---

Political Parties and Elections Bill

We had better move on. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place in the Committee today—who referred to the arms race that has developed. I take the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, about spending. I have never been directly involved in the advertising industry but I used to be involved in what you could broadly call the communications industry. I remember speaking to a very astute operator in advertising who, when looking at a poster for the SDP—and this dates me—said, "Good heavens, they are spending an awful lot of money" because there was a row of vintage claret on the poster. I cannot remember what the slogan was but, in tiny type at the bottom, it said, "Vote Conservative". However, she interpreted the poster as advertising what you would get if you voted SDP. The waste—I say this with my noble friend Lord Rennard beside me—on advertising in elections is notorious in the industry. I entirely agree with the professional view of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that the arms race is benefiting only those who manage to receive money for that purpose rather than the public at large or, indeed, the political parties. A number of noble Lords have said that the advice from various sources on limiting donations was in the context of more favourable economic times when the public might accept greater public funding. I understand that point of view. However, that is not the only option because, as we will see when we come to Amendment 120A in the names of my noble friend Lord Goodhart and the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, there are other possibilities, such as tax concessions comparable to those provided for contributions to charity. So it is not the only way to take up the shortfall, although, frankly, there is not a huge shortfall. A large proportion of the sums that have been referred to in the Committee today are wasted in the arms race. Getting better value for money rather than more money may well be a good objective for all three major political parties. I remind the Committee that there is considerable public funding already, as my noble friend Lord Rennard said. We have the Short money for the opposition parties in the House of Commons; the Cranborne money for the opposition parties and the Cross-Benchers in this House; the Policy Development Fund, which could now well be uprated in the light of the needs of the parties and the public to understand what is going on; and there is also considerable public money pouring into the coffers of the Conservative Party in both Houses of Parliament by way of salaries and expenses. So none of us can be against public funding, but we have to make sure that it is properly targeted.