Examination of Witnesses (Questions 354
- 379)
TUESDAY 23 JUNE 1998
MR DAVID
GARDNER, MR
MIKE PENN,
THE RT
HON THE
LORD PARKINSON
AND MR
CHRIS RENNARD
Chairman: Good morning, gentlemen, and thank
you very much for coming. This is the fourth session of this very
short inquiry into the mechanics of the electoral system. We are
not, as I think you understand, going into alternative voting
systems or the funding of political parties or any interesting
areas like that, since other people are dealing with that. The
Labour Party, I see, has two witnesses at the table. We would
prefer one answer, if you do not mind, because we always get in
a muddle when there are lots of witnesses and lots of questioners.
Can we start with Mr Corbett, who is going to ask some questions
about the need for reform.
Mr Corbett
354. This is very much a question to all three
of you, if I may. The written submissions you have put in (for
which, thank you) convey different degrees of enthusiasm for reform
of the system. There is a thread, perhaps, in one sense, running
through that "Yes, the arrangements and mechanics and nuts
and bolts of how we run an election have been in place for a long
while, and while they may look a bit archaic they do actually
work." How important do you feel a reform of the nuts and
bolts is?
(Mr Rennard) I think we probably consider they could
be improved somewhat, and certainly the turnout is lower here
at local and General Elections than it is on the continent, although
perhaps it is higher than it is in the United States. We are convinced
that more people would vote if the electoral register was improved
and access to voting was improved by an extension, perhaps, of
voting and the consideration of early voting experiments using
different polling days. We think it would be helpful if consideration
was given to these things and more people entitled to vote.
(Lord Parkinson) I would not disagree with any of
that. I think the system, fundamentally, works quite well. We
have a good turnout and we have honest elections. So we are not
talking about the need to totally restructure something which
is a failure, we are talking about how can we improve it at the
margins. I think the sort of suggestions that we have included
and which you mentioned would help. May I just make one other
point? I do think the right not to vote is a democratic right,
too. People who are fed up with their own party but do not wish
to vote for either of the other two have, in my view, a perfect
right to do so. We would be opposed to compulsory voting.
(Mr Gardner) Yes, the Labour Party does believe that
the current electoral law, while it has stood us in good stead,
is actually antiquated and is in need of quite radical overhaul.
We would favour quite radical overhaul. In particular, we believe
that the system of registration is quite antiquated, from the
days when there was a very stable population and little mobility.
In particular, we believe that the postal voting arrangements
are very archaic and inaccessible. Fundamentally, we believe that
there should be an independent electoral commission to oversee
elections. If we were, as a government, or as a country, advising
any emerging democracy establishing their democratic system we
would always advise them to have an independent electoral commission,
and while the current system is very fair I do see—doubtless
we will come on to this issue—tremendous advantages and,
I think, a growing consensus on the need for an independent electoral
commission accountable to Parliament.
355. If I may pick you up on that point, although
we are coming to it later, I understand what you say about emerging
democracies, but you cannot describe Britain as in any way near
that. We have these arrangements in place, with which practitioners,
if you like, are all familiar. What is the case, then, against
that background, for an electoral commission? By and large, it
is working okay but the general agreement is it could work better
and more effectively. What, then, is the next step to justify
an electoral commission?
(Mr Gardner) At the moment we have no body which acts
to promote democracy and promote civic education. We have no body
which lays down minimum standards for electoral registration and
access to voting, and so forth. We have no body which can act
as an arbitrator. In the context of wider debates and issues outside
today's deliberations—for instance on party political funding
and the Registration of Political Parties Bill—there is
a growing case for an independent body of experts that will undertake
that whole brief and will be seen, at all times, to be independent
of government. Certainly, there were occasions during the last
government when it was apparent to myself and colleagues that
the Home Office Ministers were reluctant, together with Home Office
civil servants, to make very necessary changes, for instance on
the rolling register and on postal voting. I think, to have a
body which is clearly independent of party political influence
and control would be good for democracy.
356. What do you say to that, Lord Parkinson?
(Lord Parkinson) I think it rather under-estimates
the role of Parliament. The Ministers in the Home Office are answerable
to Parliament, and I would not wish an electoral commission to
be formed which in any way was not answerable to Parliament or
to the law. I think it is slightly simplistic. This electoral
commission has been coming up in the course of Neill, and so on.
One thing, however, is that a lot of people are in favour of it,
but when pressed very few people have any idea what it would do.
It is a sort of answer to all problems: "If we had one we
would not have any problems". If we had one we certainly
would still have problems. So we are more agnostic about this,
we are not enthusiasts for it, but we do say that nothing should
be allowed to undermine the authority of Parliament. This must
be answerable to Parliament, and it must be answerable to the
courts.
(Mr Rennard) Yes, I think we accept that the electoral
commission is not a panacea and we accept that it must be responsible
to Parliament. The responsibility for initiating things like changes
in election law should, we think, be proposed by an independent
and impartial body rather than an overtly party political figure—for
example the Home Secretary—as the Home Secretary can always
be accused, rightly or wrongly, of putting forward changes to
election law to partisan advantage. If a change in election law
was proposed by an electoral commission then I think it would
not be subject to the same charges.
357. Finally, on the need to change, there is
an increasing use of referenda by this Government, for all sorts
of purposes. Do you think that that means we ought to be looking
at changes to the arrangements as well?
(Mr Gardner) I think it is the case that because this
Government has a very wide-ranging constitutional agenda and a
lot of those matters have been quite pressing, that on each occasion
the Government has looked at ad hoc arrangements. So, for a referendum
they have appointed one of the great and good in the political
world to be the returning officer and we have a specific arrangement
in relation to the Registration of Political Parties Bill and
so forth, and there will doubtless be specific arrangements in
relation to the European elections. I think it is time to step
back—and this Committee has a valuable role in doing that—and
say rather than just having ad hoc arrangements to deal with referenda
and innovations as they come up, to meet the political demands,
we need to take a holistic approach and look at what actual body
of integrity, answerable to Parliament, can take forward our democracy
to the next millennium.
(Lord Parkinson) Yes, we are all going to live with
the referendum—some with more enthusiasm than others—but
I think what is clear is that if we are going to have to have
them we are going to have to have clearly defined rules about
them; we cannot just improvise from case to case. I think there
is a case for taking a view about rules for referenda and funding
of referenda and so on. So they are a new element which we have
to learn to live with, and I think the rules are very vague about
them. I do not think we can just take big decisions on the basis
of ad hoc arrangements.
(Mr Rennard) If there are to be more referenda and
if there are to be more rules in regard to the referenda it is
a question of who should propose those rules. I believe an impartial
commission would be better able to propose rules on the conduct
of referenda—as it did when the Hansard Society recommended,
when they looked at suggestions for rules governing the conduct
of referenda. I think if one party in government was to, effectively,
be proposing to Parliament the rules for the conduct of that referenda
that government may have an interest in the outcome of the referendum
and it would not be appropriate for government to do so itself.
Mr Linton
358. If I could just chase up one particular
point with Lord Parkinson, on your attitude to an electoral commission.
Right at the end of your evidence you say: "There is an increasing
danger of individuals making a mockery of election law as the
number of instances of clear breaches...", etc, and then:
"A number of countries have established Electoral Commissions
..." In other words, you seem to accept there is a case for
it and accept it is inevitable, but what you seem to stop short
of is saying whether you would vote for or against.
(Lord Parkinson) I do not think there is a great deal
of evidence that suggests that the countries with an electoral
commission have solved their electoral problems. It is there and
it is something to blame, but we say that Parliament is the ultimate
arbiter and nothing should be created which undermines the authority
of Parliament or rule of law. As I said, we are agnostic about
it. Obviously we do not see it as quite the answer that my colleagues
(if I may call them colleagues on this occasion) do. We just think
it is not going to make as big a contribution as some of those
of its proponents believe. However, if there is one we will live
with it, work with it and co-operate with it.
Mr Howarth
359. I was going to suggest that perhaps so
far from being agnostic, as Lord Parkinson is, on this matter,
an electoral commission could, in fact, be a danger, because there
is nothing that a committee dislikes more than not being seen
to be doing things. Is there not the risk that an electoral commission
would be feeling constantly under pressure to bring forward new
ideas in order to maintain the justification for their existence?
(Mr Gardner) I think that would be very beneficial.
The problem in the current context, where the driving force is
very much in the executive branch of government, is that clearly
governments have crowded legislative timetables and, clearly,
they have electoral timetables to consider and there is not an
independent body that is the driving force and seen as the authority.
We do have, in this country (and this is substantially addressed
in the Home Office evidence and the AA evidence) a falling pattern
of turn-out, albeit slowly falling, in General Elections and local
elections. There are issues around increased mobility and so forth,
and there are issues about varying standards up and down the country.
These do need to be radically addressed. I think it would be very
helpful and good for our democracy if there was a body with the
authority and expertise that was charged with leading that agenda
of reform, but, obviously, in the end, they would be accountable
to Parliament. To come back, if I may, through you, Chair, to
what Lord Parkinson was saying, I do not see that there would
be a conflict between Parliamentary sovereignty and an electoral
commission; I think, in fact, it would be an improvement in the
relationship and would increase the relative powers of Parliament
over the executive.
(Lord Parkinson) All I would say is that there is
a fall in the turn-out, unless it is compulsory, in countries
that have electoral commissions and in countries that do not.
There is no evidence that electoral commissions actually increase
the turn-out unless voting is compulsory. It is a rather sad feature
of all democratic countries that the turn-out is falling in General
Elections. There is an argument that it would stem the fall but
it is not convincing. There may be other ones, but it has certainly
not contributed in other countries.
Chairman
360. Is not the argument that it would bring
together a lot of the functions that presently reside in different
bodies—the Boundary Commissions, the Home Office, the Registrar
of Political Parties and broadcasting authorities—and that
some kind of body will be required to enforce whatever recommendations
the Neill Committee comes up with? That is really the argument.
(Lord Parkinson) I know the arguments, Mr Chairman,
and you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince
you. As I say, we will accept the decision with good grace and
reserve the right to criticise.
361. I am not attempting to convince, but you
did say earlier in your evidence that you did not know what it
would do.
(Lord Parkinson) Yes, but on a lot of things we will
say "Oh well, we have got this problem, we will send that
to the electoral commission". What I am broadly concerned
with is that it could become an electoral dustbin: "We have
got this problem. What do we do with it? Hand it over to the electoral
commission and let them sort it out". I think it would need
a clearly defined role and I do not think it could be quite neutral,
unless the people on it are saintly. They are going to have views,
and the views of the people with the strongest personalities are
going to prevail. I do not think—unless, as I say, we find
a collection of very saintly people who think of nothing but the
national interest and never even think about the party which they
are committed to—it will be quite as pure as it is being
cracked up to be.
(Mr Rennard) I think the counterpoint to the suggestion
that perhaps the commission could become a busybody authority
is that the status quo, at the moment, has seen rather little
activity in this area and the legislation largely still reflects
British politics as it was in the 1870s and 1880s. Those of you
who fill in your forms—for example your return of election
expenses after a General Election—will realise how antiquated
much of this process has become, and how it does not reflect modern
campaigning. Therefore, I think there is a case for being more
pro-active than the present system has been. In relation to the
impartiality of the commission, of course these things are very
difficult but it seems to me that, perhaps, a judge will be the
appropriate figure to chair such a commission. We do not really
have a great deal of difficulty with the Parliamentary Boundary
Commission; I think all the Parties accept that the procedures,
conduct and operation of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission
is impartial and above party politics and, rightly or wrongly,
this cannot always be said of, say, a Home Secretary proposing
changes in election law which may or may not reflect that Home
Secretary's partisan advantage.
