| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Ross: I tabled a short amendment which goes in a direction completely opposite to that of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) because I wish to remove the limit of five candidates.
This is a party list system--a list of parties and not of individuals. I think that the more candidates a party has running in every part of a constituency, the greater its chance of enhancing its vote. It seems a bit ridiculous to say that a party can field five candidates when we know perfectly well that there is not a snowball's chance of any one party winning all five seats in a constituency. Therefore, the limit on the number of candidates has no grounding in logic, and there is no reason why that limit should not be removed or why a party should not field six, seven or 10 candidates in a constituency. Parties would have many people on the streets--knocking doors, talking to the electorate, convincing them of the strengths of their party and persuading them to support their party. All I ask is that that can be done.
We know that some parties, and I think that the SDLP is one--[Interruption.] Its members might like to stop chattering for a moment and listen. I believe that in the constituency of Foyle it has 15 or 16 people currently chasing three or four places. In those circumstances, why should any of them be denied the right to canvass?
Mr. Barnes:
Might it not work the other way? Instead of attracting more votes, might not the existence of more than five candidates alienate some voters, thus providing more votes for other parties?
Mr. Ross:
I accept that that might happen in view of the divisions between old and new Labour and between the Conservative Euro-sceptics and others, but it could not happen in a united party like the UUP. We would have
Mr. Robert McCartney:
In response to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, it should perhaps be noted that although, theoretically, five candidates may be elected for one party in any constituency--even though that is utterly unlikely--it is abundantly clear that, if six candidates stand, no more than five can be elected. It is absolutely without purpose, therefore, to allow any party to run more candidates than it can conceivably get elected.
Mr. Ancram:
I have listened with great care to the representations that have been made. The answer given to the hon. Member for East Londonderry by the hon. and learned Member for North Down was precisely that which I was going to give. Although running more candidates may be a way of securing more canvassers--if I understood the hon. Gentleman rightly--it is not necessarily logical for a party to run more candidates than it can have elected.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
Under this system if, for any reason, any of the candidates deemed to be elected drop out--because of death or illness or for some other reason--does not someone have to come up from the bottom? If a party is enthusiastic enough to win five seats, it might be as well for it to have some reserves.
Mr. Ancram:
We gave some thought to that when considering how to develop the constituency list system and concluded that that argument could be taken to fanciful lengths. In practical terms, limiting the number of candidates to the number of seats seemed to be the appropriate thing to do.
I understand the concern expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Down.
Mr. William Ross:
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Let us suppose that one party has three people elected; they go to a meeting in a car that crashes and they are killed. Under the proposed system, that party would lose out, whereas if it had been able to run six, seven or eight candidates, it could simply take people from the original group. That is a valid point.
Mr. Ancram:
That situation is provided for in the Bill. We are considering the number of candidates rather than the way in which vacancies are filled.
As I was saying, I understand that the position of the hon. and learned Member for North Down is particular to himself. I heard with interest the fact that he regards an 18-seat campaign as the right way to proceed. Ideally, I would expect to see all parties that wish to be taken seriously stand in a large number of constituencies. That is another reason why we accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, which requires candidature in three constituencies in order to qualify for the regional list.
Mr. Robert McCartney:
Does not the Minister accept that the principle which he expounds is exploded to some extent by the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 47? Under amendment No. 47, in order to get on to the general list a party has to run a minimum of six people in addition to providing for the general list. Although one person may not be a party, six clearly must be. Even if there were only one candidate for each of the three seats, three plus three may be a small party, but it is certainly a party.
If that principle were to be applied to a greater number of seats--up to 18--amendment No. 143 would provide for at least 18 candidates for election, plus two on the Provincewide list. There would therefore be 20. I have some difficulty in understanding how 20 people do not constitute a party, even though, in an given constituency, there may be only one candidate. After all, in the general elections to elect Members to this Parliament, all the major parties field only one candidate in each constituency, but no one suggests that they cannot really be called parties. I ask the Minister to reconsider my serious suggestion.
Mr. Ancram:
The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument might make sense if it contained a requirement for each party to put up at least one candidate in all 18 constituencies. However, it removes the lower limit without stipulating the number of constituencies in which a party would be required to stand. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the acceptance of amendment No. 47, but that applies only to a party that wishes to take advantage of the regional list system.
We are trying to prevent a situation arising in which a one-man party, which does not envisage taking part in the top-up through the regional list system, stands in one constituency on his own. Such a person would not constitute a party. Earlier, we were talking about the parties on the list which are designated as "Independent". That term is followed by one person's name. Whether those so listed are parties in terms of being able to take part in the election, beyond being shown on the list, depends on whether they can show that they have more than one member. I therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Ancram:
If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to offer to table an amendment to require that parties stand in 18 constituencies, my argument will be fairly predictable: it would place an enormous burden on certain parties which I believe have a right to stand and be heard in this election.
Mr. McCartney:
I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition, but does not his argument boil down to the
However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Trimble:
I beg to move amendment No. 44, page 5, line 10, at end insert--
The First Deputy Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 46, page 5, line 10, at end insert--
6(B) (1) A constituency list shall not be validly submitted unless accompanied by a deposit of £2,000.
(2) A regional list shall not be validly submitted unless accompanied by a deposit of £5,000.
(3) If a party submitting a constituency list fails to obtain 5 per cent. of the valid votes cast in that constituency it shall forfeit the deposit lodged in respect of that constituency.
(4) If a party submitting a regional list fails to obtain 2 per cent. of the valid votes cast in Northern Ireland as a whole, it shall forfeit the deposit lodged with its regional list.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |