Political Parties and Elections Bill

We do not need to spend a great deal of time on this matter because to some extent we have covered it in a previous debate. In moving Amendment 89, I shall refer briefly to Amendment 90, which also follows Clause 8, and Amendment 142, which is a consequential amendment in Clause 29. We have been carefully advised that, contrary to what the Minister said a few moments ago, if we had already approved Amendments 82 and 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, an impermissible donor would include someone who had been made impermissible under those amendments. So when the Minister said a few moments ago that it entirely relied on those who were not qualified in terms of their electoral status, that is not our view. If they were not permissible donors under the amendments that we endorsed for tax reasons, they would fall within this definition as well. Amendment 89 relates to those companies whose control is in the hands of an impermissible donor either for electoral reasons or for tax reasons. That meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Were we to take the view that impermissible donors would include those whose tax status made it impossible, it is illogical if those people could get round that by using a company under Amendment 89. Therefore, the amendment would make it impossible for them to use that route. Similarly, under Amendment 90, we were looking at the specific issue of those who are not qualified to vote under all three types of election. When this matter was discussed in the other place, there was some anxiety that those Members of your Lordships’ House who are disqualified from voting in parliamentary elections should not be permitted to make donations to political parties. That is not our view and we have adjusted what was then before the other place to make it clear that it relates to those who are not qualified in all three types of elections—parliamentary, local and European. As noble Lords will recognise, we would not be preventing them from making a donation to a party under these provisions. I want to refer briefly to the debate in the other place at the 11th sitting of the Public Bill Committee on this Bill because there was a very interesting exchange between representatives of the three parties on the issue of consensus, about which we have heard again today. The Minister, Mr Wills, said: ""I hope that one day we will see a consensus emerge on what we all agree are important issues"—" that is, the issues that we are now discussing and the wider issues that we discussed earlier today. My honourable friend Mr Howarth, our spokesman, said: ""The Minister came back to the point about consensus, but he seems to have a highly restricted view of where we should be going and how. There are times when politicians have to go with the consensus of the public rather than the consensus of the parties"." Most interesting of all, Mr Andrew Tyrie, for whom I have the widest respect—I have worked very closely with him and he has given more attention to this issue on behalf of the Conservative Party than anyone else; indeed, some would say more than anyone else in the House of Commons—said: ""I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that we cannot arrive at the point at which one party can have a veto over change if it were clearly what the overwhelming majority of voters concluded would enable greater public trust to be restored in such matters".—[Official Report, Commons, Political Parties and Elections Bill Committee, 20/11/08; col. 414.]" Mr Howarth said that he agreed with that. I quoted Mr Andrew Tyrie in particular because he sums up precisely where the public are on this issue. Any representative of a political party who thinks that we can just coast along and wait for some entirely impossible situation to arise where the minority of politicians are able to veto the view of the public, and probably the majority of politicians generally, must realise that that is no longer a sustainable position. The public have a perception of Parliament and politics which is not doing us any good at the moment. This was reflected at Second Reading from all sides of the House. We may have to find a compromise. It may well be that all of us will have to give a little and be prepared to listen to others. If we simply go on, as Ministers tend to do, saying that until we have agreement between the parties on the lowest common denominator we will do nothing, not only your Lordships’ House and the other place but the whole of Parliament and the whole of our political life will continue to suffer an increasing degree of disengagement and disillusionment with our political systems. These amendments are similar to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, which we supported, and are an attempt to address a real public concern about the way in which money is being employed to try to influence our political system. Unless we face up to that, and unless Ministers are prepared to give leadership on these issues instead of always waiting for the lowest common denominator of consensus, then we will have a major problem. At this stage of the day, I think that is enough. I beg to move.