Political Parties and Elections Bill

One has just appeared. I must say that I have been reflecting on my right hon. Friend's point as we have been debating. I wanted to consider the legitimate objective that the hon. Member for Cambridge gave, but I have to say that it is a remarkable thing, when a Government amendment is best justified by a speech from a Liberal Democrat Front Bencher. However, I listened with interest and a degree of pause for reflection when the hon. Gentleman postulated that, in the Bill before us, the legitimate objective that is being fulfilled is, in effect, the prevention of big money influencing elections, as I think he put it. I should not subscribe to the free-for-all for which some people criticise the United States system, and I accept that it could be perfectly legitimate to impose a general prohibition, cap or ceiling on donations. However, what I find extremely difficult to understand is how there can be a rational justification to require somebody to pay taxes in this country before they can donate, but not require them to pay taxes in this country before they can vote. I have been wrestling with it from the very beginning and do not understand it. I perfectly well understand the hon. Gentleman's argument for a cap, but what is entirely factitious is the use of the qualification to pay tax in this country as a preventive bar to donating. That does not seem to be rationally connected. On the question of multiple millionaires, who are largely situated abroad because they exploit looser tax regimes elsewhere, why should we not just say, "They shouldn't be allowed to donate large sums of money, but, in the same way, nor should other people who are perhaps so rich that it doesn't matter to them how much tax they pay in this country"? I do not understand the rational connection between the measure under discussion and the qualification or non-qualification to pay tax in this country.