| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has an amendment that refers to assentors. We gave some consideration to this matter. I think that we are all concerned to see that, in the actual practice of the election and the way that it works out, we do our utmost to prevent frivolous parties from standing.
It was for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was pleased to accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Upper Bann that sought to provide that parties that wished to be on the regional list should put up at least two candidates in three constituencies, thereby indicating the seriousness of their intent. I hope that hon. Members will accept that that was a genuine response to a concern that is reasonably widely felt.
The question of assentors is difficult one. The hon. Member for Spelthorne said that 500 assentors might be too many. I think that, in our parliamentary elections, we have to put down 10 assentors--one proposer, one seconder and eight others. I have fought seven general elections, and I know that quite often there is considerable difficulty in ensuring that those names are right--they have to be validated by the returning officer. I would have sleepless nights if I were the person who had to produce and validate 500 names.
I refer to the general purpose that we have been pursuing in relation to these elections--that is, we are trying to make the elections inclusive. We are trying to reduce the burden on the smaller parties in relation to them standing. Elections are not very difficult for a big and well-organised party--there tend to be party machines that are ready to go into operation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) laughs at the idea of party machines. In the 20 years that I was involved in Scottish politics, a well-oiled machine worked in his part of the world. It would be wise for him not to make much more comment about the value of party machines in politics.
I am making the point that there are many parties that should have the ability, if they so wish, to stand in these elections, but that they would regard a number of the things that we take for granted as burdensome, and, in some cases, they would stop them standing. We have tried to reduce those burdens to a minimum. I think that the imposition of a requirement for assentors--whether it be 500 or fewer--would discriminate against the smaller parties in terms of the clerical work involved.
Mr. William Ross:
The Government are saying that they do not want 500 assentors or 100 assentors. How
Mr. Ancram:
The hon. Gentleman must remember that this is a party list system--it may be on a constituency basis, but it is a party list system. Therefore, he must take cognisance of the concession willingly made by my right hon. and learned Friend in accepting the need for parties to put up in three seats to qualify for the regional list. That was an attempt, in a non-discriminatory way--one that merely sought out the seriousness of the commitment of the party--to ensure that the frivolous parties were excluded. For that reason, we are not looking at the number of assentors, because we think it is burdensome.
I have listened to some of the representations made about the amendments. I think that I was invited by the hon. Member for Vauxhall to be generous and to accept the amendments, but some of them counter each other. That indicates some of the difficulties that would have arisen had the Government decided to operate on the basis of exercising our judgment rather than allowing parties to make representations to us and putting them on the desk.
Mr. McGrady:
I asked the Minister a specific question, and I hope that he will not sit down before he responds to it. I asked him whether it is the intent that the way that the parties are listed and described in part II of the Bill is how they will appear on the ballot paper. Will he take any exception to that? In other words, he appears to be rejecting my party's simple amendment to use the letters SDLP. Will he answer that question before he sits down?
Mr. Ancram:
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I answered it earlier, and referred to him when I did so. I said that we made it clear in the consultation document, and I was confirming again today, that the names that would appear on the list in the Bill would be those that would be set out on the ballot paper and used in other election documentation. The hon. Gentleman or his party was sent the consultation paper with that in it. Other parties took advantage of the consultation period to change the designation that would appear on the ballot paper.
Mr. McGrady:
It was not made clear in the communications that the name of the party that was to respond would be the description and detail that would appear on the subsequent ballot paper. There is no connection between a piece of correspondence and a piece of legislation regarding these elections. It is totally unreasonable of the Government not to accept a simple amendment, inserting "SDLP" either in substitution for Social Democratic and Labour party or in addition to it. It harms no one; it affects no one. It shows the prejudice with which the Government are approaching this part of the schedule. It is appalling.
Mr. Ancram:
We set this out clearly and for good reason, because we accurately foresaw that, if we did not follow that procedure, when the Bill was considered in the House of Commons, one party would say, "Remove this" and another would say, "Do that," and ultimately a
We deliberately set matters out very clearly. I sent out the document--with a covering letter to the hon. Gentleman's party and to other parties--saying:
and that is what has happened in regard to the hon. Gentleman's party.
Mr. Trimble:
We have the basis for some misunderstanding here. The Minister has read from the letter, and the sentence that he just read refers to the names of the parties. We rest content with the name of our party, but we tabled amendment No. 49 to confine party names to party names. Consequently, because of the way in which the Minister has interpreted the response to that letter, we are in an unbalanced situation.
Mr. Ancram:
The hon. Gentleman heard the speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who said that that was the name by which he wished his party to be known for the purposes of this election. That position was available to all the parties.
Mr. Ancram:
May I finish this point?
I am reading from the letter I wrote covering the consultation document. I said:
Many parties took advantage of that.
Mr. McNamara:
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about his legislation, but we are here today to examine his proposal, hear argument and discover how best to meet the needs of electors and the parties involved.
Now that the Minister has met his timetable, received representations and presented his prepared legislation to Parliament, Parliament is able to adopt a broadly non-partisan position and allow the parties to say what position they want to hold. Then the DUP can have what it wants, the SDLP can have what it wants, and the Ulster Unionists can have what they want. It is not a sufficiently major issue for the Minister to stand so forcefully on it that he pre-empts the right of Parliament to change it.
The Minister may say that, if that is the way we feel, we should force our amendment to a Division, but we know what powers there are. We do not seek to do so. We seek general democratic agreement. We ask the Minister to reconsider, and, if he does not feel that he can do so now, consider giving an undertaking to introduce
an amendment in another place to meet the representations made by the parties. I know that he has a tight timetable in the other place, but I am sure that all Government amendments would be taken.
Mr. Ancram:
I think the hon. Gentleman realises that it is not as simple as that. There are other amendments in the group. Were I to take the view that the hon. Gentleman takes--if those parties want it like that, let them have it--I suspect that I would meet strong opposition from other parties in the House.
"Subject to representations, the Government will incorporate in the legislation that is presented to Parliament the list of parties in the form in which they appear in Annex 1"--
"Names of the parties will be set out on ballot papers, and in other election documentation, in precisely the form in which they appear in the legislation."
"The Government are of course ready to listen to representations on the proposals relating to the designation of parties and individuals; but because of the tight timescale for legislation, they would need to be received by noon on 10 April."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |