house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1077 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1078<br />
good people in public life who are currently being so<br />
derided, but, above all, given the current environment,<br />
for the good people from other pr<strong>of</strong>essions who would<br />
have a real role to play and could enter politics. That is<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the most serious things facing our nation. It<br />
will be easy enough perhaps to get people to stand, but<br />
it will be extremely difficult to get people <strong>of</strong> the<br />
quality we want in <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
I believe that this proposal plays some small part in<br />
dealing with that problem. Charitable activities are<br />
regarded as worth while and therefore attract relief. As<br />
the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, there is an<br />
interesting analogy with inheritance tax where this<br />
concept is accepted; yet we are not prepared to extend<br />
it to income tax. Therefore, I also take the point made<br />
by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in Committee.<br />
Many charities are engaged almost in political activity<br />
for which they get tax relief, but those who are primarily<br />
involved in the activity and want to support it get no<br />
tax relief at all. Taking this principle today, if not the<br />
immediate implementation, sends a message <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>ound<br />
importance, which is why I so strongly support it.<br />
Baroness Turner <strong>of</strong> Camden: My Lords, I am sorry<br />
that I have not been able for various reasons to participate<br />
earlier in discussion <strong>of</strong> this legislation. I should like to<br />
make one or two points on Amendment 39, and I<br />
speak as someone who has been a trade union <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
for most <strong>of</strong> my life. I understand the desire to ensure<br />
that there is proper democratic accountability for the<br />
use <strong>of</strong> funds and so on. However, there is already in<br />
place a fair amount <strong>of</strong> legislation designed to ensure<br />
just that. There are arrangements under which members<br />
can contract out <strong>of</strong> the obligation to pay the political<br />
levy at any time they wish to do so. The political funds<br />
are normally quite separate. The executive have to be<br />
accountable to the membership for their use <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
In my union and, I believe, in all unions, there is a<br />
section in the rule book which governs the way in<br />
which political funds are collected and administered.<br />
People can also complain to the registration <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
Under this amendment, there would seem to be a<br />
lot <strong>of</strong> extra bureaucracy, and I query whether it is<br />
necessary. If the present laws are operated—I have no<br />
evidence that they are not properly operated—I do not<br />
think that there is any necessity to have any further<br />
provision in legislation. I should be interested to know<br />
whether my noble friends on the Front Bench have a<br />
different view, but that is my view at present.<br />
4.15 pm<br />
Lord Hodgson <strong>of</strong> Astley Abbotts: My Lords, my<br />
name is down in support <strong>of</strong> Amendment 38 covering<br />
the proposal to insert a £50,000 cap on donations. I<br />
wish my name had also gone down on Amendment 39,<br />
because I think they are paired, but owing to a gremlin<br />
somewhere, unfortunately that has not happened.<br />
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has outlined the case<br />
for the cap extensively and I do not propose to plough<br />
that field again. Suffice it to say that, for me, more<br />
supporters, more members and more donors in all<br />
political parties are good for our democracy because<br />
that achieves a broader base <strong>of</strong> support and involvement.<br />
Fewer, larger donors carry dangers for our democracy.<br />
I say “carry” dangers rather than necessarily have<br />
them. The obvious question is the influence <strong>of</strong> wealthy<br />
donors on the policies <strong>of</strong> a party, and here I touch on<br />
the point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers: it is<br />
not just whether they do or they do not have an<br />
influence, but whether there is a public suspicion that<br />
they might. Public suspicion is highly corrosive, because<br />
it carries the seeds <strong>of</strong> destruction <strong>of</strong> belief in the<br />
system and the way it operates. That is why the argument<br />
that the liberty <strong>of</strong> a person to give any amount to a<br />
party, which underlay his comments earlier, does not<br />
hold water in this sensitive area.<br />
This idea poses challenges for the two major parties.<br />
Historically, my party has benefited from large donors,<br />
although in recent years the Labour Party has largely<br />
caught up; whether that has been to its advantage is<br />
not for me to say. The Labour Party also benefits from<br />
the automatic nature <strong>of</strong> the political levy <strong>of</strong> the trades<br />
unions. I say to the noble Baroness that I am afraid<br />
there is too much anecdotal evidence <strong>of</strong> the way in<br />
which the donations are shuffled through without<br />
individual trades union members having a real say,<br />
and that knocks on the head the idea that the safeguards<br />
proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, are not<br />
required.<br />
I do not underestimate the challenges that these<br />
issues represent and the controversy that they will<br />
arouse, but surely, in the present circumstances, we<br />
need to face them. As has been said in the debate<br />
today, as was said on Monday, and as was said in<br />
Committee, there is a crisis <strong>of</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> faith in our<br />
democratic system. It is no good us wringing our<br />
hands and saying that it is all too difficult. That is the<br />
response <strong>of</strong> people who live inside the Westminster<br />
bubble, and I believe that our fellow citizens demand<br />
more <strong>of</strong> us today.<br />
Lord Bates: In speaking to these amendments,<br />
perhaps I may preface my remarks by apologising to<br />
the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because I was not<br />
precisely in my place when he spoke. I was finding my<br />
way through the crowd as he rose to move the<br />
amendment. There was a degree <strong>of</strong> cross-party<br />
harmony on the previous piece <strong>of</strong> legislation that may<br />
not continue into this Bill, but we will see.<br />
The series <strong>of</strong> amendments we are discussing fall<br />
into two principal areas. One is the argument about<br />
donations. We discussed this at length in Committee<br />
and it was quite widely recognised that there is an<br />
anomaly in party political contributions, which do<br />
contribute towards the democratic health <strong>of</strong> our country.<br />
Indeed, the point was just made that if one is concerned<br />
about the environment and chooses to make a donation<br />
to a political party, that money is not eligible for tax<br />
relief. If someone chooses to make a donation to<br />
Greenpeace or another organisation, it is. That is a<br />
clear anomaly which needs to be addressed at some<br />
stage, although I stress the point that it should be<br />
considered at some stage. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart,<br />
said that the cost <strong>of</strong> such a measure to the Exchequer<br />
would be around £4 million. I have no way <strong>of</strong> knowing<br />
whether the figure should be higher or lower, but my<br />
sense <strong>of</strong> the public mood at this time suggests that it<br />
would be difficult to argue in favour <strong>of</strong> an additional<br />
£4 million or £5 million <strong>of</strong> public funding being made<br />
available for political parties. While certainly we on