Mr Howarth
362. Is there not some advantage in having a
dilution of responsibility diffusing it across a range of bodies
and, in fact—in contrast to what the Chairman is suggesting
that one commission would bring all these present bodies together—there
is some strength derived from having power over individual areas,
as it were, diffused as widely as is currently the case? There
is a risk of concentrating power in the hands of a commission.
(Mr Rennard) I think it is a question of standardisation
of good practice, which could be brought about. For example, if
you live in different local authorities you have different standards
by which the electoral register is compiled. I have lived in a
number of different ones recently. In Wokingham, for example,
with my form for application to be on the electoral register was
also a form saying did I need a postal vote. I thought that was
rather good practice by my returning officer to say "At the
time you apply to go on the register, do you need a postal vote?"
In other council areas I have lived in I did not receive any such
form. Also the diligence in compiling the electoral register varies
greatly from local authority to local authority. Of course, local
authorities have all been squeezed in recent years, as we know,
and have their statutory duties to fulfil. Therefore, of course,
these non-statutory duties they are less inclined to pay greater
attention to. The employment of canvassers has a very great effect,
as we know, upon the accuracy of the electoral register, and some
local authorities will employ canvassers to go round door-to-door
chasing up all the empty properties from where no forms have been
received, but other local authorities will not. It becomes particularly
significant in areas where, perhaps, English is not the first
language of many people, whether or not the council actually employs
canvassers to go round and chase the electoral registration forms.
If they do not do that, people for whom English is not their first
language are less likely to be registered. This means there can
be suggestions that there is some political manipulation in the
processing of the electoral register itself. If you have an election
commission insisting on uniform standards and uniform training,
I think we can address these problems.
363. You think people who cannot speak English
have a right to vote in this country?
(Mr Rennard) Yes, I do. I feel very strongly. They
are governed by our laws and they pay our taxes. I think if English
is not their first language they have just as much right to vote
as anybody else.
364. I did not say "their first language"
I said "who cannot speak English".
(Mr Rennard) Even if they cannot speak English, I
think if they are resident in the country—they may be a
UK citizen and not speak English, but they are governed by our
laws and they pay our taxes. I think they have a right to participate
in the process.
365. So do foreigners who are paying taxes here.
All the same they do not have rights.
(Mr Rennard) Sometime ago we actually gave people
who had emigrated from this country for up to 20 years the right
to vote abroad. I think that is perhaps now questionable. We thought,
at the time, those people who had emigrated abroad, who no longer
pay taxes here, may have no interest whatsoever in British politics.
They have the right to vote in other countries, and I am told
that the Conservative Party spent some efforts sending their retired
agents around the south coast of Spain trying to enlist these
people, to persuade them that they should go on the electoral
register so that they should then be able to cast their vote at
home. I would have thought those people, in many ways, have rather
less rights to vote than people here who, perhaps, do not speak
English but who are governed by our laws and pay our taxes—like
Mr Howarth.
(Lord Parkinson) If Mr Rennard is not careful I will
arrange for the redoubtable Chairman of the Marbella branch of
Conservatives Abroad to come and listen to his description of
her as "a retired agent". There are very active Conservative
branches abroad. The truth of the matter is that of the three
million people who are qualified to vote I believe only 40,000
did. It actually is not a right that people have chosen to exercise
to any great extent.
Chairman
366. We are going to come back to that later
on in our proceedings. Mr Gardner, do you want to come in?
(Mr Gardner) On Mr Howarth's question, basically he
was saying that there were some benefits in having diffuse responsibilities.
I would like to give three examples where the disbenefits are
very clear: firstly, in terms of the review of electoral arrangements,
at the moment we have, effectively, in England at least—forgetting
Scotland and Wales—both a local government commission responsible
for the review of wards' electoral arrangements and the Parliamentary
Boundary Commission responsible for Westminster seats. They report
to different departments, they work on different timescales and,
inevitably, the review of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission
is always confused and often delayed by the timescale of the local
government commission, because wards are the building block of
the Parliamentary Boundary Commission. There are strong duplications
between those two bodies and there would be a clear balance of
advantage, both in efficiency terms and in terms of convenience
in those two bodies working closely together. Secondly, while
the Home Office, at the moment, has lead responsibility on electoral
issues, the DTR has also been taking tremendous initiatives in
terms of trying to boost local election turn-out. I am sure that
you have studied their Green Paper on Local Democracy and Leadership
which floats some very good ideas and which has had a tremendous
response from local authorities around the country. I would advise
you to look at those responses. At the moment, because the DTR
is responsible for local authorities and the Home Office holds
the ring, as it were, there is, I think, some duplication and
there is, I do believe, some slight confusion between the two
departments. There is certainly some competitiveness at the civil
service rather than the ministerial level, which I think is unfortunate
and acts as a barrier and a delay. Thirdly, I would point—and
we submitted this in an appendix to our evidence—to the
Milton Keynes case which, if you like, illustrates the point that
Mr Rennard was saying, where we took legal action against the
then-Conservative Milton Keynes Council because they refused to
carry out a proper house-to-house inquiry to ensure people went
on the register. We were successful in that action, in that they
settled out of court, but that showed that where, for whatever
reasons—political or financial reasons—a local authority
wishes to reduce its budget and, therefore, not ensure house-to-house
enquiries to compile the register, that votes in those areas are
disadvantaged. Again, that is due, to some extent, to Milton Keynes
Council coming under the ambit of DTR, but obviously the regulations
in relation to registration come under the ambit of the Home Office.
Again, there, an electoral commission would have significant advantages.
Mr Hawkins
367. Rather like my colleague Gerald Howarth,
I am rather cynical about the idea that the answer to everything
is to set up a commission. What I wonder is whether you would
actually agree that the real problem with elections, which I think
comes out in all three parties' evidence, is that a lot of the
current requirements are not being very strictly enforced? When
problems arise we know that there are powers, for example, for
the DPP to intervene but it rarely does. I would be grateful for
all your comments on that.
(Mr Gardner) I think, within the current legislation
and the current responsibility, clearly, it would be possible
to ensure a greater enforcement of minimum standards and greater
regulation. I think, however, that is very difficult and against
the nature, if you like, of, say, the constitutional unit in the
Home Office. You would need something equivalent to, say, OFSTED
or the Social Services Inspectorate in order to lay down minimum
standards and monitor those. I am not sure that that would fall
easily within the ambit of a normal, mainstream civil service
department. I also think, in terms of the DPP, that while the
DPP does have a very valuable role—and election petitions
play a valuable role as well—it is never quite satisfactory.
There are problems which we are not discussing today, in terms
of election expenses, where most of these issues arise. There
are also problems in terms of descriptions of candidates, which
are substantially but not wholly addressed by the Registration
of Political Parties Bill. In all these areas, there would be
a greater balance of advantage in having a body which is seen
as an arbitrator and an authority and would have the ability to
give authoritative advice and guidelines, but could never, of
course, be above the law, and would never waive people's rights
to legally challenge—or indeed, the duties of the DPP.
(Lord Parkinson) I think, Mr Hawkins, you make a very
good point. There are rules now, there are laws, but they are
simply not enforced. One of the things which I think the Committee
and, indeed, the Treasury must face is that if this body is going
to be so all-embracing and have such powers and monitor every
electoral register to enforce minimum standards throughout the
country, that is going to have resource implications. There are
going to be costs attached to that. There are going to be substantial
costs attached for local authorities. One of the problems of the
rolling register at the moment is that there is such a diverse
range of interpretations by local authorities of their statutory
duties that it would be very difficult, at this moment, to create
a single, national rolling register because the raw material varies
so much from constituency to constituency. The registers are of
dubious quality in some areas and very good in others, and the
reason always comes back to money. Local authorities, on the whole,
are not prepared to spend the money that is necessary in carrying
out their statutory duties. So the commission will bring with
it costs of its own and it will bring with it quite substantial
costs for local authorities. The rules are there now and they
could be enforced now, but they are not. Will they be better enforced
with an electoral commission? Only if it is given the resources
and the local authorities are forced to spend money. If they were
given those things now they would carry out their statutory duties
better.
(Mr Rennard) I think one of the reasons why the DPP
does not intervene where there are allegations of election impropriety
is sometimes because the law is not totally clear on this. I think
one of the reasons why the law is not clear is it has not been
a high priority of Parliament or the Home Office in relation to
those other things which they have to look at. I think the administrators
have put forward very clear, very good, workable schemes in many
respects and in particular for the rolling register, and where
you have an independent commission to say "This should be
the standard and the law should be clarified in these respects"
then I think it would be rather easier for Parliament—because,
obviously, Parliament must decide at the end of the day—to
decide on the basis of clear advice from an independent commission
than, perhaps, the Home Office which is very busy dealing with
other issues and does not consider it a high priority to simplify
the law in relation to these issues.
368. Given what you say, that it may not be
regarded as the highest priority, does it not make some sense
to say "We have all these laws now, why not, before we invent
something new which may or may not work better or even as well,
try actually enforcing the current laws and regulations?"
(Mr Rennard) I think if you look at so many of the
things that are relevant to election laws, the forms, the paperwork
and the phraseology, still relate to the 1870s rather then the
1990s. Therefore, I think there is a case for a fundamental overhaul
to get the principles right and clear before you actually try
to enforce them.
(Mr Gardner) There is an inertia in the current system.
The DPP only investigates when improprieties are reported to them,
there is no systematic monitoring. We feel with an electoral commission
there would be a case that having investigated something they
would be able to refer the matter to the DPP for full investigation.
Mr Winnick
369. Gentlemen, at the last General Election
the turnout was some 71 per cent, and if one works on the assumption
that the register was not accurate then it would be under 71 per
cent. Are you happy about such low turnout? Do you consider there
is nothing to be particularly concerned about?
(Lord Parkinson) We are not happy, Mr Winnick, because
we have reason to believe that a lot of those people who did not
turn out had previously voted Conservative.
370. It is a possibility.
(Lord Parkinson) And they chose just not to vote at
all. So we would obviously prefer to see a higher turnout with
people doing the right thing. We have views about that. However,
I did say at the beginning that I think the right not to vote
is an important one. If people were lifelong supporters of my
party and they were just fed up with us and did not want to vote
for anyone else, then there is no way we could have found—short
of compulsory voting—of driving them to the polls. They
were making their own democratic gesture by not voting. I think
the right not to vote is a very important one.
371. If I can pursue that, Lord Parkinson, in
your paper, on page 2, you say that the turnout compares favourably
with the turnout at Presidential and congressional elections in
the USA and in many countries where voting is not compulsory.
That does indicate a note of complacency. Or would I not be right?
(Lord Parkinson) I do not think it denotes complacency,
I just think, as I said at the beginning, in my opening remarks,
that on the whole, for a non-compulsory voting country, the turnout
is not bad. It does vary from time to time. We like to think that
the reason, last time, why we lost was that a lot of people who
were fed up with us could not bring themselves to vote for either
of the other two parties, so they stayed at home. We would have
preferred them to turn out and vote for us, but it was even better
that they did not do the alternative. I think that was why there
was a low turnout, there were a lot of very disaffected Conservatives
last time. I think our system does work well, comparatively well.
These changes we are talking about might add one or two per cent,
but they are not going to add any more than that. I think, also,
an important thing is that local elections and European elections
do not command the same turnout, yet we have exactly the same
system. I think turnout reflects people's attitudes to the institutions
they are being asked to vote about. They think Parliament is important,
but they are not quite so sure about their local councils and
about the European Parliament. It is the same system, but it just
delivers a smaller turnout. It is enthusiasm for the institution
that dictates the turnout, not the electoral system.
372. On the question of compulsory voting, Lord
Parkinson, which, again, in the same paragraph, you make clear
the Conservative Party is opposed to, would it not be right to
say that compulsory voting gives a misleading impression because,
obviously, you cannot force anybody, and it would be totally wrong
to say "You must vote for one candidate or another".
If there were safeguards—obviously Jehovah's Witnesses and
other people could hardly be forced, against their religion, to
engage in the democratic process, and if anyone who wanted to
be exempted was granted an abstention automatically by the local
Registration Officer or if you went along to the polling booths
you could abstain in person, so it is not compulsory voting as
such—why would you be so much opposed to it? It would not
be on any question of party advantage or disadvantage.
(Lord Parkinson) No, I just think it is an imposition
on people. It is a democratic right, I believe, not to vote. If
people do not want to go to the polls, I do not think it is any
duty of government to try and force them to and to say "You
have to argue the case for not voting before you are allowed not
to vote". I just think that is an imposition on people. Our
system works pretty well, and three-quarters of the people turn
out. Actually, if you think of the out-of-date nature of the register
and the shifting population that we have, and the very substantial
number of non-British citizens who live here, we get quite a high
turnout. We want to improve it, if we can, but I think the institution's
standing, in the eyes of the people, is far more important than
any tinkering we can have at the edges of the electoral law.
373. I was being slightly ironic in the last
sentence of my question, when I said it would not be for party
advantage or disadvantage. Would it not, however, be the case
that in the main, those who do not engage in the democratic process
tend to come from what is normally described as the lower economic/social
class? Is there not, therefore, a feeling in the Conservative
Party that if more people engaged—you are shaking your head,
so the answer is no—it would not be to the benefit of your
party.
(Lord Parkinson) I can truthfully say I have never
thought that myself, Mr Winnick, nor heard it suggested by anyone.
I think our attitude is, basically, our attitude to the freedom
of the individual, and that people have a right to vote or not
to vote. If they choose not to, it is their loss, but it is their
right.
374. People do not have a freedom over whether
they wish to pay taxes—local or national—which is
decided by the democratic process, Parliament and local authorities.
If you have a car you must have a licence and the same for a television.
So though we live, fortunately, in a very democratic society—and
long may it remain so—there are, nevertheless, obligations
on the citizen. Is that not so?
(Lord Parkinson) Yes, but I think that in a grown-up
country we should leave it to people to make up their own minds
about whether they wish to be involved in the democratic process.
I do not think we should try to force them to get involved.
375. Mr Gardner, you, in your paper, on behalf
of the Labour Party, take a somewhat different attitude—an
agnostic attitude, I suppose—when you say that the party
is not quite sure of its position but you want a debate as such.
Why do you want a debate on the subject?
(Mr Gardner) On compulsory voting?
376. Yes.
(Mr Gardner) We feel, on the one hand, some sympathy
with Lord Parkinson's view that people should have a positive
right not to vote. However, it is important to instill a civic
duty in people to vote. That is important for our democracy. I
think there is something to learn from Belgium, Italy and Australia
and countries where they do have compulsory voting, but I do not
think the Labour Party would ever want to introduce that against
people's will. I think that is very important. We feel there is
no harm in having a debate but we feel the more important issue
is not compulsory voting but ensuring that people have a right
to vote. In terms of participation at the last General Election,
the turnout of 71 per cent, while acceptable—especially
given the very clear result—the trend is still worrying
and is very much at the low end of most established democracies.
From the Home Office evidence it is clear that there are two million
people not on the register in 1997—five per cent—and
from the AA evidence it is clear that at a minimum nine per cent
of the people who were on the register had moved and only two
per cent of those who had moved in fact applied for a postal vote
at their new address. If you add the two million not registered
and the four million who had moved, six million people were, effectively,
disenfranchised because of our archaic registration systems. If
those six million had voted at the same rate as those that did
vote, which is 71 per cent then the overall turnout would have
been 4.2 million more and, therefore, the overall turnout would
have been 81 per cent of the British electorate—which I
think is far more acceptable. I think those are the issues that
are most vital to explore, together with how we can promote democracy
and promote civic education. I have been on the doorstep myself—like,
obviously, all the Members here—and on election day I was
struck by the number of people that simply had not voted before
and did not know how to go into a polling booth and cast their
vote. I think that is a very bad commentary on society and the
importance attached to elections.
377. Do I take it that, unlike the Conservative
Party, the Labour Party has therefore considered the vulgar question
of whether compulsory voting would be to its advantage or disadvantage?
(Mr Gardner) I think there may have been speculation,
but I would not like to comment further. It is clear in the General
Election and in local elections, as a matter of clear, academic
record, that Labour voting areas—particularly Labour heartlands—do
have lower turnouts. There is generally lower turnouts where there
is not so much competitiveness, but there are much lower turnouts
in Labour voting areas than there are in Conservative voting areas.
So I suspect that while, if you had had compulsory voting, the
overall Labour vote would have increased and the Conservative
vote increased less, I do not think it would have made too much
difference in the marginal constituencies where the overall level
of competitiveness means people are far more likely to vote anyway.
378. Clearly, such vulgar ideas have never entered
the heads of those at Conservative Central Office—as we
have been told. Mr Rennard, what about your organisation on compulsory
voting? Do you have a view as an organisation?
(Mr Rennard) Yes, we do. We oppose compulsory voting
on the grounds that we would not like to see people fined for
not voting. I think it would cause further alienation from the
political process if people were dragged before the courts in
response to not having turned out to vote at a particular election.
However, we are concerned about low turnouts. We do think it is
largely disillusionment with the political process that causes
people not to vote rather than their inability to get to a particular
polling station. We would like to do whatever could be done to
increase people's ability to vote and to experiment in terms of
increased absent voting, early voting etc. We would like to make
it easy to vote. We think that might address the situation, but
only to a small extent—you are talking, I think, of 1, 2
or 3 per cent by such measures. Far more fundamentally is people's
disillusionment with the political process. When it comes to the
electoral voting system—which I know is not the subject
of debate here—but as opposed to the detailed mechanics
of the hours that polling stations are open, if people actually
think that in 500 out of 659 constituencies the result is clearly
a foregone conclusion, you can understand why fewer people are
inclined to vote. If they feel their vote does not count equally,
or they wish to vote or they wish to vote for a party which they
know has no prospect whatsoever within that constituency, then
they are less inclined to go and vote. Therefore, I think things
like electoral change are rather more important in terms of connecting
people with the political process and making them feel inclined
to vote than actually things such as early voting or absent voting
arrangements.
379. One last question. You said you do not
want people dragged before the courts and you would not want—to
put words into your mouth—the law brought into disrepute.
Obviously not, but why is it, for example, in Australia that large
numbers of people are not brought before the courts? What is your
view on that? The law seems to be observed in that democracy,
and compulsory voting—if that is the right description—has
existed for a long time.
(Mr Rennard) I do not know enough about the Australian
culture that seems to make this largely acceptable in Australia,
and it is largely acceptable. People understand that if they do
not vote they pay a fine. Here, I just think it would be politically
unacceptable; I think people would not welcome it and it would
discredit the political system in that people would feel "These
politicians—we do not trust them and now they are making
us pay fines if we do not vote for them".
(Lord Parkinson) I think if one looks at the turnout,
it does vary. October 1974, 72.8; 1979, 76; 1983—when it
was clearly going to be, as the polls showed, an overwhelming
result in our favour—72.7. Then it starts to get closer:
1987, 75.3 and 77.7 in 1992. So when the public feels there is
a real contest they turn out. This time 71.5. I think the polls
told everyone, over a long period, that Labour was going to have
a very handsome victory. The size of it surprised us but I do
not think the fact that Labour won was a surprise. I think the
electorate felt "What is the point? They have won".
But in 1992, when people felt it was very close and their vote
mattered, they turned out.
|
