---

Political Parties and Elections Bill

It is. That particular fund, which I think is now in the region of several million per Parliament, goes to certain named individuals: the Leader of the Opposition and one or two other Conservative Members in the House of Commons, and the Leader of the Conservative Opposition in the House of Lords. None goes to the other opposition parties in that category. When I last looked, the Conservative Party was receiving something in the region of £20 million per Parliament from state funding, and a lot of it does not go to any other political party. So none of us can be against public funding in principle. We may wish to reallocate it, but that is a different matter. I also wanted to take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. I am advised that our Amendment 108 would not affect any donation from those sorts of sources, but only those sources outwith the parliamentary and government system. I should also take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, about MPs’ communications allowances. We are coming to Amendment 120, and a valid point has been made by a number of commentators and parliamentarians that there is support for an incumbency which is not open to those who are not incumbents. Although my colleagues at the other end of the building no doubt feel the ties of incumbency, I have no such ties; I am entirely open to the suggestion that those who are not incumbents should legitimately recognise that that allowance should be taken into account as part of the expenditure that can be used towards campaigning. I know that it has been said that targeting for some candidates in some marginal seats is to compensate for that, and it would be only fair if those who are to provide that sort of support for challengers should supply it to all challengers in all marginal seats, be they Liberal Democrats, nationalists or Conservatives, if that is to be the logic for providing that support. I turn to the issue of evasion, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and the Minister referred. This is a bit of a red herring. Frankly, if it is to be possible to police whence a donation of £7,500 is to come, whereby it has to be certified as the amount that that person is contributing and that it is not coming from anyone else, surely it will be much easier to police those who are making much larger contributions. There will be less of them, they will be easier to monitor, and it should be much easier to ensure that the recipient makes a very careful check on where that £50,000 is to come from. The evasion issue mentioned by the noble Lords is not persuasive, but I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said about expenditure. We will come to that later, and I very much look forward to his contribution on that issue. As regards the unions, Ministers and Members on the Back Benches on the government side of your Lordships’ House should think very carefully—even more so in the other place—about what could happen if there were a change of Government. I know that they do not like to think about that, but occasionally it is quite useful to imagine circumstances in which the position is not quite as benign as perhaps it is at present as regards the link between the Labour Party and the unions. In the debate in the other place, my honourable friend Mr David Howarth said: ""The final thing I say to the Government is simply this: if they refuse to move on the issue of donation caps now, and if they ignore the view in society at large and in other parts of the political system that this is something that must be done, they will put their own party at risk because when reform does come—as it must—it will come at a time far less favourable to it. The relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions, which we discussed, it is at the heart of that very point. I and my party have offered a very moderate solution to that problem—one with which the Labour party could easily live, and one which the public would recognise as fair".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/09; col. 638.]" Basing what we have suggested on Sir Hayden Phillips’s proposals is a moderate, sensible base for agreement. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who spoke about opting into the political fund. If the Conservatives win an election—it could happen; funnier things have happened at sea—they could decide to act on this issue. From the tone of his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, spelt out clearly that if the Conservatives won, they would not seek consensus across the parties in the way that we are, and they would seek to sever the current relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions. I say seriously to the Government that I hope that they will think a little more about this issue between now and Report. We will, because we have listened carefully. I am reminded again—I paraphrase because I do not know the original Latin—that St Augustine said, "Make me virtuous, but not yet". That would seem to be the attitude of the other parties. Frankly, we cannot wait much longer to be virtuous, because the public expect better of us. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 108 withdrawn. Amendment 109 not moved. Schedule 4 agreed. Amendment 110 had been retabled as Amendment 132B. Clause 13 : Increased thresholds in relation to donations etc Amendment 111 not moved.