| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.30 pm
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that, because it is new legislation, there could be recourse to legal fees. I had thought that the amendments were aimed primarily at legal fees, but now that he has drawn attention to them, they include other professional services, too.
I have looked in particular at the legal fees issue. I am not entirely convinced--although I will look at the matter again now that we have had the opportunity to discuss it and to hear the concerns--that his amendments are necessary. The advice that I have received at this stage is that legal fees in connection with referendums and campaign expenditure in a general election or local election could well not count against campaign fees at all. That is a moot area.
I am certainly of the opinion that there is a strong argument that the provision of such professional fees will not be counted against campaign expenditure, but I will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said in outlining the matter. If he will give me leave, I will look at it again in the light of his comments and write to him. If necessary, and if there are the concerns that he spells out, we will make the appropriate adjustments.
Mr. Grieve:
The Minister's words are partially reassuring, but not perhaps quite as reassuring as I had hoped. I appreciate that he may not have understood the full scope of the amendment. One of the reasons for Report stage is the opportunity to discuss these matters. May I take a separate example? If I submit a tax return, I am allowed to deduct a proportion of my accountancy fees from my total income. There is an analogy here. If parties have to spend money to operate the system correctly, as the Bill demands, it will be wrong for that money to count towards their campaign expenditure.
I was thinking much more along those administrative lines than in terms of exceptional legal fees, which is precisely why I said that I could foresee a situation where, if a party got itself into difficulty and incurred legal fees because it was in trouble with the law, it might be regarded as wrong to give it such an exemption. However, that could easily be put into an amendment, if the Government applied their mind to it.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's case. I am not sure that I agree with the exemption point. If a legal case arose from the Bill, it could not possibly be construed as campaign funds. It cannot genuinely fall within the scope of campaign expenditure.
Mr. Grieve:
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I dare say the Minister will take that on board, too. When introducing these measures, I try to look at different facets of an amendment. It seemed a point that could validly be made against us. His point is perfectly valid; I am grateful to him for having made it.
Mr. Tipping:
I reinforce the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has made. The advice that I have received so far--as I say, I will look at it in the context of the debate--is that such expenditure would not count against electoral expenses--but I will write to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the matter.
Mr. Grieve:
Again, I am grateful to the Minister. I would not wish to press the amendments any further, but I hope that the matter will be looked at and addressed, so that by the time the Bill gets to the other place, there can be complete clarity as to whether such an amendment is needed. If not, I hope that the Government will provide a positive response, or that the matter may be revisited at a later stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Tipping:
I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 43, line 27, leave out from "if" to "he" in line 31.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 27 to 31, 34, 41 to 44, 53, 65 to 69, 124, 80 and 81.
Mr. Tipping:
This is a large group of amendments. I am delighted to say that, without exception, they all
Mr. Grieve:
I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for having taken on board the comments in Committee. Perhaps it is right that the House should be aware of what happened. By my calculation, 70 criminal offences arise out of the legislation. Although defences were offered on one or two, when the Bill went to Committee, the vast majority were absolute offences, so they could criminalise party treasurers, even association treasurers and all sorts of other people. There was no defence of reasonable excuse, or the other defences that one would normally expect in a--dare I say it?-- a civilised society.
I am mindful of the fact that part of the Government's explanation was that they tried to copy other legislation, but we pointed out that, in doing that, the draftsmen-- I suspect somewhat overwhelmed by the scope and detail of the legislation--had some difficulty and failed to note that defences of reasonable excuse were offered in similar legislation and should thus be incorporated in the Bill.
I am grateful to the Government. In looking through the Bill, I have tried to see that all the points have been covered. I shall continue to do that, as doubtless the Minister and draftsmen will, but I am obliged to the Government for having accepted that important point. It is wrong that people should be convicted of criminal offences when they have acted in what any layman would consider a completely innocent manner.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 27, in page 43, line 32, leave out "that subsection" and insert "subsection (3)".--[Mrs. McGuire.]
Mr. Tipping:
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 52, line 18, leave out from "which" to "complies" in line 24.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 135 and 37 to 40.
Mr. Tipping:
Amendments Nos. 36 to 40 relate to the notification procedure in respect of third parties at elections. By making a notification to the Electoral Commission, a third party is able to incur controlled expenditure in excess of the limits set out in clause 87(5)--£10,000 in England and £5,000 in other parts of the UK--up to the limits set out in schedule 9.
There was some discussion in Standing Committee of the statement to be made by a third party under clause 81(1). In response to questions from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), I said that the Government would table an amendment to clarify subsection (1)(b). On further reflection, we now believe that it would be preferable simply to omit paragraphs (a) and (b). That is the effect of Government amendment No. 36.
The purpose of clause 81 is to bring those third parties that intend to incur significant controlled expenditure within the Electoral Commission's regulatory jurisdiction. We want to make that as easy as possible, not least to prevent a third party from inadvertently committing an offence by exceeding the expenditure limits in clause 87(5).
There may be circumstances in which a third party will need to make a notification to the Electoral Commission under clause 81(1), to avoid committing an offence under
clause 87, but in which they could not honestly make a statement that they intend to incur expenditure in excess of the relevant limit in the next 12 months. Removing the need to make a statement in the terms set out in clause 81(1)(a) and (b) will ensure that a third party is not forced into a catch-22 situation.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are consequential on No. 36.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 37 and 38 is to ensure that a notification by a third party does not lapse during a regulated period for the purposes of the expenditure limits provided in schedule 9. The need for the amendments is perhaps best illustrated by the following example. A recognised third party may incur controlled expenditure up to a limit of £11,259, in Wales, in the four months before a European parliamentary election. As the Bill stands, were a third party's notification to lapse half way through that four-month campaign, it could spend £11,000 as a recognised third party in the first half of the campaign, and then up to another £5,000 in the second half of the campaign in its capacity as an unrecognised third party. That would clearly be contrary to the expenditure controls provided in part VI.
Amendment made: No. 25, in page 42, line 17, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".--[Mrs. McGuire.]
Amendment made: No. 28, in page 44, line 10, after "if", insert ", without reasonable excuse,".--[Mrs. McGuire.]
Amendments made: No. 29, in page 44, line 29, after "if", insert "without reasonable excuse".
No. 30, in page 44, line 31, leave out ", without reasonable excuse,".--[Mrs. McGuire.]
Amendments made: No. 31, in page 45, line 1, after "if", insert ", without reasonable excuse,".
No. 32, in page 45, line 34, leave out first "the" and insert "any".
No. 33, in page 45, line 35, at end insert--
'(za) in which is situated the office of the treasurer, deputy treasurer or (as the case may be) other authorised person to whom the claim is sent pursuant to subsection (1) or;'.--[Mrs. McGuire.]
Amendment made: No. 34, in page 48, line 38, after "if," insert ", without reasonable excuse,".--[Mrs. McGuire.]
Amendment made: No. 35, in page 51, line 5, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".--[Mrs. McGuire.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |