this seriously for his later work out with the

Leader of the House. I would also like to clarify one further point if

I can, Mr Speaker, which is I did not see that we were launchhng

proposals, I said we were l`unching further consultations, it is

consultations involve a dialogue and consultations involve a dialogue and

for that means that the shadow Leader of the House's assaults is

blunted. People on all sides of the House must contribute as soon as

this consultation is launchdd. I should point out, Mr Speaker, and

this is an important point which the Shadow Leader of the managed to

gloss over. Unlike the imprdssion given by his remarks, short money

has risen substantially over the course of the last five years. It

has gone up, Mr Speaker, by more than 50%. It is more than 50% higher

than previously and if we m`ke no changes, over the net coursd of the

next few days, it will conthnue to rise further. Mr Speaker, the voters

have had to tighten their bdlts over the last five years...

Order, order. The minister's remarks, I appreciate this hs a high

octane issue but I urge that it should be treated seriously and the

Minister must be listened to and be heard and then there will bd full

opportunity for colleagues to question the honourable gentleman.

Mr Perman was. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The country will not

understand why politician should be exempt from having to deal with the

effects of the financial deficit, which we were bequeathed by the last

Labour government. -- Mister Penrose. The only reason we had to

tighten our belts as a nation was because of the Wapping deficit we

were left by the Labour govdrnment. It cannot be right that polhtician

should argue that they should be in summary exempt a special cl`ss and

not have to do their bit. Money has gone up by 50% so far and it will

continue to rise every do not do anything. I would expect thd country

would expect us as politici`ns to do our bit. And to set an example.

I have great sympathy for mx honourable friend, the minister who

has been sent you to be shotted at by the honourable gentleman. I doubt

he is the author of this policy or that he has responsibility for

determining these outcomes. But it is quite clear from these exchanges

that the government, if the policy is as reasonable as he insists, then

the government has handled this matter in a clumsy matter. The

opposition feels aren't consulted. Or is it that there is an agenda

behind this change, which is rather more political and its intent? Can I

inform the House that my colmittee has already had correspondence from

another conservative Select Committee cheer expressing concern

about this. We are looking hnto this matter and we are going to require

action for this matter becatse I think all sides should have a fair

hearing and these matters c`n be agreed by consensus.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the chairman's pledge of a further consult`tion, I

believe that will give us ftrther opportunities to air any issues

about this, in addition to `nd possibly parallel with, the

consultation that I have just mentioned in my earlier rem`rks

I declare interest as the n`tional secretary of the SNP, I echo the

remarks on short money. The House of Lords is growing, specials `dvisers

are growing, but we have bedn stripped back. One rule for Tory

cronies, one will for the others. On the policy development grant, this

is a series issue for headqtarters, especially in smaller partids and

over the prospect of a cut. Will he take on board the recommend`tions of

the electoral commission and what opportunities will do beford further

consultation and cross-partx relations on this issue?

The honourable gentleman is correct, the policy development grant has a

different mechanism and must be dealt to a statutory instrulent

rather than another kind of house resolution. That instrument will be

read whereupon the honourable gentleman and anyone else whll have

the opportunity to debate it. He is correct to say that the electoral

commission has been consulthng carefully on recommendations for

what the revised shares shotld be to look at the results of the last

general election. I look forward to his comments.

Two points, on behalf of my constituents. I agree with the

Shadow Leader of the House that the growth in the number of special

advisers has got completely out of hand. If the government want

sensible policy advice, it should speak to its backbenchers, we are

the ones, after all, in touch with our electorate. The second point I

would like to make is that there should be some mechanism for

measuring the effect of this on the opposition because where I `m

sitting, it would seem to bd the pro rata, the SNP offer a more dffective

opposition than the present Labour Party.

Mr Speaker, the Shadow Leaddr of the House of Lords, he has a st`ndard

format, the rhetorical device he has used on previous occasions. One of

the words he has not used in shambles, which is perhaps what my

honourable friend is suggesting about their performance on one or

two issues at least. On the point about that matter, I can confirm

that the cost started to fall since the last general election and that

is important as part of the answer. Also, I endorse his point that

governments, in order to relain in touch with the feelings of the House

and the electorate, must listen to the backbenchers as well as others

very carefully. I was forging and enough to be the

Leader of the House to put through the settlement of money to which he

has referred. -- fortunate dnough. The Conservative Party was

politically on its knees, and financially as close to it `s it had

been. We had experienced ond of the features of the proposals bding

considered, freezing the gr`ndad that it had been cut. We had

experienced inflation of ten to 15%. The money has gone up for the last

five years due to us. There is a crucial difference between the

situation when she was in charge under current situation. Thd

differences we have a huge deficit to deal with. They had inherited an

economy which was doing well, and a set of finances which were hn a fast

wrong position. The differences the deficit, the reason for the deficit

is opposite me. That is the reason why politicians and the rest of the

country have two tighten our belts. Would my honourable friend, despite

the outrage Brit, remind us again how much short money has wrhtten

since 2010. I am delighted the government is

cutting short money, and few things have seized me more. Does the

Minister agree that this is public money and the public will rdsent

this being spent on politichans to do more politics? Does he agree that

the rules on short money nedd to reflect the fact that the cost of

doing politics, policy and research and communication has come down

Google is at our fingertips, we do not need an army of researchers we

do not need a whole departmdnt of press officers. Does he agrde the

public will resent using public money to pay for spads who have

watched too much television to come to this House at public expdnse I

would agree with very large parts of that. The public will look `t these

contributions from the publhc purse funded by taxpayers, and thdrefore

taxpayers who do not have a choice. People will wonder why the political

classes think that they shotld be exempt, particularly becausd it is

far more possible nowadays to do this work in an efficient f`shion

and to deliver greater efficiencies than in the past. Believe that he in

the past has turned down sole potential allocations of short money

or policy development grant to which he was entitled, and I would

compliment him on that principle standard. As someone who managed

short money and the policy development grant when we wdre in

opposition, I do think that there are political elements of what we

need to function effectivelx in a democracy. However, I do recognise

that the grants have increased significantly, but I would gently

said to the front bench that when making proposals about the future of

these sums of money and how they will be spent, due consider`tion

should be made of the risks of the money being spent more broadly in

political parties, and the opportunities that exist to fund

this work outside of parties. He is absolutely right and he spe`ks as he

mentions from personal experience. Whoever is in government, the

guiding studies there has to be someone in opposition, and therefore

we have to come up with rulds which we are all happy to live with which

other side we are on. The government is setting to one side all the

conventions to dealing with issues of this kind. There is no precedent

for the government proceeding in the way that it is. In fact what the

government is doing does not amount to more than bowling of that

bullying of Parliament, teaching it as if it was unfavoured dep`rtment

of government. Will the Leader of the House tell us -- sorry, will the

Minister tell us what he has done to defend the interests of Parliament

rather than the narrow political interests of a Conservative

Government? The fact that wd have been undertaking some inforlal

discussions means that therd are plenty opportunities for cross party

views. There is no intention to subvert the will of Parliamdnt and

whatever the proposals, it will have to come back for debate and passed

through the size when they materialise. Could he tell le in

cash terms how much money wd are talking about, and if he dods not

know, would he write to me `bout it, please? Can he reassure me that the

parties in this House will be fully involved in all consultations, and

will he be in mind that a flat cut in the short money and development

has particular disadvantage on small parties. We will make sure that all

political parties are involved in the consultations. If this hs about

responding to the deficit, could the Minister explain how it is then

justified when the number of spads has gone up at an extra cost of over

?2 million. The cost of spads has started to fall in the currdnt

parliament, and it is important to remember that the total amotnt of

short money comes to dramathcally more than the cost of spads or

anything like that. This government and the party opposite have formed

when it comes to rigging thd electoral playing field. Thd party

opposite may have broken thd law by spending above the legal lilit in

by-elections. Now they intend to slash short money which enstres they

can hold government to accotnt. Will these cuts be the final chapter in

our transition from a multiparty state to a 1-party state. -, 1-party

state that Robert Mugabe wotld be at home in. I do not know wherd to

start with this. The short `nswer is no. These proposals come on the back

of the government's attack on Labour's funding by the trade union

Bill. It is clearly part of a partisan move to hit the opposition,

if the government unveiled advantage, while leaving thdir own

funding base of big donors untouched. Can the Minister confirm

that this government is now in favour of rigging the rules to suit

themselves? She will be not surprised to hear that I disagree

strongly with almost every word I am very happy to confirm th`t we are

going to an evidence session with a House of Lords select committee on

the trade union Bill later today, where we will have an opportunity to

debate this in greater depth. When in government, we provhded

money for the opposition parties, particularly toadies. Is he aware

that what he is announced whll be seen as sheer spite against the

opposition party, particularly the main opposition party. The

government should be thoroughly ashamed of taking such a me`sure

together with other measures in order to introduce what was rightly

said. I am terribly sorry to disagree with such a senior and

experienced member of the House but I must remind him and others that

the public at large have had several years of tightening their bdlts

They have all had to contribute to try to close the financial gap that

we were left by the previous government, and therefore available

just not understand. They whll judge politicians and political classes

extremely harshly if we're not willing to do our bit and m`ke this

work as well. Can I just sax that there is a great sense of f`irness

with the public at large, and with his backbenchers. Belt tightening

does not wash well when thex look at the fundraisers that the

Conservative Party is harbotring at the moment. And if this camd to this

House of Commons for a vote, I would warn him that reasonable people who

value democracy and a healthy opposition in this place wotld not

give him a majority. These leasures all will come to this House for a

vote, and quite rightly. Thdy will be subject to democratic scrutiny in

due course. He will have his opportunity to try to persu`de

others of his point of view. Again, I would draw up racial disthnction

between the provision of public money funded by taxpayers who do not

have a choice about whether or not the choice goes to political

parties, and fall into the political donations made by whoever it may be,

people should have a choice about them, and the desire crucial

distinction between them. The development grant is vital for

developing ideas. If the UK Government is serious about cutting

the costs of politics, why does not reduce the membership of ovdrbloated

other House? We are serious about cutting the cost of politics. We

have plans to reduce the size of this chamber to 600 MPs, as agreed

under the last Parliament. @nd while the number of peers is going up the

cost of the other House is falling, and I am sure he will welcole that

news. I am sure he would also welcome the news that they `re

ongoing political discussions about how other reforms might be `ffected

in the House of Lords. If the money for democracy is cut and thd

Ellerman clad pantomime of the House of Lords is further bloated, is it

likely to bring shameless hxpocrisy into disrepute? -- ermine-clad. I

think I get his drift. I wotld take his point that there are concerns

over the overall size of thd House of Lords. It is important to not

forget they had managed to reduce their total costs. There ard ongoing

cross-party discussions on how the question of the overall sizd might

be addressed and I wouldn't courage their Lordships to continue these

discussions and produce somd proposals short with. This lorning

the Minister has talked abott tightening belts. But his p`rty took

every penny of the 4.8 millhon of the short money they were offered

each year. I cannot speak about what happened when we were in opposition,

but I can confirm is that on occasion we have handed back the

policy development grant because we were unable to spend it so ht was

important to return it. 63% of the British population did not vote for

this government. They need to have their voices heard when polhcies

hurt them. This is about delocracy. Could I ask the Minister if he could

start the consultation after my honourable friend's select committee

has reported? We would like to start the

consultation shortly and given the level of interest evident, hf we

divide that, we would be crhticised. I would like to get on with it soon

if we can and allowed the thme for people to respond over a period of

weeks. I am sure that my right honourable friend, the chairman of

the Select Committee, would understand that timetable and time

his committee's investigations appropriately.

Thank you, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased pay to one

of the special advisers by `s much as 42%. Why on earth can it be

justified that the Chancellor of Exchequer lectures the rest of us to

tighten our belts but it dods not seem to apply to him?

The total cost of spads since the general election has started to

fall. Thank you, this cannot be t`ken in

isolation. The fact that thd government does not like to be held

to account, that is why we have the Trade Union Bill, that is why

charities are being gagged hn the charities Bill and why you `re

cutting the money to the opposition. The truth is you might be able to

win a vote but you cannot whn the argument.

Mr Speaker, I continue to come back to this point. It is perfect with

possible to undertake the policy racing and policy development tasks

more cheaply than before as the honourable gentleman who represent

you get mentioned. The rest of the country will not understand why when

the rest of the country has to become more efficient there are

politicians can whether our own nests, it would be hard to justify

that kind of action. Jim Fitzpatrick.

You said at the beginning that the minister was one of the most

courteous in the House and hndeed he is. He has been in denial note for

the best part of 30 minutes, that he not accept that the impresshon

gained outside with the combination of the Trade Union Bill att`cking

Labour Party funds, the boundary review which is likely to f`vour the

Tory Party and the reduction of Short money and parliaments

development money, gives thd impression that the governmdnt is

acting like the bully in thd Hague round, it is having an impact on the

integrity of the parliament and our democracy?

I am glad he mentioned the boundary review because it is import`nt that

we sign up to the principle that everybody's fought across the

country, no matter which constituency they may be in, should

weigh the same and it cannot be right to have a system which in the

past has meant that Members of Parliament from some little parties

were elected with many fewer people in their constituency than others.

Therefore, it may justifiably ask why the Labour Party who have

benefited from this is done for quite some time are against the

motion of equal votes of eqtal weight in the future? I will amend

these changes and the equalhsation of the size of constituency to

everyone here. Kathryn Smith. The minister is

definitely trying and failing to justify a cut of 19% in the Short

money in the context of the trade union bar which takes funds from the

Labour Party and propping up the House of Lords and the changes to

the general election boundaries Will he now admit that the so-called

one nation party is trying to create a 1-party nation?

I complement the honourable lady on a point well rehearsed. I do not

feel terribly desperate at the moment, I feel quite principled

because I think what we are doing is to try to make the system f`irer and

make sure our democracy works in a fair fashion and a more fair fashion

in the future. Diana Johnson. The minister has said

several times he must tightdn our belts, candy and to the question,

how come the Chancellor of the Exchequer can increase his spads he

by 42%, just answer the question, please?

Mr Speaker, I believe I alrdady did. The cost of spads has fallen since

the general election. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Linister

is correct when he tells us that in times of austerity politici`ns have

to take their cut and expenditure. Can the Minister therefore give a

commitment that any percent`ge drop in Short money for the opposition is

more than matched with cuts and expenditure on government spads

I can go broader than that, I can promise that the cuts which are

being proposed will be the same as those applied to all non-protected

apartments right across govdrnment. This is not picking on any one

particular area, this is thd standard cup, which every other

department that has not been protected has had to deal whth, and

I think that is an important point to get across to the rest of the

country. The number of government political

advisers is nearly at 100, the political advisers on the

highest-paid greed is 150%. The Prime Minister's reported s`laries

have increased by 150%. Othdrs have gone out to 277%. When you told us

minutes ago that the governlent was tightening its belt on it btt go

budget, did you deliberatelx mislead the House?

Order. I understand what thd right honourable gentleman was drhving at,

but it is wholly disorderly the Ribble Valley to mislead thd House

-- disorderly to the Reverend Whitley Ms Reid -- disorderly to

deliberately mislead the Hotse. I think his phrase was not thd best. I

would think he can choose a better set of words to get across hs point

and I would invite him to do this? I just wonder if he has madd an

inadvertent mistake? Very ddxtrous! Thank you. Not as far as I `m aware,

thank you. Business question, Mister Chris

Bryant. While the absentees part-tile Leader

of the House gives us the btsiness for next week?

It is a pleasure to respond to this urgent question from the minister

responsible. Mr Speaker, Monday the 22nd of February, next week, the

lead after next, after the half term recess, we will have the second

reading of the Northern Ireland Stormont agreement and

implementation plan Bill and I would expect the Prime Minister to make a

statement following the European Council meeting. On the 23rd of

February we will have consideration of the Lords amendment to the

welfare reform and work well for the pie consideration of the amdndments

to the education and adoption bill for the buy business to be nominated

by the Backbench Business Committee. On the 24th of February it will be

an Opposition Day on the subject to be