house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

1073 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1074
amendment to my Amendment 64 and would reduce
the cut-off point from £500 to £15 a year. I do not in
principle welcome Amendment 65, because it would
produce too little money, but if the Government were
prepared to accept it, but not to accept the unamended
format of my Amendment 64, I would say that a
quarter of a loaf is better than no bread. In those
circumstances, although not in others, I would accept
the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord
Campbell-Savours.
Amendments 64 and 66 provide a simple system for
the waiver of taxation on modest donations by individuals
to recognise political parties. That is a good thing in its
own right, and even more so if supplies of money to
political parties are cut back by the capping of large
donations. I invite your Lordships’ House to support
Amendments 64 and 66.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I speak in support
of Amendment 64. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart,
pointed out, I was chairman of the committee that
recommended to Parliament that tax relief should be
allowed on donations up to the sum of £500. In reply
to something that I said on Monday, the noble Lord,
Lord Bach, said that in nearly every case the Government
of the day accepted the committee’s recommendations.
On Monday, there was one example when they did not
do so; here is a second example where they did not
accept the recommendation in the 2000 Act. Further
thought should be given to it today. One proposal that
is occasionally raised but is now impossible is that
funding should come directly from the state to the
political parties. As a saleable proposition to the general
public, that is now impossible, although it was always
very unattractive.
The proposal in Amendment 64 is a way to encourage
people to perform what is a useful function of supporting
political parties with their money. It does not go very
far and will not cost very much and is something
which, in the present climate, ought to be welcomed.
I say one final word. If the amendments are pressed
to a Division, I hope that we will be able to find a way
to divorce that proposal from the cap. That would be
desirable. I see the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, nodding
his head. Perhaps we could, when we get to that point,
have a Division on the question of whether tax relief
should be allowed on either the £500 figure or the £15
limit proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours,
and not have it confused with what is in principle a
wholly different issue: the capping at £50,000.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I could explain.
Amendment 38 will be voted on separately and then
there will be a vote on Amendment 64 and the amendment
to it. From the point of view of voting, they will be
completely separate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have not taken part in the
debates on this Bill before, but I hope that your
Lordships will permit a small intervention. I listened
to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which he
described as a brief canter round the course. Having
listened to all 13 minutes of it, I was stung into taking
part by something that he said right at the beginning,
which was that the £50,000 cap is agreed by all of us. I
do not know whether that means the Labour Party,
the Liberal party and the Front Bench of the Conservative
Party, but it is certainly not agreed by me—not that
that makes a great deal of difference.
I can never understand why there is such a fuss
about having a cap. It seems to me that either we have
parties funded by the state—as the noble Lord, Lord
Neill, said, that is now, fortunately, impossible—or we
have them funded by people who support them. If
people support their party, I cannot see why there
should be limits on the amount by which they support
it. It would therefore be a great mistake if we tried to
cut down the support given, whether to the Labour
Party or to the Conservative Party—or even if the
Liberals can find a bit here or there. It would be a pity
to cut the limit, because all that means is that everyone
has to go chasing around finding more money elsewhere
or, alternatively, running into deficit.
4pm
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I hesitate to
dissent from a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord
Neill of Bladen, but I would say the following to him
on the question of state funding. If you put state
funding directly to the British people, as against a
system that in part almost invites corruption, I know
on which side the public would come down. The
problem with the argument about state funding is that
we have never really set out the reasons why those of
us who support it so passionately do so. We believe
that it is a far more honest way of funding political
parties and that it avoids all the difficulties that we
have had over not just this recent period but the last
10 years.
My Amendment 65 is a probing amendment and I
can assure my noble friends that I do not intend to
push it to a vote. However, I would like to say this:
Amendment 29 dovetails very neatly with this amendment.
That is because the truth is, and we all know it, that
political parties will be affected by what has happened
over Amendment 29. Political parties will inevitably
have to find different ways of raising revenue. The
principle behind these amendments is that a covenanting
tax-relief system would provide an alternative.
My problem with the amendments moved from the
Liberal Democrat Benches is the cost. That was the
concern that I expressed in Committee. If I remember
rightly, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, had, throughout
the period of the Thatcher Administration, an important
position in government—certainly in the Treasury in
the years when I was in the Commons. In Committee,
he said:
“I will be arguing that every proposal for tax relief or for
further state funding should be looked at extraordinarily carefully
and be very well justified. Given the state of the public finances
today, I would not put forward such a case … I hope that, in more
propitious times, we can address this again in preference to
further state funding. It is the right way to proceed”.—[Official
Report, 5/5/09; col. GC 222.]
I agree with that sentiment. It is the way forward, but
the problem is that we are in difficult financial conditions
and I have great reservations about an amendment
that would oblige the Treasury to stump up a substantial
amount of cash.
The reason why I tabled my amendment is that it
would cost the Treasury almost nothing but would put
in place a framework on which we could build in the