Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540
- 559)
TUESDAY 7 JULY 1998
MR GEORGE
HOWARTH, MRS
GAY CATTO
AND MR
STEVE LIMPKIN
540. But there is still a possibility of that
discretion?
(Mr Howarth) Always there has got to be some area
of discretion in the way that people implement things. I think,
the way the process has been drawn up, it eliminates, as far as
you practically can, any scope for them exercising discretion
in a way that helps to mislead the electorate. That is the overriding
principle behind the legislation, that it prevents the use of
misleading descriptions. And I think it would, frankly, any Returning
Officer that used their discretion in that way to support somebody
who was seeking to mislead the electorate would be in breach of
the law and would run the risk, if the issue was taken to the
courts, that it would be overturned. And I might say, Mr Malins—I
am sorry I could not say it while he was here but I did not get
the opportunity—said that courts could be costly and cumbersome,
and so on, and, of course, that may be true, but the evidence
is, in these sorts of cases, they do deal with them within the
timescales laid down, and there was some evidence of that in the
course of the last general election. So, hopefully, nobody would
need recourse to the courts because we have cleared that system,
in my view, the best way we can. But I cannot eliminate the possibility
that someone might seek to mislead and it could end up in a court
case.
541. You stated earlier that somebody who called
himself a Tory would also not be allowed to have that name go
forward in the same way as a Conservative, other than the official
Conservative. Are you stating then categorically to the Committee
today that once the Registration for Political Parties Bill comes
into law nobody would be allowed to describe himself, or herself,
as a Liberal, as opposed to a Liberal Democrat?
(Mr Howarth) I think there is a difficulty with that,
in that there is a Liberal Democrat Party and there is a Liberal
Party. The Liberal Democrat Party are represented in this House,
the Liberal Party are represented in some local government areas
but not in Parliament. We have debated this at some length in
the Committee Stage of that Bill, and I do not know any way round
that without discriminating against a pre-existing party, i.e.
the Liberal Party.
542. But just for the sake of the record, will
you agree with me that the Liberal Democrats are the party that
took over everything of the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal
Party, and the organisation that now calls itself the Liberal
Party has no historic connection with the Liberal Democrats?
(Mr Howarth) I think you are in a far stronger position
to put it on the record than I am. I would not claim to be an
expert on the recent history of those who now make up the Liberal
Democrat Party, whereas, obviously, you are in a much better position
to interpret that history.
543. Do you not think that the man and woman
in the street may find it interesting that you are prepared to
provide a double break for Her Majesty's Official Opposition by
allowing two registered names, Tory and Conservative, but the
Liberal Democrats are not to be given the same protection?
(Mr Howarth) Let me just explain what I said, so that
there is no room for misinterpretation. The starting-point of
the legislation is about misleading descriptions, and what I said
was that if the Conservative Party, as I am sure they will, choose
to register then anybody who tries to use a misleading description
that could be intended to mislead the electorate into believing
that they were in some way the Conservative Party would be ruled
out, and I use the example of the word Tory simply to illustrate
the point. Any description that could be used by anybody to mislead
the electorate into believing that they are the Conservative Party
ought to be ruled out. I use the word Tory simply that it is still
widely used as a description for the Conservative party, there
is an historical basis to that, people do still refer to them
as that, and anybody calling themselves the Tory candidate would
arguably be trying to mislead the electorate. That is a separate
issue from a pre-existing party which is called the Liberal Party,
which does have some claim on the word Liberal. If you press me,
I would guess that, organisationally, the Liberal Democratic Party
is the inheritor of the old Liberal Party, but, unfortunately,
from your point of view, it has gone through various phases since
then, and I do not know whether you could claim exclusive rights
to the word Liberal. The Conservative Party, nor, for that matter,
the Labour Party, do not have that problem, in that there is no
other party, that I am aware of, that can use that name, or does
commonly use that name. My own party actually does have a competitor
party, called the Socialist Labour Party, which is usually associated
with Mr Arthur Scargill. My view is that because that is a pre-existing
party and he has contested elections, although I am not aware
that it actually has succeeded in any, but I do not believe we
should be seeking to prevent them from standing under the title
Socialist Labour Party, they are already there. But anybody who,
for example, chose to call themselves, as some apparently did
in the general election, in Hackney, New Labour, would, I think,
be attempting to mislead the electorate; or anybody choosing to
call themselves the Labour Party or some subtle variation on that
would be attempting to mislead the electorate, and that would
cause difficulties. So there is an exact parallel between actually
the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party.
Mr Russell: Chairman, I will now move on to
the misleading names of individuals, as opposed to parties. I
think the question of the misleading parties aspect will be something
which only in the fullness of time will we be able to see how
it works out in practice. We acknowledge there is, so far anyway,
only one Andrew Mackinlay, but over time there have been other
people who have masqueraded as Roy Jenkins, Margaret Thatcher,
and I believe other names as well.
Mr Howarth: E Heath.
Mr Russell
544. And E Heath, thank you. So the current
law regards political parties as being able to take a case to
seek an injunction, but, as has been pointed out, that can be
very expensive, and also the shortage of time available to challenge
in the courts a Returning Officer's decision to accept or reject
a particular name. So, although it may be clear that courts can
rule out a candidate's name if chosen for bogus reasons, is it
not the case, as I have indicated there, that the process of going
forward is expensive, and it can be difficult because of the time
factor, and surely there ought to be an improved mechanism to
stop this happening in the first place?
(Mr Howarth) First of all, I think it is important
to say that the Registration of Political Parties Bill does not
deal with the issue of misleading candidates' names. As has rightly
been said, Mr Chairman, I think, in most recent cases, if not
all recent cases, the courts, where the matter has been taken
to court, have ruled against such practices. Whatever the courts
may or may not do in the future in these cases of using misleading
candidates' names rather than parties, what I think we have provided
is the protection (a) that anybody using a misleading name could
not use a misleading party title, and, secondly, they would not
be entitled to use the party logo or emblem. So, although somebody
in my own constituency might choose to call themselves George
Howarth at the next general election, what they could not call
themselves is George Howarth, the Labour Party candidate and use
the Labour Party logo on the ballot paper. So I think there is
a protection there, and there is the added protection of the courts
and the experience of the courts that I referred to a few moments
earlier.
545. Do you think there should be an automatic
inclusion in a person's nomination that they had had that name
for a certain number of years, other than on their marriage; would
that rule out those who quite late in the proceedings decide to
change their name?
(Mr Howarth) It is very difficult. It is difficult
to rule that out in every set of circumstances, and I think it
would be unwise for me to speculate in what circumstances it would
or would not be acceptable for somebody to change their name,
there might be perfectly good reasons why somebody has changed
their name, and I think it is best left to the courts to determine
whether they have done that cynically or whether there might have
been some perfectly valid reason for them to do so.
Mr Winnick
546. I just wanted to clarify the position,
Minister, regarding titles which candidates will be able to use
at the next election. I take it that the purpose is not to monopolise
the position for the parties represented in the House of Commons
but to make sure, as far as is possible, that the electorate are
not misled?
(Mr Howarth) Yes, exactly, and, in fact, the vague
principle behind it is to prevent the use of misleading descriptions.
And the classic case that is always used was the Literal Democrat
candidate in the last European elections in Devon, who polled,
I think it was, 10,000 votes.
Mr Russell
547. And the Liberal Party claimed they got
13,000, ahead of the Liberal Democrat.
(Mr Howarth) Yes, indeed; well that is a separate
issue. But as regards the use of the words Literal Democrat, in
my view, it ought to have been considered to be a fairly cynical
attempt to mislead the electorate, and I doubt whether there is
a great political principle called Literal Democracy that would
have attracted 10,000 votes in its own right, although I am loathe
to speculate on political ideologies in this eminently practical
discussion.
Mr Winnick
548. There was a candidate in the Speaker's
constituency, I believe, that called himself New Labour, but,
for example, you gave one instance of Scargill's organisation,
if it could be described as a party, but he would have a perfect
right, as I understand it, under the proposed legislation, to
have candidates under that name, as if indeed there continued
to be an Independent Labour Party. The ILP, presumably, again,
that would be perfectly in order, and the Liberal Party, as opposed
to the Liberal Democrats, would have the right to describe themselves,
as you say, as the Liberal Party?
(Mr Howarth) There are some concerns we have about
the use of the word Independent. It would depend on the circumstances.
But certainly the Socialist Labour Party, which is a clearly distinct
party, there is no doubt in my mind that they can continue to
field candidates under that title as a result of this Bill.
549. Or organisation.
(Mr Howarth) I think it would be quite wrong, it is
not because I have any particular support for them, it is simply
that they are a party, they exist, and it would be quite wrong
of anybody to try to outlaw them because there is a small scope
for some confusion there. I might add that I had a Socialist Labour
candidate stood against me in the last general election and he
seemed to go to great lengths to distinguish the difference between
he and I, so I do not think that was a particular problem.
550. It must have been a very tight fight, Minister!
(Mr Howarth) No, it was not.
