Candidate spending limit review

Transcription

1 Candidate spending limit review 2015 UK Parliamentary general elections and local government elections in England and Wales Draft recommendations for consultation November 2013

2 Contents Purpose of this document... 1 Contact details... 1 Draft recommendations... 2 Summary... 2 Overview... 2 Draft recommendations... 3 Consultation questions... 3 Background... 5 Approach... 8 Scope of the review... 8 Methodology... 9 Evidence Analysis Changes to the cost of campaigning Previous levels of campaigning The extension of the post-dissolution regulated period The impact of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act Appendix 1 definition of candidate spending... 24

3 Purpose of this document 1.1 The Secretary of State has the power to amend the spending limits for candidates at UK Parliamentary general elections (UKPGEs) 1 and local government elections in England and Wales (LGEWs) either to take into account changes in the value of money, or to give effect to a recommendation from us The last time changes were made to the candidate spending limits for UKPGEs and LGEWs was These changes were made in response to a recommendation from us. 1.3 In September and early October 2013 we informed the Westminster Parliamentary Parties Panel and the Panels for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales that we were undertaking a review of the candidate spending limits in advance of the next general election, and that they would be consulted on any draft recommendations for change over the coming months. This report sets out our draft recommendations to vary the spending limits for candidates at these elections based on our review. 1.4 Our draft recommendations take into account inflation in relation to the cost of campaigning and legislative changes that affect the current limits. Political parties, independent candidates and those with an interest in these draft recommendations are invited respond to these draft recommendations by Wednesday 18 December We aim to produce a report on our final recommendations in Spring We understand that this will allow Government to consider our recommendations and bring forward any legislation in response to them in good time for the 2015 UKPGE and LGEWs. 1.6 Note this document does not consider the spending limit for political parties or general non-party campaigners. The spending limits for political parties were subject to discussion in the Committee on Standards in Public Life s (CSPL s) recent review of party funding, and we expect them to be considered as part of any further debate between parties as to the future of the current system of controls. The spending limits for non-party campaigners are currently the subject of debate as part of the passage of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. Contact details If you have an enquiry about this consultation, please contact Steve Goodrich at sgoodrich@electoralcommission.org.uk or This power also extends to UK Parliamentary by-elections 2 Section 76A, Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983) 1

4 Draft recommendations Summary 1.7 We are proposing increases to the candidate spending limits at UKPGEs and LGEWs. These recommendations take into account the significant rise in the cost of postage since 2005, the lengthening of the election timetable at UKPGEs, historical data on candidate spending and other legislative changes that will reduce the amount people can spend before they become a candidate at Parliamentary general elections. 1.8 The effect of these recommendations would be equal to around a 4% rise in the total amount candidates can spend at UKPGEs and a 6% increase in the limits at LGEWs. Our draft recommendations can be found on page 3. Overview 1.9 Although some recent developments such as the rise of social media have helped reduce some of the costs of campaigning, they have not transformed how candidates communicate with voters. Evidence from candidate spending returns shows that they are often still reliant on traditional forms of campaigning, such as sending unsolicited material to voters and taking out paid-for advertising. Since our last review of the candidate spending limits for UKPGEs and LGEWs, some of the costs relating to these activities have increased Using evidence from candidate spending returns and information on the costs of campaign material, we have analysed the current appropriateness of the spending limits for candidates at UKPGEs and LGEWs. Alongside this, we have taken into account legislative changes that also affect the current rules on candidate spending. As a result of this work, we have two draft recommendations for changes to the candidate spending limits at UKPGEs and LGEWs. 2

5 Draft recommendations Recommendation 1 To take into account the anticipated lengthening of the election timetable from 17 to 25 working days and the increased cost of postage, Government should make the following changes to the UK Parliamentary general election spending limits for the period between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day (the short campaign see paragraph 1.14 for more details): We recommend changes that would imply a 4% average net increase to the combined candidate spending limits at UKPGEs. The current base amount of 7,150 should be increased by 47%. Rounding this figure up to the nearest 50 would provide a new base amount of 10,550. The variable top-ups should be increased by 24% from: 5p per voter to 6p per voter in Borough/Burgh constituencies 7p per voter to 9p per voter in County constituencies Changes to the election timetable caused by the introduction of fixed term Parliaments will reduce the pre-candidacy ( long campaign) spending limit by 10%. Taking into account the low level of spending during this period in 2010, we think this reduction is appropriate and will not restrict candidate s ability to communicate with voters. Our proposed changes would increase the average short campaign spending limit from 11,550 to 16, With the amended election timetable and the resulting reduction in the long spending limit by 10%, the average long campaign spending limit will reduce from an average of 29,350 to 26,450. This means the average net increase to the combined spending limits at UKPGEs will be 1,600 or a 4% increase (see Chart 1). Recommendation 2 As with the variable top-up for UKPGEs, Government should increase the variable top-up for local government elections in England and Wales (LGEWs) from 5p to 6p to take into account the increase in the cost of postage. We do not recommend any increase to the base amount for LGEWs. The change to the variable top-up would increase the average spending limit from 850 to 900 or a 6% increase 4. 3 Figures are based on the December 2012 UK Parliamentary electorates: ONS website, Electoral statistics for UK 2012, 4 This is based on summer 2013 ward-level local government electorates collected by us as part of our confirmation dry run for the introduction of individual electoral registration in England, Scotland and Wales 3

6 Consultation questions 1.11 Before we make any recommendation to the Secretary of State to vary the current candidate spending limits at UKPGEs or LGEWs, we invite political parties, independent candidates and those with an interest in these draft recommendations to submit their views on our proposals. Specifically, we invite them to answer the following questions: 1. Is there any further evidence that you can provide to show significant changes to the cost of campaigning for candidates? 2. Do you agree with our draft recommendations and the case for change? If you do not, please outline why in your response. 4

7 Background 1.12 There are limits on how much candidates can spend on campaigning at elections. These rules date back to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act Prior to the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), these limits were reviewed by Government and varied in consideration of inflation. PPERA introduced a new power for the Secretary of State to vary 5 the limits to give effect to a recommendation by us The candidate spending limits at UKPGEs and LGEWs are contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983) 7. These limits apply during what is called the regulated period, the length of which differs slightly depending on the election. When the limits apply 1.14 Historically, the regulated period for candidates at UKPGEs applied to the period between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day, which until now has been just over three weeks. We refer to this as the short campaign. If the changes made by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (ERA) commence before the next UKPGE, the timetable for Parliamentary general elections will be increased. This will mean the short campaign will be around five weeks in In 2010, the Government introduced new controls on pre-candidacy spending at UKPGEs. These limits apply if Parliament sits for over 55 months. We refer to this regulated period as the long campaign. At the 2010 UKPGE, these controls limited spending during the four months before dissolution At LGEWs, the regulated period runs from the last date of publication of the notice of election through till polling day, which is 25 working days. In practice, this means there is a regulated period of around five weeks. There is no regulated long campaign at these elections. The current level of the limits 1.17 The candidate spending limits at UKPGEs and LGEWs are based on a set base amount, plus an additional multiplier-based top-up (referred to from here onwards as the variable top-up ) that takes into account the number of registered electors in the relevant electoral area 8. 5 Section 133, PPERA 6 Section 76A(1)(b), RPA The limits at Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Assembly, Greater London Authority, Police and Crime Commissioner and Northern Ireland local government elections are defined by Order. 8 The number of electors is based on those registered on the last date for publication of the notice of election. 5

8 1.18 Currently, the UKPGE candidate spending limits are: In the long campaign, 25,000 plus: 5p per Parliamentary voter in a borough/burgh constituency, or 7p per Parliamentary voter in a county constituency In the short campaign, 7,150 plus: 5p per Parliamentary voter in a borough/burgh constituency 7p per Parliamentary voter in a county constituency 1.19 At local government elections the limit is 600 plus 5p per voter in the relevant electoral area. The spending limit at these elections is reduced for joint candidates, who are two or more candidates that share resources, such as election agents or campaign literature Where there are two joint candidates, the limit for each candidate is reduced by one quarter. Where there are three or more joint candidates, the limit is reduced by one third. What is controlled by the limits 1.21 The limits on candidate campaign spending at UKPGEs and LGEWs covers expenditure on certain items that are used to promote a candidate s election during the regulated period. This includes the cost of items that are provided to a candidate free of charge or at a non-commercial discount of over 10% where the difference in value between the commercial rate and what they pay is over 50 ( notional spending ) Some items are not counted against the spending limit, such as volunteer time and the cost of the candidate s sole or main residence 9. At UKPGEs, a candidate s personal expenses, such as reasonable travel and accommodation costs, are also excluded from counting against the spending limit. So are the costs of the free postage provided to candidates at UKPGEs 10. Note that candidates at local government elections in England and Wales are not provided with any free postage The list of items that count against the spending limit, and those costs that are excluded, can be found in Appendix 1. This is the first review of the candidate spending limits since this list of items was introduced in At the 2010 UKPGE, candidates spent the majority of their funds (69%) on unsolicited material (e.g. leaflets and direct mail) (see Chart 2). After that, the largest items of spend were advertising (12%), accommodation and administration (9%) and 9 Part II Paragraph 9 Schedule 4A, RPA Section 91, RPA The list of qualifying expenses was introduced by Section 27, Electoral Administration Act 2006 in order to bring it closer in to line with the definition of election expenditure for political parties. 6

9 agent and staff costs (9%). Spending on public meetings and transport costs was negligible Although the amount candidates spent on these categories is relatively similar across England, Scotland and Wales, candidates in Northern Ireland concentrated their funds almost solely on unsolicited materials and advertising (see Chart 3) Based on our sample of returns from LGEWs, candidates appear to spend a greater proportion of their total expenditure (83%) on unsolicited materials, with slightly less spent on advertising (8%) and accommodation (6%) than at UKPGEs. Only a nominal amount appears to be spent on other the other types of expenditure (see Chart 4). Previous reviews of the spending limits 1.27 In November 2004, we were asked by the Secretary of State to review the candidate spending limits at UKPGEs and LGEWs and to report on any recommendations for change. In January 2005 we made a recommendation to the Secretary of State to increase the candidate spending limits at these elections. These changes were adopted by Government and came into effect in time for the 2005 elections 13. This is the first review of the UKPGE and LGEW candidate spending limits since then. The changing nature of campaigns 1.28 Over the past decade or so, the nature of election campaigning has changed. Many of these developments aim to bring efficiencies to campaigns and reduce their cost. For example, candidates are making more use of online advertising, websites and social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to promote their election campaigns. Candidates standing for political parties are also increasingly able to target their resources more effectively using their centralised voter identification databases. However, despite these changes, candidates still mainly focus their spending on traditional methods to communicate with voters, such as leafleting, buying newspaper adverts and using advertising boards. 12 Note at UKPGEs, candidates reasonable travel costs are treated as personal expenses, which are exempt from counting against the spending limit. 13 The Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order

10 Approach Scope of the review 1.29 The review is considering changes to both elements of the spending limit for UKPGEs and LGEWs: the base amount and the variable top-up (see page 5 for more details). This includes consideration of both the long and short spending limits at UKPGEs As mentioned on pages 6-7, historical data shows that candidates spend most of their resources on unsolicited materials, advertising, accommodation and administration, and agent and staff costs. These categories of spending are considered as part of the review. Because candidates report negligible amounts of spending on transport and public meetings, the review does not consider changes to the price of items within these categories Analysis of the base amount looks at changes to the price of fixed costs these are costs that do not vary significantly due to the number of electors in a constituency. This covers: Advertising Agent and staff costs Accommodation and administrative costs 1.32 Analysis of the variable top-up looks at changes to the prices of nonfixed costs these are costs that will vary based on the number of electors in a constituency. This covers unsolicited materials to electors The review does not look at the spending limits for local government elections in Scotland because we do not regulate these polls. In our report on the 2012 Scottish local government elections, we made a number of recommendations regarding the rules on campaigning at these elections to the Scottish Government 14. This included a recommendation that the Scottish Government should review the current spending limits before the next ordinary elections to Scottish councils, so they can be amended in good time if considered necessary The review does not look at the spending limits for local government elections in Northern Ireland. These contests are expected to take place in Although we have not planned to undertake a review of the spending limits in advance of these elections, we expect to recommend changes with similar effect in advance of the following set of polls. 14 The Electoral Commission, Scottish council elections 2012: Report on the administration of the elections held on 3 May 2012, Recommendation 10, (September, 2012) p.7 8

11 1.35 The review does not look at whether the lengths of the regulated periods are appropriate. This is outside of the scope of the power to change provisions relating to the spending limit under Section 76A, RPA The review does not take into consideration the PPERA spending limits on general campaigning by political parties, or any changes to the rules on non-party campaigning proposed by the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigners and Trade Union Administration Bill The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigners and Trade Union Administration Bill, as introduced to Parliament in July 2013, increases the spending limit for local non-party campaigners by 40% from 500 to 700. Methodology 1.38 When developing our advice on the level of spending limits for the independence referendum, we used three principles to guide our recommendation 15. These principles have been adapted for this review to take into account the slightly different nature of elections and candidate-based campaigns, and to incorporate the Commission s overall principles of trust, participation and no undue influence The principles guiding this review are that the level of the candidate spending limit should: allow candidates to communicate with voters, so the electorate is engaged and able to participate meaningfully in the process; deter excessive spending, to prevent the perception of undue influence over the outcome of the election; and not be set so low as to detrimentally constrain reasonable levels of expenditure, which could impact on trust in the system The review takes into account four main factors when considering whether there should be a change to the spending limits: Changes to the cost of campaigning Evidence that a large number of candidates spending is being restricted by the current limits The extension to the post-dissolution ( short ) regulated period at UKPGEs The impact of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act To help simplify the calculations for candidates and agents, our recommended change to the base amount is rounded to the nearest 50, whilst any change to the variable top-up is rounded to the nearest pence. 15 The Electoral Commission, Board Paper EC 02/13, (16 January, 2013) pp data/assets/pdf_file/0007/153682/16-january- Approach-to-advising-on-spending-limits-Board-paper.pdf 9

12 Evidence 1.42 To inform our assessment of UKPGE spending levels, we have analysed figures reported by candidates at the 2010 general election. Headline spending and donations data from these returns is available on our website Over 10,000 candidates stood for election at the 2012 LGEWs. Due to the scale of these contests, we did not obtain candidate spending returns from every local authority after those elections. In order to gauge the potential upper levels of spending at these elections for the purpose of this review, we requested a sample of 159 candidate spending returns from a selection of wards in three local authorities that we considered may have had high levels of campaigning in 2012: Birmingham, Cardiff and Derby In order to assess changes to the cost of campaigning we contacted a number of suppliers and advisory bodies including the Royal Mail, m4c (the Government s media buying agency) and a number of suppliers of campaign material. We also used data published by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). 16 The Electoral Commission website, UK general elections candidate election spending 10

13 Analysis 1.45 To examine the case for changing the limits we have looked at the changing cost of campaigning, previous levels of candidate spending and legislative changes that are likely to have an impact on the current limits. Changes to the cost of campaigning 1.46 In order to understand changes to the cost of campaigning we looked first at the types of material candidates use at elections. To do this we examined a selection of spending returns from the last UKPGE A review of spending returns from the local elections showed that candidates used similar types of election material. From this analysis we identified six main items of expenditure that fall under four of the current categories of spending: Leaflet production (unsolicited materials) Leaflet distribution (unsolicited materials) Advertising billboards, correx boards and posters (advertising) Newspaper adverts (advertising) Staff (agent and staff costs) Office use/rent (accommodation and administration costs) 1.47 We contacted a number of suppliers and advisory bodies to identify whether the prices of these items have changed significantly in recent years. The findings of this research are outlined below. Unsolicited materials 1.48 As mentioned on pages 6-7, unsolicited materials are the largest category of spending for most candidates at UKPGEs and LGEWs. Spending on these items falls into two categories: production (printing) and distribution (postage/delivery) There are a number of variables that change the cost of producing campaign leaflets, including the colour, size and quality of the printing. Despite this, there appears to have been little, if any, recent change to the cost of these materials, which can be purchased for as little as 5p per item Since 2005, there have been a number of increases to the cost of postage, which have seen the price of both second and first class stamps more than double (Chart 5). These increases have been well above changes 17 These were taken from constituencies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the highest levels of spending. This sample provided us with a view of activities across all nations in the UK, in the constituencies where there was the highest level of candidate-based activity. Two constituencies were selected from each nation. Within these constituencies, we analysed the items of spend reported by the candidates who came first or second. 11

14 to the consumer price index. We think that these increases should be taken into account when varying the spending limits Based on the returns we have analysed, UKPGE candidates spend up to around 10% of their resources on items that involve postage during the short campaign and just over 30% during the long campaign. This is on top of the free mailing candidates are provided at these elections, where the cost of postage does not count against the spending limit. At local government level, where no free mailing is available, candidates also appear to spend around 10% of their resources on items that involve postage. Whilst we recognise the free mailing provided at UKPGEs helps candidates communicate with voters, we still think the significant increase to the cost of postage since 2005 needs reflecting in the spending limit for candidates at UKPGEs and LGEWs Although these items often include the price of material other than postage, it is the main cost associated with them the cost of mail delivery can be up to ten times the value of the leaflet being produced. Considering this, any increase to the spending limit that takes into account the changing cost of postage should be in proportion to the amount of spending candidates currently incur on items that involve postage Since 2005, the cost of standard second class postage has increased by 238% from 21p to 50p per stamp. As mentioned in paragraph 1.51, candidates spend 10% of their resources on items involving postage during the period just before elections. Therefore, we think any increase to the variable top-up should be 10% of 238% - a 24% increase. Because the variable top-up constitutes around 38% of the current long and short limits, this increase on its own would only equal around a 9% rise for each limit. Net increase = increase to variable top up proportion of limit based on variable top up 24% 38% = 9% Advertising 1.54 The two main items of spending under this category were advertising boards and newspaper adverts. Advertising boards includes billboards, correx boards and posters In order to assess changes to the cost of billboards and newspaper adverts we contacted m4c. They confirmed that over the past six years, there has not been a significant change to the cost of newspaper adverts or advertising billboards We also contacted a number of suppliers to see whether there has been a significant change to the price of correx boards or posters. We are yet to receive a response from these suppliers, so we have not proposed a change to the limits based on the cost of these items. If respondents have any evidence showing a significant change to the cost of these items, we ask them to include it in their response. 12

15 Agent and staff costs 1.57 Between Mid-2007 and the end of 2012, average earnings have not risen significantly above the general rate of inflation 18. Recent statistics suggest there has been little change in this trend since then 19. Although we recognise that election agents are a specialist trade, we do not have any evidence to suggest that their wages have changed at a rate that is significantly above changes to the rate of average earnings or the general rate of inflation. Accommodation and administration 1.58 To analyse changes to the cost of office rental, we used data published by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) 20. Although this is experimental data that only covers England and Wales, it is the most comprehensive that we could find and provides an illustrative picture of how the office rental market has changed since As with our previous review, this data showed there were some regional variations in the cost of offices. For example, the rental value of offices has increased noticeably in London and the North East; however, there has been no significant uniform increase across Great Britain. Where data is available, there does not appear to be signs that the rental costs in Scotland and Northern Ireland would have grown significantly since As office rental costs constitute a small proportion of total expenditure compared to unsolicited materials and advertising, we do not think there is currently a strong enough argument to introduce changes to the spending limits that would take this regional variation into account. In addition, there does not appear to have been a significant change to the average price of office rental. Considering this, we do not think there is currently an argument to increase the base amount of the limit to take into account these costs. Previous levels of campaigning 1.61 We have looked at previous levels of campaigning to see what candidates have been spending as a proportion of their limit at previous elections. This provides an indication as to whether the current limits are still appropriate If a large proportion of candidates spend near their limit, it could indicate that their ability to communicate with voters and participate in the democratic process is being restricted. Similarly, it could signify that the limits are 18 Office for National Statistics, Labour Market Statistics, April 2013 Release html 19 Office for National Statistics, Labour Market Statistics, September 2013 Release 20 Valuation Office Agency website, Statistical Release: Business Floorspace (Experimental Statistics), (17 March 2012) 13

16 detrimentally constraining reasonable levels of expenditure, which could affect trust in the system. Conversely, the limits should be set at a level that deters significant spending by candidates that could lead to the perception of undue influence over the outcome of an election UK Parliamentary general election 1.63 At the 2010 UKPGE, there was a noticeable difference between what candidates spent as a proportion of the limit for long and short campaigns. During the long campaign, only 1% of candidates spent over 90% of the limit (Chart 6) with candidates spending on average just under 10% of the maximum. However, one in ten candidates spent over 90% of the limit during the short campaign (Chart 7) with candidates spending on average just over 30% of the maximum. Across both campaigns, only 1% of candidates spent over 90% of their combined long and short limits This data suggests the following: The long limit is not significantly restricting candidates ability to communicate with voters and does not appear to be detrimentally constraining reasonable levels of expenditure. The short limit appears to be restricting excessive spending by a tenth of candidates. Whilst this does not appear to be detrimentally constraining reasonable levels of expenditure, there is a higher risk that this could happen than during the long campaign, especially considering the significant increase to the cost of postage. There is only a small minority of candidates who spend near the limits across both the long and short campaigns Taking into account the above, we think there is scope for a pro rata increase to the base amount for the short spending limit, whilst retaining the long limit at its current level local government elections in England and Wales 1.66 Because our sample of candidate returns at LGEWs was selected to illustrate the higher levels of spending taking place at these polls, we cannot extrapolate our findings to all wards across England and Wales. However, they do provide an indicative picture of how the spending limits are controlling candidate spending at the extremes Within our sample, around 9% of candidates spent over 90% of the spending limit with one in five spending over 75% of the maximum allowed. We expect these figures are likely to vary across other local authorities and over different election years. However, these indicative figures suggest there is some scope to raise the current LGEW spending limit. 14

17 The extension of the post-dissolution regulated period 1.68 The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (ERA) contains provisions that increase the time period between the dissolution of Parliament and the day of poll from 17 working days to Although these provisions still require an Order from the Secretary of State for them to be commenced, we understand that these are likely to be brought into force for the next UKPGE, which is expected to take place in May The extension of the time period between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day means the short campaign will be extended by over a working week. The current limits on spending during this part of the campaign cover the most intensive period of activity by candidates. We would expect the new lengthened period after dissolution to have the same level of campaign intensity as under the current controls We think that with the extended election timetable, the current spending limits would detrimentally constrain reasonable levels of expenditure. Therefore, we propose a pro rata increase in the limits to take into account the lengthening of the short campaign If the election timetable is lengthened from 17 working days to 25, we think there should be a pro rata increase in the base amount of 47%. Rounding this figure up to the nearest 50 would provide a new base amount of 10,550. (new length old length ) 100 = percentage increase old length (25 17) 100 = 47% Section 14, ERA 15

18 The impact of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act The introduction of fixed term Parliaments means there is now greater certainty about the date of the next UKPGE, which is currently set for Thursday 7 May Having a set date for the day of poll means there is greater certainty as to when the long campaign begins. As mentioned above, we expect that the changes made by the ERA will be in place in advance of the 2015 UKPGE. So long as there is no change to the day of poll under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (FTP Act), the long campaign will begin on 18 December 2014 and end on 29 March, the day before Parliament s dissolution Under the current rules, the spending limit for the long campaign is reduced if Parliament dissolves within 60 months after its first sitting (see Table 1). The anticipated timetable means that Parliament will dissolve in the 59 th month of its sitting. This means the current spending limit for the long campaign will be reduced by 10% Considering the levels of spending at the 2010 UKPGE, we do not think this reduction will significantly affect candidates ability to communicate with voters. Table 1 Proportion of long spending limit Month of Parliament s dissolution 60% 56 th 70% 57 th 80% 58 th 90% 59 th 100% 60 th 16

