house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1095 Political Parties and Elections Bill [LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1096 Rendell of Babergh, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Rogan, L. Rooker, L. Rosser, L. Rowlands, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. St. John of Bletso, L. Scotland of Asthal, B. Simon, V. Snape, L. Soley, L. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Temple-Morris, L. 5.25 pm Amendment 66 not moved. Amendment 67 Moved by Lord Tyler Thornton, B. Tomlinson, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Turner of Camden, B. Uddin, B. Vadera, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. West of Spithead, L. Whitaker, B. Whitty, L. Wilkins, B. Williams of Elvel, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. 67: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause— “National spending limit In the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2), after section 75A there is inserted— “75B National spending limit (1) A registered political party may spend in total, including expenditure by its national, regional, local or other organs, no more than £100 million on qualifying expenditure in the period of 61 months following a general election. (2) If more than one general election occurs within 61 months following the previous general election, the Secretary of State may by order increase the sums referred to in subsection (1) by any appropriate amount. (3) Before making an order under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall consult the Electoral Commission. (4) An order under subsection (2) must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”” Lord Tyler: My Lords, we now turn to the discussions that have taken place over many years about constraint on spending by political parties at both the national and the local levels. In case the Minister feels that this is not a relevant or topical issue, perhaps I may refer to the fact that today UNISON, Britain’s second largest union, has decided not to make any further contributions to the Labour Party for the time being. Therefore, constraint on expenditure by political parties may be more relevant than it was just a few hours ago. Perhaps I should also remind the Minister that, in the last three months recorded by the Electoral Commission, Labour managed to raise £2.8 million but the Conservatives raised £4 million. The Minister may like to comment on that discrepancy and think again about whether implementation of the agreements arrived at during the cross-party talks under the auspices of Sir Hayden Phillips may be more appropriate. Amendments 67 to 73 would, in effect, all implement the concerns and proposals discussed at such length by the Hayden Phillips team. Although spending limits were debated in Grand Committee, the Minister will acknowledge that we have responded in these amendments to some of the criticisms made during that process. We have returned to the amendments proposed in the other place, which more closely reflect the Hayden Phillips proposals. The amendments differ in only one respect: the spending limit that we suggest over a period is £100 million, rather than the £150 million in the Hayden Phillips discussions. That reflects some of the anxieties that have been expressed—not least in the previous debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, who spoke from professional experience of the marketing and advertising industry—about how much wastage takes place. We believe that it would be reasonable to think of a more modest target, which would also meet some of the anxieties of the public. I do not propose going through all the specifics of the Hayden Phillips proposals, which are directly reflected in the amendments before your Lordships’ House. However, I should like briefly to refer to the conclusions of that team, which I again remind the House reflected the anxieties, concerns and intentions of all three parties and for which, at the time, there was explicit support not only in the Hayden Phillips team but also in the House of Commons. Mr Maude, whose comments I referred to in the previous debate and will not repeat now, was absolutely explicit that the recommendations should be incorporated as soon as possible, while in exchanges during Prime Minister’s Questions in December 2007 the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party also specifically endorsed the proposal that there should be limits on expenditure. In his summary, Sir Hayden Phillips states: “I believe there is general agreement that: expenditure on general election campaigns has progressively grown and should now be reduced in line with a new spending control regime to be agreed between the parties; and controls on expenditure by all third parties should be strengthened … This chapter has described the options available to the parties in crafting new controls on spending. To reach a lasting agreement, there needs to be a focused discussion on four key issues: the period over which spending should be limited; the categories of spending which should be limited; the geographical scope of the limits on spending; and, in the light of the nature of an agreed scheme, the amount by which spending should be reduced. But it is clear to me that progress must be made on this point and that a new approach to curbing expenditure is necessary. A comprehensive agreement on party funding should, at a minimum, include within it measures to return to the overall rise in party spending to the trend line as it was before the spike in spending prior to the 2005 general election”. 5.30 pm I turn now to a specific issue that again we have modified somewhat from the proposals we put to the Grand Committee; it relates to permissible expenditure. We are clear that at the moment there is a temptation for national parties effectively to interfere with constituency campaigns in a way that is contrary to all the intentions and legislation going right back to the 1883 Act. That temptation relates to specific approaches made to individual electors on behalf of a national campaign and seeks effectively to undermine what is going on in the individual constituency. Many of us who took part in the Grand Committee proceedings have been candidates at various stages. I added up the number of occasions on which I have been a candidate for a county or general election and it is rather a large number, but on every occasion my agent was able to say to me—others will have had this experience—“If you go over the expenditure limit that
