Representation of the People Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an unpaid member of the Transparency International advisory council.

There is much that is good about this Bill. We have seen welcome measures strengthening the Electoral Commission and electoral law and improving voter registration processes. However, I shall focus my remarks, as many previous speakers have done, on where the Bill needs to go significantly further: the issue of capping political donations. The recent news about the unprecedentedly large donations to the Reform party has catapulted this into the headlines, but I hope noble Lords will not interpret my remarks as being driven by that; my speech had already been written before that news broke, and what I am about to say should not be interpreted as referring directly to those donations. This is a matter of fundamental principle about our democracy.

Individual wealth and malign state interests have been poisoning our politics for years now, and increasingly in ways that have never been seen before: the firehosing of falsehoods on social media, apparently respectable think tanks purporting to present objective analysis of public policy while actually promoting the special interests that fund them, and toxic networks of lobbyists. Capping political donations is only a start to tackling these challenges to our democracy, but we have to start somewhere and this Bill offers us an opportunity to do so.

Large political donations and the challenges they pose to the health of our democracy have been evident for many years. Research by Transparency International has found that one in 10 political donations originates from an unknown or dubious source, and these risks are exacerbated by the absence of a cap on political donations. In 2015, only 1% of private political donations from individuals and companies were of £1 million or more. By 2024, that was over a third, at 35%.

Significant donors get access to Ministers, including Prime Ministers, to shadow Ministers and to party officials. They buy influence in ways that are denied to the overwhelming majority of voters in this country. This is not how a healthy democracy functions. As a result, the absence of a cap can only feed popular disenchantment with our democracy. This Bill offers a rare opportunity to do something about it and the Government will be judged by how and whether they seize it.

The Government appear to recognise the problem. In the other place, the Minister said that the Government were determined to tackle the UK-based issue of mega-donors in UK politics. She announced that they will be

“working at pace to find a solution without unintended consequences”

and undertook that

“once those solutions have been found, we will want them in force as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/26; col. 340.]

As the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, I intend to press the Minister to give more specific commitments on what exactly “working at pace” means: in other words, the timescale and deadline for the work and what exactly its remit will be. In the absence of such an explicit commitment, which I hope might be forthcoming at the end of this debate, I will submit amendments seeking to achieve it.

A donation cap is not demanding in policy terms. Other comparable democracies impose them. Canada caps donations to political parties at 1,750 Canadian dollars annually; France caps them at €7,500 annually, or €4,500 for presidential campaigns; and Italy’s cap is €100,000 per person or company annually. The introduction of a donation cap has been recommended by various authorities for many years. The independent Hayden Phillips review, the former Committee on Standards in Public Life and anti-corruption experts have all recommended it, and a cap is supported by a majority of voters across the political spectrum.

There is no good argument against such a cap. There is no reason, for example, why it should require additional public funding for parties, as is sometimes alleged. Transparency International has modelled the potential impact of donation caps on party-political finances to demonstrate how a donation cap of, for example, £50,000 a year would significantly reduce the risk of the mega-rich buying political access and influence while allowing political parties to campaign effectively without any need for additional public funds. Nor would a cap on donations mean breaking the historic link between the Labour Party and the trade unions, as their political donations could be treated as bundled contributions from members. If the Minister believes that a cap on donations would mean either public funding for political parties or breaking that historic link between the Labour Party and the trade unions, I would be grateful if she could explain why.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will use this rare opportunity to do significantly more than they have already undertaken to do to clean up the malign influence of money on our democracy.

Devolution: England

Lord Wills Excerpts

Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh]

My Lords, there is no doubt that we share the same ambition to see further decentralisation and devolution over time. This is very much a process. I would not want to pre-empt the White Paper, but we have made a commitment to directly elected mayors as the point of accountability to lead economic recovery.

[Lord Wills (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, however power is devolved, it is crucial that it remains democratically accountable, but such accountability is damaged when 8 million people who are eligible to vote are not on the electoral register and so cannot vote. In this country, the register is only 84% complete, compared with, for example, Canada, where it is 96% complete. Why do the Government not make more strenuous and effective efforts to complete the register?

[Lord Greenhalgh]

I note the points about the electoral register. That is very much an endeavour for all tiers of government, including local government and the electoral registration officers who help to ensure that we have a fuller register of electors. It is important that we continue to make every effort to do that.