| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): On integrity, why did the Liberal Democrat party put out advertisements in the Evening Standard stating that the London mayoral election was neck and neck between Ken Livingstone on 51 per cent. and Simon Hughes on 49 per cent? What was the basis for that information?
Mr. Tyler: I have it here—in the Evening Standard report of a poll. I shall give it to the hon. Gentleman later if he wants to see it. If there had been a run-off, that would have been the result—[Interruption.] It was true. Indeed, the results showed that the Conservative candidate could not beat Ken Livingstone but that the Liberal Democrat could. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the report immediately after the debate.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler:
I want to try to make progress, as I am conscious that there will be only limited time for Back Benchers.
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1230
I regret the fact that the Prime Minister indicated last week that he thought these were entirely matters for the parties. I do not think they are matters for the parties and I have said that to the chairman of my party. I do not believe that political parties can deal impartially with such issues. The Electoral Commission should be asked to examine the reliability and influence of reported opinion polls and their potential to undermine the integrity of the electoral process.
The Electoral Commission is extremely important to the whole subject of the debate. As I said earlier, I regret the attack made on it by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. It would be folly to ignore the damage to the reputation of the Electoral Commission that the Government's unilateral decision to extend the postal votes pilot has created. I had hoped to hear an unequivocal statement from the Minister that that will not be repeated, and that the Commission's authority will be reinforced.
It is clearly desirable for the Commission to be permitted to experiment with other pilot projects to increase turnout. If the convenience of the electorate is the sole or main criterion, why not switch one year's poll to a weekend—Saturday or Sunday, or both? As we heard from the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward), it may not be ideal but it should at least be considered. It is helpful to hold different elections on the same day and we supported the Government on that. It is also helpful to hold elections in June rather than in May, due to the interruption in campaigning at Easter and, indeed, the weather earlier in the year. We should look into that.
It is apparent, however, that the principal motivation for improving turnout is for people to have the perception that their vote will "make a difference". There is a close correlation between what seems to be a foregone conclusion and low turnout.
Average figures can be misleading. The worst experience in the 2001 general election was in seats that were thought to be so safe that it would not be worth bothering to go to the poll—Liverpool, Riverside being the worst example, with only 34 per cent. voting. On the very same day, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) managed to achieve a turnout of 72 per cent., because the result at the previous general election had been very close—the majority was only two—and it was perceived that it might be close again.
I can offer a personal example. When I was first elected to the House in 1974, my very clever electors in Bodmin knew that the result would be absurdly close and that I would have a majority of only nine, so 83 per cent. of them voted. By 2001, however, in my present seat, the equally clever electorate realised that it would not be quite such a close thing—the majority was well over 9,000—so I am afraid that turnout dropped to 63 per cent.
First past the post undoubtedly depresses the extent to which most voters in most seats perceive that their vote counts. It does not "make the difference" in most seats. In 2001, only 18 per cent. of those entitled to vote actually affected the outcome. Forty-one per cent. did not vote—in the circumstances, who can blame them?—and another 41 per cent. voted either for losing
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1231
candidates or for those who had excess votes already and did not need those votes. Only 18 per cent. actually affected the outcome.
Before anyone tells me that regional lists do not work, I acknowledge immediately that closed regional lists are equally depressing for turnout. They are not the answer, and we are against them, but at least under the closed regional list system for the European Parliament every vote can be of reasonably equal value.
On the other hand, the single transferable vote system is much more effective on all counts. The Electoral Commission will need to examine carefully the experience of STV in local council elections in Scotland to see whether it would assist in dealing with the turnout problems in other parts of the country. I understand that at least one London council—Lewisham—wanted to run an STV pilot to see if there would be an improvement. Such a pilot would be extremely helpful. Where every vote is seen to count, it makes a difference to people's motivation to turn out, as we saw in the several northern cities to which I referred earlier.
If the Electoral Commission is to regain its authority, based on a reputation for impartiality and integrity, it must be empowered to examine the defects of the whole electoral system. The Government are about to embark on an internal examination of the various voting systems currently in place—in Scotland and Wales, in London, in Northern Ireland and for the European Parliament. They are also honour-bound to revisit the conclusions and recommendations of the Jenkins commission—a firm manifesto commitment at the last general election.
It would be an unmitigated disaster if the same partisan approach displayed by the Deputy Prime Minister before the recent elections were allowed to dominate the Government's review. The review must be open and transparent; it must bring in all parties and be completely independent of the Government, avoiding any suggestion of yet more gerrymandering.
My colleagues and I acknowledge that the Government are in a dilemma in relation to the coming referendums on regional assemblies, although it is a dilemma somewhat of their own making. If they wait for the Electoral Commission to report in September, it may be too late to complete the necessary legislation. Perhaps the commission could be asked to produce preliminary recommendations specifically on the regional assembly referendums. In the absence of such a report, my colleagues and I believe that, at least compared to local government polls, there may be a better, although not a perfect, case for compulsory all-postal voting in those referendums for the following reasons.
There would be less opportunity and less motivation for fraud, as there would be no individual candidates or over-enthusiastic supporters. The logistics would be more straightforward, with none of the printing, distribution or completion problems of complicated and confusing ballot papers that we experienced on 10 June. As long as we can still provide choice by insisting on enough locations in each area for the delivery of completed ballot papers, there may be a case for the system. I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that at the end of the debate.
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1232
Although it sounds like a maternity unit, the so-called assisted delivery point is extremely important. To have only one in Greenwich is fine, but in North Cornwall, where people might have to travel 40 miles to it, it is impossible. I noted from the evidence of the Electoral Commission and others to the Select Committee report, referred to on the Order Paper, that Government funding for those delivery points may be an important issue.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: I am about to conclude my speech.
From all I have said, it follows that we believe that the Electoral Commission must play a critical role—the leading role—in bringing together the factual evidence on which the House and the country will take a decision on these important matters. Only then can Ministers repair the damage that they have done over the last few months.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches starts to operate from now.
3.18 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath) (Lab): As has been said, the integrity of the electoral system is an extremely serious issue. I regret the fact that some of the debate has been partisan in tone, because very serious lessons need to be learned from what happened in the last local and European elections. I listened to the Minister's opening remarks, but I should like to share with right hon. and hon. Members the reality of what happened during the recent elections in Birmingham. I suspect that what happened there was replicated in other multicultural inner-city areas.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not talking all-postal ballots— Birmingham did not have an all-postal ballot—and that I support the Government's efforts to increase turnout and participation in elections. Although turnout increased in the area of inner-city Birmingham that I represent and in surrounding areas, in reality that had very little to do with an increased interest in the local or European elections. I deeply regret to say that the increase occurred because postal voting was turned into a political currency in those areas.
To give hon. Members an indication of what I am about to say, I shall quote the opening remarks of the front-page editorial in The Birmingham Post, to which my colleague, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), referred. It was written the day after the election and headed, "Bribes, bullies and ballots". It reads:
"Those Brummies who could be bothered to participate in yesterday's city council elections should ask themselves a sobering question today.
Whatever happened to a polling system once praised as the cleanest in the world?
There is no point in being anything other than blunt: the 2004 Birmingham City Council elections were besmirched by a postal vote feeding frenzy.
Fights in the streets, postmen offered bribes for sacks of ballot forms, a post box torched, car chases, threats, bullying and intimidation and the unforgettable image of a . . . councillor 'sorting out' ballot papers in the shadows of a back street car park at midnight."
Sadly, the article is true. The reason why it is true is that, as I have said, postal votes became a currency, whereby a place on Birmingham city council, with a minimum salary of £9,000 and all the associated privileges, was the reward.
The Minister has said that the overall result of postal voting proves that it was a success. It may have been a success in all-postal areas, but I would strongly advise him to talk to John Owens, Birmingham city council's elections officer—together with his team, he did a magnificent job in difficult circumstances during the elections—and to West Midlands police to find out whether they thought postal voting was such a great success.
