Proceeding contribution from Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Political Parties and Elections Bill.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
I can respond quite speedily. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is of course quoting just one of a huge number of examples. All parties are as confused as he and I, particularly by this issue of unsolicited mail. It has grown exponentially in recent years. Unless we are prepared to take it in, as the Minister now appears to be saying that he might be able to do with the schedule to the 2000 Act, this will continue to be a vast loophole. In all three major parties, even those responsible for local campaigns in marginal seats quite resent this sort of interference and intervention by party headquarters. It is often peddling a line or spinning a tale which is not much in accord with the local candidate’s campaign. It undermines that relationship between the candidate and his or her electorate in his or her constituency in a way that is undesirable anyway, quite apart from the issue of controlling expenditure. Unsolicited mail—indeed, unsolicited e-mail, now—is undoing literally a century and a half of careful pinning of accountability and identification of responsibility for who is going to pay for an election. The Minister referred to two ways in which our amendments would change the current situation. Neither case is as substantial as he suggests. He says that he is open to views. I hope that he has been listening, not least to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If they were honest, all Members of the Committee would admit that campaigning techniques have moved on in a way which is not thoroughly desirable and is certainly not covered by legislation. It is therefore extremely important that we identify these things with greater clarity by some means or other. That may be achieved not in the Bill but in secondary legislation. For example, the Minister mentioned that the four months leading up to the European parliamentary elections are a controlled period for the purpose of expenditure. I am not sure that all parties are aware of that given some of the publications to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has referred. It sounds like, from what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, that putting together the package for postal votes clearly relates to an election—I exonerate the noble Lord from doing anything improper—because you do not do that in March simply for the fun of it; you do it because you know that there is an election coming up. I am hopeful that the Minister, in saying that the Government are open to views, is genuinely listening on this. The points that have been made are formidable and we will not get another opportunity to deal with this problem for some years to come if we miss it now. I therefore hope that, if I now withdraw the amendment, the Government will think carefully about how they might address this formidable problem before Report. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 119 withdrawn. Amendment 120 not moved.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 710 c217-8GC
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Costs Finance Elections Donors Expenditure Electoral Commission Members Political parties Loans Regulation Trade unions Tax allowances Taxation
- Legislation
- Political Parties and Elections Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:12:41 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_553593
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_553593
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_553593