| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): No.
Mr. Clappison: The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not, but he will recollect that he chose to advance his consultation in a rather partisan way. If I remember correctly, he said that his was a party and a Government who were prepared to listen, including listening to the arguments. Perhaps that was not entirely wise. That seems to be so, given what has taken place since he made those remarks.
The Home Secretary might care to address the question why he chose the Belgian system out of all the systems that are available. A debate on that issue took place in part when the Bill was considered in Committee. The Home Secretary mentioned the Belgian system together with the Danish system. We would like to hear a little more from the right hon. Gentleman about why he chose the Belgian system rather than the Danish.
The Home Secretary said that he would be prepared to listen to learn how Members on both sides of the House perceived the Belgian system. I can assist him, because every Opposition Member, including probably the Liberal Democrats, thinks that the closed-list system is wretched and rotten. I would be surprised if many voices were raised in support of it on the Government Benches. When the right hon. Gentleman responds to the debate, perhaps he will tell us how many representations he received in favour of the closed list.
We apprehend that not even Labour Back Benchers had much of an appetite for a system so alien to our traditions in this country. It is a system that would deprive the electorate of the chance to vote for an individual candidate of a party.
We know that some Labour Back Benchers tabled an amendment in Committee. These were the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
Where are they?
Mr. Clappison:
That is a matter for them.
The hon. Members for Stroud and for Southgate tabled an amendment, and argued in favour of it.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole):
It is interesting that the little rebellion that took place on the Government Back Benches to promote an open list seems to have disappeared now that the Home Secretary has made up his mind.
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We know that some Labour Back Benchers originally wanted the Government to think again, and they tabled an amendment to enable the Government to do so. Were the Government listening to them, we wonder. How much weight did the Government give to Labour Members' representations? We suspect that the answer is, not a lot, and we take that view on some rather good grounds.
We now learn that, at more or less the same time, when Labour Back Benchers were tabling an amendment to enable the Government to think again about the closed list system and to think instead of having an open list system, the Government were not listening to them, but instead had commissioned a focus group to give them some ideas for the voting process. It is interesting that the group carried out its work at some time around 20 February, according to the documents that the Home Secretary placed in the Library, and reported on 28 February. The mechanics of how the group came about is a matter for the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary looks perplexed. The focus group reported to him on 28 February, and carried out its field work between 20 and 23 February. We do not know why it took place at that time. We wonder whether it was a last-ditch effort by the Government to justify the course they were taking. We shall listen with interest to the Home Secretary telling us about the representations he received in favour of the closed list system.
The Government did not listen to their Back Benchers, but chose instead to listen to the focus group. I suggest that, if Labour Members--I know that several of them are deeply interested in electoral reform--want to influence their Government, it is no use tabling amendments for the Home Secretary to answer in debate. They should write to Phoenix Fieldwork Ltd., 71-73 High street, Barnet, Herts, and ask whether they can become part of a focus group. However, I advise them that they had better be careful when they make their application.
I have looked at the way in which the people in the focus group were selected--it was helpful of the Home Secretary to place this document in the Library. They were carefully screened, and, when interviewed, were asked whether they were a member of a political party, Charter 88, the Electoral Reform Society, and whether they were a local councillor, union representative or chairman of a professional organisation. The document says:
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire):
Who paid for the focus group?
Mr. Clappison:
That is a good question. To be fair to the present Government, the previous Government sometimes commissioned focus groups to get responses on particular issues, but this is the first time that I have seen answers given to a focus group being cited as a reason for the Government to pursue a policy. The Home Secretary might correct me on that. The research was carried out at a late stage, and the Government were determined, apparently, to ignore their supporters.
This is a Government who set great store by the views of the focus group. The written answer that the Home Secretary placed in the Library shows that he and the Government relied on the group as a reason for continuing with the closed list system. His reply clearly shows that he was relying on its findings. He said:
There were difficulties. I read with some bemusement, in view of earlier debates, the comments of the focus group. It said:
Notwithstanding the difficulties the focus group evidently had, I was struck by the fact that, time and again, it was in favour of being given a choice. I do not want to be partisan about this, and I am not an expert in focus groups, so the Home Secretary will be pleased to know that I consulted Professor Ian Maclean of Oxford university. I hope the Home Secretary will not mind, but I took the step of sending him a copy of the focus group document for his views as someone learned in these matters.
I asked Professor Maclean whether he shared my surprise at the Government's conclusions, and whether he thought that the Government were right in their assertion that the NOP study demonstrated that most people vote for parties rather than individuals. He said:
I do not know which is worse--a Government who are so arrogant that they trust exclusively the views of focus groups rather than the House of Commons, or a Government who are so incompetent that they get the views of the focus group wrong. The Government do not understand their own focus group, so heaven help us.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam):
Does the hon. Gentleman share my impression of the outcome of that survey, which is that a significant number of people wish to vote for a party, but that those who get involved with a system want to vote for individuals, and the Belgian system will satisfy both groups because it gives the option of party or individual?
Mr. Clappison:
I hope that I will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman too much when I give him our standard
The Home Secretary's logic is no better than his maths. His reason for not wanting the Belgian system is that it does not necessarily translate preferences for individual candidates into electoral success. It is somewhat strange that he should think that not necessarily translating preferences into electoral success is a defect when the system he proposes will never, by definition, translate individual preferences into electoral success, because it will be impossible to express any individual preferences. We should like to hear the Home Secretary's justification for that logic.
We would also like the Home Secretary to justify the exercise that he has been carrying out, which he described as consultation. If we strip away the NOP survey, there is precious little else in the way of justification for the course taken by the Government. The Home Secretary's written answer refers to what he describes as the "incurable weakness" of the Belgian system, which I have just described. However, he knew full well about that on Second Reading, and he told the House so. The Home Secretary looks puzzled, but I have here his comments on Second Reading. He made it abundantly clear that he was fully aware of that feature of the system.
Discussing voter preferences, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Home Secretary has engaged in a consultation, and it seems that nobody wants the system he was consulting on. I am certainly aware of no expert opinion or surveys of public opinion in favour of it, and no such opinion has been expressed in this House. We wonder about opinion among Labour Back Benchers. Not even the Government's focus group wants the system he has prepared, so to whom has the Home Secretary been listening during the consultation period?
We appreciate the Home Secretary's good intentions, but the longer we look at this matter, the less wise we think the partisan comments about consultation were that the Home Secretary made on Second Reading. He might now wish to reconsider those comments, because the consultation has produced nothing in the way of change or additional justification for the steps that the Government are taking. Just for once, the Government should eat a little humble pie, if they can manage to do so.
I say that with some sadness, because, after the wild goose chase on which the Home Secretary has embarked, we have ended up with a system that is unique in Europe because of the power that it gives to the central party machine. The Home Secretary looks puzzled. I made the same assertion in an earlier debate and explained that no other country in the European Union uses such a system
because it involves the use of a closed list system at a regional level. Having made inquiries about that, the Home Secretary will have found that no other European country has such a system.
"If yes to any of the above--close interview".
There is not much chance of them being listened to in the focus group, so they had better be careful what they say when they try to participate in it.
"the NOP study demonstrated most people vote for parties rather than individuals."
12 Mar 1998 : Column 767
I am not an expert on focus groups or electoral research, but, as I read the group's document, I began to doubt whether that was the view of the focus group. Time and again, it seemed that the people who were approached by Phoenix Fieldwork Ltd., who did not include anybody who might possibly have any interest in or knowledge of the subject, wanted a choice. When the systems were explained, the members of the focus group--there were only 48 at most--wanted a say over individual candidates.
"Voters are generally unable to appreciate the implementation of the d'Hondt divisor unless a graphic example is demonstrated to them. With a textual description voters struggle."
Many hon. Members will say, amen to that. Someone plucked off the street in the west midlands or Surrey, which is where the survey was conducted, and told about the d'Hondt divisor would think that the questioner had taken leave of his senses.
4.30 pm
"I cannot see that it demonstrated that, as it was not designed to demonstrate that one way or the other. The quoted remarks of focus group members include some on each side of that question. As it was a qualitative, not a quantitative, survey, adding up the responses on each side and taking the side which received more to be the majority would be an unsound procedure."
He went on:
"The NOP study was designed to test which of the two systems focus group members preferred. It showed that they preferred the Belgium system to the closed list system."
That left me even more perplexed. I await the Home Secretary's considered views on the matter.
"On the other hand, that is marginally more complex than the present simple system that we propose, and it is possible for a candidate low down on a party list to receive many personal votes--perhaps more than those of his or her party colleagues--yet still not be elected, because the weight of party votes helps those higher up the list."---[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 814.]
That is the self-same reason that the Home Secretary gave, in his written answer last Monday, for not adopting this system, yet he knew that all along, and told the House about it on Second Reading.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |