| Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
|
|
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Let me take the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) back over his past 20 years to illustrate why it is so important to distinguish between by-elections and general elections. We all accept that by-elections have become a national event. They act as large-scale opinion polls of the popularity of the Government or of the particular policy objectives of an Opposition candidate. They are increasingly viewed on a national stage as a result of increasing accessibility of information through the media. It is vital that the Bill distinguishes between general elections and by-elections. I want to be neutral, as I could point fingers at all three main parties. Let us consider the Warrington by-election of 1981 in which Lord Hoyle was first elected. I was at the centre of that election and was surprised at the extraordinary expenditure of what I believe was the party of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove at that time-the Social Democrats. For the first time, computers were introduced into by-elections. On one occasion, I slipped into SDP headquarters to have a look around and was astonished at the wonderful array of technology around me, none of which was referred to in the election returns at the time. In the same year at Croydon, Bill Pitt was elected and similar levels of expenditure were incurred. More recently in the previous Parliament, the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election saw innovative descriptions in the election returns. I do not blame the parties for that. It is simply that the focus on by-elections has changed dramatically since that time. To bring us right up to date, the last by-election in which I was involved full time was Eddisbury, when the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was elected. Incidentally, given all the nasty things that we said about him during the by-election, he has turned out to be a very nice chap. I claim credit for inventing the slogan, ``Vote Labour or the fox gets it'', which almost got us there. My original version was, ``For fox sake, vote Labour''. We all recognise that the constraints on elections from existing legislation lead to a lack of transparency. Given the nature of by-elections today, we need to put a serious figure on expenditure while demanding that new legislation be applied rigorously. Perhaps that will soften the concerns that were expressed by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. He and I have both seen some interesting practices over the years. The way to overcome them is to use the provisions to create much more transparency, but within the framework of a figure that seriously reflects the expenditure that can be incurred during a local event that is nevertheless also national. Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset): I suspect that there may be a danger of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove being isolated by the force of opinion on this issue on both sides of the Committee. I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that by-election candidates, even those from the Conservative party, are nice chaps. Mr. Miller: I said that with hindsight. Mr. Walter: It is gratifying to know that that is the opinion of a Labour Member. The clause reflects reality: a by-election is often conducted in the glare of national publicity, so the criteria are somewhat different from those that apply to a general election campaign, especially in relation to the Bill and its provisions on national campaign expenditure for a general election and the local expenditure of individual candidates. Obviously, in a by-election that is held more than a year before a general election, the concept of national campaign expenditure for a general election does not apply. However, it is entirely reasonable that there should be a larger limit for individual by-election campaigns. There are also practical considerations. In general elections, candidates of the same party are likely to enjoy economies of scale in terms of the production of election literature. In my general election literature I and probably several hundred other Conservative candidates used the same printer and the same format so that the same colours went through the print run, enabling us to spend our meagre allowance on other election material during the campaign. One does not have those economies of scale in by-elections. Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea): The hon. Gentleman will remember that, to save on posters, the Conservative party had candidates called Evans in three successive by-elections. That finally resulted in the election of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
9.30 amMr. Walter: I suspect that the selection committees were not geared solely to that criterion, but it reminds me of when I stood as a local government candidate in 1975. The Member of Parliament for the constituency was Sir Dennis Walters and, quite legitimately, we paid for the posters but used those from his general election by crossing out the last letter of his name. That enabled me to fight quite a decent local government election campaign. I hasten to add that I lost by one vote, so it did not do me that much good. I should return to the amendment and the subsection. We are talking about an upper limit to which parties do not need to spend. The most recent by-election that I have been involved with was in Ceredigion. The Conservative party spent barely more on it than it would normally spend for a candidate in a general election, but our candidate still managed to come higher in the poll than Labour's did. There may have been special circumstances for that in Wales during the past week. That subject is not a million miles from the reason why I was a little late this morning: I was up all night taking part in radio programmes about it. There are economies of scale in a general election, and the clause would reflect the reality of by-elections. Mr. Grieve: I find myself in the happy state of agreeing with the comments made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, which has not always been the case in Committee. I also think that the figure for by-elections is reasonable. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove is right that it is undesirable that political parties spend too much at by-elections. We certainly do not want by-elections turned into an opportunity for unlimited sums to be spent, although I share my hon. Friend's view that excessive expenditure by political parties is likely to be counterproductive in any event. I fail to see any major difference between the sum proposed in the Bill and the sum suggested by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. Once the existing threshold is crossed, rounding the figure up as the Bill suggests is acceptable for the reasons that we discussed about providing a margin inside which political parties can spend. We must also try to ensure that we do not quickly have to tinker with figures once they are in the Bill. I am wholly comfortable with the figure proposed. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I think that the Government have it about right. Mr. Tipping: I was interested in the discussion of electoral posters, especially the experience of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). I remember a general election campaign in Bristol where the choice was between candidates called Cocks and Balls. I must be careful as one of them is now in the other place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for saying that his amendment is a probing one. However, I am not so grateful to him for saying that it was designed to test my thinking skills. I fear that I may not do very well early on a Thursday morning. The hon. Gentleman said that the figures were surprising, even for those on the inside of a by-election. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and I have been there. It is no secret that returns are sometimes higher than those given to the returning officer, which do not have much to do with reality. The Bill provides an opportunity to review the matter and come up with a more suitable figure. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove got a figure of £31,000 from the Library which, however, is likely to vary from seat to seat. The Neill committee identified an average spend of £34,000. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove said that earlier arguments I had made in Committee could be used against me. One such argument was that the Neill committee recommended £100,000. There is no special significance in that figure. We simple need some stability so that avoidance mechanisms are not used. The figure was widely consulted on and was included in the draft Bill. I remind the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that, at that point, his party did not respond to the matter, although the Scottish National party did raise it on Second Reading. The figure of £100,000 has been included because it was recommend by the Neill committee and is intended to bring clarity and viability. The Electoral Commission will examine the matter and monitor the position. In the light of experience, it will be possible to recommend another figure. I suspect that the commission will examine by-elections closely-that will be a good learning experience-and that another Committee discussing another Bill will have an opportunity to review the figure. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be satisfied with that. However, on this occasion, £100,000 is as good as £75,000. If we are honest, there is no real rationale. One simply has to take a stab at the matter and I invite my hon. Friends to take a stab at what is in the Bill, Mr. Stunell: I am pleased with our debate, which more or less confirms what I said about our motivation. There is an area of expenditure in which professionals, on several occasions, have gained an advantage from the system. The Bill is an attempt to regularise what happens comparatively often, as we might acknowledge outside the Committee. I may have given the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston a slightly misleading nod during his speech when he suggested that I was a member of the SDP at the time of the Warrington by-election. As the leader of the Alliance group on Cheshire county council I was certainly an active participant in that election, however I was a member of the Liberal party. I did not even see the computers. I was probably not sufficiently senior to be admitted into the holy of holies, which he evidently penetrated. The hon. Member for North Dorset suggested that I was somewhat isolated in this Committee. I would not want it to be thought that I was not isolated elsewhere, too. I am well aware that my party did not produce any counter arguments. I am not making a case against any particular party's approach, but one that goes back to first principles. I am quite sure that my party professionals would be disgusted as Labour or Conservative party professionals that I am moving an amendment of this sort. However, it is important for the Committee and the House to give some consideration to the issues that I have raised. The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to economies of scale and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) referred to the use of the name Evans. I have never been able to benefit from any economies of scale with my surname, which has been mis-spelt even by my own side on posters. One can achieve economies of scale by printing for several different constituencies and by other activities that were mentioned in relation to a general election, but one cannot get a thousandfold economy of scale from the £9,000 that can be spent in a general election in one constituency to the £100,000 that can be spent in a by-election. I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset will not mind if I pick him up on a few points. He said that I should remember that it was an upper limit. It would be an interesting concept if we were to build a lower limit into the Bill. Of course it is an upper limit, but that is precisely my point. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield said that it was fair enough to round it up, but that is Beaconsfield rounding up whereby £34,000 can be rounded up to £100,000. It is not my experience of rounding up. Perhaps I should have been a lawyer. We have all been able to have fun at each other's expense on this and it is clear that the professionals in all parties win the argument. However, I raised a serious issue that should be in the public domain. I welcome the Minister's statement that it is a matter to which the Electoral Commission will be invited to return, and it is proper that it should do so. The essence of the argument has been put to the Committee. It has been discussed and if it is to be revisited on another occasion, perhaps with the benefit of slightly more detailed research, I would welcome it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2000 | Prepared 10 February 2000 |
