| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gorman: Is the Minister aware that, in the United States, a candidate must secure several hundred names on the paper before he or she can stand? That does not seem to deter candidates or adversely affect the US electoral system.
Mr. O'Brien: I am not fully briefed on all the United States election practices. My recollection, however, of when I have been in the US at election time is that the rules are somewhat different in different states. There are, of course, particular rules for the presidential elections. There are various different types of ballot, including ballots for the primary elections. Different numbers of votes have to be achieved in different parties and in different states. There is a mixed system.
Although extremely rich individuals such as Ross Perot have managed to fund the raising of the number of nominations required, other fringe candidates seem to some extent to be deterred. I accept that there are some fringe parties and that all sorts of parties put up, but not to the same extent as in the UK. Increasing numbers is something to be considered, but I am not convinced at this stage that that is the way forward.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense that only 10 signatures are required on a ballot paper when someone is seeking to represent 70,000 people within a parliamentary constituency, whereas the same number of signatures is required to represent 2,000 people at parish council level? Surely the purpose of signatures is to demonstrate an acceptable level of community support.
Mr. O'Brien:
The objective is to ensure that there are some people at least who want to nominate an individual. What should be regarded as a proper level of community support is a matter for debate. I suspect that each Member of this place is likely to have his or her own view on what that level of support should be. It is an issue to consider, but at this point I am not persuaded that merely increasing the number of attestors would remedy the mischief that we are seeking to address.
Another option is to introduce scope for nominations to be challenged in different ways. The approach is superficially attractive, but it would almost certainly
require an increase in the statutory election timetable that determines the period between the issue of the writ and polling day. The advice of the Court Service, which would need to service any challenges, is that a period of at least five days might be required. The period would be greater if an appeal procedure were to be included, or if a judge determined that additional time should be allowed for the preparation of a defence or to introduce disputed evidence. A consequence of a flexible timetable could be that polls in some constituencies at a general election might not be held on the agreed polling day. That is something that we would, I think, view with concern.
Registering the names of political parties as types of trademark is another possibility. I understand that some of the major parties have already obtained trademark registration. The difficulty with this approach is that the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides protection only in the course of trade, and we are advised that political activity does not fall within the definition of an activity in the course of trade. Similar constraints limit the ability of passing off proposals and providing for parties to become companies guaranteed by law.
If we are to change current legislation, we might as well tackle the issue itself rather than try to mess about with trademark law or something else. Let us address the issue itself.
None of these options seems especially attractive or effective. That has led the Government to conclude, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, said when responding to the debate on the issue last month, that the answer probably lies in a system of registration of political parties, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said.
The principal problem with the use of party names as candidate descriptions is that the political parties are not recognised in electoral law. That means that there is no procedure by which a political party can register its name for electoral purposes, or prevent anyone from using its name, or a similar name, to confuse the electorate. A system of registration could help to overcome that by giving statutory recognition to political party names. It might then be possible to prevent attempts to pass off a person as a candidate of a recognised political party by using a description intended to deceive.
The Government are considering how best to take the issue of party registration forward. There are various difficulties and problems that we need to address. In discussion with other parties, we want to work on procedures to deal with the important issues that have been raised in the debate. We intend to deal with them, and we hope that we will be able in due course to proceed with a system of registration.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury):
I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce a short debate on a subject that is of great importance. I should at the start declare an interest, in that earlier this week my wife received an application form for a certificate of eligibility, so I have a significant family interest in this area of policy.
In recent weeks, the Government have introduced important changes to pre-school education policy. As they were achieved through administrative action rather than through additional legislation, I was glad that Madam Speaker felt able to agree to my request to debate the subject on the Floor of the House.
There will be a fair measure of common ground across the Chamber on objectives, especially on the desirability of expanding provision for pre-school education. There will also be disagreement about the best means of attaining those objectives. I want to put on record my regret at the Government's decision to press ahead with the abolition of the voucher scheme. I believe that the system of vouchers placed power in the hands of parents in individual families. My fear is that the system proposed by the Government will take power away from those parents and put it in the hands of local education authorities, which may or may not be responsive to the demands of parents living in their areas or to the different opportunities for pre-school education provided by the voluntary and private sectors.
I welcome the Government's stated commitment to the expansion of nursery education, and their recognition of the need for partnership between the agencies of local and central Government and the private and voluntary providers. I also welcome the fact that the new Government have decided to adopt Conservative policies on the inspection of pre-school institutions and on the notion of desirable learning outcomes. My concerns are about both the long term and the immediate future of pre-school education. In the time available, I should like to explore the legal basis of local education authority responsibilities, funding, admissions policy and the relationship between local education authorities and voluntary and private sector providers.
I shall first deal with the Government's statement of principles for the longer-term development of pre-school education: the longer term refers to 1998-99 onwards, so it starts in a relatively short time. In the Government's recent letter to chief education officers, their stated objective is that, by April 1999, every LEA should be able to offer a good-quality pre-school place to all parents who want it, and for that place to be available free of charge.
The first problem on which I want to probe the Government is the legal basis on which local education authorities will make such provision. LEAs do not currently have a statutory duty to provide pre-school education. Is it the Government's intention to amend the law in the education Bill that they have promised for later this Session? If so, are they of the view that LEAs should have a duty to provide pre-school education, or do they prefer a formula, such as a duty to secure provision? It is more than merely a matter of semantics, because it takes us into the realm of the partnership between the different
providers and the extent of the power given to LEAs to pick and choose between providers in the private and voluntary sectors.
As I understand it, under the Government's proposals, the only private or voluntary institutions that will secure funding from the state for pre-school education will be those that have been approved by a local education authority, and which have been included on the LEA's list and published as part of its plan. What guarantees does the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), think the Government will be able to extract from local education authorities that they will always act fairly?
The statement of principle is in the Government's circular to chief education officers, and the desire for partnership is expressed, but there is no mention of detailed criteria against which the judgment of LEAs could be reviewed, or of sanctions that might be available against a local education authority that had acted arbitrarily and unfairly. It is not just a matter of political speculation: there have been concrete examples in recent years of LEAs, for doctrinaire reasons, pursuing what can be described only as a vendetta against particular voluntary or private institutions.
A case that ended up in court has been brought to my attention. Liverpool city council sought to reduce the number of children able to be admitted to the Monkton nursery on the ground that the school was in breach not of the statutory but of the recommended space standards published by the Department of Health. That decision was taken despite the school's proven track record and in defiance of the Department's own guidelines, which state:
11 am
"Where a facility has been running for a number of years and offering an acceptable standard of care to the children with which parents are satisfied, a local authority should not consider closing it down or reducing the number of places just because it falls below the recommended space standard."
That incident caused the school a great deal of hassle and upset and distress to staff and parents. The High Court case left the Labour council in Liverpool with a bill of about £120,000 in lawyers' fees, which probably would have been sufficient to build a brand new nursery in the city. It was a waste of public money to pursue narrow, dogmatic, political interests. I hope that when the Government consider in more detail their guidance to local education authorities and the wording of any legislation that they plan on this subject, they will examine carefully how to ensure that LEAs act fairly towards their partner institutions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |