| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jenkin: The Minister is not addressing the debate we have had this evening. Will he now put away his brief? We know what is in the rules and they are of only tangential relevance to the question that is preoccupying the House--how can he possibly justify denying the usual democratic process of a free mailing for candidates in the greater London elections? He should address that point rather than just read out what has been typed up by civil servants.
Mr. Hill: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman trying to tack on to an order relating to the election rules the wider considerations of free mailshots. There is no power in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to introduce such mailshots.
Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend has argued that he does not have to meet the detailed arguments that were put in the debate, under your supervision, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the question of a free mailshot. He says that the rules say nothing about the free mailshot, but the Opposition will vote against them tonight because they say nothing about the free mailshot. Will my hon. Friend now answer the arguments that have been put tonight?
Mr. Hill: What I find astonishing about this whole process is that there were several clauses and schedules--which were dense, detailed and lengthy--in the GLA legislation that dealt with electoral procedures and rules, but the Opposition totally failed to raise the issue in any serious way during the protracted hours of debate on the matter.
Mr. Hill: I must continue, because it is my duty to report on the contents of the rules to the House.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: No, it would be wrong for me to do so at this point. I have spoken about the innovatory content of the
rules in the introduction of electronic counting. On May 4 this year, the votes in a British election will for the first time be counted not by people, but by electronic scanners. I think that that is something that the House will want to take note of and applaud.
The rules also set the scale of deposits and signatures that candidates for all three elections have to provide in support of their nomination. The rules propose that each mayoral candidate will be required to pay a deposit of £10,000 and to gather 330 signatures--10 from each London local authority--in support of their candidacy. Assembly candidates will not have to collect signatures, but those contesting constituencies will have to pay a deposit of £1,000, and parties and independent candidates wishing to contest London-wide seats will have to pay a £5,000 deposit.
The mayoral deposit will be forfeit if a candidate fails to obtain 5 per cent. of the vote. A candidate for a constituency seat in the Assembly would also have to gain 5 per cent. of the vote or forfeit their deposit, and a party or independent candidate contesting the London-wide seats would have to get 2.5 per cent. of the vote or forfeit their deposit.
The rules that are before us now have been crafted with care to ensure that the poll can be democratically conducted under proper conditions of fairness and secrecy and with a proper balance between the interests of voters and candidates. A number of matters have been touched on in the debate which, while of interest in themselves, are not actually part of the content of the rules. For instance, they do not, and could not, include a power to provide free mailshots, to prescribe candidates' expenses or to give directions about how any publicity is handled.
The rules are purely and simply about controlling the way in which the GLA election is run so that everyone involved knows clearly what may and may not be done and what the terms of the contest are. They follow the traditional pattern, and often the traditional wording, of our other sets of election rules. There are no surprises. Both the main Opposition parties represented in the House have been kept informed of the proposed content of the rules while they were in draft. The rules are the right ones for the GLA election. That election, which the House has earlier determined on, cannot proceed without the rules and I invite the House to approve them.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17 (Delegated Legislation (negative procedure)).
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |