| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.45 pm
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): Listening to the Home Secretary, it seems to me that, in some ways, we have regressed on the question of rules for elections. In the debate on proportional representation, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a former Member of Parliament for my home town of Chelmsford in Essex, the late Sir Hubert Ashton. He reminded the House of Sir Hubert saying that his job was to represent Chelmsford at Westminster and not the other way around.
As the Home Secretary revealed, we are both Essex-educated men: I at the local grammar school; he, rather more grandly, at the posh public school down the road, but I do not hold that against him. He will know from those earlier days that, for many years, there was no description of party at all on the ballot paper. In Chelmsford, one voted for Ashton or for Millington--the Liberal candidate did not really count; nothing really changes in Chelmsford. In those days, when class sizes could be more than 40, let alone 30, the people were sufficiently politically aware to work out for whom they should vote: they had received the election address; they had seen the posters; they were capable of remembering the allegiances.
Now, with the Bill, the Government are introducing a system whereby not only will the party of the candidate be set out on the ballot paper, but symbols will be printed on it, so as to make even clearer the party position. In his press release announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that casting one's vote will become even "simpler" as a result of the Bill, but I am not sure whether the illustration on page 10 of the Bill proves his case. My feeling is that the net effect of the symbols is to make a more crowded and rather bizarre ballot paper that is more likely to confuse than to inform. I remain deeply sceptical as to whether that change is necessary.
Mr. Swayne:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that complexity arises out of the electoral changes that the Government either have already initiated, or have in prospect, which will make the whole business of voting and the ballot paper so much more complicated that we might require such symbols in order to find out where we stand?
Sir Norman Fowler:
My hon. Friend takes me, in an almost seamless flow, on to my next points.
We have moved on a long way from the 1947 committee report on electoral law reform, which said,
There is no question but that confusion has been caused by candidates deliberately seeking to deceive and take advantage by getting on to the coat-tails of a well-recognised party or personality. I shall come to that later. The Bill is at least an intention to improve the position concerning the name of the party.
At the last general election, my former colleague Rod Richards, was opposed by a candidate who stood not only as Rod Richards, but for the so-called Conservatory party.
Although Rod Richards obtained an injunction on the misleading person or name, the candidate was still able to stand for the Conservatory party under his real name. There have been other well-known cases, including the case in the European elections in which a Literal Democrat stood. All parties have suffered as a result of those deceptions. I am on record as having sought a change in the position, which is why I give one cheer, at any rate, for the Bill and welcome its intention to prevent the confusion of the electorate.
However, we should be in no doubt about why the Bill is being introduced. It is not, first and foremost, to prevent the confusion that we have had in the past. The Home Office has seen many such problems. The Bill is being introduced because of the demands of proportional representation and, in particular, of a list system whereby parties, not candidates, are voted for. In the first sentence of the press release announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary said:
In Scotland, there will be 73 members elected by first past the post and 56 additional members. In Wales, there will 40 members elected by first past the post and 20 additional members. The additional members will be based on the old European constituencies, which will, in any event, disappear next year. We shall then have a new regional system of members without constituencies for the European elections. If ever there was an example of the Government making it up as they go along, it is this. The position may be bad enough already, but it would be worse if such a system were adopted for Westminster. On that point, I have hopes of making common cause with the Home Secretary.
Up to now, as the Home Secretary said, we have had a rather vicarious political relationship that dates back to the last time that I was in the shadow Cabinet. That was in Margaret Thatcher's first shadow Cabinet, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that I do not look that old. The Minister opposite me was the then Barbara Castle, a left-wing, self-avowed socialist--all the words that today induce a collective wince on the Government Benches. The Secretary of State's special adviser at that time was none other than the left-wing, socialist gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Politically, they were so close that he inherited her seat.
The reason that I mention that--apart from being gratuitously offensive--is that in my first debate on pensions, which the Home Secretary may remember, the then Secretary of State, supported, I presume, by her adviser, hastened away from the Chamber for a press conference on the referendum on Europe. She, perhaps with the right hon. Gentleman's support, was passionately opposed to entry into the European Community. Never mind the single currency--they did not want to go into the Community at all.
Sir Norman Fowler:
I know that I am carrying at least one of my hon. Friends with me.
At that time, the Cabinet had decided that Ministers could campaign on either side of the question. As we look ahead, therefore, we know that with the right hon. Gentleman's experience and his influence in Cabinet, he will be able to persuade his colleagues that if there is to be a referendum on proportional representation, Government Ministers will be able to follow their conscience. I look forward to the Home Secretary campaigning with us on that issue in favour of first past the post. I have waited 25 years to be on the same side as the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the fairest offer that I can make him, although I see that his natural discretion keeps him very much in his seat at this point.
Irrespective of whether that referendum happens, there are basic questions to be asked about the Bill. The first arises straight from the additional member system that the Government are introducing and has been raised by Michael Dyer, a lecturer in the department of politics at Aberdeen university. He raises the question whether political parties that are likely to receive few additional members should not create or foster surrogate parties. He uses the example of Scotland at the last general election--not, I emphasise, the next election. On that basis, Labour would have had such a high number of first-past-the-post victories that it would receive no additional members, or almost none.
Mr. Dyer goes on to offer a number of solutions. One, which he calls "a greater prize", involves Labour forging a pact with another party and delivering its list vote to that party. That would leave that party heavily dependent on continued Labour good will, rendering it less likely to desert a Labour-dominated coalition in difficult times.
The point that relates directly to the Bill is a further example that involves Labour, or its voters, forming an understanding with a so-called Independent Labour party that had received no first-past-the-post votes. Mr. Dyer estimates that if all Labour voters supported the ILP list, no fewer than 35 of the 56 additional members would be elected and, of course, the majority would be overwhelming. Equally, the spirit and principle of the change would be utterly defeated.
The question is, what can be done to prevent such a situation from arising. I am aware of the assurance given by a Minister in another place, but the question is not simply what is the Government's intention or even what is the Labour party's intention. We are making law. Doubtless we could create other scenarios in which other parties took similar actions, but the question is how abuse can be prevented.
The second question is even more relevant. The 1947 committee said that
"we think the nomination paper should describe the candidate and not the cause".
The Home Secretary set out some of the events that have led to confusion among the electorate and, at times, deliberate attempts to deceive them. That is the one good reason for supporting the Bill on Second Reading, and that is why we shall not be pressing for a Division.
"A formal register of political parties is essential for the smooth operation of the proposed PR systems for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Parliament."
The Bill has been introduced for the wrong reasons: to enable the introduction of a list system and an additional member system, which I and, I suspect, the Home Secretary find objectionable.
"the nomination paper should describe the candidate and not the cause",
but there have been well-known examples of attempts to deceive the electorate. I mentioned the case of Rod Richards, and the Home Secretary mentioned that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), when Peter Rubery-Hayward decided to rechristen himself Sir Nicholas Lyell. As it happened, injunctions were granted on both occasions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |