House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Feb 1991

Dr. Marek : These are important matters. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), who has taken part in many Finance Bill debates, would not wish to gloss over significant variations in figures and would want to know why such differences occurred.

Slough spent £4,079.86, whereas Alyn and Deeside spent £1.27. Fylde spent £573.38 on stamping instruments, but Calder Valley spent £2.47. In Halton, no charge for copies of the electoral register was made against the Consolidated Fund, whereas in Harwich £140 was spent. We should not capriciously debit the Consolidated Fund. If it is debited, it should be for a good purpose. Finally, miscellaneous expenses--

Mr. Jacques Arnold : Is this final?

Dr. Marek : It is the final matter in the list, but it is not the end of my speech.

Slough had miscellaneous expenses of £9,656.83, whereas Halton spent £22.42. It seems that some constituencies carefully husband their resources, but I do not suggest that they should do so at the expense of providing comfortable working conditions for staff and convenience for the electors. I have not been to Slough, but perhaps it is a dangerous place and it may be necessary to engage taxis to take staff home at night. Plainly, Alyn and

Column 533

Deeside is not a dangerous place because the returning officer there feels that there is no risk in transporting ballot boxes. There are wide variations in the list, and they cannot be explained by saying that constituencies are diverse. There must be another explanation ; and if there is, it must be unusual and must relate to circumstances that arise at a particular time. The National Audit Office should look at individual expenses to make sure that they are reasonable. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has just entered the Chamber, so I now have some support.

The clause is tightly drawn because we do not want to put the National Audit Office under great pressure. It asks that the National Audit Office should look at any payments

"relating to a service or expense of any specified description for which no maximum recoverable amount has been specified by the Treasury under subsection (3) of section 29 of this Act "-- that is, the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Bill makes changes to the 1983 Act and the new clause is sensible and sober. It does not ask for much, and I look forward to the Government's acceptance of it.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples) : The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made an interesting speech. I cannot explain all the differences in the expenses that he outlined. He mentioned transport costs. I think that in Alyn and Deeside the ballot boxes must have been taken on the bus ; and, clearly, in urban constituencies some people are not willing to work late at night unless taxis are provided to take them home. The fitting out of election rooms often occurs because local authorities have become increasingly reluctant to disrupt schools for a whole day. That means that other premises have to be found, rented and fitted out. The present system of checking expenses is that no payment can be made from the Consolidated Fund without the approval of the National Audit Office and the Treasury. That is a statutory requirement. The National Audit Office also audits the Consolidated Fund. We think that that scrutiny is adequate.

If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would cause considerable administrative problems. Fewer than 50 per cent. of the expenditure headings would have maxima attached to them, meaning that about 20 expenditure headings would be subject to the procedure set out in this clause, multiplied by 650 constituencies. We are talking about a lot of specific checks and information.

The Government's view is that it would be expensive to administer, involving a lot of extra work, which would be difficult to justify, and the publishing of much information which, I suspect, eventually, nobody would read. Additionally, there would be a delay of between one and two years. As there is a general election only every four or five years, the work on checking those expenses and details is spread out over a year or two, and the information, if it were published, would necessarily be published somewhat late.

I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman in Committee that, should any hon. Member wish to know the details of the expenditure in any constituency, this

Column 534

could be achieved by tabling a parliamentary question. The hon. Gentleman did that in respect of his own constituency.

If the functions were transferred under this Bill from the Treasury to the Home Departments, which is a possibility envisaged by clause 1(4) of the Bill, the system would change slightly ; payments under these regulations would be administered by the Home Departments, so what would be transferred from the Consolidated Fund would be blocks of money rather than payments of specific headings of expense. Those could be transferred only with the approval of the National Audit Office and the Treasury, but individual payments to constituencies would be made by the Home Departments concerned which would be responsible for checking the individual payments, subject to later audit by the NAO. This is the usual system of public expenditure control.

The National Audit Office is responsible to Parliament for producing accounts for these Departments and for the Consolidated Fund. The Public Accounts Committee could look into these activities if it wanted to.

I hope that I have succeeded in persuading the House that adding this clause to the Bill would cause administrative delays, and would serve no useful purpose and that existing scrutiny is adequate. Question put and negatived.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Question on the new clause was put twice. On the first occasion only aye was shouted, so why was the Question put again?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not follow the loud example of Opposition Members by shouting. I said no.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : That dispute had better be resolved by hon. Members.

