No, I am about to conclude.
Clause 9 helps to lift and partly remove an unfair burden in the 2000 Act by clarifying that, if a party or treasurer is charged with the offence of accepting an impermissible donation, they will not be guilty if they can show that they took all reasonable steps to verify that the donation was from a permissible donor. That was always the intention underlying the 2000 Act; the Bill makes a technical change to put that point beyond any doubt.
Clause 10 will tackle excessive unregulated candidate spending through provisions that, in effect, return to the principle of the pre-2000 system known as triggering—an issue that we have already discussed. The clause achieves that by amending existing legislation so that, in relation to parliamentary general elections, the limit on the amount of election expenses as defined by the Representation of the People Act 1983 will include all expenses of that type where they are used by a person for the purposes of promoting their election candidate. That alters the current position, which is that the limits do not include election expenses incurred or used prior to the date of the dissolution of Parliament or that person's formal adoption, nomination or declaration as a candidate. Under the new provisions, it will not matter on which side of dissolution or adoption the expenses are incurred or used, provided that they are incurred or used to promote the candidate's election.
I understand, accept and acknowledge that there are some concerns about that matter, but the principle of strengthening candidate spending rules, which are clearly not adequate at present, must be right. There was broad understanding in the Hayden Phillips considerations that there had to be strengthening and a more comprehensive set of arrangements in respect of total spending.
I note from the reasoned amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats that they are now expressing reservations about the trigger. That was not the view of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords just a few months ago, however, when the noble Lord Rennard argued:"““Reintroducing the trigger for the start of the period in which election expenses are limited and increasing the categories for expenditure that must be included within limits will help.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 846.]"
I am glad to have met the Liberal Democrats' requirements in June, even if they have changed since then.
Clause 11 extends the Electoral Commission's existing power to issue codes of practice, and finally, the Bill contains two electoral reforms that I hope will command universal support. Clause 12 allows electors registering to vote on household canvass forms to be added to the electoral roll in the event of an election being held during the canvass period, to prevent the potential disfranchisement of electors in that situation, which can happen. Clause 13 will enable European parliamentary elections to be administered by local authority returning officers on local authority boundaries, which will assist in the effective administration of European parliamentary elections.
I hope that we can agree on broad principles today, while we can work in Committee on what I hope will be agreed positions on practicalities. I repeat my commitment to do my best to reach a consensus, and in that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jack Straw
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 20 October 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Political Parties and Elections Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
481 c52-3 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:03:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501363
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501363
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501363