Sponsorship

HL Deb 18 October 2000 vol 617 cc1063-108

2A.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule sponsorship is provided in relation to a regulated donee if—

1. (a) any money or other property is transferred to the donee or to any person for the benefit of the donee, and
2. (b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of the transfer is (or must, having regard to all the circumstances, reasonably be assumed to be)—
1. (i) to help the donee with meeting, or to meet, to any extent any defined expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the donee, or
2. (ii) to secure that to any extent any such expenses are not so incurred.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "defined expenses" means expenses in connection with—

1. (a) any conference, meeting or other event organised by or on behalf of the donee,
2. (b) the preparation, production or dissemination of any publication by or on behalf of the donee, or
3. (c) any study or research organised by or on behalf of the donee.

(3) The following do not, however, constitute sponsorship by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)—

1. (a) the making of any payment in respect of—
1. (i) any charge for admission to any conference, meeting or other event, or
2. (ii) the purchase price of, or any other charge for access to, any publication;
2. (b) the making of any payment in respect of the inclusion of an advertisement in any publication where the payment is made at the commercial rate payable for the inclusion of such an advertisement in any such publication.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order made on the recommendation of the Commission amend sub-paragraph (2) or (3).

(5) In this paragraph "publication" means a publication made available in whatever form and by whatever means (whether or not to the public at large or any section of the public).").

Page 116, line 17, leave out ("or a referendum").

Page 116, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) the provision of assistance by a person appointed under section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989;").

Page 116, line 29, leave out from ("which") to ("and") in line 31 and insert ("(in accordance with any enactment) falls to be included in a return as to election expenses in respect of a candidate or candidates at a particular election;").

Page 116, line 40, at beginning insert ("the total value in monetary terms of").

Page 116, line 40, at end insert— ("(2A) The value of any donation falling within paragraph 2(1)(aa) shall be taken to be the value of the money, or (as the case may be) the market value of the property, transferred as mentioned in paragraph 2A(1); and accordingly any value in monetary terms of any benefit conferred on the person providing the sponsorship in question shall be disregarded.").

Page 116, leave out lines 43 to 46 and insert—

1. ("(a) the total value in monetary terms of the consideration that would have had to be provided by or on behalf of the donee in respect of the loan or the provision of the property, services or facilities if—
   1. (i) the loan had been made, or
   2. (ii) the property, services or facilities had been provided,
   on commercial terms, and
2. (b) the total value in monetary terms of the consideration (if any) actually so provided by or on behalf of the donee").

Page 116, line 47, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

Page 117, line 1, leave out ("or (4)").

The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to in Committee on 12th October. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 184 to 186 not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 186A: Page 119, line 11, leave out ("£1,000;") and insert ("£5,000 (where the donee is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case);").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 182A earlier today. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 187A and 187B: Page 119, line 18, leave out ("£1,000.") and insert ("£5,000 (where the donee is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case)."). Page 119, line 25, leave out ("58") and insert (" 57").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 187A was spoken to earlier today. Amendment No. 187B was spoken to on 12th October. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 189A to 190: Page 121, line 34, leave out ("£1,000.") and insert ("£5,000 (where the donee is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case)."). Page 122, line 28, after ("9(3),") insert ("9(4),"). Page 122, line 33, leave out from ("shall") to second ("to") in line 34 and insert ("include power to make provision for disapplying any specified provisions of this Part, for such period as is specified, in relation"). Page 122, line 37, at end insert— ("( ) Each order under section 65(1)(b) (as applied by sub-paragraph (1)) shall he so made as to—

1. (a) apply to every person or members association falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b), and
2. (b) make the same provision with respect to every such person or members association.").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have all been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 [Campaign expenditure]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 191: Page 42, line 19, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Viscount said: We have now moved on from the issue of political donations in Part IV to that of political expenditure in Part V. This is a probing amendment which, when it was originally tabled, sought to provoke a debate on the issue of campaign expenditure. The Government have subsequently tabled a large number of amendments which relate to it and to issues in Schedule 7 with which subsection (2) of Clause 67 deals. Indeed, although Amendment No. 191 seeks to delete subsection (2) for probing purposes only, I notice that the Government are seeking to delete large chunks of it with Amendments Nos. 191A and 191B.

Perhaps the most significant amendments in this group are Amendments Nos. 191A and 191B, together with government Amendments Nos. 192A and 195A. These amendments will remove Part II of Schedule 7 from the Bill in its entirety and substantially alter the definitions in Part I of the schedule. This is highly significant.

As the Committee will be aware, political parties will in future only be able to spend up to a maximum of just under £20 million on what is called "campaign expenditure" in the year before a general election. This builds on one of the key recommendations of the Neill committee, recommendation 47.

Schedule 7 currently defines the term "campaign expenditure" in some detail. The Government are seeking to alter that definition. In another place, the vast majority of the provisions that the Government are seeking to delete were not queried by the Opposition. Indeed, there was a very short discussion over the detail of the definition relating to the preparation of the manifesto.

On Report, the Opposition tabled amendments similar to Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 in relation to legal and professional fees. The issue was whether legal fees related to industrial tribunals, for example, or the auditing of accounts under the Bill, should count as campaign expenditure when, in effect, they were in no way related to political campaigning. I am therefore to an extent grateful that one of the effects of government Amendment No. 192A is to take all legal and professional fees out of the definition. That reflects, although in a more pronounced way, the points that my right honourable friends made in another place. Therefore, I shall not go into more detail on Amendments Nos. 194 and 195.

Returning to the general definition in Part I, government Amendment No. 192A seeks to delete much more than the area that have mentioned. We expect the Minister to explain why.

In addition to the legal and professional fees that I have mentioned, the amendment seeks to remove from the definition of "campaign expenditure" three further categories. Two of them relate directly to elections. The first is mentioned on page 123 of the Bill in subparagraph (7); namely, Office accommodation acquired specifically for the purpose of being used in connection with a relevant election".

That seems strange. Surely it is logical that campaign expenditure should include the cost of offices rented specifically for use in election campaigns.

The second category to be deleted is the employment of staff used in connection with a relevant election. Again, that seems strange and we look forward to the Minister's explanation.

Amendment No. 193D would also remove a large amount of expenditure from the definition of "campaign expenditure"—staff expenses, postage and stationery costs. Why are these being excluded even if they are incurred in relation to an election campaign? How does Amendment No. 193D, which seeks to delete staff expenses from the main definition entirely, fit with Amendment No. 193G, which appears to limit the exemption in paragraph 2 in respect of expenses to those which are paid by the individual concerned and not reimbursed by the party? What kinds of expenses will now be covered and what do the amendments taken together mean?

Amendment No. 192B seems to tighten up some of the Government's drafting in relation to transport costs, but I should be interested to hear from the Minister a clearer definition of exactly what kinds of transport would be covered. That is the thinking behind our Amendments Nos. 192C and 193, which seek to examine what the words "national or other basis" and "from place to place" mean in the current drafting. What if, for example, an MP is being transported by the party to a campaign event in his own constituency? Does that count under the national limit or under the MP's limit as a local candidate? What about candidates or prospective candidates visiting neighbouring constituencies? Would their transport expenditure count? What about that of party officials or local activists?

The government amendments would also tighten up the definitions in relation to rallies and public meetings. In order to count towards the limit, they would no longer have to attract "national publicity", nor would they have to be attended by "prominent persons", and the costs of hiring premises for the meetings would now be covered. However, we were under the impression that the new national limit was supposed to relate to national campaigning only. Perhaps the Minister will outline the kinds of meetings that will be covered under the new definition that would not have been covered under the Bill as presently drafted.

Government Amendments 195A to 195C relate to the second type of expenditure in Schedule 7; namely, overheads. They seek to delete the category entirely. These amendments would blow a pretty big hole in the definition of "campaign expenditure". Permanent staff and office costs, telephone and other office costs, to the extent that they are attributable to the election campaign, would be removed entirely. We are puzzled by this development. Why are the Government doing this? We do not understand their logic.

While the amendments would to some extent reduce the administrative burden on political parties, they would have the effect of also allowing political parties to spend a great deal of the £20 million limit on, for example, national advertising, transport, meetings or rallies than would otherwise be the case. This would be of direct and substantial benefit to any parties that had the full amount of money to spend. We are mindful of the conclusion of the Neill committee, at paragraph 10.49 of its report, which states: Which items of election-related expenditure should be included within the new national limit? The short answer is 'all'".

I have raised some fairly detailed points on this group of amendments, many of which are government amendments and many of which are mine. I thought it might be helpful if I put these points to the Minister at this stage so that, in introducing the government amendments, he may be able to deal with them. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota)

I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 191A and 191B.

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton

I rise to give general support to the whole cluster of government amendments. I do so because all the political parties have registered concern about the complexity of Schedule 7 as it stands. There was obviously a need to simplify the schedule wherever possible.

One of the problems brought about by the amount of detail in the schedule was that the electoral commission would have had laid down before it the precise implications of the provision; rather, it will be commissioned to come up with a list of matters that should be covered and will now have the ability to do. What is important is that the provision will now be simplified in such a way as to reduce an enormous amount of the administrative burden on political parties and make the whole process more manageable.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised a number of specific points, and as we go through the Bill we may indeed see the need for modifications. However, the general principle—the idea that Schedule 7 should be simplified and made more workable—must be supported. Practitioners within political parties will support this approach. In no way should any amendment take away the need for tough restrictions. We must not undermine the Bill's intentions. Nevertheless, the definition of "election expenditure" is now more comprehensive and more workable than it was previously. In the all-party discussions that have taken place, all sides have expressed the view that Schedule 7 as it stood was impossible to operate. As we are constantly reminded by Members in this place, political parties are made up of volunteers and activists, not accountants. The simplification of the schedule may help the work of those volunteers. The new definition will ensure that the next general election is fought on a more level playing field than the old Schedule 7 would have provided.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation that his amendments are probing amendments. I am not sure what he probed, but it was an interesting observation in itself.

I confess to being slightly puzzled by Amendment No. 191, which would remove subsection (2) of Clause 67. The subsection defines "campaign expenditure" by reference to items of qualifying expenses set out in Schedule 7. The noble Viscount has not tabled an amendment to delete Schedule 7. If he is broadly content with Schedule 7, as he would appear to be, I hope he will accept that we must retain Clause 67(2) in order to give effect to that schedule.

The large group of government amendments to Clause 67(2) are consequential on the proposed changes to Schedule 7 and it is to these that I now turn. Schedule 7 is the product of recommendation 53 of the Neill committee report. That recommendation stated: Legislation governing national expenditure limits should include a schedule … setting out a comprehensive list of items of relevant expenditure which should be declared by political parties at parliamentary elections. The contents of the schedule should be kept under review by the Electoral Commission". That is very sound advice.

As throughout the rest of this Bill, we have sought to be faithful to the Neill proposals. The committee recommended a comprehensive list of election expenses and we have produced one. In retrospect, however, the Neill committee's recommendation was rather on the ambitious side. It is worth reminding ourselves constantly that political parties are, by and large, voluntary organisations—a point made by several noble Lords during our debates and deliberations on this Bill. At best, they employ only a small number of directly employed core staff. To expect political parties to itemise and account for every telephone call, stamp or paper clip devoted to an election campaign is simply expecting too much.

The main political parties would have to engage a small army of staff just to keep on top of the requirements of the Bill, thereby diverting their limited resources away from fighting an election campaign. We need to strike a proper balance between the public interest in exerting a downward pressure on campaign expenditure and the ability of the political parties to comply with the administrative consequences involved. As it stands, Schedule 7 imposes unreasonable demands on political parties. The aim of these government amendments is to scale back the list of qualifying expenses to something more manageable.

The amendments would strike out the items relating to office accommodation, staffing, legal or other professional services and the use of telephones and other office equipment. Staff expenses, postage, stationery and printing costs would also be omitted to the extent that such costs did not fall within any of the remaining items; thus, for example, the printing costs of campaign leaflets would still be covered. We have also removed the whole of Part II of Schedule 7, which relates to overheads.

The qualifying expenses that will remain in Schedule 7 would still constitute a formidable list. The list will include the cost of producing party political and election broadcasts, all advertising costs, direct mail, opinion polling, media facilities, campaign rallies and transport costs such as a party leader's "battle bus". The information supplied to the Neill committee by the three main parties suggests that these items together accounted for a very significant share of their overall expenditure at the last general election. Pruning the list of qualifying expenses will go a considerable way towards easing the bureaucracy on the parties but without compromising the tight rein to be imposed on campaign expenditure.

I should remind the Committee that it will remain a responsibility of the electoral commission to keep the list of qualifying expenses under review. It will be open to the commission, in the light of changing patterns of election spending, to recommend change to the list in order to keep it up to date. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 enables such changes to be made by order so that the commission's recommendations can be acted upon speedily.

By removing the item relating to legal services from Schedule 7, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, can be persuaded that his Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 are no longer needed. These two amendments relate to legal or other professional expenses incurred either in respect of any requirements of the Bill or in connection with any legal proceedings. It seems to me to be most sensible to remove them. Expenses incurred in respect of such matters would not constitute expenses incurred for election purposes, as defined in Clause 67(4) and would not, therefore, count as qualifying expenses. I see no purpose in adding these items to the list of exclusions in paragraph 2 of Schedule 7.

Amendments Nos. 192B, 193F and 193G aim to clarify the relationship between paragraph 1(11) and 2(e) of Schedule 7. These provisions are concerned with travel costs. Paragraph 1(11) is particularly aimed at transportation costs associated with the hire of a "battle bus" or of a helicopter to take leading party figures around the country during the course of a whistlestop campaign tour. The paragraph would also encompass the cost of bussing in party supporters to an election rally. In sharpening up the drafting of this provision we have removed the reference to, travelling from place to place", which I believe will address the concerns raised in Amendment No. 193. The revised provision also leaves out the words "national or other" which, as presently drafted, qualify the reference to an "election campaign" in paragraph 1(11), perhaps confusingly. I hope that this addresses the noble Viscount's point as set out in Amendment No. 192C. Where party workers meet their own travel costs, these would not fall to be treated as a campaign expense. Amendments Nos. 193A to 193C bring the drafting of paragraph 1(12) into line with the revised paragraph 1(11). Government Amendments Nos. 234M to 234YC simply make parallel changes to the list of referendum qualifying expenses.

I hope that the Committee will agree that these government amendments are an equitable and proportionate response to legitimate concerns by all political parties about the practicality of operating to Schedule 7 in its current, perhaps overly prescriptive, form. The revised schedule will continue to cover the main items of campaign expenditure and, as such, will ensure that the limits on such expenditure are effective in achieving the Neill committee's objective of ending the "arms race" in election spending.

During the course of my commentary I hope that I have covered the main questions raised. However, I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked a few questions about expenses, especially in relation to a candidate's election campaign. Such expenses would be included in the candidate's return under the Representation of the People Act. The noble Viscount's further question about existing paragraph 1(11) is probably answered simply by the replacement of that paragraph under Amendment No. 192B.

The noble Viscount also raised the question of office and staff costs. As I said earlier, we have deleted these so that we can reduce the administrative burdens on parties. In our view, these provisions are also unfair to small parties that will not have any significant infrastructure and only take on staff or officers at election times. I trust that those explanations will satisfy the noble Viscount.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I believe has answered most of the points that I raised, but I shall certainly have to study Hansard to consider it further. I believe the government amendments relating to office and staff costs are particularly helpful. I am somewhat confused on government Amendments Nos. 193A to 193C as regards how they change the definition of rallies and public meetings. I am still under the impression that a new national limit was supposed to relate to national campaigning only. But, as far as I can see, the changes that are to be made will not necessarily have that effect.

However, I shall have to study Schedule 7 in its revised form and, if necessary, return to the matter at a later stage if I have any further queries. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, it is difficult to put all the amendments into Schedule 7 and imagine how the revised schedule will work. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. It has been most helpful in improving our understanding of how Schedule 7 works. I take note of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that this schedule must be made simpler, more understandable and must be workable. Indeed, if the provisions are too complicated, the schedule will not work. The purpose of all political parties here is to produce something that is workable. In the light of that and the Minister's comments, which were generally helpful, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 191A and 191B: Page 42, line 21, leave out ("either"). Page 42, line 23, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 26.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 191C: Page 42, line 29, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert— ("(4) "For election purposes", in relation to a registered party, means for the purpose of or in connection with—

1. (a) promoting or procuring electoral success for the party at any relevant election, that is to say, the return at any such election of candidates—
1. (i) standing in the name of the party, or
2. (ii) included in a list of candidates submitted by the party in connection with the election: or
2. (b) otherwise enhancing the standing—
   1. (i) of the party, or
   2. (ii) of any such candidates,
   with the electorate in connection with future relevant elections (whether imminent or otherwise).

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—

1. (a) the reference to doing any of the things mentioned in paragraph (a) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of that subsection includes doing so by prejudicing the electoral prospects at the election of other parties or candidates or (as the case may be) by prejudicing the standing with the electorate of other parties or candidates;
2. (b) a course of conduct may constitute the doing of one of those things even though it does not involve any express mention being made of the name of any party or candidate; and
3. (c) it is immaterial that any candidates standing in the name of the party also stand in the name of one or more other registered parties.").

The noble Lord said: The amendments in this group primarily relate to the definitions of campaign expenditure incurred for election purposes in Clause 67 and of controlled expenditure in Clause 80.

The whole object of Part V of the Bill is to plug the gap in the controls on election expenditure that was created by the fascinating Tronoh Mines case in 1952. Tronoh Mines Ltd had placed an advertisement in The Times shortly before the 1951 general election condemning the policies of the then Labour government. The readers of the advertisement were invited to save the country by electing a new and strong government with ministers who may be relied upon to encourage business enterprise and initiative".

Until that point it had been generally assumed that such advertising would be illegal, first, because the expenses were not authorised by an individual candidate or his agent and, secondly, because it breached the limit on third party spending set out in the then Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act 1949. The judge in the case concluded otherwise. He ruled that the purpose of Section 63 of the 1949 Act was to prohibit the incurring of expenditure which has the effect of supporting a particular candidate or candidates in a particular constituency. Section 63 did not prohibit expenditure, the real purpose or effect of which is general political propaganda, even although that general political propaganda does incidentally assist a particular candidate among others".

We do not want the controls on campaign expenditure set out in Part V to be similarly vulnerable to legal challenge in years to come. What we are seeking to control is any campaign expenditure which is directed at enhancing the standing of a party, and therefore its electoral prospects, in the 365 days before the date of a general election. The Conservative Party's current "Save the Pound" campaign is a good example of the type of activity which should be caught by the controls. The campaign clearly seeks to promote the Conservative Party by reference to its stance on a particular policy. But whether, in the words of Clause 67(4), the campaign can be said to be "promoting or procuring" the election of Conservative Party candidates at the next election or generally enhancing the electoral prospects of such candidates is arguably open to question. There is at least a possibility that Clause 67(4) in its current form might be relied upon as evidence that expenditure which was intended to boost a party's general support, at a time when no election was imminent, was not caught by the expenditure controls. Clearly, we need to avoid any such construction being placed on this subsection.

The revised subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 67, as substituted by Amendment No. 191C, shifts the focus away from promoting or procuring the election of a party's candidates. The emphasis is now on promoting or procuring the electoral success of the party or otherwise enhancing the party's standing. Some reference to candidates is still apt because ultimately the measure of a party's electoral success is the return of one or more of its candidates. However, Amendment No. 191G makes it clear that a reference to a party's candidates in this context is not confined to candidates who have already been selected or formally nominated, but includes candidates who have still to be identified.

The tighter definition of the term "for election purposes", with its specific reference to the return of list based candidates makes subsection (8) of Clause 67 unnecessary; it is therefore omitted by Amendment No. 191E.

Amendment No. 191F makes it clear that where a party is a party with accounting units, campaign expenses incurred by an accounting unit are to be regarded as expenses incurred by or on behalf of the party. Without such a provision it would be the easiest thing in the world for a party's central organisation to avoid the spending limits by channelling some of its expenditure through one or more of its constituency associations. Amendment No. 191D makes it clear that any election expenses incurred by a candidate or candidates and which are included in a return made under the 1983 Act or any other enactment do not constitute campaign expenditure under Part V. The reference to candidates in the plural is intended to catch candidates for election as London members of the Greater London Authority.

Amendments Nos. 208X and 208YB to Clause 80 simply seek to bring the definition of controlled expenditure into line with the revised definition of campaign expenditure.

Amendment No. 208YA, which inserts a new subsection (7A) in Clause 80, makes it clear that a registered party does not incur controlled expenditure when it publishes election material promoting itself or its candidates, including material denigrating other parties or their candidates. Expenditure on such material would fall to be accounted for as campaign expenditure under Part V. But there may be circumstances where a registered party contests only a limited number of seats at an election and in the seats it is not contesting supports the candidates of another party. In such circumstances the party will need to consider, on a case by case basis, whether any election material it issues falls to be accounted for under Part V or Part VI.

Finally, Amendment No. 208YG relates to Clause 82(1)(b). This provision is designed to stop expenditure being counted twice under both Parts V and VI. If a third party uses its photocopier to run off, free of charge, some leaflets for use by a registered political party, it would be appropriate for the political party concerned to record the cost of the leaflets as notional expenditure under Part V. There is little merit in the third party also having to record, under Part VI, the notional cost to itself of using the photocopier. Removing the words in brackets will avoid such double counting. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

I thought that I heard the Minister refer to Amendment No. 208X. However, I thought that that amendment had been degrouped from the amendments we are discussing and that we shall discuss it later. I believe that it would be easier if we proceed on that basis. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter while I address Amendments Nos. 191C to 191G which I thought were grouped and would be spoken to as a group by the Minister. I think that it would be helpful to the Committee to deal with Amendments Nos. 208X, 208YA, 208YB and 208YG later, if that is satisfactory.

I have a number of questions on Amendments Nos. 191C to 191G which I am sure the Minister will answer. First, why are the words, promoting or procuring electoral success used in the proposed new subsection (4)(al of the Amendment No. 191C when the Bill as drafted uses the term promoting or procuring the election"? What is the difference both in theory and in effect between electoral success and the actual election of a candidate? The proposed new subsection (4)(a) of government Amendment No. 191C mentions "procuring electoral success". One is either elected or one is not elected. Does the noble Lord consider that one can be electorally successful without being elected? Perhaps one can, but I fail to see how that can happen unless, of course, one stands as some kind of blocking candidate where one might consider one has been successful in blocking someone else. Does that count as electoral success?

The proposed new subsection (5)(b) in Amendment No. 191C states that, a course of conduct may constitute the doing of one of those things"— that is, promoting or procuring electoral success— even though it does not involve any express mention being made of the name of any party or candidate". Why use the term "a course of conduct" which is a broad term? What kind of political activity do the Government consider that that rather wide term will cover? Who will decide whether a political course of conduct will promote, procure or, indeed, prejudice a party or a particular candidate's election? Will it be the electoral commission or the courts?

The proposed amendment allows for almost anything undertaken publicly by a political party to be construed as campaigning even it is not intended as campaigning and does not involve the mention of any name, party or candidate. Are political parties to be penalised because they have acted unwittingly in a way which falls within the wide definition in this amended subsection?

I am puzzled by subsection (5)(c). In what circumstances will candidates stand for different political parties? Are there examples? The amendment refers to, candidates standing in the name of … one or more other registered parties". Is the Minister signalling a Lib/Lab pact for the next general election; or does he have in mind other parties which might be registered in future? I do not understand. A candidate normally stands for one party. How does one stand for more than one party? I am confused. I look forward to the Minister's explanation.

I welcome Amendments Nos. 191D and 191E which state in two lines what the Bill currently states in 12. We want greater clarity. However, having cut some words out, Amendment No. 191F doubles the length of Clause 67(9) with no apparent change in meaning. Where the Minister has managed to cut some words, he has quickly added more.

The Minister explained Amendment No. 191G. However, I do not understand. That may be my fault. How can a party promote the electoral success of future unidentifiable candidates? I understand that a party can promote the interests of identifiable candidates. The Minister did not explain the matter clearly. What do the Government mean by that?

5.45 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

That point relates to the situation where the party has not yet selected a candidate but is actively campaigning to promote the party in advance of the candidate being selected, and expenses might be incurred as a product of that.

The noble Viscount asked whether it would be a matter for the party to determine whether expenditure is election expenditure. That will be open to challenge and refinement by the electoral commission. Ultimately the courts would determine that point.

The noble Viscount seems to make points rather than ask questions. I shall study his remarks carefully before I answer specific issues he raises. Clearly they have a bearing on the content of the amendments. In these amendments we seek to clarify the language and make it easier to understand. At this stage, we should not get into too much detail on these points. I am happy to listen further the points the noble Viscount raises. I shall reflect on what he said. If specific questions arise, I shall reflect further and write to him.

Viscount Astor

I welcome the Minister's intention to write. This is a government amendment. The noble Lord has considered the amendment carefully before tabling it. Amendment No. 191C states that a candidate can stand for different parties at the same time. It is not a detail but an important point of principle. How can someone stand for more than one party at the same time?

How will expenditure be defined? Will the provision lead us down strange roads, mixing up campaign expenditure?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The explanation is simple. The provision reflects the fact that, certainly with regard to this side of the Chamber, candidates stand often as Labour and Co-operative Party candidates.

Viscount Astor

It is an interesting answer.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

As a further example, in the general election of 1992 Plaid Cymru candidates stood as Plaid Cymru and Green Party candidates.

Lord Goodhart

I was going to refer to the fact that there used to be Conservative and National Liberal candidates.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not aware of any intention for such candidates at the next election; but who knows?

I have no great knowledge of the internal workings of the Labour Party. I had always assumed that a Labour Party and Co-operative Party candidate was a candidate within the Labour Party, which was, in effect, sponsored by the Co-operative Party. Perhaps I am wrong.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The noble Viscount will understand that the Co-operative Party is a separate party in its own right.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall have to mug up on my knowledge of the details of the Labour Party.

Strange alliances could arise. I am not sure how such alliances could affect campaign contributions. For example, if there were a Lib/Lab pact and a candidate stands jointly or separately, there may be some pooling or separation of resources.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The noble Viscount is somewhat obsessed by the concept of this Lib/Lab pact. He reads too much into the amendment.

Viscount Astor

The only reason that I am obsessed by it is because every time we on these Benches believe that we have a good point the Liberal Members march firmly through the Government Lobbies. Sometimes that is because of the strength of the argument the noble Lord puts forward. Occasionally they follow the Official Opposition into the Lobby. However, sometimes one feels that they act almost for reasons of duty.

It has been an interesting debate. I shall re-read the provision to ascertain whether it has any effects on campaign expenditure. I accept the Minister's points about the Co-operative Society.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

It is not the Co-operative Society but the Co-operative Party. There is a great difference.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me. As he rightly says, the Co-operative Party is a quite different body.

I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation. I shall consider what he says.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 191D to 192: Page 43, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert ("included in a return as to election expenses in respect of a candidate or candidates at a particular election."). Page 43, line 13, leave out subsection (8). Page 43, line 19, leave out subsection (9) and insert— ("(9) Where a registered party is a party with accounting units—

1. (a) expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of any accounting unit of the party shall be regarded as expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the party, and
1077
2. (b) references to campaign expenditure incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of a registered party accordingly extend, in relation to the party, to expenses which constitute such expenditure by virtue of paragraph (a).").

Page 43, line 21, at end insert— ("( ) In this section "candidates" includes future candidates, whether identifiable or not."). Page 43, line 21, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing in this Part applies in relation to expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of a minor party.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Campaign expenditure: qualifying expenses]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden)

Before I call Amendment No. 192A, I remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 192B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 192C and 193.

[Amendments Nos. 192C to 193 not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 192A and 192B: Page 123, leave out lines 32 to 42. Page 123, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 124 and insert— ("(11) Transport (by any means) of persons to any place or places with a view to obtaining publicity in connection with an election campaign. Expenses in respect of the transport of such persons include the costs of hiring a particular means of transport for the whole or part of the period during which the election campaign is being conducted.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 193A to 193G: Page 124, line 5, leave out ("attract national publicity") and insert ("obtain publicity in connection with an election campaign"). Page 124, line 8, leave out ("prominent"). Page 124, line 8, after ("events") insert (", the hire of premises for the purposes of such events"). Page 124, line 10, leave out sub-paragraphs (13) and (14). Page 124, line 27, leave out ("permanent staff") and insert ("staff (whether permanent or otherwise)"). Page 124, line 28, leave out ("reasonable"). Page 124, line 30, at end insert ("to the extent that the expenses are paid by the individual from his own resources and are not reimbursed to him").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 195A to 195C: Page 124, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 125. Page 125, leave out lines 34 to 39 and insert ("as to the kinds of expenses which do, or do not, fall within Part I of this Schedule"). Page 126, line 27, leave out ("or II").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 68 [Notional campaign expenditure]:

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 195D: Page 43, line 22, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert— ("(1) This section applies where, in the case of a registered party—

1. (a) either—
1. (i) property is transferred to the party free of charge or at a discount of more than 10 per cent. of its market value, or
2. (ii) property, services or facilities is or arc provided for the use or benefit of the party free of charge or at a discount of more than 10 per cent. of the commercial rate for the use of the property or for the provision of the services or facilities, and
2. (b) the property, services or facilities is or are made use of by or on behalf of the party in circumstances such that, if any expenses were to be (or are) actually incurred by or on behalf of the party in respect of that use, they would be (or are) campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the party.

(1A) Where this section applies, an amount of campaign expenditure determined in accordance with this section ("the appropriate amount") shall be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as incurred by the party during the period for which the property, services or facilities is or are made use of as mentioned in subsection (1)(b). This subsection has effect subject to subsection (6). (1B) Where subsection (1)(a)(i) applies, the appropriate amount is such proportion of either—

1. (a) the market value of the property (where the property is transferred free of charge), or
2. (b) the difference between the market value of the property and the amount of expenses actually incurred by or on behalf of the party in respect of the property (where the property is transferred at a discount).

as is reasonably attributable to the use made of the property as mentioned in subsection (1)(b). (1C) Where subsection (1)(a)(ii) applies, the appropriate amount is such proportion of either—

1. (a) the commercial rate for the use of the property or the provision of the services or facilities (where the property, services or facilities is or arc provided free of charge), or
2. (b) the difference between that commercial rate and the amount of expenses actually incurred by or on behalf of the party in respect of the use of the property or the provision of the services or facilities (where the property, services or facilities is or arc provided at a discount),

as is reasonably attributable to the use made of the property', services or facilities as mentioned in subsection (1)(b).").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 197A to 197C, 202A, 208S, 208U, 208YC to 208YF, 209A, 210V, 210W, 214D, 217A, 218C, 218F, 218G, 221C, 234YD to 234YG, 235A, 235J, 238D, 239C, 239F, 242D, 242E, 252E, 253A to 253F and 259Q. I apologise for the number of government amendments in the group, which also contains four opposition amendments. It seemed sensible to group together a number of minor technical and drafting changes—not necessarily easy ones—to the expenditure controls in relation to political parties, third parties, referendum campaigners and candidates. The Committee may be pleased to hear that on the government amendments I shall confine my remarks to the main changes.

Amendments Nos. 202A, 208S, 210V, 214D, 235A and 235J relate to expenses incurred before the beginning of a relevant election or referendum period but used during that time. Noble Lords will recall that Parts V, VI and VII place limits on election or referendum expenditure by reference to what are referred to "relevant periods", ending with the date of a particular poll. One means of circumventing the limits is to incur expenditure in advance of the period during which restrictions apply. To combat that, Schedule 8(12) and Schedule 9(12) provide that any expenditure on property, services or facilities, such as billboard advertisements, purchased before the relevant period but for use during that period will count towards the limit on campaign expenditure for that period.

The current provisions in the Bill will not work satisfactorily and no equivalent provision is included in Part VII, which relates to referendums. Schedule 8(12) and Schedule 9(12) do not focus sufficiently on the use made of the property, service or facilities procured. In Parts V to VII, we want to control expenditure incurred for election or referendum purposes. If property, goods or services are procured before a campaign period with electoral purposes in mind but end up being used for separate purposes, it would be unreasonable to expect the party to bring that expenditure to account. The first set of amendments clarifies the position.

The amendments to Clauses 68, 81, 107 and 127 address the issue of notional expenditure—that is, benefits in kind provided by a third party. Again, the key issue is the purpose for which property, services or facilities provided by a third party are to be used. For example, if a printing company printed 200,000 election leaflets for a party and another 200,000 newsletters to be sent to party members only, it would be appropriate to account for only the cost of the 200,000 election leaflets as notional expenditure. The amendments provide for such apportionment.

Finally, Amendments Nos. 253F and 259Q modify the application of new Sections 90A to 90C of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as inserted by Clause 127, to fit the circumstances of the election of the London members of the Greater London Assembly. Expenses in such elections are incurred to promote the election not of an individual candidate, but of a slate of candidates on a party list. The language in new Sections 90A to 90C needs to be adapted to reflect that new state of affairs.

