Electoral Administration Bill

Indeed, this is an unusual step, in that it is retrospective. I briefly remind noble Lords that it was following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bowman v UK that the Government amended Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by means of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That increased the expenditure limit for unauthorised third parties from £5 to £500. However, Section 75 remains ambiguous as to exactly what third parties may spend this money on. Clause 29 clarifies this and specifies that expenditure by unauthorised third parties up to £500—the level already set in the 1983 Act—will be allowed on holding public meetings or organising any public display and issuing advertisements, circulars or publications. Although the Government agree generally with the principle that legislation should not be retrospective, there is a good reason in this case. By applying Clause 29(6) retrospectively—that is, application from the time that Section 131 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 came into force—the clarification provided by Clause 29 means that any third parties that may have, on one interpretation, contravened the ambiguous legislation from that time will be deemed not to have committed an offence. That is what we are seeking to do, because we believe that it is right to recognise the ambiguity. Although there are no examples that we know of, that ambiguity could have led someone to have committed an offence. By making it retrospective, we hope to have clarified that point in law. It is an unusual point, but one that is pertinent in this case.