| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kidney, Mrs. Janet Dean, Ms Julia Drown, Dr. Ian Gibson, Helen Jones, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Laura Moffatt, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Linda Perham, Bob Russell, Ms Joan Walley and David Wright.
Mr. Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to require all schools in England to have a food policy; to provide support for schools in drawing up, implementing and developing food policies; to make permanent the scheme for free fruit in schools and to extend it; to extend entitlement to free school meals, including to breakfasts; to amend the law relating to the nutritional values of school meals; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 122].
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1203
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1205
Opposition Day
Electoral System
[Relevant document: The Seventh Report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 400-I, on Postal Voting.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the first debate on an Opposition motion. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. There will be a 12-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers.
1.49 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): I beg to move,
That this House notes the constitutional importance of the forthcoming referendums on the Government's proposed regional assemblies; expresses grave concern at the threat to the integrity of the British electoral system through the Government's ill-conceived widespread extension of exclusively all-postal voting in the recent elections against the advice of the Electoral Commission and in the face of opposition from across the political spectrum; notes the public concern over reported instances of fraud, corruption and electoral malpractice; believes that the fragmentation of voting systems and methods under this Government is confusing and off-putting to the electorate; expresses concern that the integrity of the electoral roll is becoming undermined; and calls on the Government to restore a person's right to vote in a secret ballot at a polling station should they so choose.
All hon. Members have confidence in the process whereby we have arrived here. I hope that we all appreciate and believe that faith in any system of election is essential for the proper working of democracy. Conservative Members feel ever more strongly that the process whereby representatives in this country are being chosen is becoming contaminated by excessive upheaval, irresponsible experimentation and tinkering for its own sake.
Government by upheaval is the hallmark of new Labour's approach to almost every aspect of constitutional change. The Government invariably end up making a mess of things, wishing they had never started but not being prepared to admit that they have made a complete Horlicks of it. A system that, until recently, enjoyed the unquestioning trust of all its participants, be they voters or candidates, has become open to abuse and unfathomably complicated and has lost the universal trust of those that it serves. The debate that we must hold is neither party political nor trivial. It addresses a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy on which the structure of government at all levels relies.
In the election 12 days ago, all-postal voting, which was forced on people, attracted widespread disdain and derision. Far from being a long-term solution to democratic participation, it has sown additional seeds of political disaffection among the electorate.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the depth of
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1206
disdain and derision was so shallow in the east midlands that turnout in the European elections doubled relative to those in 1999? How does he account for that?
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman should go back to school and study statistics because there is no point in comparisons unless one compares like with like. The experiment in all-postal voting has become a thoroughly counter-productive exercise, which, in the long-term, will be a cause of political alienation, not a solution to it.
I am well aware of the Government's opinion of the merits of increased turnout, but turnout is the altar at which they worship to the apparent exclusion of any other standard of measuring a voting system's effectiveness. Falling turnout is but one factor in a more deeply rooted trend away from mainstream political involvement, but the Government have resorted to a simplistic approach to a complicated issue.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): Does my hon. Friend know that more than 1 million people in this country claim to have two addresses and that the Government showed in a written answer to me that they have no idea of the number of people who are registered in more than one place? I suspect that almost all Members of Parliament are registered in London and in their constituencies. Postal voting greatly exacerbates a small problem. What am I to do with the two extra ballot papers that I am holding? I got postal votes in London and the east midlands and I could easily have voted in both places because there was no mechanism to show that I had cast my European vote in London, where I was voting in the mayoral elections.
Mr. Duncan: I saw the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend's question and my hon. Friend has a valid point, which I shall tackle in more detail shortly. It is becoming increasingly clear to anyone who stops to think about it that the disadvantages of malpractice and disaffection more than offset any marginal increase in turnout in all-postal-voting areas.
Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab): A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that we should compare like with like. In my local authority area, we have had three successive years of all-postal voting without any problems. The only difficulties arose with delays and the introduction of unhelpful obstacles, such as the witness requirement, which was introduced this time and led to reduced turnout. When comparing like with like, it is surely effrontery for the hon. Gentleman to castigate the Government when the cynical delaying tactics in the House and in the other place and the introduction of bureaucratic obstacles that had not been in place previously in my area caused the problems.
Mr. Duncan:
Gateshead experimented with all-postal votes early. Subsequent experiments show that turnout has decreased comparatively. The right hon. Lady has experienced no end of problems in her seat and I shall deal with them shortly. I want to tackle all such matters because the disillusion and confusion that now attaches to voting methods, systems and rules and the composition of the electoral roll are becoming a serious cancer in the body politic. They are switching people off.
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1207
The Minister's previous complacency should be replaced by a sense of contrition and an admission of concern. It will not do for him to intone his earlier answers to questions put to him before the elections. He simply assured us then that everything was running smoothly and that all-postal voting was a triumph for democracy. Clearly, in the eyes of most voters, it was not. To be satisfied that all is well in the voting world, the Minister must establish the extent to which voter participation has permanently increased, ensure that there is no extra scope for corruption or cause for discontent and that the foundation of the entire edifice—the electoral roll—is a pure and perfect construct. He cannot do that.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): My hon. Friend has drawn attention to two disadvantages but there is another. People have to vote early in a postal ballot and therefore might not be affected by events during the campaign. Let us consider the Spanish election. Although one might regret the action of the Spanish electorate, the fact that they could take action as a result of something that happened during the campaign is surely part of democracy.
Mr. Duncan: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. One of the problems of all-postal voting is that it destroys the process of any genuine election campaign and puts an end to polling day as judgment day in our British democracy.
Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): It is a mistake to make a fuss about all-postal voting. The hon. Gentleman should examine postal voting in principle. Perhaps he could remind hon. Members that the Conservative Government extended postal voting to holidays and that neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal party objected when the House extended postal voting on demand to other groups. If there is a problem, it is not all-postal voting but postal voting generally.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |