REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL (Hansard, 8 April 1974)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short and its purpose is simple. Its purpose is to raise the limits of candidates' expenses at local government elections in England and Wales and in Scotland, and at ward elections in the City of London. These limits were last raised by the Representation of the People Act 1969 following a recommendation by Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law that the limits at parliamentary elections should be raised.
In 1969, the limits for local elections were raised to £30 plus 5p for every six electors. On 6th February this year, Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that, in the context of a possibly impending General Election, the limits at a parliamentary election should be raised to equivalent in present purchasing power of the limits set in 1969. It was decided to give this recommendation immediate effect before the General Election, and there was, therefore, no time for consultations with the local authority associations and political parties with a view to making comparable changes in the limits for local elections. All concerned have now been consulted, and there is fairly general agreement with the new limits proposed in the Bill.
The new limits are contained in Clause 1 and provide that at local elections the limits shall be £45 plus 1 p for each elector. It may be helpful to illustrate the effect of the change with one or two examples. In an electoral area with 1,000 electors on the register as first published, the limit will go up from £38 to £55, and in an area with 9,000 electors it will go up from £105 to £135. Perhaps I should explain here that the reference to the register as first published means that every name on the current register may be counted for the purpose of the limit, even 116 though some electors will not attain the voting age of 18 until later in the year.
There may be some who would like higher limits than those proposed in the Bill, and to them I would say two things. First, the increases in the Bill are pro rata with the increases made for parliamentary elections last February. Secondly, no one wants standing for election to a local authority to be too much of a financial burden, and we must remember that the basic limit of £45 applies at parish elections just as much as at county elections.
It is, obviously, desirable that these changes should take place in time for the London borough elections and elections to the new local authorities in Scotland, which are to be held early in May. That is why we have proposed that the Bill should pass through its remaining stages tonight so that it may be considered in another place and, if passed, receive the Royal Assent before Easter.
We believe that the Bill will help candidates at local elections to meet higher costs, for example of printing, so that they may present their views adequately to the electors. At the same time, the new limits should ensure that expenditure at local elections is still kept at modest levels.

§ Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)
The Opposition welcome the Bill.
We are concerned here, as in so many Home Office subjects, with striking a balance. If we put the level of expenses allowed too high, elections could become extravagant affairs, involving substantial cost. On the other hand, if we put it too low, we may prevent political parties from fighting legitimate campaigns. In this case, as the Under-Secretary of State made clear, the balance has been struck by giving an increase in local government election expenses pro rata to that given for parliamentary elections. It must follow, if an increase for parliamentary elections is justified, that an increase for local government elections is justified. In both cases, the costs, notably for printing and stationery, have increased dramatically since the last review in 1969. Thus, in principle, the Opposition welcome the increases proposed in the Bill.
I have several short questions I should like to put to the hon. Lady. First, there is the question of the consultation 117 which has taken place before the proposed new limits were settled. Perhaps "consultation" is putting it a little high. As I understand the position, the Home Office letters setting out the increases were sent out on 9th March, which was a Saturday, and we may assume that the letters arrived no sooner than 11 th March. Nevertheless, the recipients were told, … unless the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, is advised to the contrary by 29th March 1974 agreement with these proposals will be assumed. I think it would be better to say that these letters were sent out for the purposes of information rather than for consultation. We understand that in the circumstances speed is of the essence if the new limits are to come into force in time for the London borough elections and for the elections in Scotland. On the other hand, we should not like this form of consultation to be treated as a precedent, but merely as exceptional action to meet exceptional circumstances.
In addition, I think that we are entitled to ask another question. The hon. Lady has stressed the urgency of the action that she is proposing and rightly points to the London borough elections, which are due in May. We have now heard various suggestions that members of the National and Local Government Officers Association may take action on election day. I imagine that the most likely action would be a refusal to act as counting officers, but other forms of action may be proposed. What effect will such action have on these elections? This is a matter of enormous importance for London and it has a crucial bearing on the Bill. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could help us and say what contingency plans, if any, her Department has prepared. If there is any possibility of difficulty or delay, it should be stated right away.
My second question concerns the make-up of the Home Office Electoral Advisory Committee, which advises the Government on the limits in the Bill. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who as Home Secretary said that he was surrounded by so many advisory committees that he felt he had to ask permission before blowing his nose. The 118 right hon. Gentleman's general statement is correct. The Home Secretary has committees to advise him on virtually every aspect of policy, from penal policy to drug dependence. Here we have another committee—the Home Office Electoral Advisory Committee. It would be for the convenience of the House if the hon. Lady would set out the membership of the committee, particularly as there are local government representatives on that committee and since 1st April the local government structure has radically altered.
My third and last question is rather detailed, and I shall understand if the hon. Lady requires time to consider it. However, it is important that this issue should be placed on record. As we have seen, the limits on expenses have been raised, but the formula on which they are calculated as relating to candidates remains the same, namely, that if two candidates in an electoral area stand jointly, the maximum election expenses allotted for each must be reduced by a quarter. This formula can lead to anomalies, and an illustrataion of one anomaly has been given to me.
Let us take as an example two towns, both with electorates of 20,000. In the first town two councillors are elected jointly, with every elector entitled to vote; in the second town two wards are created, each of 10,000 electors. Let us assume that the old figures of expenses apply, but that the formula in connection with candidates remains the same. Under this formula in the first town each candidate may spend £147.50. In the second town, each candidate may spend only £113. The maximum possible expenditure in town one is £295 and in town two the maximum is only £226. Yet town two is the town in which there are the most expenses, since the parties there need two separate election addresses, two sets of posters, and two sets of car stickers. Therefore, on the face of it, this would seem to provide exactly the reverse of what should be intended. The hon. Lady may need time to consider this detailed question, but it is important and I hope that she will undertake to examine the position.
I have asked three detailed questions about the Bill, but we support the increases in expenses and will support the measure.

§ Dr. Summerskill
By leave of the House, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for his support for the Bill.
He mentioned consultation. There was some urgency to bring in the Bill before the local elections, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have the support of the local authority associations and the political parties in England and Wales. We have also had the views of the various political parties and the local authority associations in Scotland.
The other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman were wide-ranging and involved many important and complex issues. I assure him that I have taken careful note of his comments and questions, and I undertake to let him have a reply on all of them.

§ Mr. Fowler
Has the hon. Lady anything further to say about the London borough elections and the likely effect of the action which has been suggested in a number of places?

§ Dr. Summerskill
I could give an opinion about what has happened, but it would be wrong to hazard guesses and opinions. I shall let the hon. Gentleman have the answers to his questions.