---

Political Parties and Elections Bill

Amendment 114 goes on to state that, where boundaries change between elections, the Electoral Commission would have the power to, ""apportion expenditure between constituencies in any matter it thinks fit"," subject to issuing guidance. I must advise noble Lords that the commission is the independent regulator of party finance and that this proposal is inappropriate, both in terms of good legislative practice and proper parliamentary scrutiny. The commission can, and does, make recommendations which the Government consider along with representations from other interested bodies, but any changes to electoral legislation are ultimately a matter for the Government of the day and for Parliament to consider. Therefore, a more appropriate mechanism for achieving this would be for the Secretary of State to lay an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, making any such change, having received a recommendation from the commission. Amendment 117 provides for a power to vary, by order, any of the sums specified in the 1983 Act. This power is presumably conferred on the Secretary of State, although it is not clear from the proposed amendment. A power to vary, by order, the level of the candidate spending limit already exists in the 1983 Act, but such a power can be exercised only in consequence of changes in the value of money or following a recommendation by the Electoral Commission. We are concerned that the amendment grants a wider power than currently exists. Amendment 120 would add expenditure paid for out of the House of Commons communications allowance to the list of regulated matters. The rules regarding use of that allowance are a matter for the other place, but I can perhaps make one observation here. As with all parliamentary allowances, the communications allowance must be spent only on matters in connection with carrying out parliamentary duties. It cannot be used for partisan or political purposes. Given these clear conditions, I find it difficult to see how money spent appropriately under the terms of the allowance could be regarded as being for electoral purposes. Notwithstanding this, my honourable friend the Minister of State gave a clear commitment in the other place that a proposal would be brought forward on the appropriate use of allowances during the pre-candidacy regulated period proposed in Clause 14. The other place may consider that some form of restriction is required when the new limit is in operation, but that is not a matter for this Committee to opine on. Furthermore, it is not appropriate for legislation to alter or restrict an allowance established and administered under House rules. Any change to the way in which a parliamentary allowance works should be achieved using the procedures that were used to establish it. We would not want to make provision for legislation to regulate how either House conducts its business. Amendment 118 and associated Amendments 141 and 144 are concerned with the transitional arrangements that would apply should the proposals contained elsewhere in this group of amendments be agreed to. They provide that only 75 per cent of the proposed annual spending limit would be available for the period beginning 31 July 2009 until the next election. We are concerned that it would be very difficult for the parties to adjust at such short notice to the major changes proposed by the amendments. Amendments 145 and 146 propose commencing the new clauses contained in Amendments 114 and 115 just 14 days after Royal Assent. Again, we are concerned about the very short notice that this would give parties to prepare for such significant changes. I also note that the commencement of other critical amendments in this group, including on the spending limit for smaller parties and the list of qualifying expenditure, has been left unspecified. We firmly believe that any changes to the regulation of party funding should be made only where broad agreement can be established between the parties to move forward. This is particularly the case where the changes represent a major shift from the existing arrangements. Following the publication of Sir Hayden’s final report in 2007, the three largest parties came together to negotiate on a way forward. Regrettably, those talks broke down without a consensus being achieved. We do not see any prospect of a consensus on Sir Hayden’s recommendations emerging in the near term. The amendments before us make proposals based on Sir Hayden’s recommendations but, as I have set out, they differ in a number of important ways and would create a number of difficulties and problems. I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who tabled these amendments for the opportunity to discuss these matters in some detail. However, it would not be appropriate to make the wide-ranging and unwieldy changes proposed by the amendments without the requisite consensus and at such a late stage of what has always been intended to be a far more modest Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.