Contribution
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, I make no apologies for returning to the subject of political funding, because, of course, we are conducting this debate under the shadow of one number, £72 million, or rather one sum—two times £36 million. This has led to far more attention being paid to the issue of political funding. Your Lordships’ House very often is facing the Government Benches and saying, “You’re heading in the right direction, but you need to go further”. Well, now there is a very clear direction from the country that we need to see this Bill going far further in capping donations to political parties wherever they come from.
There is another factor that I am sure the country does not know about. If it did, it would ask us to please cut the amount of spending that is allowed on elections—particularly given the fact that it was massively increased under the last Government at very little notice, very late in the Bill, with very little attention.
There are specific factors that influence the issue of political funding. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady May, and share her scepticism about cryptocurrencies. They are good—no, great—for fraudsters and criminals, but there is no evidence that they in any way contribute to the public good. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, said, as I have heard him say on many occasions, that we have invited into this country corruption from around the world over many years—from Russia, China and other countries, and we are now seeing money from very dubious sources in the US coming into our UK politics. We need to take action on these issues.
Those two contributions help me make the point that this is not, however, a new problem. Political funding has been a huge issue in British politics for decades. We have had big money choosing what kind of politics we get. We get the politics it has paid for. Where does it come from? It comes from financiers, the City, gambling companies, property developers, fossil fuel companies and other giant oligarchic companies from around the world. This has to stop if we are going to restore trust in our politics.
One specific point that I will raise, as my honourable friend Ellie Chowns did in the other place, is the issue of donations from companies. I rely here on analysis from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation. Almost £1 in every £10 donated by companies comes indirectly from individuals who are likely to be ineligible to donate directly. Around a quarter of donor companies are opaque, meaning it is not possible to identify who controls them. Currently, the tax system provides an implicit subsidy of up to 39% for political donations routed through companies. It is very easy to get around what the Bill is supposed to be trying to do. So why not ban political donations from companies altogether? The Bill accepts that a company’s right to donate depends on the rights of its individual owners. If they can donate directly, why are we allowing corporate donations at all?
I want to pick up a couple of other points from the debate. It rather stuck in my craw when the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, complained about a lack of consultation, given the way in which the last Government’s Elections Act was railroaded through. I was disappointed and surprised that she repeated totally debunked, clearly politically motivated allegations about family voting from Gorton and Denton. I refer your Lordships’ House to the Manchester Police press release of 27 March, which found
“no evidence of any intent to influence or refrain any person from voting”.
We need to stop undermining our own system when there is no reason to do so.
We have heard many powerful testimonies, particularly from the Learn with the Lords programme, about why we should have votes at 16. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked why not 15 or younger, and that is a good question. I very much agree with the many contributions saying that we need more political education. However, having visited schools and colleges with Learn with the Lords, I have found that 16 year-olds are, on average, as well-informed about politics as 60-year-olds. That is not to say that both groups do not need a great deal more political education, understanding and help with critical thinking in our current media age.