I have significant issues with new clause 13, as drafted, which simply asks to introduce a proportional system. For something as seismic as that, there ought to be greater detail about what is being proposed. I am also a strong believer—this speaks to new clause 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—in the desirability of a citizens convention on our democracy that would look at voting systems but also look a lot more widely. This is a good moment and a good mechanism to reboot our democracy.
On new clause 14, in my name, and new clause 10, having left the European Union, we need new, easy-to-understand arrangements that are fair. People who live in this country ought to have a say in how it is run and the services that affect their lives. It is odd that the Bill does not do more for them, and indeed does more for those who do not live here than those who do. The provisions we seek to implement would address that, and I hope they are looked on favourably.
Turning to new clauses 2 and 9, the Bill creates another odd paradox. It opens the floodgates for a potentially large influx of foreign-based money into our democracy, but at the same time makes it harder for civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to
have their say, despite the massive contribution to British life that they make. What is fair or transparent about that?
Labour Members are on record as thinking that 15 years is a reasonable and proportionate amount of time for someone to retain a vote after leaving the UK and for the arrangements to ensure that they can to remain practical. We fear that the Government have created a system vulnerable to overseas interference. It allows a person to call up any and every local authority to say that they were resident in the area 30 or 40 years ago, provide flimsy proof—it will not be photo identification, that is for sure—and then be able to donate massive sums of money. I would hope to hear from the Minister that that is not the intention, but nevertheless there is a chance to make good on it. New clause 2 would simply prevent anyone registered as such an overseas elector from donating to political parties in the UK, while new clause 9 would require individual and company donors to be based in the UK while making those in charge of companies liable for any offences caused. We also have new clause 16 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). So if the Minister really does not want to see that weakness in our democracy, she has a real menu to choose from and she will find us very supportive, because these are proportionate safeguards.
Research from The Times shows that the Conservative party was able, through existing methods, to accept about £1 million from UK citizens living in tax havens ahead of the 2017 general election. The Bill takes away the barriers that kept it at £1 million. The strength of feeling on the issue is shown by the variety of other new clauses—2, 8, 16 and 18—that cover that subject. As the Government seek to ensure that those in tax havens have a stronger voice, they are seeking at the same time to undermine the ability of civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to engage in our democracy. Amendment 3 would remove those provisions.
7.15 pm
As currently drafted, the provisions mean that, where a political party is campaigning jointly with one of those organisations, or where those organisations are campaigning together, the total cost of the campaign has to be declared by all participating parties. Making co-campaigners count the same money multiple times simply makes no sense. Why would the same £20,000 spent by one entity also count for the other—unless, of course, we wanted them to do less campaigning?
Do not take this just from me; the Electoral Commission believes that the provisions could make it harder for some campaigners to understand and be confident in following the new law, and could deter or restrict campaigning efforts, leading to less information reaching the electorate and from a narrower range of sources. When I say it like that, it suddenly does not seem at all surprising that the Government are seeking this, because that is what they want and that is what the Bill states.
Wealthy donors who have not lived in the UK for decades will find it easier to contribute. Charities working every day in this country will find it harder. That is because the Government want to silence those who are critical of their record on poverty, child hunger, low pay, climate and the dozens of other issues on which
they have failed for 11 years. Our amendment will reverse that and I encourage colleagues to support it. Similarly, we will support amendments 11 and 12, which delete parts of this provision.
I will finish with just a couple of points on the Government’s amendments. Politicians changing their minds is a good thing—we do not see enough of it. We would all be in stronger positions if we recognised that sometimes we get things wrong or that our views change over time. However, the sheer volume of changes and changed directions in the Bill is a sign of how half-baked it started. It is a sign, as the PACAC report stated, that there ought to have been proper pre-legislative scrutiny. There should have been a proper attempt to build consensus across Parliament and civil society.
Instead, we are left in this absurd situation in which, between Second Reading and Report—and indeed, between Committee sittings—the Government shoved in the use of first past the post for mayoral elections. That is bad government and bad leadership, and it is symptomatic of a bad Bill. I hope that the Minister will at least make good on the commitments sought in that report for proper post-legislative scrutiny, because much will have to be put together after this.
I am conscious that time is short and that lots of colleagues wish to contribute, so I shall conclude. This is a bad Bill. The solutions in it are looking for problems to solve. It will make it harder for citizens to vote; it will make it harder for civil society to contribute. The only winners here are those with the deepest pockets. Once again, we see that this is a Government with the wrong priorities, whose every action, at every stage, lays bare dishonesty. We should pass those new clauses and amendments.