Political party cleared of election spending breach
A POLITICAL party has been cleared of breaching election spending rules after two complaints were made.
But the saga has highlighted an embarrassing discrepancy between official candidate guidance and the election law, with the States hurriedly rushing out a revised version and candidates left fearing that the Guernsey Partnership of Independents has already gained an unfair advantage.
Concerns had been raised by some members of the public regarding the spending ability of political parties and their affiliated candidates in advance of the ‘regulated period’ – a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that spending does not occur until the nomination period begins, namely 1 September – to promote their parties and their prospective candidates.
The States has now revised the guidance issued to this year’s general election candidates to ensure it aligns with what they called ‘statutory provisions’.
‘The new version has corrected errors that are likely to have caused confusion, and we apologise for that,’ a States of Guernsey spokesperson said.
This includes a correction to a statement that candidates could not spend money before the start of the regulated period to promote their election.
In its update it allowed money to be spent on goods or services used before the regulated period to promote their prospective candidacy, so long as such expenditure ‘does not exceed his or her expenditure allowance’ – £6,000 per candidate and up to £9,000 for parties, which is provided by its candidates.
Those who made enquiries as a result of the initial confusion received a response from the States confirming that the matter had been considered and concluded in a no breach of legislation relating to electoral expenses.
This included the chairman of the 2020 Association until around a year ago, Harvey Marshall, who wrote to the Guernsey Press saying it was made clear in the law that a ‘candidate’, including parties, could not use paid-for promotional materials to canvas support for their upcoming candidature prior to the ‘regulated period’.
It followed the publication of a full-page advert by the Guernsey Partnership of Independents in the Guernsey Press on 20 August.
He said he was not satisfied with the States response and felt the Guernsey Partnership of Independents, which is led by several of the islands’ senior deputies Gavin St Pier, Heidi Soulsby and Lyndon Trott, was being protected.
‘The reply I got to the challenge I made does not answer the questions I asked,’ he said.
‘I recall it being mentioned in the States that they did not want millionaires buying their way into the Assembly, but it appears that this guidance goes against that and candidates can spend as much as they like up until the regulated period when they have a limit [£6,000].
‘It means if I was standing [for election] I could take out £100,000 worth of advertising, but I wanted to know what exactly the limit is.’
He added that although the response was ‘not acceptable’ he was running out of time to make a further challenge.
‘I received a clever legal reply which did not answer the questions I asked,’ he said.
‘I wanted the truth but it seems that this is an effort to try and protect the party and its leaders but I have my suspicions and still think it may be a breach.
‘Regardless this document should have been checked beforehand.’
