Draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (City of London) Order 2005
Third Standing Committee
on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 19 January 2005
[Mrs. Irene Adams in the Chair]
Draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (City of London) Order 2005
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (City of London) Order 2005.
I am delighted to be in your capable hands this afternoon, Mrs. Adams. I hope that we can move the business through expeditiously. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] I thought that that might get agreement.
The order is intended to increase the maximum limit of expenditure of candidates standing at ward elections and elections by liverymen in common hall in the City of London. The current limits for such elections are laid down in section 197(1) and (2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and were last set in March 1997.
Clearly, the value of money has changed since that time, and, under section 197(3) of the 1983 Act, the relevant Secretary of State—in this case, the Deputy Prime Minister—has power to vary the maximum limits of such election expenses if, in his view, there has been a change in the value of money since the last occasion on which such limits were set.
It is clear to the Deputy Prime Minister, as I am sure it is clear to everyone in this Committee, that there has been a change in the value of money since the limits were last set almost eight years ago, as evidenced by changes to the gross domestic product deflator figures, which show an increase of 21.38 per cent. To reflect the change, the Government propose that the maximum limits for ward elections be increased from £219 and 4.3p per elector to £266 and 5.2p per elector, and for elections by liverymen in common hall from 23.3p per elector to 28.3p per elector. The order, when approved, would give effect to the proposal.
Like me, hon. Members might wonder why we have introduced an order that deals only with the City of London. The reason is that the legislation clearly states that we can change only City of London candidates' election expenses limits in line with a change in the value of money. Sections 191 to 198 of the 1983 Act make provision for elections in the City of London, which are different from other local authority elections.
Column Number: 4
In relation to election expenses for candidates for local government elections and for parliamentary elections, the Secretary of State has powers to make an order either to take into account a change in the value of money or to give effect to a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. The commission has more options, in that it may recommend an increase or a decrease that is below or above the change in the value of money, or, indeed, no change at all.
The Government have asked the Electoral Commission what the maximum limits should be for local government and parliamentary elections, with a view to introducing another order in time for this year's elections. The commission published its recommendation five days ago, on 14 January. The Government are grateful to the commission for its work, and we are carefully considering its recommendation. However—this is the point—there are no powers in legislation for the Government to seek or give effect to a recommendation from the Electoral Commission for the City of London.
Hon. Members may be interested to know that the Government are not obliged to consult on the draft of the order. Nevertheless, we felt that it would be beneficial to consult key stakeholders. Two substantive responses from the City of London and the Electoral Commission were received, both supporting the order. The City was pleased that an uprating is being done, and the Electoral Commission confirmed that the order was suitable to give effect to the Government's proposal but pointed out that, for the longer term, the anomaly in the legislation should be addressed. We will give some thought to that. In the meantime, there is nothing that prevents the change that we are proposing from being made for the City of London, given that the order needs to be in place in time for the issue of the election notice for the March elections.
A fuller outline of the consultation responses has been given in the summary of consultation responses that we placed in the House Library on 9 December 2004. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
2.34 pm
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): I thank the Minister for his explanation of this fairly straightforward order. It is welcomed in the City, all the more so because, as he rightly said, permissible amounts were last uprated as long ago as 1997. In fact, as he pointed out, for local authorities in general—although the City does not fall into that category, and I shall say more about that in a moment—the amounts were uprated by a statutory instrument as recently as 2001, so the adjustment in the order is fairly well timed. The order increases the amount that can be spent by candidates in elections for the common council—those who represent City wards—and for the election of the sheriffs and the lord mayor.
Perhaps I should make it clear for the sake of completeness, because it is not referred to in the order, that the measures governing candidates' election expenses are to be found in the City of London Ballot
Column Number: 5
Act 1887, not in general electoral law. That represents the individuality of the City's electoral arrangements. I mention that because the consultation paper mentioned by the Minister earlier contains references to the legislative basis for uprating local authorities more generally. The nature of the City's electoral system means that such a comparison is likely to be of somewhat limited assistance, as those who were, like me, involved in the parliamentary passage of the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002 realised rather quickly.
The draft order is timely, especially since the common council elections are due to take place in mid-March. At that juncture, as the Minister is aware, we in the City of London will revert to a more typical four-year electoral cycle.
The other important factor is that, with the 2002 Act, we will have a larger franchise in the City of London, which will involve not just individuals, partnerships and sole practitioners, but corporates and companies.
Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston) (Lab): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his explanation of the activities in the City of London. Just out of curiosity, can he say how many liverymen there are in common hall?
Mr. Field: I wish that, at Prime Minister's Question Time today, the hon. Gentleman had asked such difficult questions of his Prime Minister as he asks of me. Some 5,000 or 6,000 liverymen are entitled to vote, many of whom are not ordinarily resident in the City of London. I am not sure how many are resident in Glasgow, Shettleston. The hon. Gentleman may yet find that one or two old-fashioned liveries have connections north of the border. A number in Newcastle and Sheffield maintain strong links with the livery hall system to this day.
I hope that I will not get any more questions. The Minister has had too easy a ride today. Given that there are one or two other things that all hon. Members wish to get on with, I hope that the Minister is satisfied that we are happy to support the order.
2.38 pm
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey) (LD): Mrs. Adams, I, too, am happy to serve under your chairmanship; this is another way to keep your London MP under control.
I support the order and agree with what the Minister said about its logic. As soon as we can, we should put expenses for City of London elections in the same place as all the other local election expenses. There may be a different franchise or electoral system, but logically we should do that. It might be a good idea to tie expenses to the value of money because, once we have got the base rate right, it would be easier to increase them in line with inflation.
I have one question for the Minister and one observation. I have checked the last election results to see how many people voted and what figures we are talking about. It might amuse the Committee to know that the highest vote for any of the winning candidates
Column Number: 6
in any of the wards was 408 and that, in a by-election with a turnout of 18.76 per cent., somebody got elected on 7 December 2004 in the Bridge ward with 45 votes. People cannot need many expenses to be able to muster 45 votes, but we are talking about a different species of election.
I should have declared an interest. I am an elector. For historical reasons, I am still a member of chambers in King's Bench Walk, although I do not practise, and although I may vote I have not done so for a long time.
Can the Minister tell us, either now or later by way of a note, what the maximum cost could be under the new provisions, given the number of wards there are and the number of people to be elected? There will be new sorts of elections in the City. That was a controversial change, but it is a move in the right direction; it is better than the old system. If the Minister has a rough idea of that cost, it will be helpful to hear it, although it is probably small beer. If he does not have that information to hand, I will be happy to receive it later, when he has a convenient moment.