19 45,000 Chart 1 - Average current and proposed UKPGE spending limits (long and short campaigns) 40,000 35,000 11,550 16,050 30,000 Amount 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 29,350 26,450 5,000 0 Current Long Short Proposed 17

20 Chart 2 - Total reported spend by candidates broken down by category, 2010 UK Parliamentary general election 152,945 0% 2,178,879 9% 2,339,781 9% 2,968,398 12% 175,112 1% 17,229,571 69% Advertising Unsolicited Transport Public Meetings Agent and Staff Accommodation 18

21 Chart 3 - Total reported spend by candidates broken down by category, 2010 UK Parliamentary general election (Northern Ireland only) 19,916 3% 287,752 47% 302,351 50% Advertising Unsolicited Other 19

22 Chart 4 - Total reported spending by candidates broken down by category, 2012 local government elections in England and Wales (sample) 1% 1% 1% 6% 8% 83% Advertising Unsolicited Materials Transport Public Meetings Agents and Staff Accommodation 20

23 300 Chart 5 - UKPGE variable top-up (borough/burgh and county) against CPI and the average rate for 1st and 2nd class postage (1996 = 100) Index CPI (all items) (1996 = 100) Limit variable top-up (1996 = 100) Ave. Stamp Rate 21

24 Chart UKPGE - Candidate spending as a proportion of the limit (long campaign) ,429 Under 25% 25-50% 50-75% 75%-90% Over 90% 22

25 Chart UKPGE - Candidate spending as a proportion of the limit (short campaign) ,438 Under 25% 25-50% 50-75% 75%-90% Over 90% 23

26 Appendix 1 definition of candidate spending Schedule 4A, RPA 1983 (Election expenses) Part 1 List of matters 1. Advertising of any nature (whatever the medium used). Expenses in respect of such advertising include agency fees, design costs and other costs in connection with preparing, producing, distributing or otherwise disseminating such advertising or anything incorporating such advertising and intended to be distributed for the purpose of disseminating it. 2. Unsolicited material addressed to electors (whether addressed to them by name or intended for delivery to households within any particular area). Expenses in respect of such material include design costs and other costs in connection with preparing, producing or distributing such material (including the cost of postage). 3. Transport (by any means) of persons to any place. Expenses in respect of the transport of such persons include the costs of hiring a means of transport for a particular period. 4. Public meetings (of any kind). Expenses in respect of such meetings include costs incurred in connection with the attendance of persons at such meetings, the hire of premises for the purposes of such meetings or the provision of goods, services or facilities at them. 5. The services of an election agent or any other person whose services are engaged in connection with the candidate's election. 6. Accommodation and administrative costs. Part 2 General Exclusions 7. The payment of any deposit required by rule 9 of Schedule 1 to this Act. 8. The publication of any matter, other than an advertisement, relating to the election in (a) a newspaper or periodical; (b) a broadcast made by the British Broadcasting Corporation or by Sianel Pedwar Cymru; (c) a programme included in any service licensed under Part 1 or 3 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part 1 or 2 of the Broadcasting Act

27 9. The provision of any facilities provided in pursuance of any right conferred on candidates at an election by this Act other than facilities in respect of which expenses fall to be defrayed by virtue of sections 95(4) and 96(4) above. 10. The provision by an individual of his own services which he provides voluntarily in his own time and free of charge. 11. (1)Accommodation which is the candidate's sole or main residence. (2). The provision by any other individual of accommodation which is his sole or main residence if the provision is made free of charge. 12. (1)Transport by a means of transport which was acquired by the candidate principally for his own personal use. (2)Transport provided free of charge by any other individual if the means of transport was acquired by him principally for his own personal use. 13. (1)Computing or printing equipment which was acquired by the candidate principally for his own personal use. (2)The provision by any other individual of computing or printing equipment which was acquired by the individual principally for his own personal use if the provision is made free of charge. Section 118, RPA 1983 (Interpretation of Part II) personal expenses as used with respect to the expenditure of any candidate in relation to any election includes the reasonable travelling expenses of the candidate, and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere for the purposes of and in relation to the election 25