| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Shepherd: As the Home Secretary did not mention it in his incredible discourse to the House, does he expect turnout to improve? It is now at the extraordinary low level of 36 per cent. and it has been around 30 per cent. Why on earth does he think that the incredible system being proposed should help induce people to come out and vote?
Mr. Straw: We are not a country that can lecture other European nations about turnout. Generally speaking, turnouts are higher in Europe. One argument in favour of change is the fact that turnouts are so low. It is difficult
to argue that the current electoral system has gripped the electorate. It has not. My guess--and it can be only a guess--is that turnout will improve under the proposed system.
I should now like to make some progress. While I have been on my feet, the Chamber has filled up and many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall refer to some more detailed points. Let me explain how vacancies will be filled. Schedule 2 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations that will be subject to parliamentary approval by affirmative resolution. The regulations will provide that when a vacancy occurs in a seat that was originally filled by a candidate from a party list, it should be filled by the next eligible and willing candidate from that list. If, however, the list has been exhausted, or if the vacancy has been caused by the death or resignation of an independent MEP, a by-election will be held.
To work effectively, the electoral system that the Bill will introduce--or a Belgian-type system--requires political parties to be registered. We have already announced that legislation to establish a registration scheme for political parties will be introduced during this parliamentary Session. Once such a scheme is in place, only parties that have been registered will be able to put forward lists of candidates. Of course, independents will also be able to stand.
A registration scheme will have the added advantage that it will offer parties the protection from spoiler candidates such as the notorious case that occurred in the 1994 European elections, involving a candidate who styled himself a "Literal Democrat".
Introducing a new electoral system inevitably involves a good deal of detailed work. New nomination forms need to be designed, new rules about election agents need to be devised and many other practical points have to be covered. All that is consequential on introducing the new system, and will be dealt with in regulations which, of course, the House will be able to approve. Schedule 2 covers the power to make such regulations.
A new ballot paper will need to be designed. I have already produced--and made available in the Library--a sketch of what the ballot paper might look like.
The Bill also permits regulations to be made governing candidates' and parties' election expenditure. Clearly, the old rules, which are concerned solely with controlling the spending of individual candidates at constituency level, are no longer appropriate for a system that is based on the promotion of a party list, so there will need to be limits on parties' regional expenditure. However, as it will be hard to distinguish between parties' regional and national expenditure, we shall need to consider carefully the case for placing limits on national expenditure.
As it has been a matter of some debate since 16 October, when I published our proposals to legislate in respect of the funding of political parties, let me make it clear that paragraph 6 of schedule 2 provides regulation- making power to control national spending by political parties on European elections. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome that.
Mrs. Ewing:
Once again, I am grateful to the Home Secretary. As there will be separate lists for Scotland and Wales, recognising the nature of the four-party system in
Mr. Straw:
The usual way to place limits on spending is to use a calculation based on the number of electors in the areas where candidates are standing, but, as ever, we are open to representation. We are a listening Government.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire):
I congratulate the Home Secretary on one of the most impressive performances that I have seen in the House for a long time: for a man who did not believe a word of what he was saying, he said it with great aplomb. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the Home Secretary delivered his speech with great charm.
The Home Secretary told us that the Government were elected to improve the democratic process and then signally failed to convince even his hon. Friends that the Bill would in any way achieve that aim.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I have had a number of friendly but robust exchanges during our time in this place, particularly when I was at the Department of Health. When I was at what was then the Ministry of Transport we became more like-minded. Today we are as one. The hon. Lady put her finger on one of the major flaws of the Bill--the severing of the link between a constituency and its elected representatives. From the expression on the faces of Labour Members, it was clear that many of them agreed with her, as we did.
I was intrigued by the Home Secretary's suggestion that because the single transferable vote works well in Northern Ireland and commands widespread support there, it does not need to be changed. I remind him that the first-past-the-post system works well in England and commands widespread support, so the logic of his position falls.
I was also intrigued by the circular nature of the Home Secretary's argument to the effect that we want a list system so we have to have big regions and that if we have big regions we have to have a closed list system. That argument did not convince the House and it certainly will not carry the Committee, just as the right hon. Gentleman did not carry the House when he failed four times to answer questions from hon. Members, including his hon. Friends, about how electors--and elections are about electors and not party apparatchiks--would get rid of a Member who they thought was doing a poor job.
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield):
The right hon. Gentleman said that electors are the most
Sir Brian Mawhinney:
It is interesting to reflect that the hon. Gentleman's party won fewer votes in 1997 than we won in 1992. That is the best answer that I can give him.
This evening, we are considering a Bill that has been introduced with no justification. Bert Lance said,
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich might have said that the Bill will not only break the link between constituencies and individual elected representatives but will prevent electors from electing individuals--which, thus far, has been another fundamental aspect of our electoral system.
"Even in 1983 and 1987 when we won landslide victories, a good 58 per cent. of those who voted supported other parties. We do not need to win over everyone or even most people in order to win."?
Are those the right hon. Gentleman's democratic credentials?
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
The Home Secretary has signally failed to convince the House that there is anything wrong with the present system. He cannot be suggesting that the system is biased in our favour because his party has the preponderance of seats at the moment. He cannot be claiming that the system is too complicated because everybody understands it and is able to go into a voting booth, put a cross on a piece of paper, see the votes counted and understand who has won.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |