| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mike O'Brien: It may assist the right hon. Gentleman if I say that, in terms of amendments Nos. 29, 40 and 42, we are not too far from him in principle. We might seek to bring something forward at a later stage.
Sir George Young: I am enormously grateful to the Minister for indicating a degree of flexibility on the amendments. In the interests of making progress, I will not press the case on clause 11(1)(b) as much as I was going to, but I want to say something about clause 11(1)(c), which is about the European Union.
The Committee may not be familiar with the Commission's preliminary draft budget for 2000. Nor until last week was I, but the Commission is to spend 45 million euros on general information and communication work concerning the European Union; that is less than half the budget of 103 million euros on information and communication. If one looks at the budget, one will see exactly how it is done. I quote from the European Commission budget document:
Mr. Hogg:
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would like to know that I support him on the matter. Will he also address the matter that is set out in clause 11(3)(b)? He will find that the commission has the power to make grants to other persons or bodies to carry out the purposes that are set out in subsection (1). That being so, the commission would have the power to make a grant to a body articulating a particular European view.
Sir George Young:
Let me deal quickly with the second half of the group of amendments, which deals with grants. I have made clear my belief that the clause is misconceived and I am delighted to hear that the Minister shares my view to some extent.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 address the question of grants. To what sort of organisation is the commission to give money? Is it Charter 88 or the Electoral Reform Society? Both are highly reputable bodies, but neither is entirely neutral on the question of parliamentary election reform. It is difficult to think of any body to promote public awareness in that respect that is not in some way committed to one side of the argument. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked, will the commission give grants to pro-euro groups to promote awareness, and, if so, will it also give grants to anti-euro groups?
The whole issue is a minefield. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and concede at least some of the amendments.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I have already told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that, on amendments Nos. 29, 40, 41 and 42, the distance between us is very small. Although we want there to be a debate on the Jenkins commission proposals, I want to make it clear that the Government do not intend that it should be for the Electoral Commission to promote public awareness of the relative merits of alternative voting systems.
The commission must exist to ensure the integrity of our electoral arrangements, to encourage participation and to root out impropriety. In doing so, it must be seen to be impartial. It would be injurious to the perceived neutrality of such a body if it were seen to adopt a position on the question of alternative voting systems. The Government therefore accept in principle the thrust of those amendments. However, we want to reflect further on how the Bill might best be amended so as to clarify the point at issue. In view of the commitment to look at this further, I should be grateful if amendment No. 29 were withdrawn and amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 not pressed.
On amendments Nos. 31 and 32, it would be a pity if the Electoral Commission, in carrying out its educational role, were limited to what it could produce by its own efforts and prevented from harnessing the efforts of others. We envisage that the commission might want to make grants available to other organisations, such as the Citizenship Foundation. We acknowledge the fear that grants might go to politically partisan organisations with an axe to grind, but it is certainly not the intention to subsidise polemics. We think that we can rely on the commission's good sense.
If the Commission's powers are circumscribed along the lines proposed in amendments Nos. 29, 40, 41 and 42, which I have in principle accepted, the scope of the grant-making power would automatically be contracted accordingly. Therefore, it would be outside the powers of the commission to make a grant to an organisation to enable it to promote alternative voting systems. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is also content not to press amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
It is important that the scope of the commission's voter education role should extend to explaining the institutions of the European Union to voters. One of the reasons why we have poor turnouts at elections is that people fail to see the relevance of the body being elected. That applies as much to the European Parliament as it does to local councils. Given the turnout at the last European elections, there is clearly much work to be done. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman not to press amendments Nos. 30 and 33.
Mr. Maclean:
It has been an extraordinary day: the Government have accepted, in principle, numerous amendments tabled by my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and myself. It was certainly a first when, in a spirit of helpfulness and to ensure that the Committee proceeded at a reasonable pace, I decided not to speak to the amendments standing in my name and to let Ministers consider them as they stood. I have never before heard a Minister accept all my amendments even before I have spoken to them. It would therefore be ungracious of me to speak at any length now--[Hon. Members: "Oh."]--but I could be persuaded to do so.
Mr. Stunell:
We oppose the amendments. We are sorry that the Government are moving to accept them, although we fully understand the reasoning that has been advanced. On another day and at an earlier time, there may be an opportunity to engage in the debate that we are all skirting around, about the relative merits of various voting systems.
The shadow Leader of the House remarked that one system would advantage one party and disadvantage another. In the debate about electoral systems and in the philosophy underlying the Electoral Commission and the Bill, the essential element is the need to strike a balance, not just between different political parties but between different political interests in the United Kingdom. We lay great emphasis on the fair treatment and representation of the people of the United Kingdom, even if that sometimes costs parties the power and influence that they would like individually to exercise.
The real issue to which the clause and the amendments are directed is whether the Electoral Commission can succeed in getting people more involved in and excited by politics. We must face the fact that people are increasingly disenchanted with the existing political process.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the elections in Scotland nine months ago, in which there was a constituency vote and a list vote, electors had considerable difficulty understanding that the list vote did not require them to vote for a different party from that for which they voted in the constituency vote, if they did not wish to do so. People felt that they were obliged to vote for two different parties. It is right and proper that an Electoral Commission should advise people of their full rights of choice.
Mr. Stunell:
I agree with my hon. Friend, who has direct practical experience of the situation in Scotland. We all have direct practical experience of the impact of the European election results last year.
One of the disadvantages of amendment No. 29 is that if the House were to examine the voting system used in the European elections, which I understand many Opposition Members want us to do, the Electoral Commission, by virtue of amendment No. 29, could not take part in explaining the new system.
We are in danger of having a reverse section 28 debate which rules out any debate about electoral reform or change, and prevents the major institution established by the Bill from playing a part in that process.
There are occasions when one knows that the House is not with one in these matters, but it is still necessary to say in the plainest and most direct terms that the draft legislation contained an opportunity which I am sorry to see the Minister withdrawing today.
Mr. Hogg:
The key difference between the views of the Opposition and the clause as formulated is this: we
"these measures are designed to be an effective channel of communication and dialogue between the people of the European Union and the Community Institutions. They take account of specific national and regional characteristics, in close co-operation with the Member State authorities."
The point is simple: if through our taxes we were already paying for the European Commission to do that promotional job, why should it be duplicated through the work of the commission?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |