Political Party Finance and the Electoral Commission
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 2 Jul 2026 · 22 speeches · Official Report
Motion to Take Note
Moved by
That this House takes note of the regulatory regime for political party finance and the role of the Electoral Commission.
My Lords, at the core of any western liberal democracy is trust. The citizen must trust the institutions that make up their democracy and the people within those institutions. They must trust also that the oversight arrangements will work and, if someone or something breaches that trust, that there will be a mechanism to put things right. Within our democracy, and in common with other western liberal democracies, there will always be questions about political party finance. Political party finance in the UK is regulated by the Electoral Commission, which I will come back to shortly. Trust in the ruling party in Scotland is at a very long-term low. There is the First Minister who could not see a huge and shiny motor home outside her mother-in-law’s house; the refrain in rural Perthshire is, “She should’ve gone to Specsavers”. This is the same First Minister who believes that full co-operation with the police is hours in their custody repeating “no comment”. Another First Minister is vigorously trying to stop a Scottish Parliament inquiry into something so damaging for our democracy-with no apology for the obvious and serious conflict he has-as such an inquiry would inevitably seek to look into his actions and inactions as well. Be it a Cabinet or a board of directors, members have joint responsibility for what has gone on. Indeed, a director is personally liable for their negligence. The SNP leader claims the SNP national executive committee to be different. Members of the...
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to thank him for initiating this short debate. I agree entirely with his opening remarks in relation to what has happened in Scotland. Even my guide dog would have been able to see the motor home, never mind the multiple very clever coffee makers. It is appropriate that we should be debating this before the latest Representation of the People Bill reaches us, because on the previous occasion, the 26th Bill, it was my pleasure to join with the noble Earl’s predecessor, the much-missed Lord Judge, in trying to get right what we were debating at that time-both the powers and independence of the Electoral Commission and where we were going. Much has changed in those very few years. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, whose fault it is not, that we did not really need the Rycroft review, important and informative as it is, to tell us that there was a major problem with bitcoin. It is remarkable that the Bill as drafted, and not yet amended on Report in the Commons, missed this out. Sadly, that is an indication of our time, where reviews rather than action, missing the point, being somewhat behind the door, and looking at the past rather than the future have been too prevalent. We have got to get real in this area. It is time to understand the absolute reality and check what is taking place now, to equip our laws and our Electoral Commission for the future. If we do not, the basic tenets of our...
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in thanking the noble Earl and congratulating him on introducing this debate. It is a timely and incredibly important subject. I speak as a veteran, at various stages in a long and chequered career, of engaging in cross-party talks on party funding. The concern I have about where we are today is that the long-established convention on these matters of changing the rules on party funding-that they are pursued only after cross-party talks, with agreement being sought-seems to be being abandoned. The noble Earl made a powerful case for a much more comprehensive and simple approach to these matters, so it is a matter of regret and concern that the Government have chosen to pick a couple of cherries out of the Rycroft report and introduce them, at a relatively late stage, into a Bill already going through its legislative process. That is a breach of the approach which has been followed pretty rigorously. I recall that, in the period after the 2005 election, when Sir Hayden Phillips-sadly, now the late Sir Hayden Phillips-was asked to undertake one of these reviews, Jack Straw and I, accompanied by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, had comprehensive discussions, which sadly did not reach agreement. They did not reach agreement because the Labour Party had a concern that a cap on donations of £50,000 could not be applied to donations by trade unions. At that point, the whole deal that was being fashioned-which would have gone some way to...
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Maude, with whom I worked in the coalition many years ago, I am thinking of the 2022 Act, through which the Conservative Government were certainly trying to advantage themselves and disadvantage their competitors. That is one of the reasons why we have this Bill before us today, and this is a debate to which we will return. Last Thursday we debated the problem of rebuilding public trust in our democratic institutions, so it is highly appropriate that today, we move on to discuss the Electoral Commission as the guarantor of the integrity of our campaigns. To play its role effectively, the Electoral Commission needs to have sufficient powers and to be seen as independent of government. In last Thursday’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, argued that political debate is “a free and open encounter ”-[ Official Report , 25/6/26; col. 820.] in which truth will always emerge victorious, regardless of the channels of influence available to, for example, Elon Musk, as opposed to the ordinary citizen. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, denounced “the absurd and dangerous Rycroft review … which was written … to justify unnecessary and authoritarian solutions. ”.-[Official Report, 25/6/26; col. 808.] The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, decried “self-righteous campaigns against foreign actors ”-[ Official Report , 25/6/26; col. 816.] as an effort by the establishment to distract the public from what she sees as the real reasons...
My Lords, I have learned much from the debate so far, and we will learn a lot from the speeches still to come. It is a particular pleasure to speak after the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I am conscious that I am somewhat outside my comfort zone in speaking today, and so I will speak principally as a voter. I vote assiduously in local elections; I used to vote assiduously in European parliamentary elections, but alas no more, and I would vote assiduously in general elections were I allowed to do so. I hope the Minister will tell us what plans the Government have to enable Peers to vote in general elections in future. The need to tighten up the present arrangements for political party financing is clear, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said. In 2020, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, the Law Commission reported: “The current laws governing elections should be rationalised into a single, consistent legislative framework”. In April 2026, under the present Prime Minister, the Rycroft review recommended that there should be an annual cap on donations from British donors living abroad, a moratorium on donations in crypto assets, and that political parties’ ability to monitor donations and deal with the threat of foreign financial interference should be strengthened. That is all very sensible, and I am glad that some of the Rycroft report’s recommendations will be included in amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. Can the Minister update us on the progress of...
My Lords, I welcome this debate into this important matter, but more to help put the record straight than to add further fuel to the misconception about how mainstream political parties raise funds. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised some extremely important points, but the situations he illustrated were criminal acts in my view. The law is clear; it is the enforcement that is the problem. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, I think I have been involved in party fundraising for probably longer than anyone in this House. I see it as my duty to encourage people to support my party. Indeed, when asked by people from other persuasions if they should donate to their cause, I always encourage that too. I do not have an interest to register. I have stopped raising money for the Conservative Party for the time being-I am afraid I found I had run out of friends and people were crossing the road to avoid me. In all my time as a treasurer, as chairman and as vice-chairman for finance for the last 15 or so years, I was never-not once-asked to influence something in exchange for a donation. All our donors wanted, and sadly seldom got, were basic conservative principles put to work in government. I see some union Barons opposite; they probably feel the same way about their own contributions. It is a totally incorrect idea that there is a nefarious influence, either from home or abroad. In fact, everyone involved in funding whom I dealt with in the Conservative...
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to “protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties”- an aim shared, I am sure, by all of us from whichever party or none. Trust in politics, Parliament, our system of government and lawmaking is crucial for the maintenance of democracy. Sadly, such trust has declined and we need action to restore it. Money is one element. Donations to political parties have a whiff of buying influence or access, whether the money comes from companies or wealthy individuals. I say “wealthy” because it is big money that concerns people, not the purchase of £20 of raffle tickets, which, yes, we still do. The Government have taken action and, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Maude, I am delighted that the Rycroft review recommended a cap on donation from non-residents. It has been mentioned by other noble Lords. Most in the House will know that I have raised this issue ever since the previous Government extended from 15 years to life the period in which those who have left our shores but still have a UK passport can remain on the electoral roll. I welcome the cap, though I still cannot understand how someone who pays no tax here and does not use our services or contribute to our economy or to civil society should be able to fund a political party. They have no skin in the game, so why are they influencing our politics by financing a party’s ability to campaign and win? We have already heard from the noble Earl, Lord...
My Lords, it is very good that we are having this discussion today; I want to raise two issues. The first is the role of the Electoral Commission and the second is the composition of the electoral register. On the first, I cannot entirely agree with the general approval of the direction of travel of the Electoral Commission in recent years. I worry that we are creating another quango, as we have previously in other areas, that in day-to-day practice is relatively unaccountable. We have touched on the reporting arrangements that were originally brought in for the Electoral Commission when it was created. There is not real accountability to the Speaker’s Committee; it is a financial scrutiny loop, really. Of course, the Speaker’s Committee has a government majority on it. That is why the Government that I was briefly a part of changed this in 2022, so that there was at least some attempt to pay due regard to broader strategic priorities in this area. It seems that we are now going to change this back. The problem is that somebody has to decide how the Electoral Commission acts. If it is not proper accountability from outsiders, then it is the permanent bureaucracy that runs it. The permanent bureaucracy is not, in my view, neutral, and has a very strong worldview in these areas. We saw that on the Electoral Commission during the Brexit period when the commission went after people without properly understanding its own rules, putting individuals through the wringer. We saw it-I...
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have been advising the charity Spotlight on Corruption on these issues. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for initiating this debate, since what is more important than the integrity of our electoral system? Political party finance goes to the heart of this. For many years, there has been no restriction on how much a party can receive from donors, meaning that some parties have had a game-changing advantage during elections. Electoral success should not be significantly determined by financial power, since that diminishes our democracy and risks a handful of wealthy individuals subverting political discourse and policy-making. Now that we have more parties-some at the extremes of right and left-competing for power and receiving large donations, the need to instil a greater degree of fairness in how much each party can receive and spend has never been so important. To their credit, the Government are addressing some of the issues in their Representation of the People Bill, such as the commencement of Section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which will require donors to declare whether they have received money from another individual in connection with their donation. Parties will be prohibited from accepting any donation without such a declaration. However, the wording of Section 54A, enacted-unbelievably-17 years ago but never commenced, is vague and too easy to circumvent in 2026. It...
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing this debate on such an important subject for our country. I declare my interest as a former chief executive of the Conservative Party and indeed a donor to the party for over 25 years, although not on the scale of Mr Harborne.
Noble Lords
Shame.
A great shame. I come to this debate from a slightly different angle, perhaps, from other noble Lords. I have always believed that assisting the work of a political party that shares one’s views and values is a form of public service. As a party, the Conservative Party has always been deeply committed to the principles of the Electoral Commission and we adhered very carefully to the rules and always carried out detailed due diligence on large donors. I agree with the idea of a cap on overseas donors and with the idea of increased fines for misconduct; however, I am concerned about some proposals in the Bill which would be unfair to companies wanting to support any of our parties. I want to address another concern, which is the matter of electoral fraud, as I am concerned that some items in the Bill could have the unintended consequence of making this easier. Most political parties believe that companies should be able to donate to a political party. At the same time, we are all aware of the potential for foreign money to enter our politics, which of course can come through individuals as well as corporates. The question is: what is the test we ought to apply in practice to judge eligibility to donate? The Bill stipulates three tests-perhaps I am getting slightly ahead of myself, as it is not yet before us, but I am addressing an item that will be in the Bill. The three tests are UK-generated revenues, UK headquarters and majority UK control. I strongly agree with the last...
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, introduced the debate with his usual courtesy and wisdom, but he reminded us that, as a highlander, for all the courtesy, he carries a claymore. I cannot follow him in that-I am a boring lowlander. I want to support the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for urgency with the Representation of the People Bill. It is worrying that it has been three months since the Rycroft report came out. I thought Rycroft was quite right when he presented it saying that he did not want to press a panic button, but he did want to ring an alarm bell. I think that it is alarming. The particular angle I want to explore, one that has not been touched on so far in this debate, is hostile state actors using agents of opportunity, gullible, greedy or malevolent, in this country. We need to look closely at the financial links that have been well documented between RN in France and Moscow and the links that are well documented between the AfD in Germany and Moscow-the Fidesz link with Budapest is of course notorious. There were reports of close involvement, interference, by Russia in the Romanian and Moldova elections. I cannot stand that up, but the reporting seemed convincing. Last weekend, I heard a senior Ukrainian say that with the war going rather better, even though the Americans have reduced their support, the worst thing for Ukraine, the thing it feared most now, was an election going wrong in a major European state. I think he was talking about France,...
My Lords, thank you for allowing me to speak in the gap. I declare an interest, having been the election lawyer to the Labour Party for many decades. I will talk about one small, narrow issue. One frustrating issue is the consolidation of the Representation of the People Act-the number of volumes that I have on my desk is so wide. It is about time we did this; it has been called for for years. I am particularly concerned about enforcement. The way to deal with it is quite tricky. If an MP has transgressed, you can commence an election petition. That is very expensive to do, and parties and people I have advised over the years have had to think twice about whether it something for which they want to take the risk. There is a piece of legislation that many noble Lords will know: the Recall of MPs Act 2015, where MPs can be recalled if they are convicted or suspended by the House of Commons. I invite my noble friend the Minister to think about how we could revisit that legislation and whether the better bits of it could perhaps be incorporated into a separate or amended bit of legislation, with some enforcement powers. When foreign money comes in and seeks to promote whoever it is, and that candidate wins an election, they are there; they are elected. The procedure to get rid of them must be easier, clearer and obvious to the public, otherwise people will give up because they do not have the resources or the political commitment to it. I ask the Minister to think about it, and...