Mr Cranston
551. I had a Socialist Labour, but they chose
a candidate with a surname beginning A, they took 2,000 votes,
which was quite a considerable proportion. Have you got any thoughts
of supplementing the symbol, by, for example, having circular
ballot papers?
(Mr Howarth) No.
Chairman: Nice try. We are now going to go back
to voting again, for the moment, having accommodated Mr Malins,
who was suitably grateful, I am sure. Mr Howarth.
Mr Howarth
552. Thank you very much, Chairman. The Minister
and I have not actually been on the same ballot paper as one another,
so we have not had to contend with that particular problem, although
we do exchange each other's mail from time to time.
(Mr Howarth) And very interesting it is.
Mr Howarth: And that is entirely not reciprocated
because I do not open the Minister's mail. A revealing admission
from the Minister.
Mr Winnick
553. Lady Thatcher presumably writes to you,
Mr Howarth.
(Mr Howarth) I might say, by way of amplification
of that, anything that is addressed G Howarth causes some difficulties,
I think, for both of us. I am very anxious that people should
distinguish the name Gerald and the name George, although I accept
Gerald is not a misleading description.
Chairman: Can we proceed; enough of this nonsense.
Mr Howarth
554. I think it makes the Committee's work just
a little bit more interesting, Chairman. But can we move on to
the question of making voting easier, dealing with practical issues
such as the voting hours, absent voting, choices of polling station,
and that sort of thing. Do you think that there ought to be more
encouragement to people to vote by post or to vote by proxy, do
you think there ought to be more publicity about the availability
of that means of voting?
(Mr Howarth) Yes. One of the areas that we want to
consider is the whole process of absent voting of one kind or
another, whether it is postal ballots, and so on. One of the things
that we have to be careful about though is the integrity of the
system and there have been some publicised cases where, for example,
proxy voting has been misused, and so on. So we do need to look
at that. The paper that was tabled at the Working Party by the
Scottish Office and COSLA looked at the possibility of absent
voting on demand, and we certainly believe that some extra work
on that is necessary and we have recommended to the Home Secretary
that that is the case. But I would like again to reiterate the
point, we have got to get the balance right between making it
easy, on the one hand, but not making it open to fraud, on the
other.
555. So you will be less in favour of having
absent voting on demand, because, frankly, that seems to me where
the risk is, that we move to a situation where there is absent
voting on demand rather than the safeguards that currently exist?
Are you concerned to ensure that those safeguards do continue
and therefore you would rule out on principle the idea of making
absent voting infinitely more widely available, just as a question
of choice, really, to the electorate?
(Mr Howarth) Let me put it this way. The overriding
principle that we always have to pursue in these matters, and
I think everybody would agree on that, is that we have to preserve
the integrity of the system. Anything that undermines the integrity
of the system, obviously, is unacceptable. But we can look at
the practicalities of how absent voting works, are postal voting
procedures too complex and do they confuse people; we believe
that is worth looking at. Are the rules themselves surrounding
absent vote applications too complex and do they deter voters;
again, we want to look at the way those forms work, and I think
it is important that we pursue that. Is the timetable to apply
for an absent vote too short; we think it probably is, because,
increasingly, these days, we go for short election campaigns,
and before people realise that they need to do something about
it the date has gone. So, again, I think there is some scope there
for improvement. And there is a whole area of attestation requirements
for those who have an indefinite absent vote on medical grounds,
and there are concerns about, for example, GPs charging a fee
to do so, and so on; all of those areas, I think, frankly, need
to be looked at.
556. Can we stick with that particular one,
the question of GPs requiring a fee to provide their attestation
of somebody's medical unfitness to vote in person. Do you think
there ought to be a requirement on GPs that that is one of the
functions that they should perform?
(Mr Howarth) It is already.
557. Free of charge, for a patient they should
sign off?
(Mr Howarth) My understanding, and if it is of any
help to bring in amplification from officials, of it is, that
is already the case.
(Mr Limpkin) It is contrary to the terms of contract
between the NHS and GPs to charge.
Mr Corbett
558. In the National Health?
(Mr Limpkin) Yes.
Mr Howarth
559. So any elector who goes along to their
doctor and says, "I'm too ill to go and vote in person and
I'd like you to sign my form", and the doctor says, "That's
fine, that'll be ten quid", the elector should say, "But
you're not entitled to charge, you're required to do this as part
of your contract"?
(Mr Howarth) Yes; and I think they would have a good
case then to raise that as an issue, either with the Returning
Officer or through the local health arrangements that exist.
|
