Representation of the People (Hansard, 18 February 1986)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)
I beg to move, That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
Articles 2 to 4 of the draft order increase the present limits on candidates' expenses at parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and local government elections in Great Britain in line with changes in the value of money. Article 5 provides for a similar increase in the case of candidates' expenses at ward elections in the City of London. If the draft is approved by both House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an order as soon as possible thereafter in time for this year's local government elections on 8 May.

§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)
Are we to be together again?

§ Mr. Mellor
The hon. Gentleman and I have been together for so many days that we should get this one over as quickly as possible.
Article 1 provides for the order to come into operation on the day after the day on which it is made. It will then enable candidates who are in the middle of an election campaign to incur expenses to the new limit permitted by the order. It will not, however, validate expenses in excess of the present limits which have been incurred before it takes effect.
The current limits for parliamentary and local government elections prescribed by section 76(2)of the Representation of the People Act 1983—excluding those for GLC and ILEA elections—were originally fixed by order in March 1982. So too were the limits for ward elections in the City of London prescribed by section 197(1) of that Act. By the end of August 1985, however, the retail price index has risen by 20.2 per cent. My right hon. Friend accordingly decided to increase those limits by a similar amount under sections 76A and 197(3) of the 1983 Act. Those provisions enable him to vary such limits by means of an order subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, but only to take account of changes in the value in money since they were fixed.
All the major political parties and local authority associations in Great Britain were consulted about the proposed increases and raised no objection to them, although one of those consulted asked whether it would be possible for the figures to be rounded up or down to become more easily committed to memory —for example, by changing the rate for parliamentary elections in county constituencies from £3,240 plus 3.7p per elector to £3,500 plus 3.5p per elector. However, sadly, such rounding is outside the scope of the order-making power, and the present figures do not seem to have caused returning officers and election agents any insurmountable difficulty.
The making of an order at this time will enable all the candidates at this year's local government elections in Great Britain to fight a more effective campaign. As for the effect of the order on parliamentary by-elections, I can best illustrate this by telling the House that the present limits in county and borough constituencies of 60,000 electors will be increased from £4,560 and £4.080 to 285 £5,460 and £4,920 respectively. This does not, however, preclude a further increase before the next general election. I hope, therefore that the House will give this measure its full support.

§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)
The Minister will be relieved to know that I should like to get this 48-hour love-in over as soon as possible. Like other hon. Members, we were both here late last night and early this morning.
The Opposition welcome this measure. I have just one thought to leave with the Minister on a point which I understand is not covered by the order. Perhaps he could take on board the thought that the House should attend to some control of the national expenditure by political parties at elections. We limit that in terms of candidates, and yet we leave open ended the matter of national advertising campaigns of political parties. That cannot make any sense. Although I understand that the order does not deal with that, I hope that we shall bring our minds to bear on it.

§ Mr. Simon Coombs (Swindon)
I am encouraged to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) because it touches closely on a matter which has been in my mind. I support the order, but it seems rather strange that in 1986 we continue to behave as if the methodology of communication with the electorate at election time is the same as it was 50 years ago. As the hon. Member for Erdington said, that emphasises the effect of the national control of elections rather than the ability of the local candidate to communicate with his electorate.
286 We live in the television age and it is through that medium that national policy and national figures can impinge upon local electors. By such an order local candidates are prevented from having their fair share of the argument. After all, the figure that is available for expenditure by a candidate in any election, if divided by the number of electors, would not cover the cost of a first class stamp if the candidate wished to send something other than a freepost missive to his electors. It would not cover the cost of a telephone call of substantial duration to any of his electors and it barely covers the cost of printing an electoral address which he may wish to send to his electors.
We seem to be dealing with the philosophy of large public meetings and small electorates when the candidate was able to reach his electorate much more easily than is now the case because, now the people have television to watch, a candidate can hardly maintain an audience of more than a few hundred at any meeting in his constituency during an election campaign.
I hope that, as the years go by, we shall consider the philosophy that lies behind orders such as this one. I am not making a personal plea. I spent less than the other candidates in the election which brought me to the House. I am not making a plea for expenditure of United States proportions because they go too far, but I am arguing for a revision of the philosophy which seems to put all the emphasis on national elections and far too little on local elections.