REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL (Hansard, 10 July 1978)

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, I should like to reiterate the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. It was, I believe, a real point, and I consider that as a result of the discussions on 1343 costs, it ought to be given more weight than it has perhaps been given. There is no doubt that in almost every election the expense returns are not, strictly speaking, accurate. Technically, they are put in a form which permits them to be passed, hut I do not think that by merely taking into account inflation the real future problem has been met. Candidates in an election ought to be able to give their expense returns in the full knowledge that they have been able to do their duty in presenting what they consider to be the correct case, while at the same time not infringing the limits on expenses.
I do not think there is any longer need to be strictly accurate, down to three-quarters of a penny. Certainly there ought to be a ceiling, but there also ought to be a margin within which those who want to be economical in their campaign and assiduous in presenting their case can have a certain leeway which enables them to spend the amount of money needed in order for them to do their duty. There are certain constituencies—some held by Labour, others by Conservative—where there is no need to spend money to any great extent in fighting an election because the result is known even before the election date has been declared. Overwhelming majorities are virtually certain in such constituencies, and in these cases spending could fall well within the boundaries which have been agreed and which have been presented to us today.
However in the marginal seats, where candidates have to fight hard to ensure that their point of view is properly presented, they want to go to the limit allowed, and today the limit is not sufficient. We know that candidates get round this limit by all kinds of technicalities. For example, envelopes are bought well in advance and are then sold to the campaign committee for less than they cost. We know, too, of outside organisations which help the Parties. For example, trade unions help noble Lords opposite, while other organisations help some of my friends, and they find ways of giving electoral assistance without the cost of this having to be recorded on the expense returns. I believe that this is a bad thing; there is no need for it.
There ought to be a margin which would enable the case on all sides to be properly put, while at the same time the 1344 returns which are submitted can withstand probing. It is in this regard that I want to try to emphasise to the noble Lord the reason why I think that the words of my noble and learned friend should be taken into account. We know that in certain constituencies small groups try to unseat candidates, or at any rate try to ensure that certain candidates are not acceptable at future elections. The groups do this in order to try to get control. As the situation is at present, if these groups insisted upon a detailed investigation into expense returns submitted after an election, the returns might be found to be outside the legal limits set down. It could be that because of an infringement on what was possibly a mere technicality the genuine feelings of the electorate in a Parliamentary constituency were perverted.
There is no longer any need to try to evaluate, in the strict terms which are included even in the new arrangement which has been made after discussions, what it costs to fight an election. We have to agree to what is proposed because due to the time factor it must not be delayed. However, I hope that the Government, and any future Government, will consider very carefully the possibility of allowing a margin on the expenses which would enable candidates to submit returns which would be strictly accurate, which would withstand any probing, and which would give candidates a start in their Parliamentary life without having in the back of their minds the thought that there has been collusion with their agents and other organisations which has helped. Such collusion may not be alleged in a nasty way, but it would not be in strict conformity with the rules laid down. It is with that point in mind that I hope that, while we approve this proposal today, the real fears which my noble and learned friend and I have expressed will, in the very near future, be taken into account in terms of giving a more realistic basis for expense allowances.

§ Lord WIGG
My Lords, no Member of this House or of another place has more right to speak on winning a Parliamentary seat by a short head than the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Over the years he won his seat by under 10 votes 1345 on more than one occasion. For me it was a different story. I won a Conservative seat with no assets at all, other than a typewriter from which a couple of letters were missing. But my path was comparatively easy, and I intervene in the debate merely to say that one of the factors which has led to the increase in the cost of elections is the treating of the electorate as if they were a bar of soap or a packet of detergent. I am not looking across at the other side of the Chamber as I say this, although I notice that occasionally, including today, the exchanges are not always entirely free of what I would regard as one or two overhead shots connected with the coming General Election. However, I am basically a non-political animal and I will not indulge in such practices myself, except to say that I deplore the treating of the electorate on this basis.
The expenditure of vast sums of money by particular sections of industry, furthering the political causes of one political Party before the election starts, so that the amounts involved are not included in the election expenses, is just as important as the situation of the unfortunate candidate who has an inefficient agent and so has to go to the courts to obtain an indulgence because he has spent 4p over the odds. I hope that this problem is tackled in the next Parliament, by the next Labour Government, so that what happens at present becomes not unlawful, but at least difficult to carry out. The electorate consists of individuals, each of whom has his own feelings about how he wishes to vote. He makes a decision on voting based on rationality and on feelings which are associated not only with his own interests, but those of the community in which he lives as well as the country at large.
Elections should be approached with this borne in mind, rather than by trying to indulge in the "hard sell", which is backed up by a fictitious election expenses return which covers only part of the campaign period. Literally millions of pounds were spent before the last election, and I have no doubt that millions will be spent before the next election. Have a look at the hoardings even at the present time. Therefore, while I find no difficulty in supporting this Bill, let us remember that the escalation of costs is in part 1346 due, of course, to inflation, but are also due to the bringing in of professional advisers with expense accounts, which are the very nature of the advertisers' calling and where the sky is the limit.

§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH
My Lords, I will speak, if I may, fairly briefly to the points which have been made. As my noble friend Lord Wigg has said, he is indeed an entirely non-partisan person, but I should say to him that matters of the sort which he has just raised really are matters for a Speaker's Conference, and obviously go outside the terms of the existing Bill. Indeed, this is the point which I must make in answer to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. The fact of the matter is that we have decided that it is appropriate to take account of inflation so far as this is concerned, because here we are acting without a Speaker's Conference having taken place. If a Speaker's Conference had taken place, this and other matters might have been gone into; but, as the House is aware from what I said when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill, we have had consultations with representatives of the political Parties and have tried to effect the greatest amount of agreement between all those concerned. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is at the moment.
In answer to the noble and learned Lord, who referred to the point of the United States, I agree with him: there have indeed, if I may say so, been substantial abuses so far as election procedures in the United States are concerned. There has been a great deal of argument and debate about this in the Congress. But, of course, the United States have not in the past had anything approaching the tight supervision of candidates' expenses we have in this country. There has undoubtedly been abuse—and I would not in any way quarrel with the noble and learned Lord—but the American position is very different from our own. I say this not in any way to quarrel with him in terms of the general thrust of his argument; all I would wish to repeat is that I think this is the kind of question which should be gone into by a Speaker's Conference, and that can take place when all the Parties concerned are prepared to move in that direction.