{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/6537a8ac217b660012c59633/6a181da9847a83997e892a92?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"The £5m question: Who funds our politicians? ","description":"<p>In this episode, we explore the rules governing MPs’ financial interests, gifts and donations, as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage faces questions over a £5 million gift from cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne. Ruth and Mark are joined by Duncan Hames, a former MP and now Director of UK Policy at Transparency International, to ask whether the current transparency regime is working, whether a requirement to declare large gifts is enough on its own to protect public confidence, and whether a fixed cap on donations should also be put in place.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>At a time when political donations, gifts and hospitality are under intense scrutiny, we look at what the House of Commons Code of Conduct says MPs must declare, and why the rules require members to register financial interests and benefits that might reasonably be thought to influence their actions, speeches or votes. We also examine the wisdom of moving from a rules-based system to a principles-based system.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Duncan Hames says that transparency matters because it offers a crucial safeguard against corruption and dependency. But while transparency is essential, he argues that it is no longer sufficient. With political parties and individual politicians increasingly reliant on wealthy donors, he says the real question is not just whether money is declared, but whether gifts and donations of this scale should be permitted at all. He points to international examples of donation caps and argues that the case for limits applies to domestic as well as overseas donors.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>We also explore the practical dilemmas MPs face when deciding what to register, the role of advice from parliamentary authorities, and whether the sanctions for breaches of the rules in both Houses are strong enough.&nbsp;</p><p><br></p><p>🎓 Learn more using <a href=\"https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/news/parliament-matters-podcast-e144#resources\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">our resources</a> for the issues mentioned in this episode.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>❓ Send us <a href=\"https://hansardsociety.org.uk/pm#qs\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">your questions</a> about Parliament:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>✅ Subscribe to <a href=\"https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/about/subscribe\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">our newsletter</a>.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by <a href=\"https://hansardsociety.org.uk/donate\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">making a donation</a> today.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox </p><p>Producer: Richard Townsend</p>","author_name":"Hansard Society"}