The four opposition amendments in the group are also concerned with notional campaign expenditure. Clause 68 provides that if a party is provided with the use or benefit of property, services and facilities free of charge or at a discount of more than 10 per cent, it is to be regarded as having incurred an amount of election expenses equivalent to the value of those free services or the value of the discount. Amendment No. 196 would specify that those requirements applied in respect of benefits in kind provided by a permissible donor. The amendment is misconceived. The purpose of Clause 68 is to ensure that benefits in kind are counted against a party's expenditure limit. If a wealthy supporter pays for an advertisement in a national newspaper, taken out in the name of a party, the cost should be accounted for by the party.

The question of whether a particular benefit in kind constitutes a donation and consequently may be accepted only from a permissible donor is a separate matter regulated by Part IV, which we have already debated. In the example that I have given, the party would need to establish that the wealthy supporter was a registered voter and would then need to report the donation in the normal way. Although it is not a key point, the amendment would exclude benefits in kind provided by an impermissible donor from the ambit of the clause, so they would not count against the party's expenditure limit.

Amendment No. 197 would specify that the requirements of Clause 68 applied to benefits in kind in relation only to a relevant election, not to the party's ongoing use. That is already provided for in Clause 68(1)(b), as substituted by Amendment No. 195D, which we are debating. Under this provision, donated property, services or facilities are to be accounted for as notional expenditure only if, in the event that the party itself had incurred the expenditure, it constituted "campaign expenditure". I take the example of a printing company which offers its services to a party at no charge. If those services took the form of producing a newsletter to go to party members only, the cost of that newsletter would not constitute campaign expenditure and, therefore, would not fall to be accounted for under Clause 68.

The third opposition amendment, Amendment No. 209, would delete Clause 82(1)(b)(i). Again, it may be helpful to explain the purpose of this provision by way of an example. Let us imagine that company X decides to provide assistance to party Y during an election campaign by loaning it printing equipment free of charge. The market value of the use of that equipment over the period in question is £30,000. Under the provisions of Part V of the Bill, and Clause 6 in particular, the loan of the equipment must be treated as campaign expenditure incurred by the party and must be included in its election expenditure return.

However, without Clause 82(1)(b)(i) the same loan of equipment might at the same time also, under Clause 80, fall to be regarded as controlled expenditure on the part of company X—in other words, the donor. Indeed, given the value of the loan, company X would need to be a recognised third party and comply with all the relevant requirements of Part VI. The loan would count against the company's own expenditure limit and the company would also be required to submit a return as to the controlled expenditure which it had incurred in making the loan. In other words, the effect of Amendment No. 209 would be that the provision of a benefit in kind might count against the expenditure limit of both the beneficiary and the provider and require both to include it in a return to the electoral commission. We believe that that would be unjust and over-bureaucratic. In the example that I have given, the company is not campaigning in its own name. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served by treating the company as a third party.

Finally, and perhaps rather more simply, Amendment No. 253 would increase the de minimis threshold at which a candidate would have to account for notional expenditure. The noble Lord's amendment would raise the threshold from £50 to £100. We believed that this matter had been disposed of to the satisfaction of the Official Opposition in another place. The Bill as introduced in another place contained a de minimis threshold of £20. In response to concerns that that was too low, on Report we increased it to £50. That step was welcomed by the honourable Member for Beaconsfield, Mr Dominic Grieve. We are not inclined to increase the limit a second time. A candidate would have to declare a donation of £50 or more and, therefore, it makes sense that the notional expenditure threshold is set at the same level.

Moreover, I put it to the Committee that, set against an expenditure limit of the order of £8,000, a donation in kind of £50 to £100 is not an insignificant sum and, on balance, should be recorded. I beg to move.

6 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

For the convenience of the Committee I should say that if Amendment No. 195D is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 196 and 197.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in some detail what these complicated amendments seek to achieve. I did not have the necessary wet towel around my head and therefore I am not sure that 1 appreciated all the subtleties of what he said. However, no doubt at a later stage we shall be able to ensure that we have grasped the issues.

I turn, first, to the matter of notional campaign expenditure. At first it seemed to me that the de minimis provision of £200 was being written out of this part of the Bill. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the sum of £200 is covered by Amendment No. 197B. I believe that it should be covered and that probably it is.

With regard to opposition Amendment No. 196, which inserts the words "by a permissible donor", perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the provisional transfer of property or services must be from a permissible donor or whether it can be from anyone. The noble Lord referred to it but I was not sure what he meant.

I accept what the Minister said with regard to Amendment No. 197.

I turn to Amendment No. 209, which again is in the name of my noble friend. I am not clear in what circumstances it is envisaged that a third party can incur expenditure on behalf of a registered party, except in the case of expenditure which in any event is attributed to it; for example, when it obtains property at a discount of more than 10 per cent.

I turn to government Amendment No. 202A which concerns the subject of expenditure incurred before a campaign begins. I am concerned that the provision should not be drawn too widely in relation to services which are provided before the relevant campaign period starts. I do not argue with the principle behind the provision; it is clearly right because sometimes supplies which are necessary for an election campaign will be bought in advance. However, the time period seems to go back indefinitely. The time limit may be covered by some of the other provisions which, for example, require accounts to be kept for only six years.

However, the period in question could go back a long way. I know of one or two cases, for example, where the headquarters of a local Conservative Party are located in the rooms of a Conservative club which the club has owned for many years and where the association is allowed to use one or two rooms as its office. I believe that the same arrangement sometimes occurs in other parties. The building may have been bought many years earlier. Therefore, I should like to know how far back the records need to be kept in such a case. I do not believe that they should be kept for ever but rather for a reasonable period.

Amendment No. 210V concerns third parties. Those of us who have been involved with political parties know that campaign material and items of property will be used for campaigning purposes. However, some organisations will not be regular political parties. I am not sure how they will know that at some stage they may be regarded as using those items for political ends, even though the items will have been paid for some time ago.

It is slightly invidious to give an example but it may help to explain what I am talking about. The RSPCA campaigns on a number of matters such as fur farming, which we discussed the other day. In some circumstances where the matter is controversial among political parties or political candidates, the campaign could be regarded as having a political end. Yet it could be difficult for the RSPCA to distinguish the items of expenditure which it had used in that particular campaign.

Organisations other than regular political parties will be drawn into this matter—in some respects quite properly. I recall visiting the United States on previous occasions and seeing something of their politics. There, because of the restrictions on the financing of political campaigns, action groups—political action committees—were set up which, in effect, supported a candidate but managed actually to be part of his campaign. In my view, that was not helpful for democracy in the United States. It seemed to me that that had some negative effects, not least that a large part of the campaign was not at all in the control of the candidate because it was in the control of the separate political action committee. Some fairly ghastly negative campaigning went on, and still does, I believe, under that heading. That is a danger which we must bear in mind.

Will the Minister confirm that Amendment No. 221C also meets the earlier point I made in respect of detailed record-keeping? In particular, Amendments Nos. 235A and 235J cover individuals who take part in referendum campaigns. Again, it could be difficult if there is an indefinite period for which they must produce expenditure records which they cannot be expected to have.

Amendment No. 242E will disapply some, but not all, of the requirement for detail in respect of the returns. My general question is in relation to the length of time for which records must be kept and how far back it will be necessary to account for expenditure. I do not wish to pursue Amendment No. 253E.

Lord Bach

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It may well be that I shall not be able to answer all the questions which he has asked. But I shall do my best.

I start with Amendment No. 196 which would specify that the requirement applied to property provided by a permissible donor. We believe that the amendment confuses the purpose of the provisions and is unnecessary. The provisions of Part IV regulate whether or not a political party may accept a particular benefit in kind. The provisions of Clause 68 are not based on any assumption as to whether the benefits in kind in question also constitute a donation, although they no doubt would do so; nor is it necessary that they should do so.

Indeed, the effect of the amendment would simply be that benefits in kind provided by an impermissible donor would not count against a party's expenditure limit. A party could not accept a donation in kind from an impermissible donor under the provisions of Part IV, which we have already debated. But if a party did accept an illegal donation to offset its election expenditure, it should be accounted for under this part of the Bill, Part V. I hope that that is helpful.

As regards Amendment No. 202A, we agree that the principle should not be too widely drawn. The noble Lord wants to know for how long records should be kept. We say that the key point is the value of the donation at the time that it was actually made to a political party. The value of the goods or property, for example, at the time that it was obtained by a third party is irrelevant. The important point is the value of the donation when it is actually made to the political party.

I turn now to Amendment No. 210V and the noble Lord's example of the RSPCA. The RSPCA's expenses need to be accounted for only if they fall within Part VI and are used for election purposes.

Amendment No. 221C seeks to remove the words "during the regulated period" from Clause 91(5). That subsection expressly recognises that controlled expenditure incurred by a third party before it becomes a recognised third party can count towards the relevant limits. The detailed controls in Clauses 85 to 88 will not apply to that expenditure. The reason for removing the relevant words is that the subsection needs to apply also to expenditure before the regulated period begins but treated as incurred during it when the third party was not, at the relevant time, a recognised third party and should be looked at with Amendment No. 242E which inserts a comparable subsection into Clause 115, which relates to referendum expenses.

As must be abundantly clear, this is not an easy part of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his questions and comments. If there is anything important that I have left out in my response, I shall make sure that he is written to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I return to the question of third parties. I used the example of the RSPCA and I do not wish to focus too much on that organisation. However, Clause 80 provides that the expenditure concerned can be expenditure addressed to the public at large and designed to promote the election of candidates who hold particular opinions or advocate particular policies or are against them. So if an organisation is campaigning on an issue in which two or more candidates in a particular election disagree, it may be held to be covered by that clause and, hence, its expenditure could be brought into it.

It may be right that it should be brought in, but I am just trying to clarify in my own mind whether it could affect an organisation campaigning for an individual point of view on what might be a very narrow issue in the election as a whole but nevertheless, one on which the two candidates disagreed and on which some votes might turn.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Bach

I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point rather than attempt an answer which may not be accurate.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 197A to 197C: Page 44, line 2, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"). Page 44, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ("(4) Where an amount of campaign expenditure is treated, by virtue of subsection (1A), as incurred by or on behalf of a party during any period the whole or part of which falls within any period which is, in relation to the party, a relevant campaign period for the purposes of section 75, then—

1. (a) the amount mentioned in subsection (4A) shall be treated as incurred by or on behalf of the party during the relevant campaign period, and
2. (b) the treasurer or a deputy treasurer appointed under section 69 shall make a declaration of that amount,

unless that amount is less than £200. (4A) The amount mentioned in subsection (4) is such proportion of the appropriate amount (determined in accordance with subsection (1B) or (1C)) as reasonably represents the use made of the property, services or facilities as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) during the relevant campaign period."). Page 44, line 25, leave out subsection (7) and insert— ("(7) In subsections (1), (1B), (1C) and (3) any reference to anything done by or in relation to a registered party includes a reference to anything done by or in relation to any accounting unit of the party; and section 46(4) and (6)(a) shall apply with any necessary modifications for the purpose of determining, for the purposes of subsection (1), whether property is transferred to a registered party or to any such unit.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 69 [Officers of registered party with responsibility for campaign expenditure]:

[Amendments Nos. 197D to 197G not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 198: Page 44, line 46, at end insert— ("( ) Where a deputy treasurer of a registered party is convicted of an offence falling within subsection (3), his appointment as deputy treasurer shall terminate on the date of the conviction.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 199 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 199A to 199D.

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 199. Page 45, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert— ("(5) If, where the appointment of any deputy treasurer of a registered party has been notified to the Commission under subsection (1)—

1. (a) the deputy treasurer dies or his appointment terminates for any other reason, or
2. (b) any change occurs in the address of his office,

the treasurer of the party must notify the Commission of that fact within the appropriate period. (5A) In subsection (5) "the appropriate period" means—

1. (a) the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the deputy treasurer's death or the termination of his appointment, or
2. (b) the period of 28 days beginning with the date when the change of address occurs,

as the case may be.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 199A to 199D not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 200 and 201: Page 45, line 10, leave out ("register of political parties") and insert ("Great Britain or Northern Ireland register"). Page 45, line 10, at end insert— ("( ) Where the Commission receive a notification under subsection (5), they shall cause any change required as a consequence of the notification to be made in any such entry as soon as is reasonably practicable.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 201A not moved.]

Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 70 [Restriction on incurring campaign expenditure]:

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 201B: Page 45, line 24, at end insert— ("( ) Where any expenses are incurred in contravention of subsection (1), the expenses shall not count for the purposes of sections 74 to 78 or Schedule 8 as campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the party.").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to the amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 210F and 234YH. These amendments respond to concerns that the system of authorising expenditure in Parts V to VII of the Bill is based on an unrealistic assumption about the ability of the central organisation of ally of the major political parties to control the actions of every officer and member of the party.

Those legitimate concerns stem from the effect of Clause 67. Under subsections (2) and (9) of that clause the definition of "campaign expenditure" includes expenditure incurred by or on behalf of an accounting unit of a party. Clause 70(1) requires that all campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a party must be authorised by either the treasurer, or a deputy treasurer, or a person authorised in writing by either the treasurer or a deputy treasurer. A person who incurs campaign expenditure without the required authorisation commits an offence under subsection (2) of Clause 70.

The fact that campaign expenditure was incurred without authorisation, say by an officer of a constituency association, does not absolve the party from bringing that expenditure to account in the return prepared under Clause 75. Moreover, any unauthorised expenditure would count towards the expenditure limits in Schedule 8. For a party spending close to its expenditure limit, any unauthorised expenditure could have the effect of pushing the party over the limit, thereby exposing the party to criminal sanctions. The party is therefore vulnerable to the maverick or irresponsible actions of any of its members or officers right down to branch level.

We believe that it is unreasonable to expose any party to such a situation. We would expect all the major parties to instruct all their constituency associations, branches and other sub-units as to the requirements of the legislation. But ensuring that party officers and members are attuned to the requirements of the Bill is one thing, guarding against the actions of mavericks is quite another. A party may be able to take disciplinary action after the event, but by then it could be too late in terms of the party's own liability to prosecution.

To address these concerns, raised by all the major political parties, Amendment No. 201B provides that any campaign expenditure incurred in breach of Clause 70(1) would not count towards a party's expenditure for the purpose of the limits in Schedule 8. Furthermore, a party's treasurer would not be required to include unauthorised expenditure in a return under Clause 75. In short, no liability would fall on the party or the registered treasurer in respect of unauthorised expenditure. Liability would instead fall solely on the person who incurred the expenditure.

Amendments Nos. 210F and 234YH make parallel amendments to Clauses 85 and 108, where a registered party is acting as a recognised third party or permitted participant. In other words, the incurring of unauthorised controlled expenditure or referendum expenses would constitute offences, but unauthorised expenditure would not count towards the limits in Schedules 9 and 13 respectively as respects a registered party.

We understand that the Official Opposition, while being broadly supportive of this change, had some concerns about possible abuse. It has been suggested that an unscrupulous political party could seek to evade the expenditure controls by giving a nod and a wink to supposedly "unauthorised" expenditure. We do not dismiss such concerns, but nor do we believe that such a scenario is likely to arise. As I have said, it would continue to be an offence—punishable by a fine of up to £5,000—to incur unauthorised expenditure. This is not a step that any person seeking to secure political office either for himself or herself or his or her party will take lightly. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine that the treasurer of a registered party would conspire with others to commit such an offence.

Furthermore, we are sure that party workers will be on the look out for any sign of transgression of the rules by other parties and will quickly draw them to the attention of the electoral commission and the police. Indeed, if they did not, there would be a remarkable change in how one party views another during an election. In the circumstances, we believe that we can rely on the criminal offence in Clause 70(2) to ensure that this sensible easement in the controls is not open to abuse. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

We welcome these amendments. As the Minister said, we are concerned about possible unscrupulous use, but his words have reassured us. We hope that provisions provided elsewhere in the Bill for punishments will prove effective in that respect.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton

I welcome Amendment No. 201B. Having been a party official for many years, I can envisage concerns being expressed by all political parties in relation to the problems that could be caused by a maverick or irresponsible person creating expenditure that would take the party over the maximum, thus setting in train the legal consequences of such an action. The amendment is welcomed, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, by all political parties and it will help to overcome that particular problem. I have had discussions about possible abuse in relation to this matter but, as my noble friend said, it is covered by Clause 72.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 71 [Restriction on payments in respect of campaign expenditure]:

Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 201C: Page 45, line 33, leave out ("£100") and insert ("£500").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 201C concerns reducing the bureaucracy imposed on political parties through this legislation. On Tuesday last week I argued that as my party's nominating officer, I would be willing to take on some additional duties by sharing some of the responsibilities which it is proposed that the party treasurer should undertake. Today I am seeking to reduce that administrative burden and the associated paperwork.

The Bill will require that receipts must be provided for expenditure over £100. That will mean copying a huge number of bills. My view is that although all payments should be listed, a receipt should be required only for payments in excess of £500. That would considerably reduce the administrative burden, and I do not believe that it would open up greater prospects for fraud.

As an election agent in the past, I remember the cumbersome process after polling day of collecting receipts, initially for anything over the value of £2 and then for anything over the value of £20. For a few weeks after an election a great deal of time was spent chasing receipts from people to whom one had paid money for goods or services. In the old days, the Post Office used to be particularly bad at supplying receipts for phone bills on time. Acquiring invoices and receipts can sometimes be difficult, even though the bills have been paid. Collecting such things as bills for gas, electricity, rent, rates, printing and so on, was a difficult process. Last year I relived the nightmare in connection with the European election. Collecting receipts for small sums of money from all over the UK involved a myriad of paperwork and a great deal of time.

Unless we can reach agreement in relation to ongoing financial support for the parties to assist with that operation, I believe that that will cost the parties a great deal of time and money to administer. In any event, let us try to reduce the bureaucracy involved by saying that sums of money under £500 must be accounted for but that they do not require an invoice and a receipt. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

This is an arcane bit of accounting that is required of political parties. I cannot think of a commercial firm that requires invoices to be receipted. An invoice is quite sufficient for all auditing purposes. If one requires to check something, a letter is sent to the person who provided the invoice asking, "Is this true?" I find it astonishing that receipts are required at all, let alone for amounts as small as £100. It is something that has come out of the Dark Ages.

6.30 p.m.

Viscount Astor

Perhaps I might at this stage add my support for this amendment to that of my noble friend. It is sensible to look at this point. My honourable friend Dominic Grieve moved an amendment in Committee in another place to raise the limit to £250. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, wants to raise it to £500. But whatever the arguments on the amount, an issue of principle clearly arises.

What happens if the invoice is lost? We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that trying to obtain the right invoice from the right place, such as the Post Office, is sometimes an impossible task. Also it is important to remember—I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned this—that criminal sanctions are attached to this clause. We do not want to put local volunteers in the position of being liable to prosecution simply because they forgot about or lost a receipt for a small amount of money. That does not make sense. So this amendment is extremely valid.

Perhaps I can come back to Amendments Nos. 201E and 201F after the Minister has responded.

Lord Bach

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, with his great experience, put the case for increasing the threshold in Clause 71(2) from £100 to £500. As he explained, the significance of the threshold is that it determines the point at which any campaign expenditure must be supported by an invoice and a receipt. The provision is modelled on Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, although in that case the threshold is set at £20. So we have already shown some appreciation for the administrative burdens on political parties by setting the threshold at £100.

There is no right or wrong level at which to set the threshold. But simply as a matter of good accounting practice it would be desirable for a party to insist on an invoice and receipt where the cost of any goods or services exceeds £100. As well as providing an audit trail for the electoral commission, such good practice would help protect a party against fraud. In those circumstances, it is our judgment that £100 is about right. I invite the noble Lord to let the figure in the Bill stand so that it can be put to the test at the next election. If it proves to be too onerous a requirement, it would be open to the electoral commission to recommend an increase, perhaps to a level closer to the one the noble Lord proposed and for him to remind us of our refusal to go along with him on this occasion.

Perhaps I may say a word on receipts because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a small but important contribution to this debate. Receipts for gas, electricity, rates and even paper clips will not be required as they do not constitute campaign expenditure. Invoices and receipts will be required only for the items of qualifying expenses in the revised, and I am happy to be able to tell the Committee, much reduced Schedule 7.

I turn from Amendment No. 201C to the government amendments in this group, which are principally concerned with the controls in Clauses 72 and 73, on making claims in respect of campaign expenditure and the settlement of such claims. Equivalent controls are to be found in Parts VI (the third party aspect) and VII (the referendum aspect) and the group therefore includes parallel amendments to the relevant clauses in those parts.

The restrictions on making claims in respect of campaign expenditure are part of the machinery for ensuring the proper observance of the limits on such expenditure. Subsection (1) of Clause 72 currently requires that any claim for payment in respect of campaign expenditure must be sent to the treasurer or a deputy treasurer or other authorised person within 21 days of the date on which the expenditure was incurred. Where a claim is received, in accordance with subsection (1) it must be paid within 42 days of the date on which the expenditure was incurred.

On reflection, those requirements could place an unduly onerous requirement on registered parties. Campaign expenditure may be said to have been incurred when the contractual terms for the supply of the relevant goods or services are agreed. On such a construction the goods or services would have to be paid for within 42 days from the date of the contract, irrespective of the date the goods or services are supplied, which may be some weeks or months later. To insist on such payment terms could lead to cash flow problems for registered parties.

Where possible we should leave the arrangements for making and settling claims in respect of campaign expenditure to political parties and their contractors. But we need a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that all such claims are properly settled in time for the relevant information to be included in the return made by a registered party after an election.

The amendments to Clause 72 and the equivalent clauses in Parts VI and VII achieve that proper balance. Amendment No. 201D provides that the restrictions in Clause 72 apply only in the case of claims for payment in respect of campaign expenditure incurred during a relevant election period, as defined in Schedule 8. Amendments Nos. 201E and 201F provide that the 21 and 42-day deadlines for making and paying claims run, not from the date on which the campaign expenditure was incurred, but from the end of the relevant campaign period. Lastly, Amendment No. 201G protects the rights of creditors to require payment from a registered party before the end of the 42-day period allowed in the revised Clause 72(2).

Amendments Nos. 201H and 201J to Clause 73, which is concerned with disputed claims, are consequential to those to Clause 72. Again, parallel amendments are made in Parts VI and VII. Amendment No. 201K, also to Clause 73, would omit subsection (3). That subsection relates to proceedings in Scotland in cases where a registered party admits liability but is challenging the amount of a claim. The procedure for settling such disputes is already laid down in rules of court; consequently subsection (3) is simply unnecessary.

Amendment No. 208W also removes an unnecessary provision, in this case that in Clause 78(2)(c). Clause 78 sets out the form of the declaration which must be made by a registered treasurer when submitting his party's return as to campaign expenditure. It is clear from Clauses 72 and 73 that any late or disputed claims which have not been included in the return may only be paid in pursuance of a court order. As such, it is unnecessary for a treasurer to make a declaration to that effect. Other amendments in this group are of a minor technical character. Among other things, they ensure that in applying certain provisions in Part V to recognise third parties and to permitted participants the appropriate adaptations are made.

Lord Lucas

Perhaps I might briefly come back on the question of receipts. I trained as an accountant over 30 years ago and we had already abandoned receipts as a necessary document for an audit trail then. They had no value. If an invoice has been forged, forging a receipt is no problem. To check an invoice one must go back to the person who issued the invoice and ask, "Is this really yours? Were you paid for it?".

The problem being pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is that there is no difficulty obtaining an invoice from British Telecom; it gives out invoices and we are made to pay them. But obtaining a receipt is God's own business. And it is something which is of no value to an audit trail. It adds nothing to its quality. It merely adds a great deal to the time taken to obtain it. It was abandoned a long time ago for public company auditing and should be abandoned now for the control of political expenditure.

Lord Bach

Before the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who I believe is a distinguished accountant, speaks to the amendment—no, I am wrong. I thought that he was.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I am an accountant by training but not very distinguished!

Lord Bach

I do not accept that distinction. Before the noble Lord becomes involved in the argument, perhaps I may say that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. There appears to be much in what he says and we want to consider that aspect of the matter. We are trying to bring many electoral practices out of the Dark Ages but the noble Lord is encouraging us to move faster than we had intended. Perhaps we may go away and think about what he has said.

Lord Rennard

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his comments. The utility companies were a bad example but there is a problem with many suppliers obtaining a receipt. The amount is not the only issue at stake but as regards election expenses the term used in current legislation is "voucher"; one has to produce a voucher to the value of £20 or more. An invoice may be sufficient on these occasions, but a signed receipt is too burdensome. One cannot expect parties to collect signed receipts for small amounts of money from every supplier across the UK in order to conform with the legislation. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 71 agreed to.

Clause 72 [Restriction on making claims in respect of campaign expenditure]:

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 201D to 201G: Page 46, line 3, after ("party") insert ("during any period which is, in relation to the party, a relevant campaign period (within the meaning of section 75)"). Page 46, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert ("not later than 21 days after the end of the relevant campaign period."). Page 46, line 10, leave out from ("paid") to end of line 11 and insert ("not later than 42 days after the end of the relevant campaign period"). Page 46, line 26, at end insert— ("( ) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to any rights of a creditor of a registered party to obtain payment before the end of the period allowed under that subsection.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 [Disputed claims]:

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 201H to 201L: Page 47, line 12, after ("party") insert ("as mentioned in section 72(1)"). Page 47, line 16, leave out ("section 72(1)") and insert ("that provision"). Page 47, line 25, leave out subsection (3). Page 47, line 32, after ("claim") insert ("(whether it is disputed or otherwise) which is").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Clause 74 [Limits on campaign expenditure]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 201M Page 47, line 34, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Lord said: These amendments are largely designed to make Schedule 8 a little easier to follow. I know that that objective will be warmly welcomed by noble Lords across the Committee. It is certainly welcomed by me. No doubt noble Lords opposite will say that they do not go far enough. We can certainly debate that point, but I would put it to them that the appropriate point to have such a debate may come later when we examine Amendments Nos. 205 to 208, the last of which seeks to remove paragraphs 8 to 11 of the schedule. For the moment, therefore, I will concentrate on setting out the purpose of these essentially drafting amendments.

The bulk of the amendments in this group, by which I mean Amendments Nos. 202H to 202K, 203B, 205A, 205B, 206A, 207A, 208A, 208C, 208F, 208G and 208J to 208R, clarify the circumstances in which the limits in each of paragraphs 3 to 11 of Schedule 8 apply to a registered party. Perhaps I may illustrate the point by reference to paragraph 3 of Schedule 8, which relates to parliamentary general elections. As presently drafted, paragraph 3(1) states: For the purposes of sections 74 and 75 this paragraph imposes limits in relation to a parliamentary general election".

As amended by Amendment No. 202K, it would read: This paragraph imposes limits in relation to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party which contests one or more constituencies at a parliamentary general election".

I hope that the Committee will recognise the improvement. The purpose of each paragraph will be far more transparent to the reader and, in particular, to parties' registered treasurers.

The amendments to Clauses 74 and 75 largely flow from these changes. For example, as a result of the redrafting of paragraphs 3 to 11 of Schedule 8, subsection (3) of Clause 74 is no longer required. Subsection (1) of Clause 74, and the words in connection with such elections in subsection (2) are not required because they incorrectly imply that Schedule 8 imposes limits on campaign expenditure in relation to particular elections. In fact, Schedule 8 imposes limits on campaign expenditure in relation to relevant periods connected with particular elections. This approach reflects the fact that, in our view, campaign expenditure cannot be neatly apportioned between two or more different elections taking place in close proximity to each other.

Amendments Nos. 202B to 202G and 203A are consequential to the introduction of a separate register for Northern Ireland parties. As a result, any campaign expenditure by a Northern Ireland party must be attributed solely to Northern Ireland, while campaign expenditure incurred by a party registered in the Great Britain register must be apportioned between England, Scotland and Wales. The task of apportionment is made easier by the removal of paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8. That is the effect of Amendment No. 202F

Both sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 2 are concerned with the apportionment of campaign expenditure between the different parts of Great Britain. There is some overlap between the two provisions and, in practice, whichever formula is applied the outcome is likely to be much the same. In the interest of simplification, paragraph 2(2) can therefore be omitted. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 201N to 201R: Page 47, line 40, leave out (", in connection with such elections,"). Page 48, line 1, leave out subsection (3). Page 48, line 8, leave out ("any limit imposed by Schedule 8") and insert ("that limit"). Page 48, line 11, leave out ("any campaign") and insert ("the").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendments Nos. 202: Page 48, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 202 leaves out subsection 4(b) of Clause 74. It provides that the party is guilty of an offence if it spends more than it should in a general election or other elections covered by it. There is a difficulty about that because political parties do not exist as a legal entity. How can "the party" pay a fine? Who will pay the fine if the funds of a political party are not sufficient to meet it? If the limit were exceeded to a great extent the fine could be very large.

There appears to be nothing to stop a party vastly overspending and then going bust and I do not know what would then happen. Would the treasurer, the leader or the members of the party be personally liable? There could be a large number of members who would be very surprised suddenly to be presented with such a bill.

The issue was discussed at length in another place but that was back in February. The then Minister, Mr Tipping, said that he would give Further consideration to it. I wonder what thought has been given not only to that matter during the eight months since that discussion but also to the type of fines which might be imposed and who will be responsible.

Amendment No. 235, which arises later in the Bill, has a similar purpose. There is a difficulty about the Government's amendment which applies also to this one. Effectively, some of the campaigns will be continuous. After all, one has elections to Parliament at Westminster, to the European Parliament, to the Scottish Parliament and to the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies. The national parties are involved in all of those elections. If the one-year period applies to each election, there will be an overlap. Remembering that the period applies one year before the election, if the next general election is in May 2001 the period in question goes back to May of this year. If the general election is to be in October next year, the limits already begin to apply. Even if the next general election is delayed to the last possible moment—May 2002—the limits will apply almost as soon as this Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, there could be difficulties, particularly bearing in mind that the £20 million limit, which the Committee will debate later, is lower than the sum spent by the major parties in the previous general election. Therefore, the restriction is not inconsiderable. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My noble friend raises an unusual and interesting matter. Vicarious liability, which is the liability of one person for the actions of another, arises generally where an employer of any kind—an organisation like a political party is one such—employs an individual, in particular anyone who holds a responsible office. Here the position is inverted, in that the employee in question, the treasurer or deputy treasurer, may be guilty of an offence but the liability appears to be that of the party overall. I am not sure what the Government have in mind. My noble friend is wise to raise this matter in order to see what lies behind the provision. This is the strangest example one can remember of vicarious liability.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it seems that we have probably invented a new term. The concept of "inverted vicarious liability" may add to the legal lexicon.

This is an important issue which comes down to the importance of having sanctions. If the limits on election and referendum expenditure are to be effective, it is axiomatic that they must be backed up by appropriate sanctions. Clause 74(4) provides that a party's treasurer or deputy treasurer is guilty of a criminal offence where he or she has authorised expenditure in excess of the prescribed limits. This offence is equivalent to the one in Section 76(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 which makes it an illegal practice for a candidate, or his election agent, to incur expenditure in excess of the constituency spending limit. Therefore, this territory is not entirely unfamiliar to political parties.

However, we believe that it is right that some broader liability should attach to the party as a whole. Most political parties are unincorporated associations. Clause 143 provides for proceedings against such associations. Subsection (2) of that clause provides for the payment of fines out of their funds. Where overspending occurs, it may not always be appropriate to bring the weight of the law to bear on a single individual. The treasurer is acting on behalf of the party and it is the party which should attract its share of responsibility in the event that it exceeds the expenditure limit.

In the case of overspending by individual candidates, they face the prospect of losing their seat if found guilty of an illegal practice. However, in the case of national party expenditure, it is not possible to envisage equivalent consequences. As the Neill committee conceded, it is inconceivable that the results of a general election could be set aside or all the seats gained by the errant party declared void. The Neill committee concluded at paragraph 10.124 that the only realistic sanction would be a heavy financial penalty.

Clause 74(4)(b), which Amendment No. 202 would remove, makes provision for a party to be prosecuted for overspending. Clause 112(4), which Amendment No. 235 would delete, makes similar provision in relation to referendums. Clause 143 makes provision for proceedings to be brought against an unincorporated association for an offence under this Bill and for a fine to be paid out of the funds of that association.

We believe that these provisions are proportionate to the need to deter overspending. Limits on campaign expenditure are a core element of this Bill, and it must be right that where the limits are exceeded not only the treasurer but the party itself faces criminal penalties. As the party opposite professes to support the recommendations of the Neill committee, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendments.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I suppose that a little thought may have gone into this matter since February, but in any case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 202A: Page 48, line 23, at end insert— ("(6) Where—

1. (a) at any time before the beginning of any relevant campaign period (within the meaning of section 75), any expenses within section 67(2)(a) are incurred by or on behalf of a registered party in respect of any property, services or facilities, but
2. (b) the property, services or facilities is or are made use of by or on behalf of the party during the relevant campaign period in circumstances such that, had any expenses been incurred in respect of that use during that period, they would by virtue of section 67(2)(a) have constituted campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the party during that period,

the appropriate proportion of the expenses mentioned in paragraph (a) shall be treated for the purposes of this section, sections 75 to 78 and Schedule 8 as campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the party during that period. (7) For the purposes of subsection (6) the appropriate proportion of the expenses mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection is such proportion of those expenses as is reasonably attributable to the use made of the property, services or facilities as mentioned in paragraph (b).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Limits on campaign expenditure]:

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 202B to 202K: Page 127, line 14, leave out ("registered party") and insert ("party registered in the Great Britain register"). Page 127, line 15, leave out (", Wales and Northern Ireland") and insert ("and Wales"). Page 127, line 17, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain"). Page 127, line 17, at end insert ("; and (b) campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a party registered in the Northern Ireland register shall be attributed solely to Northern Ireland."). Page 127, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2). Page 127, line 30, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain"). Page 127, line 36, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain"). Page 127, line 40, leave out ("the United Kingdom)") and insert ("Great Britain)"). Page 128, leave out lines 4 to 8 and insert—

1. ("(1) This paragraph imposes limits in relation to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party which contests one or more constituencies at a parliamentary general election.
2. (2) Where a registered party contests one or more constituencies in England, Scotland or Wales, the limit applying to campaign expenditure which is incurred by or on behalf of the party in the relevant period in that part of Great Britain is—").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 202B to 202K which have already been spoken to.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 203: Page 128, line 9, leave out ("£30,000") and insert ("£22,500").

The noble Lord said: This amendment goes to the very heart of the Bill. The proposed national expenditure limit is probably the most significant proposal in the legislation and is at the heart of the proposals of the Neill committee. This amendment provides that the national limit for a Westminster general election should be about £15 million, not £20 million.

The Government will say that they propose the figure of £20 million because that is the total recommended by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill. However, that is not an argument as to why it is the right limit. The Government have chosen to vary the committee's recommendations in relation to Northern Ireland, tax concessions for political donations, overseas voters and in many other ways. The recommendation of the Neill committee is merely a compromise figure within that committee, not one to which anyone outside it should feel bound.

I suggest that the prime purpose of the Bill is to curb the "arms race" on party spending in elections. At Second Reading, I illustrated the problem by looking at the growth in spending of the Conservative Party at successive general elections. In each of the 1974 general elections, it is calculated that the Conservative Party spent less than £100,000 on its national campaigns. By 1979, with the services for the first time of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in charge of advertising, it was estimated that the party spent £2 million on its national campaign. That figure grew to £4 million in 1983, to £9 million in 1987, to £11 million in 1992 and to a staggering £28 million in 1997.

I have heard some politicians argue that this money simply does not buy votes, but why else would the party seek to raise and spend such huge sums of money? It is not simply for fun. If we are to lessen the influence of money in buying an election and increase the power of the voter, there must be a national limit. A limit of £15 million seems more appropriate to me. It is almost 50 per cent higher than the sum of money spent by the Conservative Party in the last-but-one general election.

If £11 million was enough for John Major to win re-election in 1992, then £15 million should be a sufficient limit now. Of course I do not believe that any amount of money would result in the election of his successor; I simply do not think that more than £15 million should be wasted attempting it. I cannot believe that the Government need more than £15 million at the next general election to make their case adequately. If they do, then their case must be very weak indeed.

I am also concerned with the issue of the balance of constituency and national campaigning. If all the candidates for one party, standing in every seat, spent up to the last penny legally allowed in their constituencies, then they would be allowed to spend a total of only £5 million. The tight limit of around £8,000 within each constituency means that a candidate may not be, for example, able to afford advertisements in his or her local newspaper. But a candidate standing for a much richer rival party may benefit from the equivalent of up to £30,000 worth of advertising in his constituency in national newspapers or through poster billboards.

That cannot mean a fair fight. Therefore, constituency expense limits should be increased so that the aggregate of constituency spending limits is far higher than about one quarter of the national spending limit.

As evidence of the appropriateness of this £15 million limit, I can do no better than draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the evidence of the Labour Party as submitted to the noble Lord, Lord Neill. In a document entitled Transparency, Participation, Equality the Labour Party argued for exactly this limit of £15 million. It stated that, those who compete for political office should have a fair opportunity of doing so, and should not be placed at a disadvantage by inadequate financial resources relative to others".

That is exactly so. The £15 million limit is a figure for which Mr Martin Linton argued strongly in another place. He pointed out that most Members in the other place belonged to parties which argued for that limit. Indeed, more than 70 per cent of them belong to parties which supported a national limit of £15 million. Therefore, the £15 million limit proposed in the amendment would be more appropriate than the one proposed, more consistent with the aims of the Bill and in the best interests of our democracy. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that we do not support these amendments. The issues were debated at length in Committee in another place on 3rd February. It will not be useful to go over those arguments again. I simply point out that this seems to be the limit which was recommended by the Neill committee. The Government are sensible to stick to the Neill committee's recommendations in this respect, as in most, but not quite all, others.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am in the peculiar position of barking against my own party on this occasion. I liked the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, about how much it might cost to elect William Hague. I actually think it might cost a good deal more.

The limit of £30,000 per constituency, set out in Schedule 8, is designed to produce an aggregate figure of £19.77 million for a party contesting every seat at a general election. Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 would reduce the limit per constituency to £22,500 and, as the noble Lord has explained, maximum total expenditure of a party to a little under £15 million.

The figure in the Bill is based on, and closely approximates to, the specific recommendation—as has been acknowledged—of the Neill committee. To be frank, the Labour Party, which has traditionally been outspent by the Conservative Party, suggested the lower figure. We would have been happier if the committee had recommended one. But a question of this kind is especially suitable for determination on a consensus basis by an independent committee. The Government are convinced that the best course— perhaps the only proper course—is to adopt the Neill figure. If presented with a fresh consensus in favour of a lower figure, we would be prepared to reconsider the matter, but it is not one to be pursued on a unilateral still less a partisan basis.

The Neill committee's figure is a substantial reduction on the £26 million to £28 million that the two largest parties spent at the last general election and offers a safeguard against any wild escalation of the political spending "arms race".

I am glad that the noble Lord has reminded the Committee of the case for lower limits, but I am quite sure that we should stick, at this stage, to the Neill committee's recommendation. It will be for the electoral commission to keep the level of the limit under review and it will be open to the commission to propose a reduction. But that is for the future. In these circumstances I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rennard

I thank the Minister for his reply and in particular for his comment that the Government may have been happier if the Neill committee had been in favour of the Labour Party's proposal of £15 million. Is that perhaps because fresh consensus was required in order to have the lower limit? There is no consensus for the £20 million limit. Indeed, since the Labour Party want it so strongly, and people like Mr Martin Linton in another place argued it so eloquently, the only way in which one could establish perhaps a fresh consensus might be if members of the Government had the courage to stand by their own party's submission on this issue and support a £15 million limit.

Earlier today noble Lords opposite argued that various items of electoral expenditure are being removed from the total; items such as utility bills, legal services, headquarters' costs and so. Since these factors have been taken out of the equation of total expenditure, it still seems to me appropriate that we should be reducing the £20 million limit more towards the expenditure on previous elections and not the perhaps wholly exceptional 1997 election expenditure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 203A and 203B: Page 128, line 10, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain"). Page 128, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("party") in line 17 and insert ("Where a registered party contests one or more constituencies in Northern Ireland, the limit applying to campaign expenditure which is incurred by or on behalf of the").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 204A: Page 128, line 18, at end insert— ("(4A) Sub-paragraph (4B) applies to a registered party in a case where at the election a candidate stands for election in any constituency in the name of that party and one or more other registered parties. (4B) In such a case, the amount applying to the party in respect of the constituency under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (4) (as the case may be) shall, instead of being the amount specified in that provision, be that amount divided by the number of registered parties in whose name the candidate stands for election as mentioned in sub-paragraph (4A).").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question. In an earlier debate on this issue the noble Lord assured me that the idea of having someone standing for one or more other registered parties was not a sinister precursor of a Lib-Lab pact, or indeed a pact with anyone else. He explained that it included the Co-operative Party. I thought that party was part of the Labour Party but the noble Lord pointed out that it was a separate party which is allied to the Labour Party. We are all grateful for that. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that when it comes to national and local campaigning limits the Co-operative Party and the Labour Party are taken as one entity. I presume that is the case, but I should be grateful for his confirmation.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton

Perhaps from my own history I may reply to the noble Viscount. There is an agreement between the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party that candidates stand as Labour and Co-operative candidates. The Co-operative Party in itself does not put up candidates.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful for that explanation. However, it still does not cover the point about campaign expenditure limits. I should be grateful if the Minister would reply to that point. What I do not know is whether the Co-operative Party spends any money separately. If it did, would that be covered?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The answer to the noble Viscount is, yes, it would. I have an imaginary example. If the Referendum Party could form an alliance with the Save the Pound Party, if such a party exists—I cannot recall—and field joint candidates, in such circumstances each party would enjoy an expenditure limit of, say, £19.230 million. That would undermine the whole system of controls. That is why Amendment No. 204A provides that where there are two or more parties fielding a joint slate of candidates the expenditure allowance for each seat is divided equally between them. I hope that clarifies the point and puts it beyond doubt.

Lord Renton

Can the noble Lord tell us whether, historically, that has ever happened? Has any candidate ever been nominated for more than one party?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I gave the example earlier of Plaid Cymru and Green Party candidates in Wales. It apparently happened in the 1992 general election.

Viscount Astor

We are all grateful for the Minister's explanation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 205: Page 128, line 19, leave out from ("period") to end of line 27 and insert ("means the general election period, as defined in section 58(6)").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 206 to 208. Although these amendments should not be taken too literally, they give us the opportunity to raise the question of the period during which spending restrictions on political parties and others will apply. The Bill as drafted provides for spending limits to apply to political parties and third parties during theperiod of 365 days ending with the date of the poll. That is easy enough in the case of a European election or another election in which the date of the election is known a year in advance but it is much more difficult in the case of a general election where the date is not known in advance and where, therefore, parties cannot plan ahead.

On an earlier amendment I remarked that we are probably already in the 365-day period for the next general election. I am not asking the Minister to reveal the Prime Minister's thinking on this matter. I just put it forward as a possibility that the election may turn out to be in either May or October next year. In those circumstances it could be quite difficult to apply the limits, the necessary accounting systems and so on.

There is also the point that the limit as expressed in the Bill gives an advantage to the government of the day. The government of the day know, or at least the Prime Minister of the day knows, or has an idea—a better idea than anyone else—when the election is likely to be and can plan on that basis. The other parties do not have that advantage. If the election turned out to be delayed longer than they anticipated, they could be placed in a difficult situation.

Amendment No. 208 seeks to highlight the complexity of the Bill in relation to overlapping elections. The paragraphs are extremely complex, in particular because they apply to elections of which we do not know the date as well as elections of which we do. It is difficult to understand exactly how the provisions are going to work. For quite a lot of the time we shall be in a pre-election situation for one election or another—potentially at any rate—and for quite a lot of the time for more than one election. Therefore, these are not theoretical provisions. They are provisions that will apply quite substantially. I beg to move.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

In responding to these four amendments, I willingly confess and put up my hand to the fact that Schedule 8 to the Bill is hardly Enid Blyton standard bedtime reading. It is difficult and complex but it is a serious piece of lawmaking which is a vital part of the structure of campaign expenditure controls set out in Part V. These amendments would seriously weaken that structure. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that Amendment No. 205 would undermine its very foundations.

Amendment No. 205 would reduce the period during which the controls on campaign expenditure would apply in relation to a parliamentary general election. As paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 stands, the relevant period for such an election is the period of 365 days prior to the date of the poll. The amendment cuts the relevant period to a period of just some 30 days beginning on the day an election is called. If adopted, the amendment would lead to a new "arms race" in election spending. Instead of being limited to a budget of some £20 million in the year before an election, the two main parties would be free to spend up to that amount in the final six weeks of the campaign and, on top of that, spend a further £10 million, £20 million or perhaps even £30 million or more in the weeks and months that proceeded a formal announcement of the date of the poll. Is this slide into American-style political campaigning really what the noble Lord wants?

Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 appear to have much the same objectives, but it is not clear from these amendments when the noble Lord intends the relevant period for Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections to commence. The noble Lord asked why paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 specifies 365 days. As with so much of the detail in the Bill, the answer can be found in the Neill committee report. The Labour and Conservative Parties each supplied figures to the Neill committee setting out their campaign expenditure in the run-up to the 1997 election. The Conservative Party indicated that in the 13-month period from April 1996 to May 1997 it spent some £28 million. The Labour Party's figure of some £26 million covered the 16 months from January 1996 to May 1997. It was on the basis of those figures that the Neill committee recommended a cap on election spending of £20 million. At paragraph 10.42 of its report the committee made it clear that in its judgment, the new national spending limits should be set substantially below the total amounts spent by those [Labour and Conservative] parties in 1997". It is clear from the Neill committee's analysis that the objective of ending the "arms race" of election expenditure would not be achieved if the cap of £20 million was applied only in the immediate run-up to a general election.

It is perfectly true that the committee came down against specifying a particular time period during which the expenditure controls should apply. The committee instead preferred to rely on the precedent established by the 1983 Act, which refers to election expenses incurred, before, during or after the election". As we indicated in the White Paper, we are not persuaded that this approach will work. The Neill committee itself acknowledged that the absence of a clear time period in the 1983 Act had undoubtedly caused uncertainty. Without a clear set of rules, including a clear timetable, the two main parties might be tempted to engage in creative accounting, if only to ensure that the other side did not gain an advantage. Specifying the period of 365 days will ensure the necessary certainty and provide a clear level playing field between the two major parties.

The fact that the precise date of a general election is not known well in advance is no hindrance to the operation of the scheme set out in the Bill. In practice, a political party can ensure that its campaign expenditure remains within the prescribed limits by adhering to those limits during any 365-day period. Parties will, in any event, wish to keep in reserve a significant proportion of their expenditure "allowance" for the formal campaign period following the announcement of the date of the poll.

The noble Lord asked whether we are within the 365-day period for the next general election. Indeed, he suggested that that was the case. I fully admit to not knowing the answer to that question; indeed, it would be wrong if I did. However, at this stage of a Parliament, I would expect a prudent party treasurer to be operating on the basis that we are already inside the relevant period and to be planning the party's campaign expenditure accordingly. Of course, in the case of the next general election, the controls on campaign expenditure cannot apply until Part V comes into force. On the basis of our current plans, this will not be until February 2001. In the event that the next general election is held within 365 days of the commencement date—there must be a high probability of that unless Parliament goes the full term—Clause 151 enables lower limits to be applied to the reduced period. Consultation will of course take place with the main political parties as regards the appropriate level of the limits in those circumstances.

Amendment No. 208 seeks to delete paragraphs 8 to 11 of Schedule 8. The noble Lord opposite clearly has a difficulty with these provisions, but we do not believe that simply striking them from the Bill would be the answer. I shall endeavour to guide the Committee through these paragraphs to explain how they fit in within the overall scheme. However, I also commend to noble Lords the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. These set out a number of worked examples to explain the circumstances in which these provisions would apply.

Schedule 8 places limits on campaign expenditure not by reference to particular elections, but by reference to particular periods of time in which the elections will be held. The Government have opted for this approach because, in our view, it is unrealistic to expect expenditure in connection with one election to be perfectly and precisely delineated from expenditure in connection with another election which is going on at around the same time. If more than one election is imminent, advertising and other campaigning activities by a political party at the national level are likely to be devoted to achieving success at both elections. Any attribution of a share of the cost of this or that election would be likely to be artificial and unconvincing, as well as placing an additional administrative burden on party treasurers.

Paragraphs 3 to 7 of Schedule 8 set the limits for parliamentary elections, European parliamentary elections and elections to the devolved legislatures, where there is no overlap in the relevant periods for those elections. Paragraphs 8 to 11 come into play where relevant periods do overlap. In essence, what these paragraphs set out to do is to define the combined relevant period where elections overlap and set a higher aggregate limit that is to operate during such combined periods.

These paragraphs may appear complex, but that is because they need to cover all possible combinations of elections. In practice, the relevant periods for the various parliamentary and assembly elections are unlikely to overlap very often. As a consequence, for most of the time, paragraphs 8 to 11 can be disregarded.

Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 deals with a combination of elections to the European Parliament and to a devolved legislature. The date of these elections is generally fixed. Consequently, barring any extraordinary elections to the Scottish Parliament or to the Northern Ireland Assembly, we know that this paragraph will not apply until 2019. If the treasurer of the Conservative Party has any anxiety about what the relevant period and limits will be, say, in Scotland in 19 years' time, I can tell him. The relevant period will run from 3rd January 2019—that is, four months before the date of the Scottish parliamentary elections—until 9th June 2019; namely, the date of the European parliamentary elections. Assuming that the Conservatives will be fighting every available seat, the party will have an aggregate limit at today's prices of £1,876,000. What could be more straightforward than that? A noble Lord has asked whether that sum will be in euros. Even though I am tempted to make the conversion, that is a question to be reserved for a later debate!

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 determines the campaign expenditure limits that apply during the period when a parliamentary general election is pending and overlaps with the relevant period for a European parliamentary election or for an election to a devolved legislature. For the purposes of this paragraph, a parliamentary general election is pending during the period between the date that the election is announced and the date of the poll. Political parties will certainly not need to worry about such a possibility in the case of the next general election, which must take place before May 2002; that is, nine months before the relevant period starts for the elections to the devolved legislatures in May 2003.

Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 8 will only ever apply if two parliamentary general elections are held within four months of each other. I think we can all agree that that is a most unlikely scenario.

Paragraphs 10 and 11 deal with other possible permutations of combined election periods. As will be seen from the worked examples in the Explanatory Notes, the circumstances in which either of these two paragraphs would come into play are likely to be very exceptional indeed. Quite simply, no registered treasurer needs to lose too much sleep over these provisions. They have their place in the Bill and their underlying objective is straightforward. They should stand part of Schedule 8.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I said that the amendment was not to be taken too literally. The Minister has done that, albeit only briefly. However, I am not complaining too much. It has had the beneficial effect of drawing from him an explanation which has made the scheme appear rather more simple. Whether it does when we come to reflect on it is for the future. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 205A and 205B: Page 128, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert— ("(1) This paragraph imposes limits in relation to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party which stands for election or (as the case may be) in whose name candidates stand for election at a general election to the European Parliament."). Page 129, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert— ("(1) This paragraph imposes limits in relation to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party which contests one or more constituencies or regions at an ordinary or extraordinary general election to the Scottish Parliament.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No, 206 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 206A: Page 129, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert— ("(1) This paragraph imposes limits in relation to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party which contests one or more constituencies or regions at an ordinary election to the Welsh Assembly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 207A: Page 130, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert— ("(1) This paragraph imposes limits in relation to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party which contests one or more constituencies at an ordinary or extraordinary general election to the Northern Ireland Assembly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 208A to 208S: Page 130, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert— ("(1) This paragraph applies where (apart from this paragraph)—

1. (a) separate limits would apply as follows to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (as the case may be), namely—
1. (i) under paragraph 4 in relation to a general election to the European Parliament; and
2. (ii) under paragraph 5, 6 or 7 in relation to an election within that paragraph; and
2. (b) any part of the period which would be the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 4 falls within any part of the period which would be the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 5, 6 or 7.

(1A) In such a case—"). Page 130, line 38, leave out from first ("of") to ("(as") in line 39 and insert ("the party in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland"). Page 130, line 43, leave out ("a registered") and insert ("the"). Page 130, line 43, after ("period") insert ("for the purposes of this paragraph"). Page 131, line 1, leave out ("(except in the context of a period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1))"). Page 131, leave out lines 6 to 11. Page 131, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert— ("(1) This paragraph applies where—

1. (a) separate limits would (apart from this paragraph) apply as follows to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party in England. Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (as the case may be), namely—
1. (i) under paragraph 3 in relation to a parliamentary general election; and
2. (ii) under paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 in relation to an election or elections within that paragraph; and
2. (b) the parliamentary general election is pending during any part of the period in relation to which the limit imposed by paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 would (apart from this paragraph) apply.

(1A) In such a case—

1. (a) neither paragraph 3, nor paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 (as the case may be) shall apply to the expenditure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a); and
2. (b) the limit or limits imposed by this paragraph shall apply to it instead.").

Page 131, line 23, after ("period") insert ("for the purposes of this sub-paragraph"). Page 131, line 46, leave out from ("Where") to ("the") in line 48 and insert ("sub-paragraph (1)(a)(i) is applicable in the case of each of two parliamentary general elections which are pending during different parts of any such period as is mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b),"). Page 132, leave out lines 31 to 43. Page 132, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 133 and insert— ("(1) This paragraph applies where—

1. (a) a limit under paragraph 9 would (apart from this paragraph) apply to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party in England, Scotland. Wales or Northern Ireland (as the case may be) in relation to a period that would either be—
1. (i) a relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 9(2), or
2. (ii) a first relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 9(4); and
1107
2. (b) another limit under paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 applies to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the party in that part of the United Kingdom in relation to a period ("the other campaign period") which is not a period during which the parliamentary general election is pending but which either—
   1. (i) falls wholly within, or
   2. (ii) ends at any time falling within,
   the period mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) In such a case—"). Page 133, line 11, leave out ("a registered") and insert ("the"). Page 133, leave out lines 28 to 33. Page 133, leave out lines 36 to 45 and insert—

1. ("(1) This paragraph applies where—
1. (a) a limit under paragraph 3 would (apart from this paragraph) apply to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (as the case may be);
2. (b) another limit under paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 applies to campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the party in that part of the United Kingdom in relation to any period ("the other campaign period") which either—
   1. (i) falls wholly within, or
   2. (ii) ends at any time falling within,
   the period which would (apart from this paragraph) be the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 3 in relation to the parliamentary general election; and
3. (c) paragraph 9 does not apply in connection with that expenditure.
2. (2) In such a case—").

Page 134, line 2, leave out ("a registered") and insert ("the"). Page 134, leave out lines 34 to 42. Page 134, leave out lines 43 to 49.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75 [Returns as to campaigns expenditure]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 208T and 208U: Page 48, line 41, leave out from second ("the") to second ("that") in line 43 and insert ("relevant election (or, as the case may be, the polls for the relevant elections)"). Page 49, line 10, leave out ("68(1)") and insert ("68").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76 [Auditor's report on return]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 208V: Page 49, line 32, leave out ("an auditor appointed") and insert ("the appointment of an auditor").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to. Clause 77 agreed to.

Clause 78 [Declaration by treasurer as to return under section 75]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 208W: Page 50, line 24. leave out from ("71") to end of line 27.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 79 agreed to.

Lord Bach

I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that we return to the Committee stage on the Bill not before half past eight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.