Evidence submitted by the Rt Hon Dr Ian
R K Paisley MP MLA, Leader, Democratic Unionist Party
Thank-you for your letter of 20 April. I welcome
the fact that the Constitutional Affairs Committee has started
an inquiry into the issue of the funding of political parties.
Clearly this is an important issue for the successful functioning
of our democracy.
The fundamental problem with the current arrangements
is that parties need ever expanding sums of money to operate and
contest elections and therefore require ever greater donations.
The greater the level of donation the greater the risk is that
an individual can buy political influence or reward.
While the DUP only contests elections in one
part of the United Kingdom and operates on a different scale from
the three largest parties at Westminster we do nonetheless face
many of the same issues. Elections are expensive and running a
political party is expensive even on a regional basis.
The issue of state funding of political parties
is often considered when examining such matters but the reality
is that already there are various sources of state funding which
political parties avail of including through Westminster, the
Electoral Commission and for Northern Ireland parties, the Northern
Ireland Assembly.
For example as can be seen from our returns
to the Electoral Commission a significant part of our income comes
from state sources of one form or another. Therefore to speak
of state funding of political parties is to speak of a present
reality not a future possibility. The only issue is the level
of such funding.
Individual donations of a significant size will
inevitable give rise to at the very least the perception of influence.
This is not healthy for our democratic system. We believe that
it is necessary that individual donations can be made but there
should be a limit on the amount that an individual or body can
give. While it may not be easy to set the particular limit clearly
donations in excess of £25,000 would begin to raise serious
issues.
There are a number of aspects of the overall
equation which need to be considered. In order to achieve the
best outcome both the way in which parties obtain money and the
way in which parties can spend money should be examined. By treating
the problem at both the income and expenditure level the best
solution can be achieved. Elections and the preparation for elections
are clearly a significant expense, indeed they are probably the
major expense for political parties.
The cap on election expenses at a constituency
level has proved to be an effective mechanism for keeping spending—and
therefore the necessity to raise money—under control. We
believe that such a restriction could be replicated at national
level which would also act as a cap on the amount of money that
political parties would need to raise to fight elections.
This particular model has proved remarkably
successful at a local level in keeping a level playing field and
avoiding the need for excessive fundraising and the attendant
dangers that would bring.
Equally the restriction on political advertising
on the TV or radio has also significantly reduced the need to
raise the very large sums of money involved in the United States.
We believe it is sensible that such restrictions are maintained
though clearly new technology will open up other alternatives
which will need to be considered.
On the issue of transparency we in Northern
Ireland have particular difficulties and issues to be considered.
The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is seeking
to bring Northern Ireland closer into line with the rest of the
United Kingdom but clearly there are particular difficulties faced
by potential donors in the Province. There is also the issue of
donations from outside the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland
parties which is particularly relevant given the fact that some
parties contest elections in both Northern Ireland and the Republic
of Ireland.
Greater state funding should be used for funding
political parties for necessary activities, not to increase the
amount spent on advertising. That is why any state funding would
need to be done alongside limitation on spending to prevent simply
having the public contributing to ever greater levels of expenditure.
There clearly is a level at which a party can
effectively communicate its message and beyond this it merely
becomes an exercise in not being outspent by one's opponents.
There is no perfect system of party funding.
There is an inevitable tension between the various legitimate
interests involved.
However, on balance we believe that that best
compromise lies with:
— a limit on election spending
at a "national" as well as local level,
— a limit on the size of donations
from an individual, and
— greater public funding of political
parties.
This would not produce a perfect system and
would still be open to legitimate criticism but is preferable
to alternative ways of dealing with what is clearly a problem.
As well as setting out the principles it would be necessary to
ensure that any regulations were likely to be effective in achieving
their desired goal. Workability will be a fundamental aspect of
any arrangements which are put in place and the success of any
set of arrangements will depend on the detail of them.
Rt Hon Dr Ian R K Paisley MP MLA
May 2006
| 