Clause 1

Charges for returning officers' services and expenses

10.30 pm

Dr. Marek : I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 13, at end add

but subject to the condition that any fees paid to any Returning Officer or Acting Returning Officer for conducting a combined poll will be no higher than what would have been the higher of the individual fees paid had the elections not been combined'. The amendment seeks to achieve greater fairness. Hon. Members will know that acting returning officers and returning officers receive a specified fee for conducting parliamentary and general elections. The fee for conducting parliamentary elections is about £1,000 and the acting returning officer in an average constituency receives about £1,100. For European elections the fee is much higher. Statutory instrument 995 on the representation of the people, which came into force on 13 June 1989, shows that for conducting a European parliamentary constituency election a returning officer receives at least £6,760, to which various emoluments are added. Returning officers at European elections would perhaps receive about £7,500.

Column 535

Returning officers have a fully inclusive salary from their local authorities, and I do not think that they forgo any of that at any stage. On 23 January I asked the Home Secretary

"whether for the 1987 general election any chief executive of a local authority (a) refused appointment as an acting returning officer or (b) took unpaid leave from their authority in order to carry out the function of an acting returning officer."

The Minister of State, Home Office, replied :

"Chief executives of local authorities in England and Wales who are acting returning officers are not directly appointed to that office : they have a statutory responsibility to carry out the duties of acting returning officers by virtue of the fact that they are electoral registration officers appointed by a district or London borough council."

Because they are appointed electoral registration officers, they automatically become acting returning officers. The Minister went on to say :

"We are not aware of any chief executive who took unpaid leave in order to carry out the duties of acting returning officer at the last general election."--[ Official Report, 23 January 1991 ; Vol. 184, c. 185. ]

However, it is clear that there are constituencies where, if one is not an acting returning officer or returning officer but a presiding officer or poll clerk, one's pay is docked for the day because a poll clerk receives the princely sum of £50 or so and a presiding officer receives, I think, £84.

That does not seem to be fair. If people are paid an extra fee, so be it, although I am not sure that I am convinced of the rightness of that, but I do not see why, if there is a combined poll, that fee should be further increased. Schedule 2 of the statutory instrument relates to the scale of maximum charges in respect of services rendered and expenses incurred by returning officers for specified functions at combined polls. Where the returning officer conducts a parliamentary election on the same day as a European parliamentary election, the fee is £217. That is just the fee, but there are disbursements in addition. I do not think that there can be an argument for paying that sum, although it is small.

I am glad that the Minister agreed in Committee to consider again combined polls and fees paid. I hope that he has done so. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Mr. Maples : The hon. Gentleman said in Committee that he would return to the question. What he suggests is that, when two polls are conducted on the same day, the returning officer should receive only the higher of the two fees. We believe that the returning officer should receive more than the higher fee but less than the total of the two combined. There is more work involved in running a combined poll, but obviously less than in running two separate polls. The returning officer has more complicated arrangements to make for polling stations, counting ballots and the co-ordination and liaison of two polls being conducted at the same time on the same day in the same polling stations.

There are considerable complications in deciding exactly how the fees should be arranged in the circumstances of a combined poll. For instance, a returning officer might be the returning officer in both elections or he might be the returning officer in only one election. The fees paid to returning officers in local government elections are set and paid not by the Government, but by local authorities. In some cases they may be incorporated in the returning officer's salary. The duties may be part of

Column 536

his contract. They are more usually reimbursed with an additional and separate fee. The fees are agreed informally by local authorities. Most local authorities pay according to the scale that they have agreed.

There is the inter-action of three sets of fees--parliamentary, European and local elections fees--together with the different combinations of returning officers' duties. The same person could be returning officer in the parliamentary and the European elections, or the returning officer in only one. In the case of the parliamentary election, the returning officer could be returning officer for more than one parliamentary election within the same Euro-constituency or the same local authority.

We recognise the concern over the matter. Large fees are involved. It is clear that people should not get two fees. The hon. Gentleman's probing has thrown up anomalies in the regulations. There are no regulations which deal with parliamentary elections being combined with local elections. When the new regulations are introduced, we will deal with the problem. I cannot say exactly how we will do so, but we will make sure that a returning officer receives an appropriate amount more than the higher fee, but considerably less than both fees together.

In the case of a Euro-election, I am afraid that the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not make the provision which I have described as being the Government's policy. They allow for both fees to be paid, with the £217 in addition. That is a mistake. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for illuminating the mistake which we will put right. Those regulations will also be amended to make sure that practice is in line with policy, which would be that a sum appropriately in excess of the higher fee would be paid, but on no account would both fees combined be paid. On absolutely no account would a supplement in excess of both fees be paid.

I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Marek : I am glad to have been of some service to the Treasury. What the Minister said has been illuminating. There are, indeed, no regulations about parliamentary elections combined with local elections. What the Minister has said cheers me up. I think that we will get our financial business right as a result. It shows that the debate has been worthwhile.

In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Dr. Marek : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10, at end insert

(3A) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted--

"(6) No superannuation contributions will be required to be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section as part of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose.".'. Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert

(3A) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted--

"(6) No superannuation contributions shall be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section as part of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose.".'.

Column 537

Dr. Marek : These amendments deal with superannuation. The House will know that payments made to acting returning officers and to returning officers are superannuable. I shall not repeat our arguments in Committee, but general concern was expressed there about this practice for fees for elections. Conservative Members pointed out that the pensions of returning officers who retired after a spate of elections would be increased, while the pensions of returning officers who retired perhaps after four or five years without an election, or with only one election, would not be increased. It was felt that that was inherently unfair, and that there was an element of chance when an acting returning officer retired.

I would go further, as I do not think that such payments should be superannuable. The claim would again be against the Consolidated Fund. Returning officers have a good salary--as they should--and are well paid for the job that they do. Clearly, as they are appointed electoral registration officers and necessarily become acting returning officers, it could be said that the latter duties should be part of their duties on behalf of the local authority and that they should carry them out for nothing.

That is not the position and the history is somewhat different. However, it is unnecessary for any fees to be superannuable. It causes a lot of administration and introduces an element of chance. We could well do without it and I recommend to the Economic Secretary that the Treasury should save its money and keep the Consolidated Fund in a healthy surplus.

The two amendments differ slightly. The first states that : "No superannuation contributions will be required to be paid by a local authority in respect of any person",

giving the option to the local authority, if it so wished, to pay a superannuable contribution to the fee. Nevertheless, the amendment also states that

"no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose."

It is a permissive amendment, but it protects the Consolidated Fund from any depredations by way of superannuation contributions. Amendment No. 2 is a little more strict and states that : "No superannuation contributions shall be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose."

As I am a generous person, I have given the Economic Secretary a choice this time. He can accept either amendment, and I shall be delighted to hear which it is.

Mr. Maples : This is another matter that was raised in Committee and to which we said that we would return on Report. I am gratified by the interest of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) in the health of the Consolidated Fund. I wish that his interest were shared by some of his colleagues, and sometimes by some of mine. The question of superannuation is difficult. We discussed it in Committee, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee expressed the view that payments should not be superannuable. I said in Committee that I would do two things. First, I would let the House know what procedure was necessary to change the arrangement and whether it was necessary to amend the Superannuation Act 1972, or whether this could be achieved by amending the 1986 regulations. It can be done by changing the regulations.

Column 538

I said also that I would look into the matter and take it further within the Government. This subject really concerns the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, telling him of the anxiety expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on this issue and suggesting that it is appropriate to look into the matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham will understand that it is more complex than it appears on the surface. Therefore, I am not in a position to give him the Government's considered view at present, but I shall do so when a decision has been reached. The amendments would simply stop the contributions. The fees would remain superannuable, under the 1986 regulations ; the employee--in this case the returning officer--would have to make his contribution, but one of the amendments would stop the local authority from making its contribution while the other would give it the right not to do so if it so wished. In neither case would the authority be reimbursed from the Consolidated Fund.

The pension rights of the returning officer would remain in place, but part of the funding would be removed. We do not consider that that is the right way to deal with the matter. If the House decided that it wanted to deal with it by ensuring that such payments would not be superannuable in the future, the right way to do so would be to amend the 1986 regulations.

10.45 pm

That would be a complex process, and would involve questions of fairness. Some people who have acted as returning officers for some time will have been paying money into their local authorities' pension funds for several years, and that arrangement could not suddenly change : transitional arrangements would be needed. We all take a great interest in our own pension arrangements, and I suspect that local authority chief executives and others who act as returning officers take an equal interest.

The views expressed in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House have been communicated to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government are considering the matter, and I will inform the hon. Member for Wrexham as soon as we form a view.

