REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1949 (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 6 June 1962)

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Second Schedule to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, by increasing the sum to be deposited by or on behalf of a candidate. I hope the House will not think it inappropriate that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) should have ten minutes out of the two days allotted to a discussion on the European Common Market. There are three races being run today, and in each of them the House has a varying degree of interest. Two of them are Parliamentary races—at Middlesbrough and West Derbyshire—and I believe that some hon. Members have been on the canter up and have laid their bets. The third is a horse race, and I gather that certain of our colleagues have engagements with their constituents at Epsom today.

I think hon. Members will agree that no one would wish to go to Derby or any other horse race if the jockeys were to say in advance that they had no intention of trying to win. Similarly, Parliamentary elections would be dull indeed if candidates evoked no interest in the result. Yet at Middlesbrough today we have a candidate, Lieut. Thompson, who states that he has no wish even to leave the starting post. He does not mind losing his deposit, which is little enough.

On 30th May, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War about service candidates and the latest … cut-rate back door"— way out of— the Army.…"'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May. 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1342.] My right hon. Friend answered by saying that it did not seem to him to be right that he should take powers to prevent people who genuinely wanted to stand for Parliament from doing so. The important question we have to ask is what is meant by "genuine". Lieut. 480 Thompson, to whom I have referred, has stated that his sole reason for standing as a candidate is that it is only by that means that he can get out of the Army. This seems like the "Ever-readies" in reverse.

A General Election could knock the recruiting drive of the Services sky high. Indeed, if a great many Service men who wanted to quit the Army and could not afford to pay the £200 or £250 which is involved then decided to put up as Parliamentary candidates at £150 a time, what sort of state would we be in? We might find that the War Office would get the Government it wanted through split vote Service candidates. If the candidates won, the position would be even worse. We might get a "Monty" Ministry backed by Lord Beaverbrook with all-starred Ministers. The Minister of Defence might have five or six stars, some of the others might have three or four stars, some two, some one and some, sad to say—especially those concerned with the Common Market—none at all.

For this far-fetched but possible situation, I consider that we in this House have only ourselves to blame. The original intention of the deposit, which has operated since 1918, was to try to ensure that bona fide seriously intentioned candidates stood for Parliament. The deposit fixed then was £150, which was forfeit if the candidate did not receive more than 12½ per cent. of the poll. That sum was fixed by a conference on Parliamentary reform after a resolution to reduce the amount to £100 had been discussed at some length, the motion to reduce it to £100 having been defeated

The genesis of this amount was described by Mr. Macmaster—and I refer to a totally different gentleman— in Committee on the Representation of the People Bill in 1917 as follows: The sum of £150 was arrived at after a very great deal of discussion by the Conference. The extreme proposal was £250 but the real difference was between £100 and £200. and it was compromised at £150."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th August. 1917; Vol. XCVII, c. 1254.] This sum of £150 was maintained in the 1948 Act, and it was further consolidated in the Act of 1949.

I believe that the time has come when the amount should be reviewed. I do not want to prevent anyone from standing at a Parliamentary election as a 481 candidate for this House—be he crank or special pleader—but if the special cause is worth anything at all it must be worth backing in terms of present-day values. Hon. Members should realise that by standing for Parliament, without even seeking to canvas for votes, a man can advertise himself or his causes in many cases nationally for the equivalent cost of a one-page advertisement in a provincial newspaper over a period of four to six weeks.

Until a few months ago only platform tickets, ladies turnstile rooms and Parliamentary deposits were available at prewar prices. Now only ladies and Parliamentary candidates are so advantaged. The railway platform ticket doubled in price some months ago, and I believe that the deposit which candidates must put up—the political platform ticket— should double in price and go up from £150 to £300. It does not seem to me that there is any reason why political candidates should be able to opt out of the increased cost of living. They seem singularly unable to stabilise it when they get in here. It seems that £300 is reasonable having regard to the fact that the £ has dropped to one-fifth of its value since 1918. Hon. Members should remember that wages and salaries have gone up about four times their pre-war levels; political associations and trade unions have all greatly increased their political funds. If £150 was right in 1918, twice that amount would be reasonable now.

I fought my first election in 1945. I was then in the R.A.F. based at the Air Ministry. After I lost that election [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—but not my deposit—I returned to the Air Ministry to seek out the department for the re-engagement of those who had retired or who had been demobbed. I found that no such department existed. In fact, I discovered that nobody ever came back after they were demobbed. I was unique. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was sent along to a new intake department where they thought that I was mad. Why had I bothered to come back? They offered to re-enlist me in the ranks and, by this time, I thought that I was mad.

Having found myself a comfortable niche, I had no wish to square-bash my way up again. So I fled for another 482 period of leave until they sorted out my problem. Unfortunately, my department at the Air Ministry got to work. They affirmed that their need was greater than mine. I have learned since coming to the House of Commons that the Patronage Secretary acts on about the same principle. I therefore found myself recalled and re-enlisted.

But this does not happen today. It used to be said about the Services "Once in you are in". But now the phrase is "Once out you are out"—if the Serviceman concerned seeks to fight an election. The Defence Ministries might spend hundreds of pounds transporting prospective candidates from the uttermost parts of the world to fight elections, yet all it need cost a Service man is the cost of a motor scooter.

The Bill I am seeking to introduce is designed to rectify this position. It should appeal to the Treasury, since at the next General Election that Department could well gain a harvest of lost deposits—at £300 a time. The Bill should also appeal to the voting public, because it will undoubtedly mean that candidates will have to bear the increase in the cost of living.

I hope the Bill will appeal to the House. I hope, at any rate, that if hon. Members want to put up a fence against this Measure they will bear in mind that this is the flat season and will allow the Bill to proceed and put up fences later on if they so desire.