Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle:

Moved by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

144F: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause— “Return of election deposits where a candidate's party elects at least one MP(1) Rule 53 of Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (forfeiture of deposit) is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) Where a candidate has been authorised to use a party description under rule 6A of these rules, the deposit shall be returned as soon as practicable after any candidate using the same party description is elected in any constituency at that general election.”(3) In paragraph (4) after “paragraph (3)” insert “and (3A)”.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would return the election deposits to all general election candidates whose registered party elects at least one MP.

My Lords, I rise again to speak to amendments in my name, starting with Amendment 144F, which moves us back to a larger scale. It would amend the part of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that deals with deposit forfeiture to return election deposits to all general election candidates whose registered party achieves at least one MP. Those Members of your Lordships’ House who are still paying acute attention at this hour of the evening might have noticed that I have to declare an interest at this point.

The “one MP” point is not chosen randomly or for self-interest. It surprises many voters when they find out that to stand in a general election you have to pay a £500 deposit. Maybe many say, “A one-off payment of £500 is not that large a sum of money”; it is for many people in many communities, but maybe it does not seem that much. However, put that at a national scale: to take the example of the Green Party in the 2019 election, 465 lost deposits cost us £232,500, the best part of a quarter of a million pounds. I am aware that for some political parties that might look more or less like change down the back of the sofa, but to us it is a massive sum of money, a sum that in our case is largely raised by crowdfunding at a local level, people putting their £10 or £20 in to support local democracy.

What we have is a very odd situation—here I come to why the “one MP” criterion is in the amendment—because, in our system, we have what is known as Short money. It was introduced in the Commons in 1975 and is available to all Opposition parties that either secured two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous general election. It is payable to qualifying parties as £18,400 for every seat won at the last election, plus £36 for every 200 votes gained by the party. When people say to me, “I think my vote is being wasted because it didn’t elect someone”, it is always worth pointing out that it does have an impact in terms of Short money.

In the context of this amendment, we have a situation where with one hand the state deliberately gives money to parties that have won at least one seat and got a certain number of votes but, with the other, takes it away in terms of the election deposits. This is, in effect, a tax on democracy. If we look at the comparison with many other democracies around the world—on earlier groups we were talking about comparisons in many ways and how we appear to fall short compared with other democracies—it is interesting that many other democracies in Europe and other parts of the world fund the operations of their political parties on a regular basis, not just in parliament but in terms of funding research and election campaigns. They acknowledge that, if we do not all collectively fund politics, the people who do fund it are the ones who then get the politics that they have paid for. We are now in a situation where we are getting politics paid for by a relatively small number of people, and election deposits make that far worse.

I will be interested to hear from the Government what their current justification for election deposits are, but I expect that they might say the £500 deposit discourages frivolous running for office and joke candidates—at which point I would invite them to look at any list of candidates standing in any general election or high-profile by-election, as it does not really seem to do the job.

If the Government do not like Amendment 144F and the immediate step to end this tax on democracy, I have the alternative Amendment 212F, which is a simpler and less immediate action. It calls for a review of election deposits and the exploration of alternatives. If the Government were to acknowledge that there is an issue here that deserves to be explored and should be considered, Amendment 212F is a way of getting to that by taking a longer and more considered view of how we might approach this situation and end this barrier to democracy. As we were discussing on an earlier group, the Government said in their impact assessment of this Bill that their aim is to improve access to democracy. Taking away the deposits could be one important step for that. I beg to move.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has come up with a very cunning plan and I have to say that, as a Liberal Democrat, I can see its merits immediately. I just say one thing to her, which is that it is usually a mistake to put all your dice on one number. There is about £250,000 at stake if that seat were, by any mischance, to be lost. That may be a good reason for me to be more enthusiastic about her second amendment than her first, which might be a case of being careful what you wish for.

Nevertheless, she has raised some important issues which are clearly relevant to all political parties other than the big two—it has to be said that the big two also waste money on lost deposits, although I am sure they do not think of it as being wasted so much as an investment for the future. That said, it is an interesting argument to link this to the payment of Short money from parliamentary funds to support those political parties which are represented in the other place. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister is in any way tempted to assist small parties with a £250,000 bounty, as compared to the very much bigger sums of money which he and his colleagues can summon up on demand when a general election arises.

My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says, but there are many reasons for a deposit. It is a well-established practice and I do not accept that it is necessarily a barrier, bearing in mind the facilities that being a registered candidate gives you—not least free postage for an election communication to every elector. There are certainly a lot of things you can already benefit from as a properly accredited, validly nominated candidate. There are lots of responsibilities to that, so I do not see grounds for change.

However, that does not mean I am opposed to some sort of examination of precisely how the deposit system impacts on candidates. The noble Baroness said that an argument might be made that it acts as a barrier to participation, but then she said that, when you look at general elections, a lot of candidates are thrown in, particularly in high-profile seats. It is a form of registration; you get your money back if you get sufficient support, so I do not see the grounds for changing.

My Lords, I am afraid that, having been able to be reasonably accommodating on the previous amendment, I cannot meet the noble Baroness on this one for very similar reasons to those argued by the noble Lord opposite. The reality is that candidates have to provide a deposit of £500, which is lost if they get less than 5% of the vote. It is designed, as the noble Lord said, to ensure that, normally, only those who are serious about seeking public office will put themselves forward for election. However, it does not seem to have deterred Lord Buckethead over the years I have been following elections, although I suspect the figure under the bucket may have changed—he has been around a long time.

As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, candidates at parliamentary elections are entitled to have an item of election material sent to electors free of charge by the Royal Mail. Paying the deposit gives candidates access to over £20,000 of public money for this purpose in a typical case. This is a factor in the level of deposit required from candidates.

The noble Baroness proposes that, at a general election where a candidate standing wins one seat for a party, all other candidates standing for that party would be entitled to have their deposit returned regardless of the level of vote they receive. At a general election, there are a series of individual contests in individual constituencies across the country, as the Green Party knows very well from its successes. We submit that it would be a significant change for a result in one constituency to have any impact on contests in others. You can have very different results down the road; that is germane to a general election. While candidates can be members of parties, they stand for election on an individual basis and the law views them as such in terms of deposits.

As the noble Baroness sees it, this would help her party, which secured a little more than 2.5% of the vote nationally. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said it might help other parties. However, the reality is that, as she acknowledged, the Greens were not so popular, because they lost their deposit in 465 constituencies, which was up from 456 lost deposits in the previous election—they actually lost more. This amendment would require, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, nearly £250,000 of taxpayers’ money to be returned to Green candidates who had been rejected by taxpayers at the polls.

We would also need to consider very carefully the implication the proposal would have in individual constituencies. It could unfairly and, in my submission, inequitably disadvantage single, local independent candidates—we all know them, people who have strong issues in a local constituency, who put themselves on the line. They may get more of a share in a particular constituency than this national party, and then find someone they had beaten gets their deposit back, but they do not. A level playing field for elections is essential for our democratic processes, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that this would need a lot more consideration before we could go near this. The Government constantly review electoral activity, but I regret to say that we cannot support this change, and I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw this amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and thank the Minister for his response. I would perhaps question the classification of general elections as measures of popularity; they are reflections of popularity, since people have to deal with the first past the post voting system. If we look at the last election, it might have been taken as a measure of popularity where votes more or less matched seats, and people knew that their votes counted. It was the last European election where the Green Party got 11% of the vote and finished ahead of the Conservative Party in that particular measure of popularity under a different voting system.

I wish to pick up on a couple of points. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, picked up the point about the one seat issue. I take their points, but the fact is that, with Short money, there is already a legal situation that says one seat means you will be regarded as a national party. I am interested in the Minister’s comments, with his strong stress on each seat being an individual contest, which does not really seem to be the way the Conservative Party has been fighting recent elections, or the way recent elections have been treated by the media.

On the Minister’s point about disadvantaging single local candidates, around the country at a local council level we are seeing groups of candidates representing their local area—I am thinking of Herefordshire, but there are other areas where significant groups of councillors have come together as representatives of their local area, and they might want to run in a number of seats where they represent the council, and that is a very large sum of money.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, said it is not a barrier to participation because you get your money back if you get sufficient support, but that implies you are able essentially to gamble £500. While there are many people in our society who can say, “Well, here is £500—I will get it back or I will not”, there are an awful lot of people for whom that is not a financially viable situation, who do not have access to that £500 to start off with.

I think this has been the start of a conversation. I took encouragement from the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, that the idea of a review might be of interest to the Labour Party. I think that is something that I might look to take forward in the future, and I hope we might be able to work on that. This has been very much the start of a conversation which has a long way to run, but at least it has been started. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 144F withdrawn.

Clause 12: Extension of franchise for parliamentary elections: British citizens overseas