Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1994 (Hansard, 10 March 1994)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)
rose to move, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 17th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft Representation a' the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1994 increases the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and at local government elections in Great Britain to take account of inflation.
The existing limits were set in March 1992. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has power to vary the maxima, where in his view there has been a change in the value of money, and it seems reasonable to increase the limits to take account of the change. The main political parties and the local authority associations are aware of the proposal to increase the limits. The aim is to have the increases in place in good time for the local government elections in May and also the outstanding parliamentary by-elections.
The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1994 perform two different functions. First, they increase the limits on candidates' election expense at European parliamentary elections to take account of inflation. The existing limits have not changed since the last European parliamentary general election in 1989.
1590 Secondly, they apply for the purposes of European parliamentary elections in England and Wales an amendment made by the Education Act 1993 about the use of grant-maintained schools as polling stations. That amendment was made to ensure that returning officers continued to have the right to use, free of charge, rooms in grant-maintained schools once responsibility for funding such schools passed to new funding authorities.
The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland, while the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 increases the limits at local elections in Northern Ireland. Those increases correspond to the increases in Great Britain. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 17th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)

§ Lord Plant of Highfield
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the orders this evening. As she said, the four orders and regulations propose raising the maximum limit of candidates' election expenses. It is important for the functioning of democracy that expenses should be both generous enough to enable the democratic process to be undertaken properly and at the same time limited to secure broad equality between parties and candidates. Equality in that sense is essential to the adequate functioning of democracy.
I wish to say, however, that the limits set by the orders still stand in some contrast to the huge variations at the national level. It is also vital, in the view of my party, that there should be clear limits to national expenditure in the elections if democratic equality is to be achieved.
At the local level, political agents for parties have the responsibility for ensuring that expenditure limits are adhered to. Of course, the sanctions against failure to do so are rightly severe. However, if that is justified at local level to ensure that the limits are kept, there is also a case for it at national level. That is to say, if there were national limits on political expenditure at election times then a national figure in each political party should take responsibility for keeping to them in the same way as an agent in a local party takes responsibility in local elections.
It is in that context that we welcome the proposals to upgrade the expenses, but we want to see consideration being given to extending the kind of framework to the national level as well as the local level.
There are a number of specific comments that I should like to make about the orders. We do not particularly like the element of judgment given to the Home Secretary to determine whether expenses need to be raised to take account of inflation. We would prefer there to be an automatic link between inflation and the increases so as to diminish the amount of political judgment involved.
1591 Secondly, there is a growing disparity between the limits in question for candidates in borough constituencies and candidates in county constituencies. The current orders give an increase of 6.1 per cent. in county elections and only 4.9 per cent. in the case of borough elections. We believe that there is a case for starting to review the question, which I believe was last looked at in the early 1970s, about whether the difference between county constituencies and borough constituencies should continue.
Thirdly, there may be a case for a more fundamental review in the sense that electioneering techniques, if I may call them that, have changed a good deal since the various Acts were passed in which the powers were given to make those orders. Not only has the range of techniques increased, but also the capital cost of equipment at elections has gone up with changes in technology— the cost of computers, telephones, desk-top printing and so on. We believe that there might be a case for distinguishing in expenses between capital and recurrent expenditure in that changed technological context.
We also need to bear in mind that some of the changes in election techniques, particularly telephone canvassing, may make it more difficult in time to trace the expenditure that was actually made through such methods of eliciting political support.
On the European elections, to look forward, my party is now committed to an idea which the Liberal Party has had for a long time— namely, that the European Parliament should be elected by a more proportional system of voting. Eventually, if that came about, it would be necessary to reconsider the basis of the funding of election expenses since the voting system would be on a different basis from the one that prevails at the moment.
Finally, we welcome the proposal to include grant-maintained schools within the ambit of the orders because we are keen to facilitate the greatest amount of access to polling stations. Of course, the wider the range of buildings that the authorities can use, the more scope there is for extending that kind of access. So we welcome it.
Overall, we welcome the orders. We believe that the time has come to have a closer look at the framework of British democracy and the real costs associated with it, as well as the need to limit national expenditure on elections.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House long on this issue. I wish to associate myself with what the noble Lord has just said about the disparity in the nature of the orders between local and national expenditure. It is ludicrous to say that for local expenditure a fixed sum must be adhered to at all costs and very severe penalties are incurred if those costs are exceeded. But nationally, the Conservative Party can raise money from heaven knows where — Asil Nadir or anyone else— to splurge the country with advertisements, media coverage, and anything they can, and that is apparently totally uncontrolled. I cannot understand 1592 what the principle is. I hope that the noble Baroness will tell me the philosophical principle which makes it appropriate to have a close control over local parliamentary election expenditure and no control whatever over national expenditure. How can that conceivably be justified on any grounds at all? Perhaps the noble Baroness will address that problem when she answers what I have to say.
I also think that it is perfectly correct, as the noble Lord said, that we are reaching a stage when electoral procedures, tactics and practice have changed very substantially from what they were some time ago. It is time we looked at the matter again in a more comprehensive way than these particular orders envisage. We should keep up with those changes and adjust our practice to them. It is important for democracy that our practice should keep in step with the advances which technology introduces. On all those issues I welcome the orders. I regard them as interim orders, a preliminary to some general review of the way in which we conduct these matters.

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Bonham-Carter, for their observations on this matter and for their welcome for the orders as such. Both noble Lords rightly drew attention to the fact that information technology and its changes have an effect in the area of electioneering, as they do in any other area. I am sure that my right honourable and learned friend will note the remarks that were made by both noble Lords and also those on the issue of national expenditure by political parties. As both noble Lords rightly said, that issue is outside the scope of the orders which I put before the House.
Perhaps I may also say that the differential in borough and county expenses is based on geography and recognises certain facts which I believe at this time are fair. I am grateful to the noble Lords, and I commend these four orders to the House.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that the fact that national expenditure is outside these orders is critical. Will she tell us why she thinks national expenditure is outside these orders?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, I am moving four orders to deal with the specific matter of expenditure by candidates in local and European elections. That is the reason why I am here tonight.