Let me tell hon. Members what happened in the reality of inner-city Birmingham. Birmingham has 40 wards, with electorates that range from approximately 17,000 to 20,000 people. Before the local and European election campaign, the highest numbers of registered postal votes were in wards such as Harborne, Quinton, Edgbaston and Sheldon—the Tory wards, traditionally, in the leafy suburbs. The highest number of postal votes registered was 1,616 in Quinton ward. However, by the end of the six-week campaign, the postal votes registered in some wards had increased. The number in Springfield went up from 812 to 3,796; the number in Lozells and East Handsworth went up from 529 to 3,998; in Sparkbrook, it went up from 1,067 to 4,483; in Aston, from 578 to 5,241; and in Washwood Heath, from 693 to 5,583.
All those wards are in the central area of the city and all are multicultural, with very large communities that originate from the Indian subcontinent, but what happened in them is as nothing compared with what happened in the Bordsley Green ward. That newly created ward has 19,715 electors, about 50 to 60 per cent. of whom are from a single cultural group. When the election began, 691 people in that ward were registered for postal votes. In fact, that ward had one of the lowest numbers of postal votes in the city—it was 12th out of 40—but, in week 1, the number increased to 768. In week 2, it went up to 1,750; in week 3, it went up to 2,495; in week 4, it went up to 5,124; and in week 5, it went up to 7,195. When a halt was called on 2 June at the close of postal vote applications, the figure had reached 8,488. I hesitate to think what would have happened had the election campaign gone on for another three weeks.
One would like to think that the dynamics of the campaign had galvanised more than 40 per cent. of the electorate in that ward to obtain their postal votes, but hon. Members can draw their own conclusions on why that happened. During campaigning in the ward, regular phone calls were made to the police by people complaining about the pressure that they were being put under. There was a fight between rival candidates' teams involving 200 people, which meant that a huge number of police from west midlands stations had to be brought into the area. A postman complained to his superiors
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1234
that the brother of one of the candidates had offered him £500 for his sack of postal votes. That is the reality of what happened in an inner-city multicultural area.
You might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what I have described is at least highly suspicious, if not downright illegal. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. The West Midlands police carried out a survey by a special team, which concluded that, as the law is deficient, no one did anything wrong. Indeed, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, Councillor Albert Bore had something to say about that. According to The Birmingham Post:
"Albert Bore, the leader of Birmingham City Council, maintains he is allowed to apply for postal votes on electors' behalf, he can have forms delivered to his house, he can fill the forms in for other people and deliver them to the elections office."
The Birmingham Post then makes the point that that seems slipshod and unusual. It asked the Electoral Commission for its opinion and
"a spokeswoman was adamant that it is 'unlawful' for a person to complete a postal ballot on behalf of another person unless that person has applied for a proxy vote."
However, the Electoral Commission then changed its mind. It phoned The Birmingham Post back, insisting that
"it could not offer advice on the law and suggesting instead that only the returning officer for"
"chief executive, could pronounce on such matters."
So hon. Members will pardon me if my views on the Electoral Commission are somewhat jaundiced.
Hon. Members will no doubt be appalled by some of what I have said, but I counsel caution against a knee-jerk reaction by Ministers. The reality is that in certain communities, the showing of completed postal votes to the candidate is a way of demonstrating loyalty. It will be difficult to frame a law that makes it illegal for a person voluntarily to show a completed postal vote to a candidate to prove their loyalty to that candidate.
I regret that time is running out and I cannot share with hon. Members some other comments that I wanted to make. We must revisit the whole issue of postal votes, because we have to ensure that the electoral system is fair and seen to be fair. I have always believed that voting in public elections is a civic duty. I also believe that we would be better going down the road of compulsory voting, as Australia has done. Whatever happens, however, more safeguards need to be put in place. For example, electoral officers in the recent election were not compelled to have a marked register for people who voted by post. Thankfully, the electoral officer in Birmingham had a marked register. When it comes out, I have not the slightest doubt that the cemetery vote will be high and that a large number of people who were not even in the country voted on the day. We are privileged to live in a democracy, the cornerstone of which is the electoral system. Anything that brings it into disrepute undermines our democracy, and we must never allow that to happen.
3.30 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |