Two Conservative MPs have urged the government to take a lead on tacking public dissatisfaction with the current system for funding political parties.

Backbenchers John Maples and Andrew Tyrie have put forward different solutions in the wake of a series of rows linking party donations to government "favours".

Tyrie claimed action has to be taken because Britain's political parties are "skint".

Maples urged the government to allow taxpayers to sign up to a £2 levy that would then be distributed to the parties, while Tyrie said the state should match donations from individuals up to a certain limit.

The Maples plan

John Maples, the MP for Stratford-on-Avon, warned that Labour's attempt to end the row over party funding will not work.

The former Treasury minister, who introduces a 10-minute rule bill on Wednesday on party funding, said Labour's plan for a committee to investigate donors will not work because it fails to tackle the central issue of influence.

"It doesn't solve the central issue. The problem is very large donations from very wealthy people who have an agenda or are perceived to have an agenda by the public," he told ePolitix.com.

Maples is proposing an optional £2 levy on pay packets as a "third way" because the public is opposed to state cash going into party coffers.

"People will be very wary of state funding and it might put them off politics even more," he said.

He added there was heavy resistance to the idea in the media which was also a deciding factor.

Maples' bill follows the announcement that a committee made up of senior Labour Party figures, including chairman, Charles Clarke, will probe donors.

It will refuse any cash where there is "a conflict of interest".

Labour believes this will end the run of cash for access sleaze allegations.

But Maples' 10-minute rule bill proposes going further, with a switch to "match funding" and a ban on all donations over £5000.

The shortfall in party cash will be met by taxpayers paying a £2 levy to a fund administered by the Electoral Commission.

With 27 million taxpayers, a 30 per cent response would bring in £16 million a year which would be shared out between the main political parties - half the annual cost of the "big three".

People who do not want to contribute can simply tick a box on their tax return.

Maples believes this will cut pressure on the parties having to rely on large donors and improve the public image of the political process.

"My proposals deal with both problems. I have cross-party support and I hope that all parties will look at my proposals closely," he said.

Home Office ministers considered state funding following the Bernie Ecclestone row - but the Treasury vetoed the idea on the grounds that taxpayers wanted their money to be spent on the NHS.

Maples admitted that in order to get people to pay up, the parties will have to work at re-engaging with the electorate.

"The problem with participation is that the government isn't dealing with big ideas any more - it's management," he said.

"All the parties are failing to talk to people about the things that the public are interested in."

If his option fails to be taken up by the public, then state funding would have to be considered, said the MP.

"If the public won't participate we are left with the current system or state funding. The idea that you can do it with no money is ridiculous. One way or another it has to be paid for," he said.

The Tyrie plan

In a separate debate on party funding in Westminster Hall, Andrew Tyrie urged the government to take a lead on introducing direct state funding.

The Chichester MP said there was a crisis of trust in politicians. "Trust in political parties is also at rock bottom," he added.

He highlighted the collapse in membership of political parties. "What's more, the main fact is the political parties are bust, they're skint."

Tyrie said British party politics based on active members and a broad base of funding "is now history", and taking donations couldn't continue as it was.

"Party politics cant carry on like this. We've got to clean up our act."

He said laws introduced by Labour had effectively stopped companies making donations, leaving parties reliant on a few wealthy individuals.

Companies, unions and wealthy individuals should be stopped from party funding, he said, and there should be a £1000 cap on individual donations.

State funding should match donations from individuals up to a certain limit, he said.

The alternative method, based on funding according to the number of votes a party received, would "almost certainly lead to further centralisation".

Up to 60 per cent of election campaign costs were already met by taxpayers' funds, Tyrie suggested. "What's at stake is not the principle of state funding but only the degree of it."

"I am confident we can't stay as we are," he said.

Parties can't stay "forever struggling to find the cash to carry out essential functions...this can't go on," Tyrie added. "It will go on eroding the public's trust in the body politic itself unless we take action.

He urged the government to take a lead on state funding. "It is not enough to hope and to wait for other political parties to weigh in behind," he told ministers.

But responding for the government, Alan Whitehead ruled out any unilateral action by the government.

The debate should be conducted in terms of the "health of the body politic", not in terms of party advantage, said the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions minister.

"It is not the case that the government has closed its ears to any debate on this issue, and indeed we welcome the current debate," he said.