HL Deb 13 March 1989 vol 505 cc46-9

5.37 p.m.

Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: The effect of these draft regulations before us is twofold. First, they increase the limit on the expenses of a candidate at a European Parliamentary election in Northern Ireland from £8,000 plus 3.5 pence per elector to a new limit of £10,000 plus 4.3 pence per elector. The second effect, as your Lordships will see in pargaraph 2(b), is to increase the deposit required from such a candidate from £750 to £1,000. Separate draft regulations making these changes for candidates in Great Britain have been laid before Parliament by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

The increase in the limit on expenses is in line with changes in the Retail Prices Index since they were last increased in 1984. The increase in the deposit is rather greater in percentage terms, but is actually less than would be required to restore the deposit to the equivalent of its value in 1979 which, as your Lordships will be aware, was the first year in which direct elections to the European Parliament took place. With that brief outline, I beg to move that the draft regulations be approved.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lyell.)

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, we support the regulations. I have compared them with the terms of the draft regulations in respect of the European elections to be held on mainland Britain and it seems to me that the terms are identical.

I understand that the specific provisions of these regulations are not contentious, but that is not to say that my noble friend Lord Fitt, who has a firm understanding of Northern Ireland politics, may not wish to address your Lordships on an aspect relating to the funding of European Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland. However, addressing myself to the specific terms, which are identical to those for Great Britain, I support the regulations.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, we see nothing against these regulations, and we support them.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, normally such regulations would go through on the nod because there does not seem to be anything controversial in relation to political parties in the United Kingdom. However, I should like to ask the Minister to explain one or two points on which I think I have a little knowledge.

A European Member of Parliament is in a somewhat different position from that of a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. Those who happen to be Members of the UK Parliament and the European Assembly—sometimes also referred to as a parliament—operate under different directives. One can never be sure which are the most important directives—those from Europe or those from the United Kingdom.

The Minister has set a limit on what can be spent by anyone contesting a European Parliament seat. However, those who are already elected and sitting as MEPs have formed themselves into groups—the Socialist group, the Conservative group, the Liberal group, and so on. I know that when elections are held there are slush funds, for want of a better phrase. Each of the candidates receives money from those slush funds to fight the election. Is there any way of checking how much money a candidate receives from a slush fund? Is there any way of checking whether a candidate has overspent in fighting the election because of the amount of money received from Europe?

There is an amalgamation of interests for certain candidates who are Members of Parliament and also MEPs. Anyone who has experience of the other place will know that sometimes accountancy for elections is liable to go a little astray when filling in expense accounts to the returning officer. If it were found that a candidate had overspent on the expenses allowable and that the money he had received did not come from this country but came from Europe, would the same action be taken against him as is laid down under our election laws? There are fixed penalties and certain measures can be taken against candidates who overspent.

I repeat to the Minister that there are slush funds in Europe for the purpose of Parliamentary elections.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, can the noble Lord explain where these slush funds come from?

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I have just said that they come from the different groupings. There is a Conservative group, a Labour group and others, including a Right-wing group. I know that during elections money is paid into a central kitty and dispersed to the various regions.

If that money is available from Europe, does it have to be accounted for to the returning officer? What will be the penalty for a candidate who overspends under this legislation now that it is brought into line with legislation covering elections to the United Kingdom Parliament? What penalties can be inflicted on a Member who is seen to have considerably overspent arising from the financial assistance received from Europe?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I shall not do what is normally done on television for one particular contest that takes place in November. Therefore, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his comments on these regulations. I also thank the noble Lord forthe warning that his noble friend Lord Fitt—I understand that is the case as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is sitting behind him—was liable to say a few words. However, I shall come to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in a few moments.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and welcome him back to the fold of those discussing Northern Ireland affairs.

The main thrust of the regulations is that the limit is raised to what we believe it should be in realistic terms. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, rightly asked one or two questions about the funds spent by candidates. The noble Lord referred to these sums of money and I was astounded at his moderation. The terms used by the noble Lord were mild for some of the funds that are known by the noble Lord in Northern Ireland, let alone elsewhere.

The noble Lord asked about the provenance and where the candidates expenditure might come from. The noble Lord probably knows that better than myself. I have never stood for elected office but the noble Lord has stood with distinction in Northern Ireland for a number of fora. He will certainly be well aware of the chief electoral officer checking the money spent by candidates in parliamentary elections.

I have to tell the noble Lord that there is no way of checking where such amounts come from. There is a mechanism through the chief electoral officer and through the main legislation. The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 is the main legislation which we are mildly amending this evening. The noble Lord will find the mechanism in that legislation. A chief electoral officer can check how much each candidate spends as part of his electoral expenses in his campaign.

The regulations raise the amount which each candidate may spend to £58,000. In 1984 the permitted maximum according to the formula which was then in existence, and which we are raising this evening, for each candidate in Northern Ireland was £45,716.18. Your Lordships will be aware that Northern Ireland is one Euro-constituency. I was about to say super-constituency but that would result in drum-beating for Northern Ireland which we do not want this evening—at least in excess.

The expenditure by individual candidates, which was declared, ranged from £32,700 down to £43.76 for the candidate of the Ecology Party. The latter figure was 0.01 per cent. of the maximum. The £32,700 was spent, and approved through the normal regulations by the Chief Electoral Officer, by Mr. John Hume, the SDLP candidate. That amount was just under 72 per cent. of the permitted maximum for his electoral campaign.

I am afraid that there is no method of checking where the money comes from; but there is a mechanism which we believe works, and has worked, to verify that each candidate spends an amount which is under the figure worked out according to the formula I have briefly described this afternoon.

I understand that each candidate in the forthcoming election for the European Parliament may be able to spend up to £58,000. In 1984 the candidate who spent the most amount of money spent 71 per cent. and the other three candidates; namely, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Paisley, spent between £22,000 and £27,000. That will give the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, an indication of the amount that was spent and verified by the Chief Electoral Officer under the existing 1978 legislation. I am sorry that I cannot oblige the noble Lord with the actual provenance of the money. I shall not follow him in his fairly moderate description of where the money did come from.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, arising out of the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, perhaps I may ask this question. Can the Minister tell the House whether there can be expenditure by a group of which the candidate is a member, in addition to the expenditure by the individual candidate? It seems that was part of the question that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was addressing to the Minister.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I understand that the chief electoral officer is responsible for the expenditure by each candidate. I do not have the full details of the statutory legislation before me of the machinery whereby the chief electoral officer will check on how much has been spent. I believe that he is concerned to see that the candidates spend a certain sum of money. If the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is referring to hidden amounts, I am sure that the chief electoral officer would be there to query and inquire. However, he can only go so far in his inquiries.

I am advised that groups can spend but it is not counted against the candidate's expenses. I am sure that there will be separate mechanisms and auditing procedures for those sums of money. What we are referring to tonight is what the candidate may spend himself as part of his declared election expenses.

On Question, Motion agreed to.