Representation of the People Bill

HL Deb 05 March 1991 vol 526 cc1357-60

6.12 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

It is a very short, technical Bill designed to correct an inadequacy in the current law, as set out in Section 29 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

That section provides for the reimbursement to returning officers of the many and varied expenses incurred in running parliamentary elections. These include the personal fees of returning officers, presiding officers and poll clerks; the travelling and subsistence expenses of all officials; the cost of printing and issuing ballot papers and poll cards; and many other items. Section 29 also provides that the Treasury shall set out in regulations the maximum amount which returning officers may be reimbursed for each particular item of expenditure.

It is that requirement to set a maximum amount which has caused difficulties in the implementation of Section 29. Quite simply, the problem is that the amounts that returning officers need to spend on certain items of expenditure on running elections vary considerably across the country. Examples are travel and subsistence expenses and the cost of printing and providing ballot papers and poll cards. What is fair and reasonable in one constituency may not be so in another. In these circumstances maximum charges applicable in all constituencies are inappropriate for certain items.

For many years this difficulty was resolved by providing in the returning officers' expenses regulations that returning officers would be entitled to receive their "actual and necessary costs" for certain items of expenditure. But we were advised in 1987 by Speaker's Counsel that that was ultra vires. We accept that that advice was right, and we are taking steps to correct the inadequacies in Section 29 of the 1983 Act via the Representation of the People Bill.

In advance of this Bill, and to overcome the difficulties, since 1987 we have ensured that returning officers would be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses by referring in the regulations to an "authorised maximum" up to which expenses could be reimbursed. That is calculated on a formula reflecting expenditure in each constituency in the previous relevant election, updated to take account of increases in costs.

The device will break down at the next general election when the Milton Keynes constituency is divided into two. Even were it possible to draft round these difficulties at that time, the authorised maximum approach would break down altogether at the time of the next general revision of parliamentary boundaries.

One further difficulty exists with Section 29 of the 1983 Act. Returning officers may, in practice, incur expenses which exceed the statutory maxima but do so for perfectly good reasons. In such circumstances extrastatutory payments have been made. They have tended to be small. But there is a doubt about whether it is right to pay them, given the wording of Section 29. In the circumstances it is highly desirable to amend the law to allow for such eventualities.

The Bill solves these problems by amending Section 29 of the 1983 Act. It does so in two ways.

It provides for returning officers to be entitled to their actual expenses, reasonably incurred, in circumstances where it is not possible to specify a maximum charge for a particular item applicable to all constituencies. And where maximum charges are specified, the Treasury may authorise payments above the maximum, provided that the expenses have been reasonably incurred.

These changes are technical and, I believe, uncontentious. But they are also essential if returning officers are to be reimbursed their reasonable expenses when organising parliamentary elections. I very much hope that all noble Lords will welcome this Bill and give it a Second Reading accordingly.

I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the provisions of this Bill. As he says it is a very small Bill. I agree with him that it is a very necessary and sensible Bill, amending Section 29 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

The noble Earl referred to the difference in expenses that would be incurred by different constituencies. I readily accept that. However, I was able to read the reports of the Second Reading and the Standing Committee of the other place. They make very interesting reading. Some discussion arose over a number of amendments tabled by my honourable colleague, Dr. John Marek, Member of Parliament for Wrexham. The reports are very interesting. One understands that there are differences between constituencies but some astonishing comparisons of costs in various constituencies were given to the committee by the Minister.

I have two questions to put to the noble Earl. I appreciate that this Bill deals with parliamentary elections and I recognise that we are dealing with the reimbursement of expenses to returning officers. I also recognise that the returning officer for a local election is appointed by the local authority concerned and that the local authority is responsible for the cost of the election. However, is there any provision for any maximum for items of expenditure which may be incurred in local elections, such as this Bill provides for, to be carried over for parliamentary elections?

My second question is a technical one. I have given notice of it to the Minister. I might even find myself in some difficulty explaining the technicality to the House but I feel that the House deserves to understand it. Under subsection (1) of Section 29, for parliamentary elections the returning officer is appointed by the sheriff, council chairman, mayor, or similar official as the case may be. It is also made quite clear that the responsibility of the returning officer is extremely limited. Subsection (1) states that no payment shall be made for those rather limited duties.

We understand from Section 28 of the 1983 Act that the duties in a parliamentary election may be discharged by an acting returning officer. The acting returning officer shall be the same person who acts as registration officer. The registration officer is appointed by the local authority concerned and need not be the chief executive, although it is customary for that person to hold the office of acting returning officer. In Committee the Minister emphasised that the acting returning officer has exacting duties and is responsible for the organising of an election. Every noble Lord who knows anything about elections appreciates that the duties of the acting returning officer are very exacting.

Reference is made in the minutes to a fee to returning officers of £862. It is made clear that that is paid to the returning officer. Where is the authority for the acting returning officer to have a fee? In Committee in another place the Minister referred to regulations comprising of 92 pages which deal with a maximum number of items of expenditure. He said that he had not read them. I can assure the noble Earl that I too have not read them. I understand that neither has he! The question that I ask may be covered by regulations. Where is such provision? What arrangements are there for an acting returning officer to receive payments which Section 29—even with this amendment—provides for the returning officer to receive?

6.21 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, we have had an extremely short debate in which the main provisions of the Bill have been explored. Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's two questions in reverse order.

He raised the matter of acting returning officers. In England and Wales the duties of the returning officer —except for those in connection with the receipt of the writ and any duties the returning officer has reserved to himself —are discharged by the acting returning officer. Under Section 28(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 the acting returning officer takes on the duties, the powers, the obligations and the rights and liabilities of the returning officer. In other words, it means that Section 29 of the Act applies to acting returning officers in the same way that it applies to returning officers. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.

He also asked about arrangements for local government elections. They are a matter for the local authorities concerned. Elections are not financed directly by central government. Local authorities make their own rules about the payment of fees and the reimbursement of election expenses. The rules vary from one local authority to another.

I trust that noble Lords will agree that it is not party political legislation, nor is it legislation that effectively breaks new ground. It is a technical Bill designed to make good a flaw in existing legislation identified by Speaker's Counsel in 1987. The main purpose of the Bill is essentially to put the clock back to where we thought it was some years ago.

However, even if it is a technical Bill, it is nevertheless important. Without it there would be uncertainty about the payment to returning officers of election expenses incurred at the next general election. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.