AndrewLansleysMythbusters:Asolicitorsresponse ThesearesomequickcommentsonabriefingsentbyAndrewLansley,Leaderofthe HouseofCommons,toMPs.HisbriefingrelatestotheTransparencyofLobbying, NonPartyCampaigningandTradeUnionBill. Hecallshisbriefinga'Mythbuster'.WeaskedRosBaston,apoliticalandelection solicitor,tocomment. AndrewLansleysaid: Myth:Theexpansionofactivitiesthatarebeingcapturedforcontrolledexpenditureandthe lowermaximumspendinglimitswillstiflecampaignsbythirdparties. Reality:Thenewlowerspendinglimitsareproportionateandstillsubstantialsums, particularlywhenconsideredalongsidethefactthatthecostsofcampaigninghavefallenin recentyearsastheuseofonlinetoolsincreases. TheBillisbringingwhatthirdpartieshavetodeclareascontrolledexpendituremoreinline withwhatpoliticalpartieshavetodeclare,somethingwhichtheElectoralCommissionhas recentlycalledfor.

Weagreethatawiderlistofactivitiesmoreproperlyreflectsthetypeof campaigningactivitythatthirdpartieswillcarryout.Itmakeslittlesenseforanadvertbya thirdpartyinsupportofapoliticalpartytobecaught,butnotapublicrallyinsupportofthat party. RosBastoncommented:Assertingthatthelowerlimitsareproportionatedoesnotmake themso.Thecurrentlimitof5%ofmaximumpartyspendwaschosenin2000becauseit wasconsideredtobetherightbalancebetweenparties,campaignersandfreedomof speech.Thegovernmenthaveprovidednoreasonsastowhyitshouldbecuttojust2%by clause27(3)oftheBillparticularlywhentheBillalsowidenstheactivitiescoveredbeyond materialsuchaspostersandleafletstoincludeevents,marchesandmediawork(Schedule 3oftheBill). WhiletheElectoralCommissiondidrecommendareviewoftherulesfornonparty campaigners,itdidnotexpectasimplecutandpastefromtherulesforparties,judgingby thefollowingquotesfromitsbriefingforSecondReading: Ourreviewalsoemphasisedtheneedforanysuchchangestobecarefullydefined,andfor the[current]spendinglimitstobereassessedalongsideanychangetothescopeofthe rules.Thisisbecausechangestotherulesonnonpartycampaigningneedparticularly carefulconsideration,anditisimportantthatspendinglimitsaresufficienttoenablefreedom ofspeech. Thenewrulesarecloselymodelledonthosethatcurrentlyapplytopoliticalparties,butwill havetobereadandappliedinaquitedifferentcontextbecausethirdpartiesaresodifferent frompoliticalparties. AndrewLansleysaid: Myth:ActivitybyacampaigngroupwouldbecaughtbytheBillifitcouldaffecttheoutcome oftheelectionevenifthatwasnotitspurpose. RealityAtpresent,eitherthepurposeoreffectofathirdpartysexpenditureonelection materialmaybeconsideredbytheElectoralCommissionindeterminingwhetherthat expenditureconstitutescontrolledexpenditureandwearenotchangingthis.

