Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 101:"Page 33, line 34, at end insert—" ““(   )   by or on behalf of a registered party (within the meaning of section 160 of the 2000 Act) in communications to individuals or members of a household in the constituency, division or district which the candidate is contesting in its name if the communication is calculated to enhance the chances of the candidate’s success, whether or not the communication contains any direct or indirect reference to the candidate or to that constituency, division or district.”” The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to address exactly the same problem as we were discussing in the previous grouping—trying to get a fair and equitable level of expenditure in constituencies in general elections. I think it is a more practical remedy than the one the Government proposed and appear no longer to be pursuing. I do not wish to repeat everything I said on Second Reading about this issue, so I shall spare your Lordships the main arguments about this. But it seems patently unfair to me that a candidate standing for Parliament is limited to, for the sake of argument, £12,000 of expenditure to state their case through posters, advertising, leaflets and so on, yet a party that may have wealthy national backing is able to spend £30,000 or £40,000 sending mailshots to that constituency urging support for their candidate or opposition to another candidate. That national expenditure incurred within the constituency on things like letters from national party leaders does not count at all against the election expense limit. It seems that some candidates are bound by a £12,000 limit, yet others can have £30,000, £40,000, £50,000 or even £100,000 of additional expenditure pumped in by their national headquarters to persuade voters in that constituency to vote for them. The fundamental principle of the 1883 legislation, something all parties say they subscribe to, is to ensure a relatively level playing field in constituencies in general elections. The changes in practice in how elections are fought—and we look particularly at what happened in 2005—show that this is no longer the principle of parties’ practice in constituencies. Something must be done about the problem. Exactly how it is to be addressed I am not sure, but I tabled this amendment to suggest that we have an inequitable system of constituency election expense limits, and we must address that somehow if we are to abide by the principle of the original 1883 legislation of a more level playing field in constituencies. I beg to move.