Representation of the People Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, there is so much in this Bill to debate and take issue with, so it is a little disappointing to have so little time at Second Reading for each of us. But rest assured that the Bill needs and will receive detailed scrutiny from us all at later stages. Although it is not a disclosable interest, I remind the House that—unlike my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who seems to have escaped—I am still a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party.

It is a very disappointing Bill and, frankly, follows much of the direction of travel established in the Employment Rights Act, which itself interferes with the established system of politics in the UK. As my noble friend has said, the Act enabled trade unions to take money from their members in a way that would be considered completely unethical and breaches best consumer practices in terms of fundraising. Even more importantly, it allows unions not to publish the accounts of the political fund, so we do not know how their donations are made.

It is disappointing that in respect of this Bill there was no consultation after the general election, despite Labour Ministers promising this. They did have the grace to admit this in the Commons on 3 March 2025. This Government have clearly risked breaking long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties. By contrast, the previous Conservative Government, and the previous Labour Government before that, consulted the Parliamentary Parties Panel for major parties—I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was not a member, but that is recognised on the Electoral Commission website.

I will spend most of my time and my remarks focusing on donations. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, forgot to mention Michael Brown; he did not make a donation because it was not permissible, but his company—5th Avenue Partners—did at £2.4 million, and the creditors are still waiting for a refund.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Do not forget Lloyd George.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

In fine tradition.

Before I carry on talking about donations, I must address the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. It is disappointing that she did not have the courtesy to discuss with me in advance what she planned to say. If she had done so, I would have pointed out to her that both Mr Amersi and his partner have been on the electoral roll since 2017. She selectively quotes from emails that he must have given her, and it is disappointing that she chooses to rely on Mr Amersi, who has been extensively discussed in the other place. I categorically state that neither I nor any member of the Conservative Party canvassed funds from Mr Amersi in respect of the 2024 election. I look forward to those remarks being withdrawn in due course. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to disclose fully to the House that my family helped finance her elections in Barking to defeat the BNP.

As it happens, most donations to parties are from individuals, but some companies do donate, and the rules proposed are simply not manageable by a regular volunteer treasurer of a local association. The pages and pages of risk assessment requirements—I do not know whether noble Lords have read them yet—are just not practical and are a classic example of red tape imposed on people wanting to help society by those who simply do not have the same experience. In particular, the real-time aggregation rules in respect of pre-donation checking will be impossible to put into effect. Too little thought has gone into this in the rush to produce 250 pages of legislation. These proposals have clearly been made by someone who has never actually been involved in local or national political fundraising and has not had the courtesy to talk to those who have.

Then there is the profit test for corporate donations; however well intentioned, it is a nonsense. It fails to understand that companies can be in a loss in accounting terms for very many years but can still be cash generative. If a company loses money for years and subsequently makes a one-off profit, it would seem not to be caught. So, what is the purpose of this? I remind the Minister that Ecotricity is one of Labour’s biggest donors. In 2023-24, the group made a loss of £5.6 million. In the same year, it gave £2.8 million to the Labour Party. One would hope the party does the decent thing and returns the money.

There are much better ways to achieve the objectives of the Bill, and we will be spending considerable time exploring them in later stages. Why are foreign-owned companies being denied the right to sponsor conferences and the like in the UK? They employ huge numbers of people in the UK and should not be denied the same rights as British companies to openly advertise and market.

I have not had time to remark on the plan to give children the vote. Yes, they are children, by any and every definition. Weirdly, if the party they vote for is successful, they are not allowed to go out celebrating in the pub with the rest of us, and Labour Ministers have refused to lower the drinking age to 16 on the grounds of “protecting children”. I thank the Minister for her letter to me seeking to answer my concerns that teachers will have undue influence on children, with whom they interact daily, at the time of elections. I note her points, but I do not see how this is going to be monitored. What guarantees are in place that no abuse will happen?