Contribution
My Lords, I want to make one rather simple point about the Bill: we should keep big money out of politics. Over the weekend, we learned of the formerly Thailand-based Christopher Harborne’s £36 million, plus another £36 million from the late-of-Hong Kong Ben Delo, a man convicted over AML but pardoned by Trump. That is £72 million, made abroad and donated to Reform, which makes its £5 million issue seem rather small fry. That money apparently was legal, but it was distasteful, because we have rich men, plus Fiona Cottrell, enabling one party to out-campaign all others—a couple of individuals owning a party.
More than that, even if—as people have called for—we cap the amount that UK residents can donate and even if we put checks on the source of such money, this would be near impossible to enforce in the case of expat voters who are not registered here for tax and may not have lived here for many years, decades even, or have any intention of returning. They pay no council tax or VAT. They do not use any of our services, walk down our streets or suffer one jot if our police services are cut, if the NHS is underfunded, if education is poor or if our rivers are polluted.
Taxation without representation caused a revolution, but we should now say: no representation without taxation. Even if my noble friend the Minister disagrees with that, I ask whether the Government have considered the challenge of trying to verify the bona fides of those living, for example, in China, Russia or some war-torn country. They might be absconders from our jails or simply on the run from justice. Overseas registered voters, and therefore permitted donors, could have another country’s citizenship, as I am sure George Blake had after he left the Scrubs. They could even sit in another country’s Parliament but still be able to channel serious money to a UK party. They could be employed by that host Government or even one of their agencies. They could be money launderers. They could be in prison. They could even be dead; we ask them to verify they are alive only every three years.
In this country, we ask for ID at voting stations, even though they are only a quarter of a mile from our house and the person voting is probably well known. But a voter abroad has no need to prove to anybody that they are alive and voting freely. As to the source of that donation: it might be their own, but how was it obtained, in a country that has no checks on such things? Or it could, of course, if it is not their own, be passed over from a friend, company, foreign Government or anyone else. I welcome very much what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about this. He is on the money there—wrong phrase.
Pretending that the British receiving party could undertake “know your donor” due diligence of overseas voters is as fanciful as thinking that money buys no favours. I am glad to say that Rycroft proposed a cap on overseas donations, which I think means he accepted the arguments I am making, but frankly, £100,000 a year is £1 million in a Parliament for a couple, and that does not hit the target. Anyway, why on earth should somebody with no skin in the game be allowed to advantage one of our political parties when no scrutiny by party, police or the press is realistically possible?
I hope the Minister will agree to look again at the proposed cap—half a million pounds per person per Parliament—and consider the amendments that I will table to restrict donations from those overseas to a limit of £10,000 a year, unless they are registered for tax here. Without such changes, donors in tax havens could bankroll political parties indefinitely; I doubt that is really what we want.