house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

1075 Political Parties and Elections Bill [LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1076
[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS]
future. I imagine a system—in the more propitious
times to which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor,
referred—where, annually, either some inflationary
measure is applied to it or the threshold is raised. I
think that we should be impressing on the Treasury,
and on my friend Jack Straw in the other place, the
importance of accepting an amendment of this nature
in legislation.
I do not know whether the Liberal Democrat Benches
intend to push this to a vote today. However, if the
amendment were to be carried, it would be possible
during Commons consideration of Lords amendments
for the Government to introduce a more appropriate
sum—a sum that could be afforded. I simply wonder
whether that might be in the mind of Ministers if they
have to reject this amendment today. If it is rejected
today, I can say to my noble friends that I will be
lobbying fairly extensively over the next few days,
prior to Third Reading, for perhaps some concession
to be made by the Government. I hope that we do not
simply say no out of hand and reject this for all time; I
hope that we can perhaps see a little flexibility in the
response from the Dispatch Box by my noble friend.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise with some
diffidence—and, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers,
will be pleased to hear, briefly—to support
Amendment 38.
A great deal of money is thrown about at elections,
as I experienced in my misspent youth when I was
involved in the marketing and advertising professions,
with all the profligacy of Russian oligarchs. No one
disputes the need for realistic budgets, but the siren
voices of advertising and marketing men should be
firmly resisted. Nothing disconnects the electorate
from the electoral process more than huge sums of
money, hitherto camouflaged in some cases, being
dispensed in this way, together with the unwillingness
of politicians of every party to embrace the idea that
the electors themselves should be asked to make very
modest contributions to the electoral process.
I do not wish to seem cynical, but it often seems
that the more the amount of money spent in election
campaigns rises, the more the number of people voting
in elections falls. Surely this is a very unhealthy state of
affairs, which I suggest we can put right today.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I
shall speak to Amendments 64 and 66, and to some
extent to Amendment 65. As the noble Lord, Lord
Goodhart, said, I was a member of the Committee on
Standards in Public Life, which first put forward this
recommendation. I was very disappointed that this
was one of the very few of our recommendations that
the Government rejected in their response. Indeed,
they never really gave any reasons against it, so I am
very pleased that we are having this debate again today
to talk about the principle and to see whether we can
find some way forward.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours,
that I fully appreciate as an ex-Chief Secretary—I
think this was what he was referring to—that we must
be very careful in the current circumstances about the
extent to which we encourage increased tax relief or
extra expenditure. What I think we are really trying to
do today is take advantage of the Bill, which gives us
the opportunity to establish the principle. My one
difficulty with his amendment is that he refers to
£15 as the limit in 2010-11. Frankly, no one will take it
up at that level. The administration would be very
high, and if it seemed not to work it might be regarded
as a policy that was not worth while. That is my
difficulty with the figure. However, if we agree on the
principle in the House today, there is still an opportunity
to try to get it into legislation and to work out the
timetable for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his usual
exemplary fashion, gave all the reasons for accepting
this proposal, so I shall emphasise just two points. The
first relates to party funding. In my earlier years in
politics, very many people in our constituencies spent
a great deal of time not only actively campaigning but
actively raising funds for party political work. That
was hugely to the benefit of the democratic process. So
much came from these small donations and fundraising
activities, and it was entirely healthy. It spread interest
in the democratic process, and spread political engagement
much more widely.
Equally, it is unhealthy to be too reliant on large
personal donations; on substantial corporate funding,
although that is largely diminished now if not defunct
altogether; trade union support; and, above all, on
state funding, which requires no activity beyond winning
votes to get it. The principle here is therefore highly
desirable and is a way of re-encouraging small donations.
The emphasis is on small donations, which cannot be
abused by large donors getting tax relief for them. We
recommended the limit of £500 in 1998, so in principle
I would be in favour of indexing beyond the £500 limit.
The point that has been made about President Obama’s
success in the American presidential elections is very
clearly correct, too. This is an important way of
encouraging wider participation in the political process.
I shall put my second point, which goes much
wider, very concisely. When I first entered public life
and got involved in politics almost 50 years ago, and
entered Parliament 35 years ago, it was a profession
held in high regard. MPs were regarded with great
respect in their constituencies and more widely, and it
was a high aspiration to become an MP. Many in other
careers entered Parliament half way through their
active life because they felt that it was very worth while
and were prepared to make sacrifices, including that of
family life and financially, to do so. It is a matter of
profound distress to me that parliamentary activity
and the role of an MP are regarded in the way that
they are today.
I believe that nothing is more important than working
for your constituents in the most important institution
in the land. Above all, it is important to remember
that Ministers are largely drawn from this pool. They
make bigger and more profound decisions than others
in leading positions in most walks of life. Yet those
who aspire to these roles are being demeaned in public
and, in my view, are seriously underpaid compared to
those in leading positions in business, the professions
and most other activities. My concern is not for the