Political Parties and Elections Bill

I have to say that strictly speaking it was approved at Report in another place and I have to go on that. It soon became clear that our proposals did not command widespread support—that is putting it mildly. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State therefore responded to the questions and concerns raised and brought forward amendments to the Bill at Report in the other place. Those amendments, which have become Clause 14, were made in another place without a Division. Clearly there is no broad consensus here today about those provisions. Clause 14 takes a fresh approach to the problem of unregulated candidate spending before dissolution. It seeks to recognise certainty where it exists and, where possible, to provide for more effective regulation of candidate spending without raising uncertainty for those campaigning. It is not right that pre-election spending at local level that is targeted at promoting the election of a candidate should be regulated only after the point when a person formally becomes a candidate under the law. However, in recognition of the very serious concerns about certainty and fairness relating to our original proposal, we think that the better approach is to apply this principle during a closely defined period. Under our parliamentary system, the one thing that we know with certainty is the maximum possible length of a Parliament, which is set at 60 months. Clause 14 will therefore introduce a clear and certain start point for regulating candidate expenses, which is counted forwards from the date when a Parliament is first appointed to meet. It will introduce an additional limit on "pre-candidacy" election expenses, which begins at that clear start point and ends on the date of dissolution or the date, if later, when a person is formally declared to be a candidate. As previously mentioned, that is when one becomes formally regarded as a candidate under the 1983 Act, as amended by PPERA 2000. At that point, the existing controls on candidate spending will take effect, with the result that the existing limit will come into play at the same time and in the same way as it would under the present system. We have considered carefully when to fix the start point for the new limit. We are clear that expenses should be regulated only when it is known with certainty that a general election is reasonably imminent. We have therefore specified that the pre-candidacy limit should apply from the point after 55 months of a Parliament has elapsed. When a Parliament reaches its final months, many prospective candidates will begin campaigning some time in advance of the dissolution. After 55 months, there can be little doubt that these are genuinely election expenses and, in those circumstances, we believe that such expenses can and should be regulated. The proposed new limit would not apply for shorter Parliaments. In those cases, we consider that the uncertainty about whether and when an election might take place makes specifying a longer regulated period more difficult. It should be noted that the Electoral Commission supports the proposals in Clause 14. It did not support an amendment tabled in the other place that sought to shift the start point to 50 months. The commission considered that this would create, ""considerable uncertainty for candidates and agents"." We need to consider that important point. The new limit will regulate the same types of expenditure as the existing limit. The new limit will regulate all spending on these matters that is used, ""for the purposes of the candidate’s election"," mirroring how the existing limit applies. It will not be possible for individuals to avoid the limit by stockpiling expenditure. The new limit will regulate all expenditure that is used during the regulated period, even where that expenditure is incurred beforehand. This mirrors how the existing limit treats expenditure. However, let me be clear that the new limit will not have retrospective effect, in that it will not apply to any expenses that are incurred before commencement of the clause and then used at a time when the new limit applies. That is to prevent the clause from applying to expenses that may already have been incurred before it became known by the person who incurred them that the new pre-candidacy limit was to be brought into existence. The level of the spending limit itself will vary from constituency to constituency, according to the number of electors and the density of population. This, too, mirrors the approach taken to calculating the existing spending limit. For a typical constituency, the new limit will amount to around £30,000. Where a Parliament runs for more than 55 months but is dissolved before the statutory maximum length, the level of the spending limit will be reduced accordingly. This pro-rating is staggered to take account of fixed costs that may be involved in campaigning. The 55-month point for the present Parliament is 11 December 2009. However, in the interests of clarity and simplicity, should the new limit be needed for the current Parliament, it would only begin to regulate expenses used after 1 January 2010. To be clear, expenses incurred before this date but used after it will be caught. It is only expenses that are incurred and used beforehand that will not be. Clause 14, if carried, will be commenced by order following Royal Assent. It is the Government’s intention that the date of commencement will depend on the timetabling of the debate in the other place to consider the appropriate use of parliamentary allowances during the longer regulated period. That is a matter for the other place. I freely acknowledge that this clause does not represent a perfect solution to the problem of unregulated pre-dissolution candidate expenditure. It will not alter the present arrangements in the case of shorter Parliaments and, sadly, it has not proved possible to find a solution for such circumstances that all parties can support. But we believe that it represents an advance over the current position and, crucially, the measure commands broad support among the parties in another place. My noble friend Lady Gould asked what is to happen next. My reply is that the 55-month provision will regulate candidate spending for a longer period in Parliaments that run either to or close to full term. That is an improvement, however minor she and other noble Lords may consider, on the status quo. If we can secure cross-party agreement to candidate spending restrictions which apply in more elections and which do not imply excessive uncertainty, we will look to bring measures forward. However, in 2005-06, the Government’s proposal for a standard four-month regulated period was rejected, as was triggering. That is why we now propose in Clause 14 a system that counts forward from the last general election. I have one last point to make. The communications allowance has been brought up on a number of occasions during the debate. I remind the Committee that parliamentary allowances, including of course the House of Commons communications allowance, exist to enable Members of the other place to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The proposals for the House of Commons communications allowance came not from Her Majesty’s Government but from the Members Estimate Committee and the House of Commons Commission. Any decisions in relation to that allowance are for the other place to take collectively. I would expect the Members Estimate Committee to consider whether any changes to the rules on the use of allowances might be appropriate as a result of the changes made by this Bill. That is the response that I make, as best I can, to the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.