A KEY Vote Leave figure has sidestepped calls to apologise for the campaign breaking the law over its spending during the EU referendum.
Former Labour MP Gisela Stuart, who co-chaired Vote Leave, argued the official Brexiteer campaign's legal advice at "every stage" ruled their activities compliant but regulators had found otherwise at a later date.
Stuart also said the referendum rules should be clearer, adding the legislation and interpretation of the law needed rewriting.
The Electoral Commission confirmed last week that Vote Leave, which was supported by senior politicians including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, had withdrawn an appeal against fines for breaches of electoral law committed during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.
The watchdog's investigation centred on a donation of almost £680,000 made by Vote Leave to BeLeave, a youth Brexit group.
This spending took Vote Leave over its £7 million legal spending limit.
Asked why Vote Leave dropped its appeal, Stuart told the BBC One Andrew Marr Show: "I think what it shows is we have been outspent at every stage of this process - whether it was before the referendum started and the Government spent £9.4 million on a leaflet, during the campaign ... collectively the Remain side spent more, and going to appeals costs money too."
On whether she would apologise for the organisation breaking the law, Stuart replied: "It was in relation of one particular donation where the Electoral Commission interpreted the rules as that being acting in concert, which we had got legal advice which said it wasn't.
"So the key question is if anybody wants a second referendum then the referendum legislation as it stands, and the way the Electoral Commission and Information Commissioner interprets them, needs rewriting."
Stuart, asked whether Vote Leave stood by its previous statement to rubbish the claims against it, later said: "Our biggest problem in the end was that we destroyed all our data, and therefore some of the evidential basis which people are asking for.
"All I can tell you is that at every stage, in terms of the processes, we did our level best to be in compliance with the rules.
"If they were interpreted afterwards in a way which was different from the advice we got at that time, then so be it. The regulator always has the final word."
Pressed if she would apologise on behalf of the campaign, Stuart replied: "At every stage we were ruled compliant according to legal advice we were given at that time.
"If money was the question, Remain spent by far more money than Leave did, the Government spent more money on the campaign than we did.
"Do not say this was a question of money. This is why I say the rules should have been much clearer.
"We had a compliance committee, our legal advice was always that that was the right thing to do.
"If with hindsight the compliance, the regulators found otherwise, the regulator has the last word."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel