Contribution
My Lords, I am very pleased to make a short contribution to this debate. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Macintosh of Eastwood on his excellent and engaging maiden speech. I declare an interest that, decades ago, I used to organise an annual meeting with the Scottish Parliament on science, to which the noble Lord made contributions. He was a very distinguished Presiding Officer of the Parliament, and I am sure the House will want to hear from him on many more occasions in the future.
I am the 45th listed speaker in this debate; I feel as though I fall into the dinner-break category. I am not the only person to remark upon the exquisite timing of today’s debate. At the weekend, we all heard that two almost incredibly wealthy people had decided to give £36 million each to the same political party. Without a doubt, these are the greatest proposed individual financial gifts ever bestowed upon any political party in British history, and they raise some fundamental challenges to our political system and democracy that we would pass over at our peril. Do we want our democratic politics to be reduced to a fundraising race to the bottom? We can look across the Atlantic and see the divisive impact of big money and big donors in America.
The Bill proposes a limit of £100,000 for political donations made in a calendar year by an overseas contributor, and I am beginning to think that that figure ought to be reviewed. We should also extend the moratorium—I would prefer a ban—on the donation of crypto assets to registered political parties. Crypto assets, almost by definition, make it hard or impossible to be sure that the donation is not tainted in any way by illegal activity and unknown malign actors. Further, there is a bigger question about the appropriate limits on individual donations. The two donors in question have claimed not to want anything in return for their £36 million. If you believe that, then I have got news for you: you will believe anything. There are huge questions to be raised about transparency and accountability. How is their relationship going to be monitored? We cannot have undercover reporters at every single drinks party to let us know what is going on.
I turn to other areas in the Bill. This is an important Bill that seeks to implement manifesto commitments. Many Members in this Chamber have contested elections at local and constituency level. I am one of those who rather wishes that the Bill was a consolidated Bill, but we are where we are. I am interested in some of the comments made about extending the franchise and its political effect—please do not tempt me, as I will run out of time—and I support the right of 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. When I speak to young people in schools—or, as other noble Lords have mentioned, at Learn with the Lords events—I am struck by the fact that they know they have the greatest stake in the future. They are hungry to know and understand the system, and we should do a great deal more than we do even now to help with their education. Forgive me, but, to my generation, the words “tick tock” refer to a grandfather clock or the passage of time; however, to the new generation, TikTok is how they get the news and video clips that shape their view of the world. I therefore strongly support the proposals in Clause 15 for local authorities to have a duty to raise awareness among young people.
On voter registration, I strongly support the spirit of Part 2. In the late 1970s, I was an agent. In the constituency of Kensington North, where I lived, grew up and first voted, I conducted an exercise in voter registration in a ward in the north of the constituency. I was astonished to find that there were 371 people who should have been on that register, so I strongly support what the Bill is seeking to do. But I want to make one point to the Minister: the Electoral Commission will be an increasingly important guardrail for protecting our democracy. Things such as the imprint rules, which have been referred to, and the use of deepfakes can damage trust in our democracy. When she winds up, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Electoral Commission will have adequate resources to do the expanded role it is expected to carry out?
Finally, there is one issue I want to raise with my noble friend that noble Lords might consider very esoteric: the demise of the Crown and its impact on elections. Does the Bill guard against the possibility, however unlikely, that a general election at the very end of a five-year Parliament could be put at risk by the demise of the Crown? To be precise, could there be rare circumstances that cause the postponement of a general election for 14 days beyond the statutory five-year Parliament limit?
My time is up. I hope we can get as much consensus as possible on some of these areas in the Bill, because it will help preserve the stability of our democracy and the representation of the people upon which it rests.