Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Cat Smith and Alistair Carmichael(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The committee discussed the matters raised at a private meeting with the Electoral Commission in November. The commission has said that the UK Government’s recent increases to spending limits and donation reporting thresholds represent significant changes to the UK’s political finance controls. The commission has published updated guidance to support parties to understand and comply with the new limits; however, it is concerned that increased spending limits risk significantly more scope for higher-spending parties to campaign.
Mr Carmichael
The Daily Mirror reported at the weekend that the Conservative party is already spending more on the Prime Minister’s Facebook page and adverts than Donald Trump is spending on his, so the motivation for doubling the party spending limits is pretty clear already. If this cannot be stopped, can the commission at least do more to increase transparency, so that people can see this shoddy attempt to buy democracy for what it is?
Cat Smith
The commission has said that any changes to spending reporting thresholds should be supported by rigorous analysis—which of course is for the Government to publish—including of the likely impact on public confidence and transparency. The commission continues to make the case for changes to the political finance system to further improve public trust and confidence.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Cat Smith and Alistair Carmichael(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The Committee has not had recent discussions with the Commission on the matters raised. The Electoral Commission supports political parties to comply with their legal obligations to adhere to spending limits during an election campaign, and publishes their spending. That provides voters with transparency over the money spent by political parties during elections and assurance that there is a level playing field for all political parties.
Mr Carmichael
Public confidence in the integrity of our democracy is only harmed by the idea that somehow it can be bought by the people with the deepest pockets. Can the hon. Member assure me that the Electoral Commission understands that in setting those limits, it is a question not simply of finance and arithmetic but of the integrity of the system and that level playing field?
Cat Smith
The UK Government’s proposals to increase the spending limits and donation reporting thresholds represent a significant change to the UK’s political finance controls. The Commission’s research shows a long-term decline in public confidence in the political finance system. Any changes to spending or reporting thresholds must be supported by rigorous analysis, including on the likely impact on public confidence and transparency. The Commission has not seen any evidence to support these changes. It is concerned that the proposals risk damaging the transparency of political donations and give significantly more scope for higher-spending parties to campaign.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Cat Smith and Alistair Carmichael(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The Government piloted different models of voter ID at elections in 2018 and 2019. In its independent evaluations, the commission found no evidence that turnout was significantly affected by the models piloted. However, it was unable to draw definitive conclusions, particularly about the likely impact at a national poll with higher levels of turnout.
Mr Carmichael
Things have moved on since then. We now have the detailed proposals from the Government and we can see a number of concerns—in particular, the massive imbalance between the ID available for younger people as opposed to that available for older people. We also know from published correspondence that the commission has warned the Government that the introduction of voter ID will be neither secure nor workable by 2023. In all these circumstances, what more can the Committee and the commission do to ensure that good sense is heard in time and that the Government are not simply allowed to railroad this through?