| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.34 am
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak in this debate, and also for the clarification that you gave me when I was sworn in, that I would not be required to make a second maiden speech--sparing me the embarrassment of having to praise my predecessor, who was me.
The points that I should like to make to the Leader of the House relate specifically to the experiences that I have had in fighting two elections this year, and in facing a court case and election petitions. The issues may seem trivial, but, after I have expressed my concerns, anyone who has stood in an election will realise that there are some very serious problems with the current election system.
We must ensure that we preserve the bedrock of our democracy. To do so, voters will have to be sure that our way of running elections is fair, sensible and practical. The public must have confidence that we have such a system. Unfortunately, this year's experience for me and the voters of Winchester suggests that we do not. I ask the Leader of the House to assure me that she will recommend to those in the relevant Departments that they should conduct a fundamental examination of some of the issues that I will raise.
The first issue is that of rogue candidates. I am pleased that the Government seem already to be taking the issue very seriously. Hon. Members from both sides of the House--even Madam Speaker herself--have faced that problem, which was particularly acute in Winchester. In the general election, we had the interference of a candidate who stood as a "Liberal Democrat--Top choice for Parliament". He secured 640 votes, whereas I won by only two votes. All hon. Members will realise that that candidate's interference caused mayhem, and that the subsequent Winchester by-election can be attributed largely to him.
I know that Ministers are examining the matter of the labelling of individual candidates. It is essential that the process moves speedily--so that such candidates cannot stand in a misleading form in the European elections, and certainly not in the next general election.
The specific point that I should like to raise, however, deals with an initial inability to object to the nomination of such candidates. In Winchester, when that"Liberal Democrat--Top choice for Parliament" candidate submitted his nomination, we were told that we had only two hours to object to it. That meant that--literally in two hours--my wife, agents and I had to dash round trying to track down the 10 individuals who had nominated him. Imagine my horror when I discovered, after we tracked down five of them, that my posters were up in the gardens of three of their homes, expressing their desire to vote for me.
We went into those people's houses, spoke to them and asked, "Why have you nominated someone else for this election?" They expressed their concern, and an immediate desire to undo their nomination of entirely the wrong person. We were able to persuade them to visit the returning officer, and marched them in to do so. With an hour left to object, those people were prepared to swear affidavits in front of the returning officer, saying that they had been completely tricked into signing the wrong candidate's nomination paper; that they wished to undo that; and that they wished to support the candidate whose posters were up in their gardens.
I was horrified to realise that the returning officer had absolutely no power to refuse the nomination, and that those people had to live with nominating a candidate whom they did not wish to nominate. I should like that situation to be examined, because returning officers have to have greater powers to query nomination papers when individuals say clearly that they were tricked into signing them.
I also believe that we have to examine the time available to object to questionable nominations. It was very difficult to dash round Winchester, trying to track down the nominating individuals. Two hours is simply not sufficient to complete the process properly. In addition, 24 hours is not enough time for the courts to listen to the various arguments relating to the description of candidates. The matter needs urgent attention.
My concerns then moved on to the way in which the election in Winchester was run--the count itself. There certainly seemed to be grave difficulties in dealing with two elections on one day. There were problems for the polling staff in each of the polling stations. The count was the longest in history, with the result not finally declared until 6 pm the following Friday. That was stressful for the candidates, the clerks and everyone involved.
The reasons were connected with the problem of having two elections on the same day and individuals putting ballot papers into several boxes, which at times were overflowing. Frankly, the system could not cope with the number of people who wanted to vote on two extremely long ballot forms at the same time. If we are to continue to have dual elections, we must re-examine how they are managed and run.
The position went from bad to worse. Within half an hour of my being declared the winner, there were rumours that an election petition would be brought against me. I wish to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House my concerns about the way in which election petitions operate. I shall spare the House the intricacies of the system. If "Mastermind" were still running, it would be
my specialist subject. However, the House needs to know that the way in which election petitions operate is extremely unfair to Members and petitioners. The time scale involved needs examining.
It seems to be fundamentally wrong that I was able to be sworn in, take my seat, make a maiden speech and act as the constituency Member with the uncertainty of an election petition hanging over me for almost six months. It does not seem proper than any hon. Member should have to be put in that position.
I understand that other countries deal with such disputes much more effectively. In the French general election, a similar petition was brought on similar grounds, but the matter was resolved within 48 hours--before anyone had taken the seat. The process here takes a wholly inappropriate length of time, and the uncertainty hanging over me and the individual who took that action against me was unacceptable.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he should not have taken his seat until the matter had been resolved?
Mr. Oaten:
If there had been a quicker process by which election petitions could be dealt with, and it was clear to hon. Members who had petitions against them that the matter would be resolved within a week or even 48 hours, I certainly would not have taken my seat. When I found out that the petition was pending against me, I had doubts about taking my seat, and even considered resigning to try to bring the matter to a head more quickly. It may interest the House to know that an hon. Member cannot resign until 21 days after a general election--as I discovered when I looked into that option.
The law needs clarification in respect of the way in which election petitions operate. At the time, there were major concerns among lawyers on both sides who were desperately trying to interpret the law. I urge the Leader of the House to consider the points that I have raised.
One aspect of the petition against me was the basis on which it was brought. It revolved around the fact that the ballot papers had not been franked, and that, if they had been franked, it might have changed the result.
Why do we frank ballot papers in the first place? I understood that it was to ensure that no fraud or corruption could take place. However, it was assumed in the petition drawn up against me and the subsequent court cases that, although papers had not been franked, fraud and corruption had not taken place, and they were allowed to be included and to change the result.
We need to review how we judge unfranked papers and the system of perforation. Why do we do it? Is it a foolproof system? Hon. Members may be amused or alarmed to hear that, after all the publicity about the franking of election papers, during the re-run in Winchester one of the perforation stamping machines broke down, and the presiding officer in the village hall had to raid the kitchen for some forks which were then used to make the official mark on the ballot papers. It is a farce, and it needs urgent review.
We also need to look at the way in which we use the electoral roll in elections. The re-run in Winchester took place some 18 months after people had originally completed their forms to be included on the electoral roll.
As a result, a large number of people in the constituency felt disfranchised. They could not vote in the election, although some had lived in the area for almost two years.
People who had completed new forms for inclusion on the roll in October were extremely confused by the fact that they had no right to vote in the by-election in November. Surely it cannot be beyond technology to have a rolling register that would be more up to date. After all, we collect the council tax pretty quickly. Individuals certainly do not have to wait two years before having to pay. Why cannot our electoral roll be updated along the same lines? It would seem a simple thing to do, and it would help to reduce the number of people who, feeling disfranchised, then try to vote illegally.
Another cause of disfranchisement is the time scale for applications of postal and proxy votes. People often complain about the short notice given for applying for postal votes--often about a week after an election is called. That does not give people enough time to organise postal votes. Again, I call on the Leader of the House to look at the current deadlines for organising postal and proxy votes.
My final concern is personation at polling stations. Hon. Members may be aware that, in Winchester, there were two proven cases of personation, although I believe that there were many more. There were probably personations in every constituency. Only when the majority is just two votes do such matters become critical and come to light. The implications were that individuals went to cast votes when they had no legal entitlement to do so.
I am concerned that polling clerks have no powers to refuse individuals the right to vote. In Winchester, a polling clerk recognised someone who requested a ballot paper in someone else's name. However, that polling clerk had no power to prevent that individual from voting.
It leads to the ridiculous situation where, for example, I could walk into the Prime Minister's constituency, say that I was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and vote as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield if he had not already done so. It is my understanding that the presiding officer or clerk would have no power to prevent me from doing that, if I continued to insist that I was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and wanted to vote. I urge the Leader of the House to look at that aspect of electoral law.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |