HL Deb 14 March 1997 vol 579 cc564-7

12.18 p.m.

Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11th and 12th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these draft orders, which were laid before Parliament on 11th and 12th February respectively, are very limited in scope but necessary. The draft Representation of the People (Variation of the Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 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 draft Local Elections (Variations of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 increases the limits at local elections in Northern Ireland. The proposed increase will ensure that the maxima for candidates' election expenses at local elections in northern Ireland correspond to those being proposed for England, Scotland and Wales.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has power under the Representation of the People Act 1983 to vary the maximum limits on expenditure which candidates are permitted to incur. He may do so where in his view there has been a change in the value of money since the amounts were last set, provided that the variation is in his opinion such as is justified by that change.

The limits which this order will replace are currently set out in orders which came into effect in 1994. The increase of 6.95 per cent. which is now proposed will bring the maxima in line with changes in inflation since March 1994. They will raise the amount which a candidate may spend at the next general election from £4,642 plus 5.2p. per elector in a county constituency, or £4,642 plus 3.9p. in a borough constituency, to £4,965 and 5.6p. or 4.2p. respectively. Proportional increases are also proposed for maxima at parliamentary by-elections, local elections, including ward elections in the City of London, and expenses at an election by liverymen in common hall.

I beg to move that these draft orders be approved.

Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11th and 12th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committed—(Baroness Blatch.)

Lord McNally

My Lords, whenever I see the words "election expenses" I develop a nervous twitch. Perhaps I may explain why. After I lost my seat in 1983, I was catching a Tube in London when I saw a headline in the Evening Standard. It indicated that candidates were to be prosecuted for electoral expenditure misdemeanours. I wondered which rascals they were. I got hold of the paper and saw my name as one of those about to be investigated.

I rang my agent, who was a schoolteacher, a volunteer. She had telephoned Stockport Town Hall. I asked her, "Didn't we get the figure from Stockport Town Hall before the election?". She said, "Yes, but they made a mistake. Because of a boundary redistribution they added in a ward which you had lost and the figure they gave us was too large.". I thought that that was all right; that was the explanation.

I was next contacted by Manchester Police, who said that they wanted to see me. I had to meet two policemen. They were dressed regularly, one in a smart suit and one in a leather jacket. They gave me a regular grilling. To my great worry, I was suddenly facing possible charges that would debar me from public office for five years.

I received a particularly helpful letter from the then Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. David Mellor, which I sent on to the Manchester Police. Following due reflection, they decided that there was no criminal intent on my part and they dropped the case. However, the fact that we have such absurd contrasts in our electoral laws always sticks in my mind. We have tight and precise rules of expenditure for individual candidates, contrasted with a Liberty Hall as regards national expenditure.

What is more worrying, and it is the reason for my intervention, is that increasingly we are seeing at local level a cynicism and an abuse of local expenditure limits which are unhealthy. It is not sensible for Parliament to pass laws which are held in contempt by parliamentarians themselves. The problem was summed up by Professor David Butler, whom everyone recognises as our leading academic authority on electoral law. He said: In the last 50 years the laws regulating elections have stood still. But the practices of electioneering have been transformed.". I believe that he was referring to the quality of the advertisements that are now used and the mass poster advertising in constituencies. However, that can he double-edged, because I understand that Labour Members are now queuing up to ask the Conservatives to put up the "Tony & Bill" poster in their constituencies. Mass newspaper advertising, the computerisation of canvassing, e-mailing, candidates' bleepers and mobile phones, instant rebuttal units, direct mail and telephone canvassing all fall within these regulations but in real terms they are hard to explain and justify under a limit of about £8 million.

The fact is that the £60 million or £70 million which candidates will spend at local level will be dwarfed by the national expenditure. As was pointed out the other day by the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, in the case of the Conservative Party a deficit of £18 million is turned into a fighting fund of £40 million. From where that came we know not. There is a contrast between such precise control of local candidates and the vague and opaque nature of national funding.

I do not wish to make too many party political points. The Conservatives have been talking about "blind" funds in the Labour Party, and I suppose that the party of Lloyd George must always tread warily on these matters. I raised the matter during Question Time the other day because I believe that as a nation we are on a slippery slope as regards election expenditure. I do not believe that we have a corrupt political system, but pressures are at work which are leading towards corruption. We have only to look across the Atlantic today to see problems about party fund-raising and to realise that, although we may not be able to deal with them with this small, technical order, whoever is occupying those Benches in the next Parliament must take a serious, all-party look at the way in which we control expenditure in our elections both locally and nationally. I hope that it will be made more transparent and respected. In that way we shall add greatly to the credibility and standing of the political process among the public at large.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, we have before us some limited and focused regulations. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has gratuitously ranged over many subjects which go way beyond the regulations before us. For someone who said that he had no wish to be party political, I believe that he was gratuitously party political in much of what he said.

I was also saddened by his remarks. For a long time electoral legislation was part of my portfolio. Therefore I know the extent to which officials in the department talk almost continuously with members from all political parties but particularly from the Liberal and Labour parties. All these subjects come under discussion and from time to time measures come before the House for agreement. Therefore, many of the issues raised by the noble Lord range way beyond the matters before us.

We are all relieved to know that the noble Lord did not end up on the wrong side of the law, particularly as the mitigating circumstances were so obvious. It was a pity that there had to be an intervention at national level and that the matter could not be resolved locally. Electoral law is important; it is important that there are rules and that they are obeyed as far as possible. I take the noble Lord's point about rules being achievable and, as far as possible, practicable and they must have meaning. However, I return the House to the measures before it and I commend them to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.