Evidence submitted by John Maples MP
I see that your Committee is looking into the
issue of Party Funding. I have taken an interest in this issue
myself for several years, and moved a 10 Minute Rule Bill in 2002
proposing a very particular solution. I attach an article setting
out how that solution would work and I would be grateful if you
would accept this as evidence to your Committee.
It proposes a system of voluntary taxpayer contributions
to a matching fund in return for political parties agreeing to
accept a cap of say £10,000 on donations. I believe compulsory
taxpayer funding would be extremely unpopular, but that my solution
might well be acceptable.
PARTY FUNDING
"Peerages For Sale? Large donations are the
problem." John Maples MP
Running a political party and fighting elections
are expensive and party fundraisers find it easier to raise a
few large donations than many small ones. It is those large donations
that give the appearance of corruption and get us all into trouble.
The problem tends to affect the party in government most, as it
is easier for them to attract large donations and the opposition
does not have much to offer, but the problem affects all parties.
People do not have a problem with small donations up to say £5,000,
or even £10,000, but £100,000, £200,000 or even
£1 million look as though they are buying influence, favours
or apparently honours. Inevitably these donations come from wealthy
people who usually have significant business interests. While
they may not have an immediate point they want to make with the
government, they often have an agenda.
Large donors get access to senior politicians;
indeed party treasurers frequently offer lunch or dinner with
ministers, or even the prime minister or other parties' leaders.
Some donors also want honours and it seems that these are at least
raised as possibilities. The whole process is pretty unsavoury
for those involved and it leads to the feeling among donors that
they do obtain access; when something arises in which they have
an interest they often use that access. All this creates the appearance
to the public that parties are corruptible and favours are for
sale. We all have to address the problem. It brings us all, and
the whole political process, into disrepute.
Most alternative proposals focus on some form
of taxpayer funding. This has met with a resistance from the public
and the newspapers and it is difficult to see why taxpayers should
effectively be compelled to fund party politics. Compulsory taxpayer
funding would be very unpopular and generate huge media hostility.
We need to find an alternative.
It is in the interests of the public and the
democratic process that parties are adequately funded so that
they can develop policies and put their views to the electorate
and that they can do so using modem communications. It costs the
Conservative and Labour parties approximately £12 million
each pa to run their central organisations and another £20
million each for a general election campaign. That is an average
of about £17 million pa each. For the Liberals the average
is about £5 million pa. This gives a grand total of about
£40 million a year.
We need to develop a source of voluntary public
funding which encourages parties to raise money through small
donations and which rules out large donations. We should create
a pot of matching funding by inviting taxpayers on their tax forms
to tick a box; if they do not tick the box £2.50 would be
added to their tax bill each year and paid into a Matching Fund
administered by the Electoral Commission. If they do not want
to pay they, can tick the box, so contributions would be entirely
voluntary.
To qualify for matching funding a party would
have to do two things. First it would have to agree not to accept
any donation of more than say £10,000. Second it would have
to raise more small donations from its supporters. It would then
be entitled to receive matching funding up to 100% of the total
it had raised from small donations.
This would encourage parties to raise lots of
small donations and remove the necessity to raise large donations
from wealthy donors. There would be no compulsion on taxpayers
to contribute.
There are about 27 million taxpayers. If 30%
gave £2.50, this would raise about £20 million a year,
or half of what the three major parties spend. The other half
would come from small donations from supporters.
There would be no more large donations, which
are the source of the problem. Pressure on party leaders to make
themselves available to large donors would disappear, the image
of parties and the political process would be freed from the appearance
of corruption created by large donations, we would all be forced
to persuade our wider supporter base to make donations, but political
parties would still be adequately funded. Peerages could become
once again a mark of real distinction.
John Maples MP
March 2006
| 