1097 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1098 has been imposed on this constituency, you as the candidate or I as the agent will be in court”. It was laid down absolutely and precisely that those who fought a constituency campaign should bear the full legal responsibility for all the money spent on promoting the candidature. However, by means of mailshots directed at individuals—let alone all the other material that can come from a national headquarters—a principle that has been in place for more than a century has been effectively undermined. Therefore, we have included a specific requirement in these amendments that, where national expenditure takes place to promote, effectively, a candidate and his or her party within a constituency directly related to an individual elector’s response, that should be taken into account in relation to the limits on expenditure at the local level. We understand that this is difficult where, for example, billboards are used; in Chester, for example, it might be said that billboards apply to the whole of Cheshire, because people go in and out of the city. However, where unsolicited mail is sent to an individual elector, that undermines what is happening at the local level and the responsibility of the candidate and his or her agent to look after very precisely what expenditure is made on behalf of that candidate. That is included in the eligible expenditure categories within this section. I do not need to say much more at this point. There has been considerable discussion at all stages of the process through your Lordships’ House and some discussion in the other place, but I plead with the Minister to take this seriously. Indeed, perhaps on this occasion he might be permitted a little bit of a partisan approach, as it is his party that is suffering most from this attempt to get around the law on the way in which expenditure is advanced. It has also been the experience in recent years that expenditure during the three weeks or so of the campaign is but part of the total campaign expenditure. That has been the cause of much concern and controversy, certainly in the analysis undertaken by Mr Peter Bradley, the former Member for the Wrekin, who was the unfortunate victim of a huge amount of money being spent in his constituency on behalf of his opponent before the dissolution of the last Parliament. This is an important issue. There has been considerable agreement across the parties, with all three leaders agreeing that something needs to be done on this score. I hope that we will not have yet another example of the St Augustine syndrome: let us all be virtuous, but not yet. I beg to move. Lord Bates: My Lords, these amendments are in the same vein as the previous group that we discussed. I can therefore keep my comments fairly brief, because most of the points have been covered. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to being virtuous, but not yet. He might say that to his own party on the question of the donation of £2.4 million. This is a germane point and the people watching this debate or reading it in Hansard need to have it placed in context. It was a significant donation from a foreign national, a fugitive from justice in the UK, which was made to the Liberal Democrats, who refuse to repay it. If the Liberal Democrats feel so passionately about being virtuous, why not repay it? If the noble Lord will make that pledge I shall happily give way to him in order that he may do so. My real point on spending preferences is that in a fair and democratic situation we need to have a level playing field. However, that level playing field—I alluded to this in my previous comments—has been distorted by the amount of public money that has been poured into constituencies. The office costs allowance, which I mentioned, and the communications allowance could amount to something in the region of £100,000 per year, or £500,000 during the lifetime of a Parliament. That money is put in by the incumbent and is in addition to all the benefits and opportunities that he or she has of writing letters and access to the press. Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be repeating what he said in the debate on the previous group. Regardless of what one thinks about the £10,000 a year communications allowance—I would be in favour of scrapping it—does he really believe that there is a proper comparison between the £10,000 per year communications allowance that an MP receives and the much larger amounts of money with which the Conservative Party is swamping some constituencies? Lord Bates: My Lords, the direct answer to the question is yes, I do think that there is a comparison. That is why I am making the case. Lord Greaves: My Lords, does the noble Lord, therefore, not think that the Conservatives ought to be matching that £10,000 with £10,000 of their own money and not a penny more? Lord Bates: My Lords, I was intending to go on to talk about all the additional benefits that the incumbent has in contesting an election. If the noble Lord is so passionate about limiting the amount of money that can fund campaigns, I think, having been around a few campaigns myself, not least by-election campaigns, that the Liberal Democrats could take the lead and show their virtue by imposing a restraint now on the amount of funds that they are going to put into the Norwich North by-election. They could do that if they really wanted to take the big money out of politics. Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I quote from the Companion: “A member of the House who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House ... Lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent of the member speaking”. We are on Report. Lord Bates: My Lords, I will humbly continue the debate. I recognise the rules of the House and would not want to trespass on them. I was talking about the amount of money that is going into elections and the need for a spending cap. This is the point that my right honourable friend
Page 1 and 2: Vol. 711 No. 91 Wednesday 17 June 2
Page 3 and 4: 1057 Police: Funding [17 JUNE 2009]
Page 5 and 6: 1061 Sri Lanka [17 JUNE 2009] Banks
Page 7 and 8: 1065 Banks: Lending [17 JUNE 2009]
Page 9 and 10: 1069 Political Parties and Election
Page 21: 1093 Political Parties and Election
Page 39 and 40: 1129 Organophosphates [17 JUNE 2009
Page 61 and 62: GC 271 Arrangement of Business [17
Page 63 and 64: GC 275 Companies Act 2006 Order 200
Page 65 and 66: GC 279 Overseas Companies Regulatio
Page 67 and 68: GC 283 Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009
Page 69 and 70: WS 69 Written Statements [17 JUNE 2
Page 71 and 72: WA 207 Written Answers [17 JUNE 200
Page 73 and 74:
WA 211 Written Answers [17 JUNE 200
Page 75 and 76:
WA 215 Written Answers [17 JUNE 200
Page 77 and 78:
Wednesday 17 June 2009 ALPHABETICAL
Page 79:
Volume 711 Wednesday No. 91 17 June
show all

house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?