Dr. Marek : I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I assure him that the Opposition did not intend to deprive anyone of benefits that have already been agreed to, and which people expect to gain when they retire. The Minister is quite right : it is not a simple matter to table an amendment in the way in which we have sought to do. I readily accept that ours are defective.

I shall wait with interest to see what happens. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-- [Mr. Maples.]

10.47 pm

Dr. Marek : The Bill has not taken too much of the House's time. In Committee, it took us a single sitting to go through a number of amendments, as a result of which certain things will happen that would not have happened

Column 539

without our debate. This is, I think, an example of parliamentary deliberations improving a Bill. I hope that the Bill is now in a fit state to be added to the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Column 540

LIAISON

Ordered,

That Mr. Nicholas Winterton be added to the Liaison Committee.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Column 541

Territorial Army

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

10.48 pm

Mr. Neil Thorne (Ilford, South) : Let me say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is replying to the debate--accompanied by his parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). Many hon. Members are interested in this subject, however--including, I believe, your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I number among those who are present my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Winchester (Mr. Browne), for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).

The gravity of the situation in the Gulf has again highlighted the need for the United Kingdom to retain an adequate military capability. The response to recent events has illustrated the Army's ability to meet the challenge of the unexpected in a magnificent manner while it continues to fulfil its roles in Northern Ireland, Belize, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and many other parts of the globe. However, to meet this new demand our forces in north- west Europe and in the United Kingdom have been stripped both of men and of material. But for the lessening of tension in Europe, I doubt whether we should have been able to respond. Even so, we have had to recall individual reservists and have enlisted nearly 1,000 territorial soldiers in support of Operation Granby. This includes those who have had to volunteer for service on a regular engagement in order to ensure that they could take part.

There is a large element of the Territorial Army general hospital deployed to the Gulf--namely, 205 General Hospital from Glasgow, along with individuals from many regiments and corps. Of course, they would all have preferred to be deployed as part of their own units, but, because the TA has not been embodied, many have volunteered as individuals.

The House will also be interested to know that in addition to those TA soldiers who have enlisted their services in support of operations in the Gulf, many have been employed during their normal training periods in this country in various roles directly in support of those operations. A number of TA personnel have been instructing regular service men in a variety of special skills prior to their deployment.

The House will be aware that regular reservists are ex-regular soldiers who have a statutory liability to serve, while the territorials are all volunteers. Many members of the Territorial Army are clearly disappointed that they have not been called upon to contribute to the operation in view of what in recent years has been referred to as the "one Army" concept.

Here I should mention that those reservists who have responded and have been successful in going have been supported magnificently by their employers in every case. I think that we should acknowledge that, and I hope that the Department will in due course write individually to those employers expressing thanks.

Column 542

The disappointment of territorial soldiers is increased by the knowledge that so many of the regular Army units serving in the Gulf have had to be brought up to strength from other units and individual reservists. Nevertheless, it is heartening to know that our volunteers who have in the past so often come to the defence of our country still feel that same sense of loyalty.

We have rightly hoped for a peace dividend with the advent of glasnost and it was with this in mind that the Secretary of State announced in the House on 25 July 1990 his intention to conduct studies into "Options for Change" for defence. In his statement, he said :

"volunteer reserves will continue to play a key role, and we wish to consider the appropriate numbers for the future, having regard to our needs and realistic levels of recruitment and retention."--[ Official Report, 25 July 1990 ; Vol. 177, c.472.]

His more recent statement on 22 January indicated that the studies on "Options for Change" would take account of the changes in eastern Europe and the Gulf operations. The House may not be aware that, despite those statements, an exercise continues within the Ministry of Defence aimed at drastic reductions in the TA. The feeling among many of those concerned is that the cuts proposed are such that they could in the long term mean the demise of the Territorial Army as we know it today.

That would seem unbelievable when comparing the relative costs of the territorial and regular forces. In the plans for the support of NATO, the TA provided one third of the Army at only 6 per cent. of its total cost. The cost of a volunteer is about one seventh of that of a regular soldier.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the need for a reduction in the services after the Gulf war, terrorism will not go away and, therefore, the need for the Territorial Army to be available at stations and airports will grow, and that it would be folly for this exercise within the Ministry to continue?

Mr. Thorne : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate for making that important point ; it is one which we must consider seriously.

If we are to recruit, train and retain an adequate number of volunteer soldiers, they must feel that they belong to a worthwhile organisation. That will not be the case if we reduce their units to skeleton strength and split them up in war among previously unknown commanders. Nor shall we encourage a healthy community spirit if we organise them on a central rather than a territorial basis, with a lesser training commitment. That has already been demonstrated by the difficulty experienced in recruiting for the home service force, which had that lesser commitment. If we take that course, we shall lose many of our volunteers and find it difficult to attract the quality of recruits required.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : I have recently returned from a drill night with a home service force unit, at which we were told that the number of man training days next year is to be reduced by a quarter.

Mr. Thorne : I hope that that is only a temporary measure, as the importance of proper training for the TA is vital.

Column 543

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : The community feature of the Territorial Army is especially important the further away from London one is. There is a loyalty to the unit and the cap badge, and to the community. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that loyalty were lost, many would not bother to join the TA in the first place?

Mr. Thorne : My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks.

While military operations will remain the prime role of the Territorial Army, I see tremendous scope for employment in support of the civil community, especially in the event of national disasters such as the Lockerbie air and Clapham rail tragedies. The House will be aware that Territorial Army volunteers played a valuable part at Lockerbie and were some of the first on the scene of the accident. The present spread of Territorial Army units across the country provides, at little cost, a framework in the community to maintain an awareness of our defence responsibilities. It provides a source for utilising the energies of young people who wish to serve their country, but would not necessarily wish to be part of the regular forces. Many of those who join to get a taste of military life later transfer to the regular forces.

The large network of TA units plays a valuable part in any community and, along with our cadet forces, instils a sense of discipline and civic responsibility in our young men and women. I am concerned that the Ministry of Defence, faced with inadequate resources for its regular forces, will take decisions about the Territorial Army, as it did in 1967, that might be justified against the precise military needs of today, but which are contrary to the wider and longer-term interests of the nation and which once implemented would be almost impossible to reverse.

As we pull forces out of Germany, there will be great difficulties in providing accommodation and training areas for an adequate regular army, quite apart from the pressures on defence spending. That is all the more reason for retaining a strong TA. These citizen soldiers are high calibre, well-motivated people whose training standards can be quickly improved in time of tension--and we can expect more warning time now that the Warsaw pact has crumbled.

The success of the United States in mobilising many members of the National Guard and reserves, and the political backing that this has received, helps to prove that reserves can make a most valuable contribution in a variety of circumstances.

The nationwide spread of the TA is an important element in its continuing effectiveness. The benefits to those who train in the TA help to make up for the lack of national service in bringing the benefits of military training to many more of our young people than could ever join the regular forces. Indeed, the TA provides a valuable link between the military and the community as a whole and promotes an awareness of defence requirements.

However, if the figures said to be under consideration are true--a reduction from an establishment of 86,000 to a possible 51,000--the TA might not be sustainable. The reduction of an infantry battalion to cadre size, while retaining cap badges, for example, does not provide either the challenge or the esprit de corps that will attract the volunteer.

Column 544

Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : My hon. Friend's active support of the TA is well known. Does he agree that the TA offers flexibility of manning as well as of spending for the Army, both of which are extremely important? If we use the TA, we can spend more on the essential battlefield oxygen of logistics. We are learning how important that is in the Gulf, in a modern high-intensity battlefield. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation surrounding Queen's order No. 2 is too inflexible and that the Government are not able to use the TA to best advantage?

Mr. Thorne : My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This is a matter which ought to be looked into. In my view, there will be an increasing role for the TA. Unless we explore all avenues, we shall not get the maximum benefit.

The argument that the recruited strength of the Territorial Army is only 71,000 and that, therefore, the reduction would not be serious is incorrect, in that a reduction to 51,000 would lead to a reduction in the actual strength of about 40,000. It is, of course, essential that the strength of senior officers and non-commissioned officers be maintained so that in times of emergency there is a firm base on which to build.

How does the proposed reduction in the Territorial Army, together with the reductions that have already taken place in the funding of training, square with the statement of the Secretary of State on 25 July that greater use is to be made of the reserves? Can the House be assured that the Government accept that an effective TA recruited widely across the country is of vital importance to the life of the nation, that no proposals for the reduction of the Territorial Army have been agreed by the Army Board and, moreover, that any decisions on its future size and shape will be delayed until after the conclusion of operations in the Gulf when the lessons of that conflict have been analysed?

11.1 pm

Next Section

Home Page