CLAUSE 32.—(Limit of, and return and declarations as to, expenses.) (Hansard, 15 June 1948)

§ Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 32, line 14, to leave out "penny halfpenny," and to insert "twopence."

When the Bill was in Committee the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) raised the question of the adequacy and the limit of election expenses that had been suggested by the Speaker's Conference, and I undertook to have consultations with people who might be competent to guide the House in the matter. The National Agent of the Labour Party had a conference with the National Agents of the Conservative, Liberal and National Liberal Parties, who made a unanimous recommendation which I communicated to the Leaders of the parties in the House. They accepted the recommendation of the agents, and this is now embodied in this Amendment and the following Amendment which deals with this matter.

I think the House would like to know the exact effect this will have on the limit of expenses allowed in Parliamentary Elections. At present, the allowance is 6d. for each elector plus the election agent's fee up to £75 in county constituencies, and 5d. for each elector plus the agent's fee up to £50 in borough constituencies. In the original draft of the Bill the suggestion, following the lines of the Speaker's Conference, was £450 plus 1½d. for each elector in county constituencies, or 1d. for each elector in borough constituencies. The Amendment leaves the £450 as it was but adds a ½d. in respect of each elector, making 2d. for each elector in the county constituency or 1½d. for each elector in the borough constituency.

The House may be interested in the examples of how this will work out. In a county constituency with an electorate of 40,000 the existing law allows a maximum expenditure of £1,075. In the Bill 353 as introduced that expenditure would have been reduced to £700. The Amendment will raise it to £783 6s. 8d. With an electorate of 50,000, in a county constituency, the present scale allows £1,325. The Bill, as introduced, allows £762 10s. and the Amendment will allow £866 13s. 4d. With an electorate of 60,000, in a county, the candidate would be allowed to spend not more than £1,575 at present, or £825 according to the Bill as introduced and £950 if the Amendment is carried. With an electorate of 70,000 in a county, the candidate can spend up to £1,825 at present; £887 10s. according to the Bill as introduced and £1,033 6s. 8d. by the Amendment.

In the case of borough constituencies, an electorate of 40,000 carries maximum expenditure, at the moment, of £883 6s. 8d.; the Bill reduced that to £616 13s. 4d. and the Amendment will raise it to £700. In the case of an electorate of 50,000, £1,091 13s. 4d. can be spent at present; under the Bill the figure is £658 6s. 8d., and the Amendment increases it to £762 10s. With an electorate of 60,000, £1,300 can be spent at the moment; under the Bill as drafted that would have been reduced to £700 and the Amendment raises it to £825. With an electorate of mom the maximum expenditure allowed at present is £1,508 6s. 8d.; the Bill reduced that to £741 13s. 4d. and the Amendment raises it to £887 10s.

In each kind of electorate there is a very substantial reduction in the amount that can be spent. I understand that agents feel that Elections will, in most cases, have to be very economically conducted to bring them within these limits. My own view is that in the past candidates of all parties have spent considerable sums of money which have not produced any great results. I have no doubt that this will lead to a concentration of expenses on those methods of electioneering which are likely to be most productive of votes.