Electoral Administration Bill

As indicated at Second Reading, I agree with the principle of the amendment. I agree openly, and have done for some time, with the principle of limited state funding. The amendment illustrates that, in the policy of development grants, we do have a system which provides for state funding. All the major parties, the SNP and Plaid Cymru take that state funding and, as a statement of principle, I take it that they are in favour, therefore, of limited amounts of state funding. The Green Party is unfairly dealt with in this process. It has a legitimate case to make and is entitled to some limited public support to assert its policies in the same way as other parties. I also take the view that the level of support it should have from such a scheme should be proportionate to the level of support it has in the country, as defined, for example, by the last Westminster general election. In that example, it would be quite wrong to put Green Party funding on the same level as, say, the three major parties. The Electoral Commission has a problem with how it will now try to distribute the £2 million. It will treat, for example, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru in a very unfair way and will give them almost one-third as much money as it gives to the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties, even though the nationalist parties have a tiny fraction of the level of support across Great Britain of the three major parties. So I support the amendment with the proviso that my support only applies to this principle if the level of funding is proportionate to the level of votes achieved in, say, the most recent Westminster general election.