HC Deb 14 March 2000 vol 346 cc218-28
Mr. Tipping

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 56, line 2, leave out— `, in connection with relevant elections falling within section 72(1),'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 45A to 48.

Amendment No. 138, in schedule 9, page 132, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert— `the period between the date on which Parliament is dissolved and the date of the poll for the election.'. Government amendments Nos. 49 to 52, 54 and 55.

Mr. Tipping

Amendments Nos. 45 to 55 essentially make technical or drafting changes to chapter II of part VI. Amendment No. 45 removes an inconsistency between clause 87(1) and the general approach to controlling election expenditure taken in both parts V and VI—which proceed on the basis that it would be artificial and difficult in practice to attribute campaign expenditure between different elections occurring in close proximity to each other.

Last year's elections in Scotland are a case in point. Within a five-week period, there were local elections and elections to the Scottish and European Parliaments. Advertising by the political parties would have been devoted to achieving success at all three elections. Therefore, the approach taken in the Bill is to link expenditure controls not to specific elections, but to regulated periods ending with the date of an election.

As a consequence of that approach, a recognised third party will have to account for all controlled expenditure incurred during a regulated period, including any expenditure linked to local government elections. As drafted, clause 87(1) gives the contrary impression. The provision refers back to clause 72(1), which contains a list of elections that does not include local government elections. Amendment No. 54, therefore, tidies up the drafting in clause 87(1), so that the general approach that I have described is clearly reflected in that provision.

Mr. Grieve

The Minister gave the example of elections in close proximity. However, will he confirm that the impact of the approach is that third parties will be subject to the regulations at all times? Unless third parties happen to fall into one of the "hole" periods in which there are no such elections, with all those elections applying to them at no time could they assume that the rules would not bite upon them.

Mr. Tipping

That would depend entirely on the third parties' purposes and aims—third parties come and go. Some third parties will exist in perpetuity, and amendment No. 54 will affect them as I have just described, whereas I suspect that other third parties will be solely campaigning organisations that are established for a specific purpose or election, but subsequently dissolve.

Amendment No. 47 ensures that the expenditure limits for recognised third parties cannot be circumvented by incurring controlled expenditure during a regulated period both as a third party and as a recognised third party. As a result of the amendment, any expenditure incurred by a third party before it became a recognised third party would count towards the relevant expenditure limit stated in schedule 9.

Amendment No. 49 flows naturally from amendment No. 47. The general restrictions relating to controlled expenditure in clauses 83 to 86 apply only to recognised third parties. It follows that a recognised third party could not comply with subsections (2) to (4) of clause 89 in respect of any controlled expenditure incurred before they became a recognised third party. The amendment disapplies those subsections in respect of any expenditure incurred during a regulated period as a third party.

Amendment No. 50 ensures that the requirement to submit a return under clause 89 in respect of controlled expenditure incurred during a regulated period continues to apply in circumstances in which a third party ceases to be a recognised third party at any time on or after the end of the regulated period. The other Government amendments in the group make minor or drafting changes.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has tabled amendment No. 138, returning to an issue that he raised on Second Reading. His concern appears to be thau pressure groups and other third parties may unwittingly be caught out by the provisions of part VI, as they cannot be expected to know when the 365-day relevant period before a general election will begin. The aim of the amendment is to introduce greater certainty by confining the period during which expenditure controls will apply to the three or four weeks following the dissolution of Parliament.

Since Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead on the issue. In a letter of 8 February, my hon. Friend explained why he believed my right hon. Friend's concerns to be unfounded. For the convenience of the House, I shall try to set out briefly the positions of third parties that will follow the commencement of part VI.

Pressure groups, trade unions or other third parties that incur expenditure designed to enhance or prejudice the electoral prospects of a political party or its candidates at an election could be caught by one of two offences. First, a non-registered third party commits an offence under clause 87(3) if controlled expenditure is incurred in a regulated period in excess of one of the de minimis limits in clause 87(5), which are £10,000 in England and £5,000 in any other part of the UK. Many third parties that spend relatively small amounts will not need to become recognised, so there will be no restrictions on them. I suspect that a variety of small third party campaigns will emerge around single issues that affect neighbourhoods, groups of people or interest groups. They will want to pursue those matters vigorously. Provided that they stay below the de minimis provisions, their actions will be largely unaffected.

However, if such a group wants to spend more than those limits, they will need to become a recognised third party. To do so, they will need to submit notification to the Electoral Commission, in accordance with the provisions of clause 81. It is a simple procedure that involves no more than depositing with the commission the name and address of the organisation and the address of a person who will be responsible for complying with the financial controls set out in part VI. Many Members expressed concern about that in Committee. They were keen to ensure that the rigorous and onerous provisions of the Bill did not impact too heavily and discourage small third parties. We all want an explosion of political involvement and activity.

Any third party that expects to incur controlled expenditure could avoid the offence in clause 87(3) by making the required notification and renewing it annually. That would make it a recognised third party, able to benefit from the higher limits on controlled expenditure set out in schedule 9.

A recognised third party could avoid the second offence of exceeding the limits on controlled expenditure imposed in schedule 9 by operating to the expenditure limit for any 365-day period. I think that that is my right hon. Friend's principal concern. A recognised third party that intends to incur significant controlled expenditure is likely to incur a sizeable proportion of it only once an election has been called and can therefore limit its expenditure accordingly. We all know from our campaigning experience that the bulk of any campaign expenditure is best spent on the final lap.

Many third parties are sophisticated political organisations that can make as educated a guess as my right hon. Friend or I about when a general election is likely to be held. We all suspect that the next general election is only 12 to 18 months away. I am not giving away any great secrets. I have no insider knowledge; it is a matter of judgment. I suspect that third parties can make the same judgments. If I can make such a guess, so can the chief executives of third parties.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister has just said something more significant than he may want to admit. By my calculation, the Government have not yet been in power for three years. If I recall correctly, the maximum statutory term of office is five years. For the Minister to reveal to a startled House that the next general election will be between 12 and 18 months away appears to limit the flexibility available to the Prime Minister in choosing the date of the election, which, by my calculation, could be held at any time within the next 25 months or so. Will the Minister clarify that?

Mr. Tipping

The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation as a vigorous street fighter. I said that we could make educated guesses; I have no insider knowledge. I refer him to the record if he wants to look at it. My educated guess is that the next election will be within the next 12 to 18 months. He will make his own educated guess as a seasoned street fighter who is determined to win elections. He will decide when and how to apply his efforts and financial resources. I suspect that he may not wait until 24 months from now, because he may then be too late.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead takes a great deal of interest in voluntary organisations, pressure groups and people who want to influence the political system. Third parties will be helped in a number of ways. They can ensure that they stay below the de minimis provisions. They can also use their political knowledge and guile to work out when a general election might come and contain their expenditure during the 365 days before that.

I hope that I have given my right hon. Friend some reassurance and put the issues on the record for the benefit of the many third parties which the Government are keen to involve in the political system. We need to do more to bring more freshness and vigour to the process.

7 pm

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

I wish to comment on the reasons for the amendments and the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

When I first looked at the Bill, I thought that the Government had tabled the schedule to see whether the House had the staying power to read the Bill to that point. It is difficult to understand why this part of the Bill has been drafted in this way. One reason may be that the Government are anxious that smaller groups should actively participate in any campaign—certainly big campaigns, such as a referendum on the euro—and that they should know their position and keep easily within the law. The proposal does not really deal with the big players who are interested in this debate and in the outcome of that referendum.

I wonder whether the Government are trying to get away with this part of the Bill because, above all else, they fear that the euro will spill over into the election campaign in a way that will be detrimental to the party colours that I have stood for proudly since 1966, when I fought Beaconsfield—as the Prime Minister did in his journey to the House of Commons—and in Birkenhead since 1979. I would not put much money on the Opposition winning the election on policy, but clearly if the euro becomes part of the campaign, the outcome is more open to doubt than it would otherwise be.

I tabled amendment No. 138 because I was anxious for the Government to act fairly and not find themselves before the European Court. I know that the Government want to be at the heart of Europe, but that has a different meaning if we are in the dock of the European Court to answer a case which we find difficult to answer.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has skills which lead him to be much admired in this House. He carries a lot of good will because of the way in which he conducts himself and the way in which he engages properly in argument. He does not get involved in slanging or in spin. However, even he finds it difficult to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. This part of the Bill will land the Government in difficulties.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) immediately spotted the difficulty that the Government are in, and the difficulty that all the big players will be in when they try to read the crystal ball as to whether the election timetable of 365 days has started. None of us knows when the clock will start until the Prime Minister announces the date of the election and tables the necessary resolutions to dissolve Parliament. It seems only proper that the clock should start ticking at that stage in terms of third-party expenditure. Otherwise, the Government will be charged with attempting deliberately to introduce legislation that will act retrospectively—not as this House has done previously, by overturning the established rights of people who thought that they were protected, but by saying that as nobody bar the Prime Minister knows the date of the next election, people will unwittingly find themselves breaking a law that they would not otherwise wish to break.

I appeal to Ministers because the Government will not get away with this. Retrospective legislation is a sign of the Government running scared of the euro tunnelling into the next election campaign. The Government can stop that in all sorts of ways, but one way in which they cannot stop it is to pass this schedule of this Bill in this form. People will not know whether they are breaking the law or not. They will be able to plead before the courts—and before the European Court, if necessary—that they acted in good faith, and that their expenditure was valid.

We all know that this part of the Bill will not continue to be part of the Bill when another place has had a chance to look at it. The debate will come back to us and the Government will be faced with trying to impose their will on the House, which will result in law-abiding citizens behaving unlawfully. It is unwise for Governments to push reform to the stage that people knowingly break the law; it is even worse if people unknowingly break the law and are retrospectively held to account for their actions.

No one in the country knows the date of the general election, and I plead with Ministers to think again on this matter. If they do not, the other place will think again for them. The matter will come back to this Chamber for a vote on a crazy proposal which does not command respect in this House and could not be carried on a free vote. It will not be carried in another place, so the Government put themselves at a disadvantage with voters by behaving in this fashion.

Mr. Grieve

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a compelling speech. Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary, my amazement grew by the minute. He confidently told us about being able to predict general elections and the normal span of Parliaments. Casting my mind back, I remember that the Government of Mr. Callaghan came to an end which was not dictated by his own decision as to when to go to the country, and that Government extended for nearly five years. Closer to home, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) would not have wished his Government to go the full five years, but circumstances compelled him into that. That is another example of the impossibility of making such a prognosis.

The amendments, albeit technical, are revealing in terms of the difficulties that the Government are having in plugging the loopholes and the differences between the different schedules. Also—the Minister half-answered this point—the amendments establish an even tighter regime by introducing new categories of election to be covered, which makes it even more difficult to make any sort of guess by an organisation as to when they may fall foul of the legislation.

The essential feature of the provision is that it has nothing to do with the Neill committee, which recommended spending limits for third parties in relation to elections to prevent political parties evading the limits—as happens in the United States of America—by having parallel campaigning organisations. The Neill committee's report talks of the prevention of large-scale propaganda that was clearly intended either to promote the election of one party or to discourage the election of another. In the immediate period of an election, that is sensible and enjoys the support of the Opposition, and—from what he said—the support of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.

However, the Neill committee contained nothing about a specified time for which spending limits would apply. Indeed, the report stated: There would be considerable practical difficulties in imposing annual spending limits. Indeed there would. One could not imagine a greater fetter on the freedom of people or organisations to spend their money as they wished or to communicate with others. That right is enshrined in the European convention on human rights, which we have just taken into our law. I hope that the Minister will give me credit for supporting that, despite the difficulties when it came before the House.

The Government have gone well beyond what Neill recommended. With the 365-day principle, they have introduced a level of control that would apply not only to political parties but to groups of candidates who hold … particular opinions. The provision would affect a campaign that was run six months before an election advising people to vote Labour or Conservative, and it would also affect a campaign being run to persuade people to vote, for example, for candidates who were pro-life, or pro-abortion. That would fall foul of the 365-day period. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, that is the entire year before the election.

We have co-operated a lot on this Bill, but this provision is either barmy or malevolent. I am still prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt that it has been inserted barmily, in a belief that the time limit needs to extend beyond the immediate election period, and then taken too far.

The schedule would introduce spending limits at all times on campaigning organisations. In those circumstances, what would be the practical consequences? Well, unless campaigning organisations will lie down, terrorised, and give up campaigning, they will go ahead and campaign. Many of them will hit an election having grossly exceeded the limits prescribed. However, the Government cannot stop the organisations spending in that time, so—as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out—when the election arrives, the organisations will have committed a criminal offence. I am not sure what a jury, still less the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords or the European Court of Human Rights, will make of that offence. The Government will end up with egg on their face, and so will the House, for having passed legislation that is manifestly absurd and unfair.

The Government should consider the matter sensibly. They should impose restrictions for the period of a general election, but they should simply live with the fact that they cannot prevent people, outside local or general election periods, from promoting a political viewpoint that may include support for a political party or for groups of MPs who may hold particular views.

The Bill was meant to tackle party spending. It was meant to prevent corruption. It was not, as I am sure the Minister would agree, supposed to impose draconian restrictions on campaigning organisations. Amendment No. 138 would not remove controls on third-party spending altogether, but it would go a long way towards remedying what is wrong with the Bill. It is greatly to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman that he has brought the matter before the House on Report.

7.15 pm
Mr. Field

The hon. Gentleman said that the amendment goes only part of the way. What sort of amendment would he have preferred? Only when we have the dissolution order before Parliament do we know the date of the general election.

Mr. Grieve

I expressed myself badly. The Opposition felt disquiet initially when we considered whether restrictions on third-party expenditure were justifiable. In a spirit of supportiveness, and an understanding of what the Bill is trying to achieve and what Lord Neill recommended, we have put that disquiet to one side. That is one of the reasons why the Bill has progressed with enormous cross-party co-operation. We have made it clear several times that we are prepared to implement Lord Neill's recommendations, even when we can see that there will be practical difficulties. I simply wished to make the point that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment will not get rid of control over third parties, but he has undoubtedly identified the best way of bringing it back within the bounds of reasonableness.

I hope that the Government will give amendment No. 138 some serious thought, coming as it does from a distinguished Labour Back Bencher. We do not wish to depart from the spirit of sensible inquiry that has dominated proceedings on the Bill, and that is greatly to the credit of the Minister. However, the problem will not go away. I would be staggered if the other place failed to point out that the provision fails to comply with basic human rights. If it comes back to this House and has not been properly dealt with, or the Government have not agreed to think again, I foresee that it will not pass without argument. I would prefer to see the consensus that we have achieved hitherto being maintained and I hope that the Government will think again.

I considered whether it was possible to define a period other than the election period itself. However, as I am sure the Minister will agree, another period cannot work. The only sensible limit is the election period.

Mr. Tipping

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for their comments. We have listened to all the comments made during the Bill's progress. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that, if the Bill could be improved, it would be improved and, if consensus could be found, we would try to find a way forward. That has so far happened.

At times during the speech by the hon. Gentleman, I wondered whether he had moved away from a commitment to spending controls on third parties but, as he developed his theme, he made it clear that he was not against the principle. However, he thought that there would be practical difficulties. I remind him that a central tenet of the Bill is to put financial controls on political parties, which Neill advocated.

Neill also advocated that third parties should be allowed to spend 5 per cent., say, of what political parties spend. That can be judged only against a timetable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead advocates a much shorter timetable, but that is a matter of judgment.

We must remember that organisations such as pro-life or environmental groups undertake normal and legitimate campaigning activities. Society benefits from such activities and I hope that we see more of them. They would contravene the Bill only when it became clear that they were trying to influence the outcome of an election. We are not trying to stymie campaign groups—heaven forbid. We want them to do a lot more, and there is a lot of energy to be harnessed. However, when it comes to influencing election outcomes, spending controls should apply to such groups.

I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield agrees with that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead does. The important question is how such controls are set against the timetable.

Mr. Grieve

The Minister seems to miss the point. I accept that many organisations will campaign in so general a way that their activities could not be considered relevant to an election. However, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, one can envisage campaigns on a subject such as the euro that might suggest that belief in the euro was incompatible with belonging to the Conservative party or voting Conservative, and that non-belief in the euro was incompatible with belonging to, or voting, Labour. Such campaigns must fall foul of the Bill if an election were to be called unexpectedly after expenditure had been incurred.

Mr. Tipping

I did not miss the point. I was trying to explain it, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman grasped what I was saying so quickly shows that I was going in the right direction.

A range of campaign groups' activities will not be covered by the Bill, but it is right to say that those activities that attempt to influence an election will be restricted by the proposals. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is keen to ensure that the regulations are not too onerous and that they do not put people off political campaigns.

I am grateful for the generous, but I think unwarranted, comments from my right hon. Friend, and I feared that the word "but" was on its way. However, I emphasise that I do not want the regulations to be onerous or off-putting. The Bill contains a series of measures that affect larger organisations more than smaller ones. It is framework legislation that covers all sorts of elections—to the European Parliament, for example, or for seats in Scotland and Wales. It is not confined to referendums, nor is it designed around an election in connection with the euro. It contains a series of steps to regulate third-party campaign spending.

Those of us who are involved in political activity, in the mainstream or around the fringes, can make educated guesses about when general elections will be held. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made the point that the Prime Minister of the day has an advantage.

Mr. Grieve

That is a major concession.

Mr. Tipping

It is not a major concession. It is a matter of fact. I can see the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) laughing, but tables turn and electoral cycles change. What is one party's interest now may not be so in the future.

We believe that the Bill can be improved, and it has been improved already. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said about attitudes in the House of Lords. We will look at tonight's debate and take account of the comments made down the road. However, we must have a system that recognises the principle of restricting third-party spending. We must also try to ensure that it is not too onerous—an objective that I am sure unites the House.

The 365-day provision in the Bill is workable, and the Government are on the right track. We have listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, as we will listen to what is said in another place. I understand that my right hon. Friend is warning me, but I hope that he will accept what I have said and withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I also have a Beaconsfield connection, like the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), although one of us was a more successful candidate than the others.

I have a specific question for the Minister. I understand that the regulation to which he referred does not apply to publishers of newspapers. Will he say what would happen if a major campaign organisation—with a platform in favour of the euro, for example, or against abortion—decided to publish a newspaper during the regulated period? Would that expenditure be controlled by the Bill?

Mr. Tipping

I am interested in the history of success and failure in Beaconsfield. Clearly, a lot of unsuccessful campaigning has gone on there. If the newspaper described by the hon. Gentleman were published by a third-party organisation, it would be counted as campaign expenditure, in the true sense of the phrase.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

Does the Minister really mean what he just said? If Mr. Paul Sykes decided to buy a newspaper, which he filled with news about matters other than just the euro, would that be considered to be an election expense under the Bill?

Mr. Tipping

If Mr. Paul Sykes or anyone else purchased a regular newspaper, in which he ran articles and features designed to influence the process and outcome of an election, that would clearly be campaign expenditure. However, if he bought The Daily Telegraph, for example, and that newspaper carried on promoting a variety of causes with a focus that went beyond the election—even if most of those promotions were against the Labour party—that would not be counted as an election expense. A balance has to be struck, and at some point a judgment has to be made.

I can tell the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that it is hard to speak about hypothetical examples. These matters deserve careful judgment, but I repeat: material designed to influence elections will be considered to be campaign material, whereas traditional newspapers will not.

7.30 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack

There is a saying, "If you're in a hole, stop digging." The hon. Gentleman seems to be giving a great many hostages to fortune. Does he really mean to move his Government towards press censorship? The hon. Gentleman may shake his head. He is an immensely amiable character, and we all love him dearly, but he has said some extraordinary things, and this must be sorted out.

Mr. Tipping

Let me be absolutely clear about this. If Mr. Paul Sykes buys The Daily Telegraph or any other newspaper and campaigns on the euro or whatever, that is clearly not an election expense. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has in mind a group producing a regular newspaper, locally focused, over a regular period of time, which is designed entirely and primarily to influence the election, clearly it is an election expense. I read the Liberal Democrats' Focus, although I do not rate it very highly. It is a regular newspaper that campaigns and tries to influence the election. It is clearly an election expense and if the hon. Gentleman has not been declaring it, I will have to take a close look round North Cornwall.

Now that I have cleared up this issue, let me say, for the third time, that I have heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has said. He has heard the Government's position, and we will of course follow the debate.

Mr. Grieve

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Tipping

No.

Mr. Field

My comments about my hon. Friend were made without any reservation, without any ifs or buts. My views are, I think, widely shared in all parts of the House, and we are grateful that my hon. Friend treats us in a serious manner in all our debates. I wish that others would follow that role model.

The point of tabling the amendment was in the hope that the Government would accept it. My hon. Friend has, to put it politely, been drowning as he has tried to reply to it. As he is not accepting it, this part of the Bill—this piece of nonsense—staggers on stilts to the other place. I look forward to seeing what the other place will do with it. I am sure that we will then return to the debate in this place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. It just means that he does not have to move it when we come to that part of the amendment paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 45A, in page 56, line 21, leave out 'relevant'.

No. 46, in page 56, line 38, leave out— `section and sections 89 and 90' and insert "Chapter".

No. 47, in page 56, line 40, after "9;", insert— `(aa) any reference to controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party during a regulated period includes any controlled expenditure so incurred during that period at any time before the third party became a recognised third party;'.

No. 48, in page 56, leave out line 43 and insert— 'is incurred in that part; and (c) any reference to controlled expenditure being incurred in a part of the United Kingdom shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Schedule.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Forward to