|
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): From Mumbai.
Mr. Heath: Perhaps not very far from Mumbai or Bangalore.
I assure members of the Committee that someone ringing constituents from a long way away and telling them which way to vote would not have the desired effect on them.
Some abuses will almost certainly not be caught, but a letter to a constituent saying, ''Candidate X is appalling because he has done this, this and this, which I know because I am a leader of Y party,'' is surely part of the election campaign. It is absurd to pretend that it is not. My amendment would simply tie down that particular abuse. It would not stop letters from party leaders being delivered to people's doors; it simply says that a letter sent in those circumstances should be included in the return.
In effect, the amendment says, ''You know perfectly well that it is happening, Mr. Agent, so do not pretend that you do not. You know perfectly well that it is going to the electors in your area, so do not pretend that it is not. So include it in the election expenses and let it count against the total allowable expenses for that constituency.'' That is the sole import of my amendment, which I hope commends itself to the Committee.
Column Number: 83
Mr. Djanogly: Clause 29 deals with the itemisation of election expenses and the period in which the election expenses are calculated. Amendment No. 7 seeks to impose seemingly restrictive controls on what would constitute an election expense by seeking to calculate all expenses incurred by the political party in communicating with individual electors, irrespective of whether that communication refers to the local candidate.
I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that a certain amount of grey matter is involved in deciding whether or not a local candidate is being promoted. Conceptually, however, we believe that what the amendment proposes could be very difficult, bureaucratic and expensive to manage and would do nothing to make the calculation of individual constituency expenses more transparent.
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Perhaps it would be helpful to differentiate between general stuff about a political party being sent to electors and stuff that refers specifically to a constituency in that it contains details and information about a particular constituency that one would not send to the whole electorate as it was clearly part of a local campaign and not a national one. There is a clear distinction between the two.
Mr. Djanogly: There is a debate to be had on that. Perhaps the Electoral Commission could consider the matter. At the same time, however, this is not the time or the place to vote on such an amendment.
Mr. Heath: If this is not the time or the place, what is?
Mr. Djanogly: Perhaps it would be if the hon. Gentleman had taken up the matter with the Electoral Commission and it had been considered earlier, but that is not where we are.
The Conservative party has various concerns about the constitution of election expenses, which are addressed in amendments Nos. 56 and 57. New schedule 4A itemises expenditure that is considered to count as election expenses. New section 90ZA(2) provides that it is immaterial whether items are used before or after the candidate is adopted, so long as they are used within the relevant period. The explanatory notes state that the lists of items in the schedule are based on those used for political parties' national campaign expenditure under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Electoral Commission is given power to prepare a code of practice on expenses that is subject to the negative procedure for statutory instruments and allows the Secretary of State to amend the list by order.
The election expenses list in new schedule 4A includes accommodation and administrative costs but does not provide further explanation as to whether that includes, for example, the cost of permanent staff. The policy report also considered the definition of election expenses, again amended by PPERA, and considered the situation to be unsatisfactory. It thought that some items could reasonably be excluded from the definition of election expenses; for example, the use of a
Column Number: 84
candidate's home computer or the cost of posters produced for previous elections.
9.15 am
The commission considered that a prescribed list of election expenses could form the basis of an elections return and provide greater clarity. Schedule 4A is rather vague and our amendment would clear up the long-standing ambiguities. The amendment would ensure that the Electoral Commission was expressly mandated to prescribe clearly and comprehensively in the code of practice governing election expenses the precise meaning of those ambiguous terms. The effect would be, we hope, to clear up the extent to which permanent staff, for example, constitute election expenses.
Election expenses are an area fraught with difficulties and suggestions of foul play can greatly damage the reputation of candidates and the electoral system. We must therefore do all we can to make the rules as clear and unambiguous as possible, which they are not.
Part 2 of schedule 4A discusses the general exclusions to the revised election expenses detailed in part 1. Although we welcome many of the suggestions, we suggest adding the further paragraph in amendment No. 57, excluding postage of any items relating to fundraising. This country has a long history of political parties fundraising during election campaigns. Public awareness of politics increases during election periods and this represents a good opportunity for all political parties, great and small, to discuss policy and ideas with the public. It is the time when the public engage most with politics and political parties, and if individuals wish to help to further a course of policy in which they believe, they should have the freedom to do so.
Without the amendment, political parties are unlikely to send specific mailings about fundraising, thereby denying individuals an easy opportunity to financially support parties. Also, some political parties might try to include fundraising mailings with postal vote applications, which does not seem particularly desirable or even practical; the fundraising responses have to be returned to the party and the postal vote applications to the local council. Given that most of the money raised during the campaign does not fund it but normally replenishes that already spent and funds future campaigns, there seems little credence to the argument that the money affects the forthcoming elections.
Finally, such fundraising does not concern the great wealthy political donors who give to all the parties, but rather the huge numbers of ordinary individuals who choose to give small amounts of money at the times they most feel politically engaged. In an age of decreasing popular involvement in political parties and the political process, such low level financial support and political involvement is important and should not be discouraged.
Dr. Pugh: I found it rather strange that the hon. Member for Huntingdon said that this was not the time or the place to discuss the issue. I cannot think of a better time or place. I am not sold on the wording of
Column Number: 85
the amendment, but there is no doubt about its target or the issue.
For the record, I have discussed the matter with Sam Younger at the Electoral Commission. He will undoubtedly read the text of the debate. His response was broadly sympathetic to my point, although he recognised some of the difficulties in framing legislation to counteract the all too clear abuse of the limits on local candidate expenditure. The abuse is not on the part of one particular party; it is probably indulged in, regrettably, by all parties in one form or another. However, it is certainly not in the spirit of the Bill.
I want to exemplify that by considering the situation in my constituency. I did not mind the visit from Conservatives from far afield; they were a welcome boost to tourism, as it happened, and did little harm. Tourism, not Toryism, I should say. The visit did nothing for Toryism, but the associated publicity did quite a lot for the local economy. I did not mind the posters, because we all recognise that posters have to go somewhere. However, the number has to be limited. Had, for example, the Liberal Democrats decided to put all their posters in Folkestone, other Members from the Opposition might have raised issues about that.
I did not mind the posters. However, I became a bit concerned when a torrent of letters poured in from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. The letters mentioned specific facts about my constituency, such as the number of cases of MRSA. He ridiculously exaggerated the figure, and that led to the local hospital making a complaint to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They urged that he retract the figure that he had quoted.
There followed a letter on asylum seekers that gave specific details about the cost to the local council tax payer. The facts were again wrong. The local council and local churchmen complained. They felt that the letter had done little, if anything, to boost community relations.
Mr. Binley: I just want to clarify in my own mind what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does that mean that the campaign, which the Liberal Democrats led, to decapitate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe is inside the law, yet our letter is outside the law? Will he clear that up for me?
Dr. Pugh: If the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment to that effect, I am sure that we would be prepared to look at it.
Mr. Heath: With special reference to Westmorland and Lonsdale.
Dr. Pugh: If I may press on, by the end of the election period, many of my constituents were firmly convinced that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe had become their pen pal. They were somewhat disappointed when the election was over.
The point remains that specific details about my constituency were listed in a letter. There was also an injunction not to vote for the local Liberal Democrat
Column Number: 86
candidate and a recommendation that my constituents should vote for the local Conservative candidate.
The party names could change, but any party could distribute such literature. As far I can see, there is no finite limit on what can be done. Such literature clearly forms part of a local campaign if it mentions local figures and tells people to vote for one local candidate over another. All that it does not do is name the candidate. However, electors can figure out the names of the major parties' candidates. Theoretically, what can therefore be done is limitless. Every issue in an election could be individualised to every single elector in a constituency, by mentioning specific details about that constituency.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) could have done the same on my behalf. For whatever reason, he did not. None the less, even though it may not be against the letter of the law as it currently stands, such communication is clearly, evidently and explicitly against the spirit of the law. It is an abuse, and I wish to put on record that Sam Younger recognised it as a difficulty. I am sure that he will want to correspond with the Committee. We now have time to address that abuse.
| 
