Donations to Political Parties

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on obtaining this debate, although I am going to follow a substantially different tack. I should add that my first declaration in the register of interests in the House of Lords was a ticket to the rugby World Cup final in 2015 given to me by the referee.

I want to make two points. One is on—noble Lords will be aware that I have been pursuing this issue for a number of years—the funding of opinion polls, which are, in effect, campaigning. A few years ago, YouGov took on a poll and the Telegraph displayed it in full, but we were unable to establish who had actually funded it and the circumstances around it.

I have given notice to the Electoral Commission again that I intend to pursue it when we get to debate the legislation, which I understand has been tabled in the Commons in the past few minutes, but I could not get a copy of it before the debate started. That is one matter of concern, because effectively opinion polling is used as a substantial manner of campaigning.

The other item that I wish to raise is relevant in light of the events in politics this week. It is not in a general election but at least one potential candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party is supposed to have already a war chest of £1 million. Any campaign that relates to funding for a post in government or as Leader of the Opposition should be subject to the same requirements as election campaigning in general. At the last leadership election in the Tory Party, Robert Jenrick received £75,000 pounds from a tax haven abroad. I made it absolutely clear that I thought that that should be declared and treated in the same way as overseas funding, because it has a direct bearing on British politics. Those are the two items that I wished to raise.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not participating at Second Reading and speaking on this occasion, but the circumstances between Second Reading and now have changed very substantially. I intend to concentrate on the amendments relating to delayed elections.

Before I do so, may I make an observation? I shall go no further at this stage than making it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others that I do not support their proposals in relation to changing the voting systems. Although I know that they pursue this matter on a point of principle, I warn them that, under the current political circumstances, trying to change the electoral systems will be portrayed by one political party in particular as denying it the opportunity to be represented on councils. I make that observation in passing.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in principle. I have tried to make contact with the Association of Electoral Administrators to establish its view on this but, unfortunately, its excellent chief executive, Peter Stanyon, who is normally enormously helpful on such matters, is currently off in ill health. So I could not get any clarification, but I am sure that, in broad principle, it would want to follow what this amendment is pursuing.

I turn now to the nub of this whole issue, which is the delay in elections. I first spoke on electoral matters in the other House in 1984. I voted against the then Conservative Government on a three-line Whip—I was one of the first new boys to do so—because I believed that the Government were, in the process of abolishing the GLC via the paving Bill, interfering with democracy. Looking back on that proposed Bill, I still take that view and am pleased that I voted against the Government on that occasion. It is interesting that the Government dropped the specific proposal against which I voted after the House of Lords passed its opposition to that same clause by a majority.

Since that time, I have never given consideration to the possibility of deferring elections for up to seven years. If somebody had suggested to me that that was going to happen in this democratic country, I would have said that they were positively insane. The history of the last few weeks has really called into question my faith in the legislation that we have on our democratic process. On 18 November, the Minister’s response to me and others was that the intention of the Government was to hold the elections as identified in full. We received the same response on 8 December.

On 18 December, the day we went into recess, the Government issued a letter to 63 councils asking whether they wished to defer the elections. Please do not tell me, or other Members of this House or the other, that no consideration was given on 18 November or during the five weeks that followed—or even on the night of 17 December—to the fact that there might be delays in elections, because nobody will believe you, I am afraid. It is a question of competence and honesty in relation to the processes. I have come to the conclusion that, sadly, we are witnessing a serious erosion of our democratic principles in this country by silence at different stages.

I do not mind which amendment we adopt, in what form, but we have to ensure that, as a democratic country, which I believe the United Kingdom to be, we are never again in the position where a Government announce their actions in the way that they have, with the result—as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and others have said—that people who have a vested interest in not facing re-election are taking the decisions on those elections. I despair of what I have witnessed over the last few weeks. I ask the Government to be more honest and open throughout, because it is not acceptable that I find myself, for the first time in 40 years of reviewing elections, seriously questioning whether a Government can interfere with elections when they really should not.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak a little about the proposals to change to a supplementary vote. I have some memories of how this came to be, since I was involved between 1996 and 1998 in some of the discussions between the Liberal Democrats and the then Labour Government about voting systems. The Labour Cabinet was divided on the subject; Jack Straw was one of the strongest opponents of any change in the electoral system and the most he was prepared to accept was the sort of bastard form of half way towards an alternative vote, which is the supplementary vote. It is neither one thing nor the other.

Now that we are in a multiparty system, we have to face up to the implications of where we are. For most of the last year, we have had five parties in England getting between 10% and 30% of the vote and no party getting over 30% of the vote. The elected Mayor of the West of England received 25% of the vote to become mayor. I think the record for the lowest percentage of the vote won by a winning candidate happened in a Cornish local by-election, in which the Liberal candidate was victorious with 19.5% of the vote in a six-party contest.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

We need to recognise where we are. If we want mayors to have public acceptance and credibility, they had better not be elected on less than a quarter of the vote. If we have a five-party system, the opinion polls—my nerdy noble friend here does his best to educate me about public opinion polls and I therefore follow them in some detail—show that if you look at second preferences for Reform, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters, they are very diverse, and one cannot guarantee that votes will easily transfer from one party to another definite party. Jack Straw was prepared to accept the supplementary vote in the belief that, in London elections, the Liberal Democrats were more likely on the whole to vote Labour as their second preference than the Conservatives, and therefore it was acceptable. The supplementary vote is half way to where we need to go but it is neither one nor the other.

I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the old argument that the English people would not understand something more complicated than first past the post is for the past. The Irish understand a more complicated voting system very well, as do the Scots. The idea that the English education system is so poor that our voters will not understand simply does not begin to stand up.

If mayors are going to be key elements in devolution, we need to face up to a system that will provide us with the assurance that mayors will be elected in such a way as to gain the acceptance and credibility they need to have their posts. The current first past the post system does not guarantee that nor does the supplementary vote system. The Government need to recognise that that is where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment seeks to require certain candidates to provide electors with a means of contacting them. The Government recognise that the transparency of candidates seeking election to public office is important, and that the electorate should know about the candidates and policies being voted on. However, we believe it is responsibility of candidates and political parties to decide how they wish to campaign, promote themselves and engage with electors. We therefore do not support setting any requirements on how this is done. Candidates are already able to provide the public with their contact details if they wish to do so. We believe it is appropriate for candidates themselves to decide the best approach to take on communicating with the public, taking into account their individual preferences and circumstances. With these assurances and explanations, I hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses will not move their amendments.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Between 8 and 18 December, was there no consideration whatever of the possibility of delaying the elections? If that is the case, what changed between 8 and 18 December that resulted in the letters going to the 63 councils?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have already outlined to the noble Lord that the sentence I used, whenever we discussed this and whenever I was asked, was that elections would not be cancelled unless there were substantial reasons for doing so. Local authorities made those representations, which is why the decision was taken.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is clear precedent for postponing local elections where local government reorganisations are in progress. It can prevent costly and distracting elections for short-term posts that may soon be abolished. For example, between 2019 and 2022, the previous Government postponed elections in Buckinghamshire, Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Somerset, and Weymouth and Portland. This responsibility has been delegated by Parliament to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, on Monday at 5.38 pm, the Minister gave details of letters that had been sent to four councils—Norfolk, Essex, Southampton and Oxford—and said that they were expected to reply by 10 am the next day, indicating their views. The Minister was asked just now about the timetable that is being followed. Given that we are now well beyond the limited timetable that was given to those four councils, why is it not possible for the Government to give a timetable on which they will take a decision for those who are entitled to a vote on 7 May?

Local Elections

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, I am very happy to do that. The strategic authorities are being set up and we will have no delay in laying the statutory instruments—it is very important that those statutory instruments go ahead as quickly as possible. Those mayoral strategic authorities will have a number of functions available in the interim period to their mayoral election to make sure that they are working to encourage the investment that we all want in their areas. I will write to the noble Baroness with the detail but, just to run through quickly, they will have a general power of competence; a duty to develop a local growth plan; power to pay grants to constituent councils; power to borrow to an agreed cap; adult skills function powers; a health improvement and health inequalities duty; functions to acquire land, provide housing and build infrastructure; and responsibility for public transport and local transport planning. There is a lot for them to be getting on with.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, when we discussed these elections the other day, the Minister, for whom I have great respect, suggested that I was dancing on the head of a pin. I am a little surprised that, only a few days later, she should be coming forward and dancing on the head of possibly a very different pin. Does she agree with the comment in the other place from the Labour MP for Oldham West, who said

“we need to be better than this”?—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/25; col. 1166.]

Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences and have done everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same. Why have the Government not done the same?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my honourable friend in the other place for all the work that he did in laying the ground for this local government reorganisation and the devolution programme. He is very committed to it, as I know only too well, having worked with him very closely. However, it was right that, when the new team came in, they took a step back and had a good look at this. I do not think that I am dancing on the head of a pin in terms of elections. All the elections that were due to take place in 2026 will take place; these are four inaugural elections for new mayors. It is right that we build that strong foundation of those unitary authorities before we go ahead with the mayoral elections.

Election Law

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, I understand the frustration about this, but the core scope of the review was to make sure that we pick up the main risks and issues related to electoral registration and the conduct of elections. A complete review of the electoral system would be a very complex and long-standing procedure and we wanted to do this on a risk-based approach, dealing with the challenges faced by the electoral sector rather than undertaking a wholescale consolidation. We have some pragmatic solutions to address the key issues and we are taking those forward.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the request for consolidation of election law made by the noble Lords, Lord Shamash and Lord Pack: it is a complete mess at the moment. I will pick up on the answer that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, where she said that it was the intention that all local government elections will go ahead. Is she actually saying that the relevant authorities will have elections, or that it is their intention at the moment but we will be told in X number of weeks or months’ time?

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I first voted in favour of Sunday opening in Pembrokeshire many years ago. I could attempt the Welsh; I think I would probably get it correct, but I fear that there are others here who might be more precise on the pronunciation. I was then a parliamentary candidate in Carmarthen—my first effort to get elected to this Palace. I might describe myself as having come a distant extra.

I echo the comments of the noble Lord in introducing his Bill; I also hope it will reach the statute book and can be fully operational in time for the important elections next year. I echo the comments of Paul Holmes in the other place that it is

“a sensible and timely move to enhance voter access and uphold the integrity of our electoral system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/25; col. 595.]

That is a good summary of the Bill.

I will make only two comments on this legislation, one addressed to the Government and the other a broader comment on the process of Private Members’ Bills. The PACAC report HC 487 says in its opening summary:

“There is a clear consensus in our evidence around the necessity and benefits of simplification and consolidation of electoral law. We are concerned that the Government do not share this view and so have called on them to make their position clear”.


I think we will hear comments from all around the Chamber today advocating that electoral law is a mess at the moment and should be substantially consolidated as soon as possible. I welcome this legislation because it is a small step in that direction.

My other comment is addressed more to the authorities of this House and the Commons. Most Members are not aware that when Private Members’ Bills from this House complete the process here, they go to the bottom of the pile of the overall process in the Commons. When Private Members’ Bills come here from the other place, they go to the top of the pile. The authorities in this House try to make sure that Private Members’ Bills have completed their stages as much as possible so that, before we start receiving legislation from the other place, there is no interruption of our efforts, but it makes it virtually impossible for Private Members’ Bills from this House to become law. I am fortunate in that I was the last Member of this place to have got a piece of legislation—an electoral law change, the Ballot Secrecy Act—on to the statute book, but it is much more difficult from this House. I encourage all the authorities involved to look at this anomaly by which we are treated disadvantageously in relation to Private Members’ legislation.

I support the Bill and hope it makes rapid progress through this House on to the statute book because, as the noble Lord said, it is important that these changes are in full operation for the elections next year.

Voting at 16

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has addressed the issue of the registration of young people. May I encourage him and the department to give very serious consideration to encouraging online registration? It is simple. We are talking about a generation which is used to using computers and associated forms of social media, and many of them will find online registration to be the best and easiest way of registering for their future votes.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me say first that I always welcome encouragement from the noble Lord, and I will take that back. To address his question directly, we intend to actively explore and test new and more automated methods of registration, including better use of data to identify people who are eligible and integration with other government services to make it easier for people to register. Online registration for voting has been a resounding success, particularly for postal voting. I will take that back and I hope that I can come back to the noble Lord with some meaningful outcomes as a result of our strategy.

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can understand that I am not able to comment on any particular donations to parties. It is not for government to interfere with that. But he makes a very interesting point, so I will take a moment to let the House know that, as set out in our manifesto, we are committed to strengthening our democracy, widening participation and upholding the integrity of elections. This includes improving voter registration, extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, reviewing and addressing voter ID rules, and strengthening rules around donations to political parties. I can let noble Lords across the House know that we will be bringing an election Bill within this Parliament, hopefully in the very near future.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I asked a question on Monday about expenses incurred by Kent County Council in relation to DOGE investigations and the hiring of 12 accountants and systems engineers? Perhaps I might inform him that Kent County Council Conservatives will be writing to the leader of Kent County Council, a Reform councillor, to seek clarification on precisely what form the costs incurred by these people will take and whether they will be declared as donations or, alternatively, as costs on the council tax payer. They will, of course, copy the Minister and the Electoral Commission into any correspondence they both send and receive.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Lord for informing me. I know that he has great depth of experience in this area. Any suspected violations of donation rules fall under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission or the police. The Electoral Commission has the authority to investigate breaches and impose civil penalties when necessary. As part of efforts to enhance the regulations surrounding donations, including donations in kind, we are reviewing whether adjustments to the regulator’s role and powers are needed to ensure effective enforcement across the political finance framework.

Elections: Political Party Spending

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome both the Minister’s initial Answer and her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. She will be aware that Reform, in announcing its policy on DOGE, said that it would cost the ordinary voter nothing because the expertise would be provided for free. That surely constitutes a donation of some form or another. On Saturday, Aubrey Allegretti reported in the Times that the head of DOGE in Kent had said that they had

“hired up to a dozen people, including forensic accountants”

and data scientists. Does the Minister agree that this either constitutes a donation, which should be looked at by the Electoral Commission, or, more likely, is a cost to the voters of Kent County Council of which they were not aware when they cast their votes only a few weeks ago?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point, and, like many others, I have heard a lot about DOGE in Kent. Local government funding is incredibly complex and, if what I have seen in the press is true, it is very important that anyone looking into this has a very detailed understanding of the subject. We have our own regulatory bodies, including CIPFA, which do great work in that area.

On breaches of donations, the rules are a matter for the Electoral Commission or the police. The Electoral Commission already has the power to investigate and to impose civil penalties where it is satisfied there has been a breach. As part of our commitment to strengthening the rules on donations, which, very importantly, include donations in kind, we are also reviewing whether any changes are required to the role and powers of the regulator to make sure that rules across the political finance framework are effectively enforced.

Political Parties: Funding

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a very important issue. Political parties can accept donations only from registered electors but of course that now includes overseas electors. They are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identity confirmed as part of the registration process, but that very important issue will be looked at as we all look at all matters relating to elections.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the response that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about a full consultation. However, she will be aware that the restrictions on election expenditure were set in the days when one could communicate with the electorate only through leaflets and the like. There are now many different ways of doing so, many of which are very cheap or low-cost. Will the Minister include in the review that she mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, some assessment of the restrictions on expenditure in general for elections at whatever level?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful for that question. There is no doubt that the system of campaigning has changed very dramatically, particularly in the last few years with the advent of social media. However, in my experience of campaigning—which spans a number of decades—political parties have adapted their campaigning but have not let go of their traditional methods. So although social media can be a very effective and efficient way of campaigning, we do still rely on some of the traditional methods. But, of course, that will be looked at as part of the review we are undertaking.