OUR sympathies go out to Duncan Bannatyne. He is a man of integrity and enterprise, who does not deserve to be embroiled in allegations of political 'sleaze'.

Voluntarily, he has donated a relatively small amount of money to the Labour Party, knowing full well that his support will be a matter of public record.

But he could not expect to endure the intense media scrutiny his contribution has been given.

To suggest in any way that his modest contribution may have shaped Government policy is ridiculous.

It does, however, reflect the suspicion and contempt felt in many quarters for our modern political parties.

It is difficult to contemplate a time when the parties will have recovered from the damage inflicted on them by allegations of sleaze over the past decade.

It is clear that the reforms which insisted on the identity of donors have not cleaned up the image of British politics. If anything, the image is more tarnished because of the reform.

All that has been achieved is that if sleaze does not exist in fact, it is manufactured by innuendo.

The time has come for the whole issue of political donations to be re-examined, and a root-and-branch reform introduced.

There is no perfect solution to the problem of funding political parties. However, the present system is one of the least perfect alternatives on offer.

State funding should be given serious consideration. Curtailing the need for parties to seek wealthy benefactors would remove the element of suspicion.

Equating funding to the level of electoral support received by parties would be both equitable and democratic. It would also be transparent.

The parties themselves must also consider changing their ways.

Their willingness to get up to their necks in debt in a desperate attempt to get elected must come to an end.

If the parties are unwilling to police themselves by imposing limits on their budgets, then perhaps it is time for legislation to ensure, like other organisations, they live within their means.