Contribution
My Lords, the Bill asks us to strengthen public confidence in democracy and tighten the rules governing political donations, particularly money coming from overseas. Those are worthy objectives, but if that is the principle—that large donations may not purchase political influence—why does the Government’s scrutiny appear to stop at the water?
In the run-up to the 2024 general election, trade unions contributed approximately £5.6 million to the Labour Party. Separately, the Labour Party’s own records show that £4.9 million was received in affiliation income in 2024. Labour itself lists 11 affiliated unions. This financial relationship is not one-way. The latest Cabinet Office returns record nearly £90 million in public sector facility time costs during 2024-25. That is the cost of public employees receiving paid time to undertake trade union activities. It is not a direct government grant to the unions, as much of the work may well be legitimate and constructive. Nevertheless, it represents a substantial taxpayer-funded resource and belongs in the transparency debate.
We therefore have a curious circle: the trade unions help finance the Labour Party, the Labour Party forms the Government, the Government negotiate public sector pay and employment rights with those unions, and public bodies fund the facility time supporting those unions’ activities. What safeguards govern this relationship? What access do affiliated unions have to Ministers and officials? Are their meetings, representations and policy demands disclosed? Why should individual overseas donors face a £100,000 limit, while a domestic institutional donor can contribute millions and occupy a formal place within the governing party structure? Unions represent millions of workers and should be heard, but a Bill that claims to defend democratic integrity must apply one consistent principle: money must not buy privileged access, whoever provides the money.
On the vote for under-18s, 16 year-olds are at a point in their life that is very busy. They have family and school expectations, and they are trying to form a life and a personality. So, we need to think very carefully about putting the vote on top of that. NHS figures show that almost a quarter of 17 year-olds and 18 year-olds are dealing with some kind of mental distress.
Of course, being allowed to vote does not cause you mental distress. I would not try to suggest that; it would be irresponsible. But putting our children in a politically charged schooling system could. It will add to that pressure. For a very long time, teachers have been reluctant to teach civic and political goings-on for fear of being accused of indoctrinating young people. If that happens now, when every single political party has a stake in the outcome of that conversation, you will turn that professional anxiety into a full-on electoral scandal. There will be lots of complaining from all sides of this House about what goes on in schools.
We also have to bear in mind that those young people would now be in an educational system that would be asking their teachers to answer questions about politics. It would put pressure on them to not say the wrong thing, and there would be peer pressure to make sure they are in the right group. It could pull teachers into conversations that they do not really want to have, because there would be no way of answering without coming down on somebody’s side politically.
So we should not rush to change the rules to vote at 16, telling ourselves that we know that young people can have a political view. Of course they can: I have been a youth and community worker for over 35 years and I have worked with many young people who definitely have the wherewithal to have a political view. That is not the question. The question here is: is it right to pass on a solemn civic duty to children at a time when they are desperately trying to form who they will be going forward? I think it is the wrong thing to do.
The evidence internationally is very weak to suggest that it boosts participation anyway. Before we leap to that, we should probably have a check. If this is going to happen, the Government need to make sure that whoever provides this education has strong and visible safeguards and that there is a consensus about the civic education we give to those young people, or we will just make sure that any organisation involved in that conversation will now be exposed to the full force of our politics. I do not know whether your Lordships have met anybody in politics, but they can be rather insistent about the fact that they are right.