---

Political Parties and Elections Bill

I know my noble friend’s view on this. We do not feel it right to legislate unless there is broad consensus. I very much hope that the Opposition feel the same way—we cannot guarantee how they feel; we do not know what they may or may not do if they ever come back into government. I would hope that they might take into account the example of how we are legislating when they decide what to do. The effects of not doing so would be disastrous, because if you legislate just for your own good and your own benefit, it can be extremely counterproductive. But we shall have to see; I take my noble friend’s point. It remains our view that it is above all transparency which is required in the financing of our political parties. That point came up in debate: both my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lady Gould made it in passing. A cap on donations could, paradoxically, have the effect of decreasing transparency, because those who wished to make larger donations could seek to evade the restrictions imposed by a donations cap—my noble friend said via foreign donations; I say perhaps by seeking to divert donations through friends and family members. There would need to be detailed and complex provision to address the potential for such abuse. The incentive to such abuse is reduced where no cap exists. We have to take that into account. In any case—here, I agree with my noble friend Lady Gould—we do not consider that a consensus exists, either between the parties or on the part of the public, on the introduction of donation caps and associated increases in state funding. Identical proposals to those before us today were put forward by the colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in the other place and were debated at length. The amendment was not supported by either the Government or the Official Opposition and was comprehensively defeated. This shows to some extent that the parties cannot agree on the need for a cap on donations. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, generously paid tribute the honourable Mr Andrew Tyrie, who is a leading Conservative Member of Parliament and an expert on these occasions. I hope that it would not in any way be offensive of me to remind the Committee that Mr Tyrie did not vote for the amendment; indeed, his own Front Bench voted against it, which may be the reason that he did not vote for it. So we do not think that there is consensus. But what of the public? We have talked about political consensus, but not public consensus. Perhaps I may look to what my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary said in the debate in the other place—I do not do it too often. His comments were echoed in different language by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, at Second Reading. In these times of economic difficulty, it cannot be right to suggest that even more taxpayers’ money should go to politicians and political parties. My right honourable friend said: ""It would have been difficult to introduce [state funding] in 2007, but in the midst of the worst recession we have seen since the war and when there is great demand on public finances and will be for some years to come, we would need to take leave of our senses to propose that hard-earned taxpayers’ money should be used to support our political parties. If we wanted to make one decision that would ensure that the esteem in which we are held—which is not that high anyway—rocketed through the floor, it would be to introduce extensive state funding".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/09; col. 628.]" That seems to be quite a hard but pretty accurate representation of where we are in the argument at present. It is for those reasons that we are not minded to support the introduction of a cap on donations today, as proposed by Amendment 108, although we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for introducing the debate. Amendment 109 is consequential on Amendment 108, so without one being agreed, the other is impossible as there is a link between them. As the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, said, they broadly reflect the proposals put forward by Sir Hayden in his draft agreement, published in October 2007, which would create a clear link between the amount paid in individual contributions to a union’s political fund by way of affiliation fees and the amount of subsequent donation made by the union. Any donation made by a union would be subject to the donation cap that Amendment 108 would impose unless certain conditions are met. There are some subtle differences between Amendment 109 and Sir Hayden’s proposals, but I need not go into them this afternoon. As has been said on a number of occasions, which I shall repeat, the political activities of trade unions are already very tightly regulated. My right honourable friend the Minister of State reported in Second Reading in the other place that, ""affiliated trade unions … will voluntarily provide more information to members … and that affiliates will introduce a common text for incorporation into membership materials, including application forms. In addition, the affiliates have agreed that full affiliation of the levy-paying membership is the most transparent form of political membership, and moves will be made to that end".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/08; col. 120]" It will come as no surprise that we are not minded to accept the amendment. Amendment 143 states that the cap on donations would be commenced on Royal Assent. I need not debate that further, as the nub of the debate is Amendment 108. In passing, I have to say that trade unions are well regulated. Companies making political donations are obliged to do something rather different from what trade unions have to do. No individual shareholder has the right to opt in or opt out of a donation that a company may give. Companies can give donations of very large amounts of money if they so choose. It is slightly unfair that trade union members are obliged to do what they do while company shareholders are not.