HC Deb 27 March 1969 vol 780 cc1824-9

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 32, after "election" to insert: (i) at an election to the Greater London Council (other than an election to which paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act, 1963 does not apply to determine the electoral areas), £200 together with an additional 1s. 0d. for every four entries in the register of electors to be used at the election (as first published) and for any less number of entries above a multiple of four; and (ii) at any other local government election,

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment provides a higher maximum than does Clause 8(1)(b) for candidates' expenses at Greater London Council elections when the London boroughs have been divided into single-member electoral areas for G.L.C. elections. Oddly enough, an Opposition Amendment for this purpose with which my right hon. Friend had great sympathy was, for procedural reasons, defeated. We sought another way of dealing with this in another place.

When the new single-member electoral areas, based on new Parliamentary constituencies, have been determined the average electorates of those electoral areas will be about 62,000, including persons of 18 years of age on the register. On the basis of Clause 8(1)(b) the permitted maximum of a candidate's expenses would be about £550. The permitted maximum for a candidate contesting the same area at a Parliamentary election would be about £1,150; and he would be allowed free postage of his election address under the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 79; whereas the local government candidate would not. For an average-sized G.L.C. electoral area the amendment would produce a maximum of £975 which represents, my right hon. Friend believes, a reasonable compromise between the present provisions of the Bill and the legal maximum for Parliamentary candidates. There is a case for this different arrangement for the G.L.C. and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Sharples

We welcome the Government's acceptance of the Amendment, because this is an amendment which we put down during the Committee stage of the Bill, and against which the then Minister advised the House to vote. I do not recall any procedural difficulties which led the Government so to advise the House at that time. It was an absolutely straight Amendment but the Minister at that time advised the House to vote against it and forced it to a Division. We should be grateful to another place for giving this House and the Government an opportunity to consider the wisdom of the advice which was given to the House at that stage, on the proposal accepted in toto, that we put forward on that occasion.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

As I was one of those who helped to press this Amendment on the Government, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, may I thank the Government for their belated, almost death-bed repentance. The merits of the matter are abundantly clear. It would be ridiculous to fight a constituency the size of a Parliamentary constituency on the expenses limits originally laid down in the Bill. I am very glad that the Government, through the intervention of another place, have put this right. Perhaps in another context the hon. Gentleman may reflect on the considerable merits of another place as at present constituted.

Mr. Lubbock

I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether these new limits will apply before the Greater London boroughs are divided up into electoral areas. This is an important point, because as far as I can see at present the next G.L.C. elections, which are to be held in 1970, will be still on the old borough basis; unfortunately, in my opinion, because it is confusing to the electorate and all who have to take part in these campaigns. But I agree with what has been said on the wisdom of making this Amendment and I accept everything said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the wisdom of another place in giving us this second opportunity.

I want to be quite clear, as far as I can read this Amendment, that we shall not obtain benefit from it in the important G.L.C. elections which are to take place next year. It would be useful if the Under-Secretary could clarify that point.

Mr. Rees

If I have leave of the House to speak again, the hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation. This provision will not come into force until the new single-member electoral areas have come into being. I am very grateful for the wisdom of another place. I would add that there were curiosities about the number of Amendments which were put down at an earlier stage. I can assure the House that the proposal in this Amendment was in the mind of my right hon. Friend, but this does not invalidate the argument that has been put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6, line 40, at end insert: (1A) Where at an election a poll is countermanded or abandoned by reason of the death of a candidate, the maximum amount of election expenses shall, for any of the other candidates who then remain validly nominated, be twice or, if there has been a previous increase under this subsection, three times what it would have been but for any increase under this subsection; but the maximum amount shall not be affected for any candidate by the change in the timing of the election or of any step in the proceedings thereat.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I seek advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it would meet the convenience of the House if we could discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 20.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

If it is the wish of the House that that should be done.

Mr. Rees

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Clause 13, makes provision for the procedure to be followed if a candidate at a Parliamentary or local government election dies during the course of the polls. The present law provides only for the procedure to be followed if a candidate dies before a poll has commenced, and the procedure is consolidated in Clause 13. But I am advised that the Bill is silent on the question of the election expenses of the surviving candidates. Under existing law the new candidate would start with a clean slate, but the candidates already nominated would not. They would be able to spend only such balance, if any, as was left over and above what they had spent up to the date of the abandoned poll.

On Report in this House the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) put down an Amendment to allow a surviving candidate to incur additional election expenses not exceeding one-third of the maximum to which he was originally entitled. I agreed to consider the point with reference, in particular, to the precise amount of additional expenses to be allowed. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, I hope, honour this undertaking, I would draw attention to three particular points.

The Amendments are made, not as was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to Clause 13, but to Clause 8 to which—as dealing with election expenses—they are more appropriate.

A surviving candidate will be able to incur additional expenses up to the full amount of his original entitlement. For purposes of calculating the maximum for the entire proceedings, the change in the timing of the election would make no difference. For example, if there has been a change of register between the abandoned poll and the further election, the limit on additional expenses, like the original limit, will be based on the earlier register. This is the effect of the final words of the new subsection.

Amendment No. 5 applies the provision made by Amendment No. 4 for additional expenses to ward elections in the City of London, expenses of candidates at which are dealt with separately in subsection (2) of Clause 8. Amendment No. 20 amends paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Bill and is consequential on Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Sharples

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I am ungrateful if I find myself in the position of looking a gift horse in the mouth. On Report we put forward an Amendment which would allow the surviving candidates in the event of the death of one candidate to spend up to one-third again of the election expenses which were allowed. In the course of the very brief discussion we had the hon. Gentleman said: If the candidates who stand again in the second poll are allowed to spend a second lot of election expenses they will have an advantage over the new candidate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th December, 1968, Vol. 779, c. 1450.] There was some merit in the argument he put forward. It was for that reason that we put forward Amendments which would allow only one-third as additional expenses and not, as now proposed, that the surviving candidate should be able to spend twice, or in some cases three times, as much as the original expenses allowed. The House is entitled to be told why the Government rejected our reasonable proposal and have gone so far as to allow twice or three times as much.

We do not intend to vote against this proposition, but, in view of the Under-Secretary of State's statement at that time, it seems curious that the Government should have gone to this extraordinary length. It could produce an anomalous situation and give considerable advantage to the surviving candidates in the event of an election campaign having to be restarted as a result of the death of one candidate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

May I say, with leave, that in the interim period we had a number of discussions with the various political parties. I am trying to think whether it would be in order for me to reveal what took place at those discussions. I will chance my arm and do so.

The Conservative. Party preferred the original proposal of one-third, but, I gather, did not object to half. The Liberal Party suggested a sliding scale formula. I am advised that that would have had the opposite effect to what was intended. The Labour Party suggested the full maximum, or at least 75 per cent. of it.

Bearing in mind the various views and what was said last time, we thought that it would be better to fix the figure at the full amount of the original maximum. I accept that there are different views about the best way of dealing with the matter. I do not think that there is a precise answer which is absolutely correct. We took all the views into account and my right hon. Friend decided to fix the figure at the full amount of the original maximum I hope that the House will agree with this.

Mr. Lubbock

Since reference has been made to the views of the Liberal Party, may I say that I sympathise with the criticisms which have been made by the Conservative Front Bench. A campaign may have got halfway through and then a new campaign starts and candidates, including those who have previously been engaged in the electoral battle, will be allowed to spend the full amount of the expenses. That means that the candidates who remain in the field will have a. considerable advantage over the newcomers because they will have become known to the voters and their posters would have been displayed in the constituency and perhaps they will have sent out introductory leaflets. Under the Amendment, they will be empowered to spend double the maximum amount they would have been able to spend in a single campaign.

I will not vote against the Amendment, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has gone a little further than we intended when we discussed this matter in Committee. I should have preferred to see adopted either the Conservative solution or something along the lines of the proposal put to the Home Office by the Liberal Party. We can only hope that this proposition will not operate too unfairly.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment made

Back to
Forward to