Political Party Finance and the Electoral Commission

Lord Massey of Hampstead Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing this debate on such an important subject for our country. I declare my interest as a former chief executive of the Conservative Party and indeed a donor to the party for over 25 years, although not on the scale of Mr Harborne.

[Noble Lords]

Shame.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

A great shame. I come to this debate from a slightly different angle, perhaps, from other noble Lords. I have always believed that assisting the work of a political party that shares one’s views and values is a form of public service. As a party, the Conservative Party has always been deeply committed to the principles of the Electoral Commission and we adhered very carefully to the rules and always carried out detailed due diligence on large donors. I agree with the idea of a cap on overseas donors and with the idea of increased fines for misconduct; however, I am concerned about some proposals in the Bill which would be unfair to companies wanting to support any of our parties.

I want to address another concern, which is the matter of electoral fraud, as I am concerned that some items in the Bill could have the unintended consequence of making this easier. Most political parties believe that companies should be able to donate to a political party. At the same time, we are all aware of the potential for foreign money to enter our politics, which of course can come through individuals as well as corporates. The question is: what is the test we ought to apply in practice to judge eligibility to donate? The Bill stipulates three tests—perhaps I am getting slightly ahead of myself, as it is not yet before us, but I am addressing an item that will be in the Bill. The three tests are UK-generated revenues, UK headquarters and majority UK control. I strongly agree with the last two: we need companies to be in the UK and majority controlled by UK shareholders. However, the idea that the revenue should be generated in the UK could create some unfairness for those who make some or all of their revenues outside the UK.

The revenue source condition will not stop a determined shell company, but it will penalise genuine UK-owned businesses. In addition, the information on the geographic source of revenue is simply not discoverable for private companies, in effect, making it impossible to apply this new test to any company. I ask the Government to look again at this revenue source requirement.

I now turn to voter fraud, which is another serious issue that should concern us all. The Bill may unwittingly open a door to fraud by allowing non-photo ID to be used as verification. It also provides for the acceptance, without proper checks, of digital ID and introduces the idea of vouching. For those who have not read about vouching, this means that voter A can tell polling station staff that voter B is eligible and has the necessary ID. These proposals amount to a significant loosening of our voter verification rules at a time when there are rising concerns at the growing number of election frauds that have been alleged over several years. If we are worried about interference in our politics, and we should be, we ought to be alive to the real risks posed by voter fraud in certain areas. In this context, it is not clear why any dilution in the stricter requirement introduced by the last Government should be introduced.

This fraud risk is reinforced by the proposal for automatic registration, which will provide further opportunities for wrongful voting, as we know the electoral roll is only 84% accurate. However, I commend the Government on one important change, which is that candidates for UK general and local elections will now have to prove their identity. It seems extraordinary, does it not, that until now we have allowed people to stand for Parliament without having them prove their identity? The whole system needs to be as rigorous as possible to reinforce public confidence in our electoral system and in democracy itself. It is all about trust, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, right at the beginning of this debate.

A final concern I want to raise, and I will be very brief, is about votes for 16 year-olds. This change is manifestly inconsistent with almost all rules defining adulthood, including by this Government, and the eligibility rules of the overwhelming majority of OECD countries. In implementing the social media ban up to 16, the Government recognised the vulnerability of young people to malign influences, yet the Bill places an expectation of competency for them to vote as soon as they turn 16, which is a dangerous precedent and should be resisted when the Bill comes before us.