Political Parties and Elections Bill
10:21 am
Mr. Straw: Where I agree with you is on the quality of your constituency. To let the Committee into a secret, I was born and brought up in Mrs. Laing’s constituency and my mother was a Labour councillor for quite a period, into her late 70s, and she still lives there.
On the specifics, I should first explain that I made the decision in the light of discussions that have taken place, using my judgment and not Hayden Phillips’ judgment, but also having considered what he said on page 15, which I have already quoted. Also, given what everybody accepts, that there was an unintended gap in the law because everybody thought that triggering would continue under the 1983 regime and it did not, I thought that we ought to reintroduce it. I thought that there would be a broad consensus for that, not least because Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—not Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was Lord Chancellor, but the late Lord Mackay who was leading on the Bill in the House of Lords—moved amendments to make it clear that the 1983 regime would continue. I regret that Ministers were reassured that that was unnecessary, but there we are. I have never suggested that the trigger arrangements are perfect, but they did act as a dampener.
With respect, I do not accept that with the communications allowance somehow incumbent MPs will be advantaged over those who are candidates. Again, I draw attention to what the then Lord Chief Justice, now Lord Bingham, said in the Fiona Jones Court of Appeal judgment. He drew a distinction, which is there under the 1983 Act and will still be broadly there under the revised definition:
“Election expenses are not incurred where a constituency party carries on its ordinary political activity otherwise than with reference to a specific election which is reasonably imminent, even though such activity has the ultimate aim of winning public support and gaining or retaining power in the constituency; nor are they incurred by a candidate who nurses the constituency. An election expense means expenses incurred, by or on behalf of a particular candidate”
in respect of the conduct or management of the election, which has now been widened slightly to the purposes of the election. That distinction will have to remain in the law for as long as we do not arrive at an arrangement—which Mr. Howarth raised with me, but for which there is currently no consensus—where all spending by political parties at all times is subject to an overall limit, whether national or local.
The Electoral Commission made recommendations for trying to fill what is accepted on all sides as an unintended gap in the law. As we control campaign spending for 12 months before a general election, it was expected that candidate spending would be controlled, not least by the continuation of the trigger, which is not there. The Electoral Commission said that the way to fill the gap is to have a four-month period before an election where the candidate spending is controlled. We put that forward in what became the Electoral Administration Act 2006, but it did not find favour.
There is agreement about the objective here. I do not say that this triggering proposal is perfect. If there were better ways of doing it and if, for example, we could find a way of improving what went into the 2006 Bill and was then dropped, let us look at it.