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for such a helpful and timely debate. As we have heard from the contributions today, it is useful to debate this topic in advance of legislation coming to this House, but with a step back from the necessary microfocus we quickly get into when the legislation is in front of us. As someone who has also long called for consolidation of election law, I have been particularly heartened by the number of contributions, including the one before me, highlighting this issue and raising its importance. When I asked an Oral Question in this place a while ago about the topic, it was perhaps understandable but a little disappointing that the Government’s position seemed to be that, because consolidation will take a long time to carry off, they were not going to prioritise it. One can therefore unfortunately characterise the Government’s position as: “Because it’s going to take a long time, we’re going to put off starting it”. The alternative interpretation is that, because it is going to take a long time to do, maybe that is all the more reason to start it sooner rather than later. I very much agree with the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the long delay in implementing the provision about the original source of money. It is welcome to say something nicer about the Government’s position in this case. It is welcome that the Government have definitely moved on that-it happened to be the topic of my...
My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for bringing forward this important debate and for giving me the opportunity to discuss some of the issues beforehand. There is a simple constitutional caution at the heart of this matter. A Government should not direct the power of the state to undercut the lawful flow of funds to their political opponents. Once that line is crossed, it is not easily uncrossed. It invites reprisal when power changes hands, and it weakens public confidence that electoral law is being made in the national interest rather than in the interests of the party temporarily in office. Party finance law is not ordinary lawmaking; it is the law by which the competitors in our democracy agree on the rules of the contest. The Government of the day are the trustee of those rules, not the proprietor. The previous Government were right to be tough on hostile state activity. They passed the National Security Act 2023, creating the statutory framework for the foreign influence registration scheme. No one in this House should be complacent about foreign interference, but the existence of that threat does not justify Ministers blurring the distinction between foreign interference and lawful donations made by registered electors or genuine UK businesses. This side of the House has been consistent: changes to the rules should be made through proper cross-party consultation. That is a long-honoured constitutional custom, an argument so eloquently put forward by...
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on the regulation of political finance and the role of the Electoral Commission. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for opening the debate, and other noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a fascinating, timely and important debate. It is clear from the contributions that we all share a deep commitment to sustaining trust in our elections and in our democracy. That is what is at the heart of the Government’s approach. I will try to respond to the many important questions raised, although I am afraid I am a bit hopeless at the namechecking-but I will do my best. I will certainly read Hansard carefully with my officials and, if necessary, follow up in writing any points I have missed. I start by making the general point, which I know other noble Lords have made, not least the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that our democracy in this country is central to our very identity as a nation. Our democracy is respected and, in many cases, revered around the world. We are all proud of that democratic heritage and seek to protect it. That is why it is a priority for this Government to stop foreign interference in UK politics, including from foreign state actors, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, and to protect our democracy. A key pillar of this is strengthening the rules on political donations and ensuring that they are effectively enforced. The Representation of the People Bill contains crucial reforms...
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the last very interesting 90 minutes. I thank particularly the Minister for answering very fully quite a lot of questions that were put to him in an encouraging way. In summary, the first thing that was a common theme among everybody was that there is a problem with trust, and accordingly, we must do something about it. The point that I wish I had made was made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which was about education and the importance of educating people in our country about our constitution and the difficult things we have been talking about today. I do hope we will think on that all round. I was not going to say, but I will say, that my logical deduction was that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, does not exchange Christmas cards with Christopher Harborne when he said he had run out of friends and had stopped raising money. I was on the Trade Union Bill committee when we sat for a very intense month and were chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in 2016. I well remember all the evidence we got and the necessity for there to be cross-party co-operation on some of these very difficult areas that were discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, read out some quotes from our report. I remember those sessions, and the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I definitely had, being the two Cross-Benchers on that committee, was that, if you bash one of the three...
Motion agreed.