Political Parties and Elections Bill

Perhaps. I should confess that my role in relation to quite a number of controversies was simply to try to restrain the enthusiasm of those people who wished to go to the lawyers at every opportunity. I know that a number of them did. I do not say that with disrespect to any noble Lords who are in the legal profession. But in my experience they did very well on a number of occasions from researching cases to suggest that someone had triggered their expenses and then coming to the conclusion that nothing could be done about it. It was an imperfect mechanism. In all honesty, if I thought—again, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, expressed the problem elegantly—that bringing back the trigger would deal with that problem in the fundamental way that was suggested, I would think more favourably of it. But I came to the conclusion that it did not, and not just because nine years on it is hard to reintroduce. The culture of campaigning and what people do have changed so much that in practical terms it would be very difficult to bring it back. Other changes in the 2000 legislation would make bringing back the trigger impossible, which is why the Minister referred to how the Front Benches in another place decided after due consideration that it could not be done. Fundamentally, the problem is that the trigger mechanism relates only to spending by an individual candidate, but not by a party promoting the cause of the party. Any system to address this must address the costs of promoting the party in a particular area, as well as promoting the candidate. The problem was well described by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, but I commend to those who are particularly concerned about it a book that explains it very well. It was referred to previously: Dirty Politics, Dirty Times. I have read it. Noble Lords may not want to add to the royalties of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, and I am not sure that he needs them anyway. I have a policy of always getting such books from the House of Lords Library, rather than contributing to the royalties of someone to whom I do not, perhaps, want to contribute. I got that book out and studied it in some detail. It explains carefully and clearly how effectively a complete coach and horses has been driven through the original legislation that was brought about to end the corruption of the 19th century when people were allowed to buy individual constituencies. You also see, from the detail, how the trigger would not deal with it because much of the expenditure in key seats, described in the book, promotes the party, rather than the candidate. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, will confirm that many of our discussions with advising agents over the years would be to the effect that, even with the trigger, you could promote the party but not the candidate. Now there is effectively no limit, because national limits are so high that you can promote the party at great expense. Much of the campaigning done in the marginal seats by all parties promotes the party, perhaps in the form of such things as letters from a party leader. The candidate and constituency may not be named, but the case is put to vote for a particular party or, sometimes, against another one. I give an example from one constituency. The issue is of such importance that we must come back to it. The trigger is not right and Clause 14 is not right. In Teignbridge at the last general election, the sitting Liberal Democrat MP was limited in promoting himself by the degree to which he could say, "Vote for me again, Richard Younger-Ross, your hard-working local Liberal Democrat MP". However, effectively, there was no limit on the expenditure on letters from Michael Howard saying, "Vote for the Conservative Party". The MP’s wife received four letters from Michael Howard during the general election campaign, urging her, in effect, to make her husband redundant by voting Conservative instead. Since there was no limit on national expenditure, there was a completely uneven playing field. If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, were to talk again to Peter Bradley and discuss whether the trigger really would have helped him, he should say that bringing back the trigger in the way that has been suggested would have made it harder for him. He would probably have been even more limited in saying, "Vote for me, I’m a good bloke", but there would have been no limit on the Conservative Party saying, "Do not vote Labour for these reasons; vote for the Conservative Party instead". We have a fundamental problem and we do not have the right solution to it. Amendment 121 and bringing back the trigger would not be the right approach. For that reason, we oppose Clause 14 standing part of the Bill. We will, of course, abandon it at this point, but we give due notice that we must look properly at the issue and come back to it at a later stage. Clause 14 agreed. Amendment 121 not moved. Clauses 15 and 16 agreed.