Political Party Finance and the Electoral Commission

Lord Jay of Ewelme Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, I have learned much from the debate so far, and we will learn a lot from the speeches still to come. It is a particular pleasure to speak after the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I am conscious that I am somewhat outside my comfort zone in speaking today, and so I will speak principally as a voter. I vote assiduously in local elections; I used to vote assiduously in European parliamentary elections, but alas no more, and I would vote assiduously in general elections were I allowed to do so. I hope the Minister will tell us what plans the Government have to enable Peers to vote in general elections in future.

The need to tighten up the present arrangements for political party financing is clear, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said. In 2020, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, the Law Commission reported:

“The current laws governing elections should be rationalised into a single, consistent legislative framework”.

In April 2026, under the present Prime Minister, the Rycroft review recommended that there should be an annual cap on donations from British donors living abroad, a moratorium on donations in crypto assets, and that political parties’ ability to monitor donations and deal with the threat of foreign financial interference should be strengthened. That is all very sensible, and I am glad that some of the Rycroft report’s recommendations will be included in amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. Can the Minister update us on the progress of that important Bill and on proposals to strengthen the Electoral Commission, whose role in monitoring and enforcing the present system is crucial?

It strikes me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has said, this is all becoming quite urgent. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has rightly spoken of the importance of trust in our political system and in our political parties. The Electoral Commission’s annual public opinion tracker shows that 14% of the British public thinks that political party financing is transparent. Without transparency there is no trust, and without trust we will see the rise of parties on the extremes and a dangerous lack of public confidence in our democracy, so we need reforms soon.

There are alternative ways of funding political parties. France, Germany and Spain all permit public funding under certain conditions, and to do so here would not be especially innovative. There is already Short money and the policy development grants scheme, and there is free TV airtime for party-political broadcasts. None the less, I know the outcry that further public funding of political parties might cause. One can imagine the response of the Daily Mail if it were proposed by the Labour Party, and of the Daily Mirror if it were proposed by the Conservative Party. But if the choice is between the continuation of the present system, with all its failings, on the one hand, and public funding effectively monitored by the Electoral Commission on the other, I would not, as a taxpayer, self-evidently choose the former.

I therefore hope that all three political parties, in responding to this debate, will make clear their absolute commitment to reformed and properly monitored political party funding arrangements that will still arguments for extended public funding.

Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)

Lord Jay of Ewelme Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, although I do not agree with absolutely everything that he said. It is a pleasure too to take part in today’s debate and to resume that focus on Northern Ireland that I had as chairman of the Sub-Committee of the European Affairs Committee on Northern Ireland—the predecessor of today’s committee. I learned a huge amount about Northern Ireland from the members of that committee, many of whom are present and speaking this afternoon. I was going to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that I will try not to be impenetrably boring, but, fearing that I am going to be impenetrably boring, he has left his seat. However, I very much welcome the report and its recommendations, the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the Government’s reply.

I was struck when I chaired the committee, and I am struck now, although I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, by the real risk of a democratic deficit in the implementation of the Windsor Framework and the need for the people of Northern Ireland and its institutions, particularly Stormont, to be properly involved in forming and making decisions under the Windsor Framework that directly affect them. The excellent report that we are discussing today makes a number of eminently sensible suggestions. If it does not happen, an already complex and contentious scene will become ever more difficult to progress satisfactorily, with potential implications for the government of Northern Ireland. For that to happen, the process of implementing the framework needs to be transparent and comprehensible.

Over my career in public service, I have worked in many different government departments and embassies. Before, of course, I joined your Lordships’ House, I was steeped in bureaucracy. I thought that I understood bureaucracy, but nothing quite prepares you for the labyrinthine charts on pages 24 and 25 of the report that we are now considering. There is a crying need for more simplicity and clarity in substance and form. It would help greatly if the Government were to maintain and publish a record of regulatory divergence in the implementation of the Windsor Framework between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the one hand and the United Kingdom and the EU on the other. This is not a new point, and it is a point on which I remember the noble Lord, Lord Empey, used to speak eloquently in the committee. I cannot see that the Government have accepted that recommendation from the committee, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that later.

The implementation of the Windsor Framework is of course a dynamic process, as the shifting political scene in Northern Ireland and more widely shows. The establishment and the developing operation of Stormont’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, following the democratic consent vote in December 2024 show that. I am glad to see that the Government have accepted the recommendations in the report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy.

What is also changing are the Government’s relations with the European Union, not least given the uncertain relationship at present between the United Kingdom and the United States. I personally welcome the more constructive relationship between the UK and the EU—it is in the interests of the United Kingdom—but the evolving UK and EU relationship will have implications for Northern Ireland. I hope that we will have learned the lessons of the past and that both the UK and the EU will consider the implications for Northern Ireland of such closer relations up front, not as an afterthought.

Finally, on a wholly tangential point, there is not much good news in the world at the moment, but the elimination of the predators of puffins and other seabirds on Rathlin Island, to which I sailed in a small boat more than 50 years ago—I hope that the Minister will approve of that—is unquestionably good news. The puffins of Rathlin Island may not have read the Windsor Framework, but their future is at least assured.