Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill — Clause 26 — Definition of Controlled Expenditure by Third Parties During Elections — 9 Oct 2013 at 16:45

Theresa May MP, Maidenhead did not vote.

The majority of MPs voted to retain broader definition of what counts as controlled spending by campaigners not participating directly in the elections as candidates or putting up candidates. The majority of MPs voted against a proposal to only control spending intended for the primary purpose of seeking electoral success. MPs were considering what spending ought be included when determining such third party campaigners are required to register, and report on their spending and have such spending capped.

MPs were considering the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.[1] The vote in question rejected and amendment from Graham Allen MP ( Nottingham North)[1] which read:

  • page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—
  • “For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose :of—
  • (a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
  • (i) one or more particular registered parties;
  • (ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or
  • (iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’.

This amendment would have affected Clause 26 of the Bill[2] and replaced the proposed new subsection 3 of Section 85 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 which was contained within that clause and stated:

  • “For election purposes” means for the purpose of or in connection with—
  • (a)promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
  • (i)one or more particular registered parties,
  • (ii)one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or
  • (iii)candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate)

particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates, or

  • (b)otherwise enhancing the standing—
  • (i)of any such party or parties, or
  • (ii)of any such candidates,with the electorate in connection with future relevant elections (whether imminent or otherwise).”

The proposal in the amendment would have removed the element on "enhancing the standing" of parties or candidates in connection with future elections and would have only counted spending on activity with a primary purpose of seeking electoral success as controlled expenditure.

Limiting the restrictions on such "third parties", as proposed in the rejected amendment, would have given them more freedom to campaign during election periods.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con260 (+1 tell) 7087.9%
DUP0 4050.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1050.0%
Lab0 232 (+2 tell)090.7%
LDem38 (+1 tell) 3075.0%
PC0 30100.0%
Respect0 10100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 60100.0%
Total:298 261087.4%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Douglas CarswellClactonConaye
Philip DaviesShipleyCon (front bench)aye
Zac GoldsmithRichmond ParkCon (front bench)aye
Charlotte LeslieBristol North WestCon (front bench)aye
Anne MainSt AlbansCon (front bench)aye
David NuttallBury NorthCon (front bench)aye
Chris WhiteWarwick and LeamingtonCon (front bench)aye
Martin HorwoodCheltenhamLDemaye
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDem (front bench)aye
David WardBradford EastLDem (front bench)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email team@publicwhip.org.uk

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive