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

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.

• [1] Official Record, House of Commons, 9 October 2013
• [2] Clause 26 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (as amended in the Committee) published on 12 September 2013

Debate in Parliament | Source |