I fully understand concerns some people have expressed about political finance and roundly recognise the importance of ensuring that our democracy is not subject to any subversive influences - whether this be foreign or domestic, financial, sectarian or, sadly, as we have seen in recent times, due to political violence or intimidation.
While I strongly support efforts to protect our democracy from foreign interference, corruption, intimidation and or dirty money, which I do feel we should be more strident on, I believe this current Bill does not match the scale of those particular threats facing our democracy.
There is a long-standing principle in this country that if you can vote for any political party, then you can also donate to any political party. This was supported by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998, which judged that 'permissible donors' are voters registered on the United Kingdom's Electoral Register. This is an important expression of freedom of association, and an arbitrary cap risks therefore undermining this. Therefore, I do not support an arbitrary cap on donations.
Without donors, large or small, the burden of funding political party campaigning would inevitably fall to the British taxpayer. State funding of political party campaigning is wrong in my view, and no party should expect the British people to see their taxes go towards bankrolling political campaigns. You need to win the battle of ideas and that also includes making the arguments people are legitimately willing to fund and get behind. That is why those who support an arbitrary donations cap must explain how they would ensure that any imbalance would be avoided, without undermining the ability of all parties to make public their plans for Britain and their views on pressing political issues.
I do, however, welcome the strong transparency and compliances rules, which are backed by the law, that all parties must adhere to at all times. I firmly support the rule that any donations must only be from a permissible source, and that political parties must be responsible for checking the source of loans and donations over the value of £500. The law is clear that political parties must return donations and loans if they are uncertain of the identity of the donor or lender. Equally, those reliant on very large single donors or on large unions should provide clarity and transparency as much as those raising funds from businesses and sectors.
The Labour Government's current Representation of the People Bill seeks to make yet more sweeping changes to the functioning and rules of our democracy. While I, of course, do welcome elements of the Bill that seek to strengthen our democratic systems, I believe this Labour Government have failed to attempt to change the rules carefully, after proper consultation and in due consideration of future effects. Therefore, in my opinion, this Bill falls woefully short of what it should achieve as well as failing in engaging the electorate.
It is a longstanding convention that the Government of the day consults with other political parties on any changes to electoral laws to ensure they are not to their own partisan advantage. The Labour Government failed to do this ahead of laying this Bill and ahead of the publication of their Electoral Strategy last July. This is disappointing but not unexpected.
So, without the normal and expected consultation outlined above, the Labour Government have laid a Bill that, if implemented, could create deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity and which risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register, could side-step serious questions about foreign interference in our politics and reduce protections against electoral fraud.
This Labour Government claim the Bill will protect our democracy against political interference, yet they pressed ahead with this Bill before the conclusion of the Rycroft Review on that very subject. It is vital that all factors are considered to ensure that our democratic systems are fully protected against political interference, so it raises both concerns and questions as to why the Government did not wait for the conclusion of the independent Rycroft Review. The Government clearly should have awaited the reports’ findings before bringing forward legislation.
The campaign that has come into my inbox on this issue asks me to support Amendment NC71 which ‘would limit the amount of money that can be paid out by individuals and companies while making sure that "bundled " donations which gather up individual donations from a large number of voters can continue’. This is clearly partisan politics, allowing as it does large and influential donations from Trade Unions to continue unabated as those donating to the Right are rarely collectivist by inclination or action. This, in my view, is unfair and wrong.
With regard to NC22, political finance law already provides for transparency about donations and sets out clear rules on companies being UK-based. But it is absolutely not the role or purpose of such laws to actively single out and bar particular industries from participating in the democratic process, nor be used to push divestment in legitimate and legal businesses – that is a dangerous road to go down. It is for these reasons that I will likely not be supporting NC22 if it is selected for decision at Report stage.
When the last Government, and indeed the last Labour government, brought forward major electoral changes, it often included proper consultation such as green papers, working groups and draft legislation. This appears to be yet another example of activist-led, ill-thought out, badly prepared, engaged on and written legislation from this particular Labour Government.
I will, of course, closely scrutinise this Bill as it is carried over into the new session and seeks to pass through the House on behalf of my constituents, and work to improve this Bill to make it fit for purpose- always seeking to look at both the clauses and the Bill as whole as they move forward.
