Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Amendment made: 33, in page 4, line 23, at end insert
( ) In the case of an appointment of a nominated Commissioner, the reference in section 3(2)(c) to being selected is to be read, where appropriate, as a reference to being recommended.. (Mr. Wills.)
(1) In the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (the 1983 Act), after section 76 there is inserted
76ZA Limitation of pre-candidacy election expenses for certain general elections
(1) This section applies where
(a) a Parliament is not dissolved until after the period of 55 months beginning with the day on which that Parliament first met (the 55-month period),
(b) election expenses are incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at the parliamentary general election which follows the dissolution, and
(c) the expenses are incurred in respect of a matter which is used during the period beginning immediately after the 55-month period and ending with the day on which the person becomes a candidate at that election.
For the purposes of this section, section 90ZA(1) has effect with the omission of the words after the date when he becomes a candidate at the election.
(2) Election expenses incurred as mentioned in subsection (1) must not in the aggregate exceed the permitted amount, which is the relevant percentage of the following sum
(a) for a candidate at an election in a county constituency, £25,000 plus 7p for every entry in the register of electors;
(b) for a candidate at an election in a borough constituency, £25,000 plus 5p for every entry in the register of electors.
(3) The relevant percentage is
(a) 100% where the dissolution was during the 60th month of the Parliament;
(b) 90% where the dissolution was during its 59th month;
(c) 80% where the dissolution was during its 58th month;
(d) 70% where the dissolution was during its 57th month;
(e) 60% where the dissolution was during its 56th month.
For the purposes of this subsection, the 56th month of a Parliament is the month beginning immediately after the 55-month period; and so on.
(4) In subsection (2) above the register of electors means the register of parliamentary electors for the constituency in question as it has effect on the last day for publication of notice of the election.
(5) Where election expenses are incurred as mentioned in subsection (1) in excess of the permitted amount, any candidate or election agent who
(a) incurred, or authorised the incurring of, the election expenses, and
(b) knew or ought reasonably to have known that the expenses would be incurred in excess of that amount,
shall be guilty of an illegal practice.
(6) The candidates personal expenses do not count towards the permitted amount.
(2) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to any expenses
(a) incurred before the commencement of this section, or
(b) incurred in respect of any matters used before 1 January 2010.. (Mr. Wills.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Wills: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a) to Government new clause 17, in proposed new subsection (1)(a), leave out first 55 and insert 50.
Amendment (b) to Government new clause 17, in proposed new subsection (1)(a), leave out second 55 and insert 50.
Amendment (c) to Government new clause 17, in proposed new subsection (1)(c), leave out 55 and insert 50.
Amendment (d) to Government new clause 17, at end of proposed new subsection (3)(e), insert
(f) 50% where the dissolution was during its 55th month;
(g) 40% where the dissolution was during the 54th month;
(h) 30% where the dissolution was during its 53rd month;
(i) 20% where the dissolution was during its 52nd month;
(j) 10% where the dissolution was during its 51st month..
Amendment 10, in clause 11, page 9, line 36, at end insert
(6) No act or statement made before the commencement of this section shall be taken into account in deciding whether a person has become a candidate..
Government amendments 39 to 43.
Mr. Wills: This group of amendments will overhaul and refine the provisions in the Bill relating to candidate expenditure. I think that it is true to say that the provisions have attracted a great deal of comment, not to mention controversy and criticism. We have listened to those criticisms, as we always do. The group of amendments are intended to address the various concerns raised by hon. Members. I shall begin by setting out the points on which I think that we are on common ground. I believe that we can all agree that changes to the legislation on party funding should, as far as possible, be made on the basis of a broad consensus of support between the political parties. We cannot allow party funding to becomeor, just as importantly, to be perceived to have becomea partisan issue. That would be hugely destabilising to our democracy. All of us on both sides of the House have a duty to ensure that legislation on party funding supports a strong, fair and open democracy that commands the trust and respect of the electorate.
Inevitably, election campaigning requires money to be spent, but it is a long-established and, I believe, well-supported principle that first and foremost, elections are a contest of ideas and policies. Excessive election
spending devalues the integrity of our democratic system. I hope we can all agree on that. It is for this reason that the law on party funding has, since the late 19th century, set strict limits on the amount of money that can be spent in pursuing election.
In the first instance, the law limited only the amount that a candidate could spend on election campaigning. However, in recognition of the increasingly important role of national campaigning conducted by political parties, the law has, since the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, also limited the amount that can be spent nationally.
Both the candidate and the national campaign spending limits must operate in recognition of the fact that we do not have fixed-term Parliaments. I do not wish to enter into that debate todayindeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker probably would not let me do so. I mention it merely because a consequence of that is the uncertainty over whether and when an election will be held. That is a difficulty when we try to specify the length of any regulated period for election expenses.
In the case of the national spending limit, the starting point for the regulated period is counted back 365 days from the date of the election. This means that parties can face some uncertainty in accurately planning their campaigning expenditure. In practice, however, most parties will closely monitor their campaigning expenditure at all times, and employ staff to ensure compliance with legislative requirements.
The same cannot be said of campaigning expenditure that specifically seeks to advance the electoral prospects of a candidate. Campaigning at the local level is often sustained by volunteers. We can all agree that those dedicated people are the lifeblood of our political system, and whatever we do to make sure the system is open and transparent and commands the trust of the electorate, we must also take great care to ensure that legislation does not impose undue burdens on those volunteers.
For many years, the law on candidate spending deliberately did not impose a fixed point from which the limit on election expenditure would apply. Rather, the limit applied from the point when an individual began behaving and campaigning as a candidatea system that is often referred to as triggering. This led some to seek to avoid the limits by referring to themselves as only prospective candidates. The 2000 Act sought to reduce uncertainty for candidates and agents by setting a clearly defined point in legislation from when an individual could be regarded as a candidate. In the majority of cases, this is the date of the Dissolution of Parliament.
Candidates have thus had certainty about the point from which to begin counting their election expenses. However, the wholly undesired, and to some extent unforeseen, effect of this has been the potential for significant levels of unregulated candidate expenditure to take place prior to Dissolution.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |