Political Party Finance and the Electoral Commission

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

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 Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett about the enormous amounts of money paid to Reform by people who no longer live here. I think some of them are based in Thailand and elsewhere. That money from people who do not live here—they may have a British passport—is not good for politics or our democracy. Further than that, how can we check on the bona fides of overseas donors in a sort of “know your donor” requirement? Where did they get the money from that they are going to contribute? Is it their own or has it come from a non-permitted donor? Is the donor even alive or in prison? Are they working for another Government? It may be that they are, quite legitimately, but does it not feel a bit odd that they are then funding our political parties? How will the Electoral Commission, or any individual party, police these donations and undertake due diligence, either on the person or on the source of their money?

Furthermore, how effective in terms of democracy is a cap of £100,000 a year per person? Over a five-year Parliament, a couple could give £500,000 each. That is £1 million per Parliament from an expat couple, who may not have lived here for decades and may have no intention of returning. I hope that, when the Bill arrives here, I and others in the House can persuade my Government to reduce this cap to £10,000 a year, or else make donations possible only for those who are registered for tax in the United Kingdom.

My second ask of the Government is to support my Private Member’s Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow. This would require any person or organisation lobbying a Minister or Permanent Secretary to be on the register of lobbyists and report such meetings. It is not a lot to ask, and it is what virtually all our equivalent democracies do. I am an old lobbyist, so I have no problem with the practice. In fact, I think when I was lobbying on behalf of Alcohol Concern, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, was arguing exactly the other case on behalf of the Scotch Whisky Association. It is quite right that we both did that, but surely that should be out in the open, because many lobbying approaches are from people with money behind them. Good government means listening to everyone affected by policies or legislation, but it should not be in secret. We should be able to see who has the ear of government.

I finish by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his introduction, particularly his opening bits about Scotland. It is bad for the whole of the United Kingdom what has happened in one part of it.