Lord Rennard (LD)

My Lords, the current controversy over massive donations from crypto billionaires to the limited company known as Reform is a disaster that has been waiting to happen and a danger to democracy. In 2000 the then Labour Government sought to end the party-spending arms race that had been giving an unfair financial advantage to the Conservative Party. They introduced a spending cap of £20 million for political parties in the 12 months before a general election, but there was no cap on the size of donations and no cap on spending for all the years in between general elections. The cap of £20 million was higher than it needed to be and it was a mistake to allow the Secretary of State to increase it without any form of parliamentary approval. The Conservatives increased this limit from £20 million to £36 million without consultation just before the last general election. This allowed them to receive £20 million in donations from a single source—Frank Hester. During the passage of the legislation in 2000, I moved amendments providing for a maximum cap of £50,000 on the size of donations from any source to political parties. That would be around £110,000 in today’s money. I also warned then that the legislation would backfire, just as it has done, by introducing the concept of national spending which could be targeted at individual constituencies. This destroyed the concept of a level playing field in constituency campaigning that had applied since Gladstone’s Government introduced the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883. We have gone back 150 years. This Bill must be amended to put that right. It is difficult to make rules apply retrospectively even if actions are taken to subvert the purpose of the legislation, but we can look at the total limits of what can be spent by parties and prevent the targeting of national spending at specific seats. This weekend’s £72 million of donations to Reform could legally be spent in 72 target constituencies over two years, providing for £1 million of national spending in each of them. MPs should take careful note of that; I am not sure that they are aware. In relation to donation caps, they are supporting the proposal for a cap of £100,000 on donations from overseas electors, but the logic of such a cap is that it should also be applied to UK-based electors. I support allowing young people to vote at the first election after their 16th birthday. That is not surprising, because by the time I was 16 I was the secretary of the Liverpool Wavertree Constituency Liberal Association. I have never suggested that the first thing a 16 year-old will wish to do after opening their birthday cards is to rush down to a polling station and cast a vote, but I know from many political discussions with young people that many sixth-formers are well informed, very interested and as qualified to have a say in the future of their country as many older people. However, we need to do much more to register young people. Processes of automatic voter registration can cut costs and are clearly necessary to include more of the 6 million to 8 million people missing or incorrectly registered. The Bill brings forward by three days the deadline to apply for a postal vote. Many people do not apply for one until they know the date of the election, so the timetable for the conduct of a general election must also be extended by three days. We also need to do more to assist overseas voters. At present, the time it takes if they vote by post effectively disenfranchises most of them, including members of our Armed Forces serving overseas. We cannot say that their rights as UK citizens are respected when we do not will the means for them to vote.