RosBastoncommented:Thecurrenttestiswhethermaterialcanbereasonablyregarded asintendedtobeforelectionpurposes(meaningenhancingthestandingofpartiesand/or candidates).Thisissetoutinsection85(3)ofthePoliticalPartiesElectionsand ReferendumsAct2000(PPERA). Thenewtestwillbewhethertheactivityisforthepurposeoforinconnectionwithenhancing thestandingofpartiesand/orcandidates(clause26(3)oftheBill). Thisisasignificantchange. Inconnectionwithhasamuchbroaderscopethanthecurrentrules,whichareclearly centredonintentasperceivedbyareasonableperson.Theuseofthereasonablyregarded merelyremovestheneedtoproveabsoluteintentbeyondreasonabledoubtinproceedings moreformally,itisapulltheotheronetest,andisnotmeanttobringtheeffectofthe materialintoplaybeyondthat. Inconnectionwithismoreremote,as,onaplainreading,itremovestherequirementforany assessmentoftheunderlyingintent.Itwouldcatchactivitythatisassociatedwith,butnot directlyaimedatorintendedtobeaimedat,encouragingvoterstothinkbetterofpeoplewho supportaparticularpolicy.Asnow,itwouldincludecampaignsonpoliticallydivisiveissues, suchashealthservicesandimmigration,wheretheseinvolvepeoplewhoholdofficeorseek election,orwhereonepartyismoreassociatedwithitthantheother.Thelaw,asnow, specificallystatesthatthereneednotbeanymentionofpartyorcandidatenames(clause 26(3)). Itishardtoseehowitwillbepossibletodividepublicpolicyfromthosewhoseekelection asitisthosewhoareelectedwhodeterminepolicyundertheproposeddrafting,which givesnoassistanceastohowthisshouldbedone. TheElectoralCommissionbriefingconfirmsthatuncertaintyaroundthenewtestisamajor issue,statingthatinthecontextofnonpartycampaigning,itiscapableofaverywiderange ofreasonableinterpretations,andprovidesusefulexamplesofwherethiscouldapplyinits secondreadingbriefing.Ifanyoneisindoubtastothevalidityofconcernsabouttheextentof thenewrules,theyshouldreadthesecarefully. AndrewLansleysaid: Myth:CharitieswillbeforcedtoregisterasthirdpartiesundertheBill. Reality:Atpresent,charitiescanundertakenonpartypoliticalactivitywherethetrusteescan showthatitsupportsthecharityspurposesandwouldbeaneffectiveuseofthecharitys resources.Thelawprohibitscharitiesfromengaginginpartypolitics,partypolitical campaigning,supportingpoliticalcandidatesorundertakingpoliticalactivityunrelatedtothe charityspurposes. Atthe2010GeneralElection,veryfewcharitieswereregisteredasthirdparties.Provided theycontinuetocampaignastheyalwayshavei.e.theyarenotpromotingtheelectoral successorotherwiseenhancingthestandingofparties/candidatescharitieswillnotbe forcedtoregisterasthirdparties. However,ifacharityisusingmaterialthatcouldbeseenasindicatingtothepublicthat particularcandidatesorpartiessupportoropposeitspoliciesmayneedtoregisterwiththe ElectoralCommissionasathirdparty.Thiswilldependonhowthecharityisplanningto campaignandhowmuchitisspending. RosBastoncommented:Thepointthatcharitieswillonlyneedtoregisteriftheycampaign incertainwaysisobviouslycorrect,butforthereasonsabovethenewinconnectiontest couldcatchcampaignsonissueswherethepartiesdivergeintheirviews,evenwherethe

charitydoesnotindicatetothepublicwhichsideapartyorcandidatetakes. Further,aspartoftheirawarenessraisingwork,charitiesdooftenmakepublicwhich candidatessupporttheircause,orsignapledgetosupportparticularpolicies.Theydonot makeanydistinctionbasedonwhichpartyacandidateisstandingfor,andwilloftenhave morethanonecandidatefromdifferentpartiessignedup. TheBillalsoreducesthespendingthresholdsatwhichorganisationsmustregisterwiththe Commission,from10,000to5,000inEngland,and5,000to2,000ineachofScotland, WalesandNorthernIreland(clause27(2)oftheBill).Thethresholdamountscoverspending withintheyearpriortothenextgeneralelection. Thecombinationofthesetwochangeswillmeanthatmoreorganisations,charitiesornot, willneedtoregister,eventhoughtheyarespendinginsignificantamountsandonlywishto raisegeneralawareness,withoutfavouringparties. Soineffect,thechoicewillbebetweenregistering,andnotrunningpolicyrelatedcampaigns. AndrewLansleysaid: Myth:Charitieswillbepreventedfromcampaigningonpolicyissuesincasetheyareseento beendorsingapoliticalpartyorcandidate. Reality:Charitieswillstillbeabletogivesupporttospecificpoliciesadvocatedbypolitical partiesifitwouldhelpachievetheircharitablepurposes. TheBilldoesnotregulateattemptstoengagewiththepolicyofanypoliticalpartynordoesit regulatehavingaviewonanyaspectofanypolicyofanypartynoranyattempttoinfluence thepolicyofanyparty. Suchactivitywouldonlybecapturedifitwaspromotingtheelectoralsuccessorotherwise enhancingthestandingofpartiesorcandidates.Thisisthesameasundercurrent legislation. RosBastoncommented:Itistruethatcharitiescanengagepartiestoputforwardpolicy proposalsanddiscussissueswiththem.However,itdoesaffectcampaigningwherethey wishtoinvolvetheirsupportersorthewiderpublic,asiscommonformostissuebased groupsandwhichcanproveeffectivewherecloseddoorsmeetingsfail. Thepositionwillnotbethesameasunderthecurrentlegislation,contrarytoMrLansleys statement.Inhislastparagraph,hehasomittedtoaddtheinconnectionwithtest,whichis significantlybroaderthansimplywhetherthereisdirectpromotionofapartyorcandidate. Also,theimplicationisthatonlyactivitywhichdirectlynamespartiesorcandidates,oris otherwiseclearlytargeted,wouldbecaptured.AsIexplainedabove,thisisnotthecaseas thereisnoneedtomentionnames. Forexample,thecampaignsfororagainstaparticularchangeinbenefitscouldbecaughtif thepartiestakeclearlydifferentlines,orifthepartyagreeswiththecharityandpublicly adoptsitsviewaspolicy.Thelogicalresultisthatwhetherornotacampaigncancontinue coulddependonwhetherornotthepartiestakedifferentviews,ratherthanonwhatthe charityororganisationintends. AndrewLansleysaid: Myth:Charitieswilleffectivelyhavetostopcampaigningduringelectionyears. Reality:Thatisnotthecase.UnderbothcurrentrulesandtheBill,foracharitytoincur controlledexpenditure,thatexpenditurewouldhavetobeforpromotingorprocuring[the]

electoralsuccessofapartyorcandidates. Onlythenwilltheexpenditureincurredagainsttherangeofactivitiescounttowardsthe spendinglimits. Providedcharitiescontinuetocampaignastheycurrentlydo,expendituretheyincuronthe widerrangeofactivitieswillnotbetreatedascontrolledexpenditure. RosBastoncommented:Ihavealreadysetoutinsomedetailwhycurrentcharitableactivity couldbecaughtbytherules,andwhyitisnotcorrecttosayeitherthatthetestispurely whetheractivityisdirectlypromotingorprocuringelectoralsuccess,orthatitisthesameas thecurrenttest. However,therealreasonwhycampaigningmayhavetostoplieselsewhereintheBill. Clause28restrictsspendinginaparticularconstituencyto9,750intheyearbeforethe election.Thislimitincludesashareoftheoverallnationalcampaigning.Forexample,the costofacampaignontheprincipleofNHSprivatisationwouldhavetobesplitbetween650 (thenumberofconstituencies),andthatportionwouldcounttowardsthe9,750limit.Ifa campaigngroupthendiscoversahospitalinaparticularconstituencyisdueforclosure(and thepartiesdisagree),thatcostwouldcountaswell.So,bysixmonthsbeforetheelection, therewillbehardlyanymoneyleftformorecampaigning. Further,ifthegroupjoinedtogetherwithotherlocalorganisations,thewholecostwouldcount towardsthegroupsconstituencylimit(section94(6)PPERA)eveniftheyonlycontributed 1000towardsacampaigncosting5000. Theseprovisionsplacesignificantrestrictionsoncampaigners,andmakeitdifficultforthem tohavesufficientcertaintythattheywillbeabletocomplywiththelaw.Ineffect,manymay havetostoporsignificantlyreducetheiractivity. AndrewLansleysaid: Myth:Staffcostswillbenowcounttowardsthirdpartiesspendinglimits. Reality:Staffcostsalreadyhavetobeincludedbyrecognisedthirdpartieswhentheyincur controlledexpenditure.TheBilldoesnotchangethis,althoughitextendsthenumberof activitieswhichcouldcountascontrolledexpenditure. RosBastoncommented:Thisisasimplificationoftheobjectionstostaffcosts.Ifthe intentionistoaligntheregimesforpoliticalpartiesandthirdparties,asisclaimedearlier, staffcostsshouldbeexcluded,justastheyareforpoliticalparties(Sch8Part2PPERA). Thereneedstobeajustificationfornotdoingso,andnonehassofarbeenforthcoming. Partiestendtoresisttheirinclusion,citingthedifficultyofsplittingoutstafftimebetween electionandnonelectionactivity.Thisproblemwillbeexacerbatedforthirdparties,which tendtohaveamuchbroaderrangeofactivities,andonceagain,thecuttingofthelimitswill amplifytheimpact.