|
Mr. Heath: I am grateful. I have been misinformed because I was advised that the qualifying date for local elections was the date of taking one's seat rather than of nomination. The Minister clearly has better advice, and I applaud his desire to standardise. I have a gentle suggestion: he might, given his experiences, consider amending the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to bring it in line, so that it is clear that the relevant date for disqualification is the point of nomination.
I was not in the same position as the Minister, because, as he says, he had to have a change of primary legislation to allow him to stand successfully for election to the House. However, I was a member of the Audit Commission prior to my election in 1997, and I had to stand down because that was an office of profit under the Crown and part of the list of disqualifying posts. That gave me some nervousness about whether I was getting my resignation in at the right time and whether it would be accepted by the commission, or by the Secretary of State who controls it, so as not to provide any bar to my being elected as a Member of the House.
Simply bringing everything into line would be desirable. That is clearly what the Minister has in mind, and I ask him to consider whether a subsequent amendment might be in order to the measure that he so fondly remembers to make sure that everything is pointing in the same direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 44
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Nomination procedures
Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 22, page 24, line 18, at end insert—
'(7A) In rule 7 (subscription of nomination paper), in paragraph (1), for the word ''eight'' substitute ''one hundred''.'.
This is a probing amendment. It relates to perhaps one of the more controversial elements of the Bill, controversial not least with the Minister's hon. Friends—the reduction in the deposit required for parliamentary elections. A robust argument about that took place on Second Reading, because a significant number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wondered whether it was sensible or would open the door to more fringe and extreme candidates. It is an area in which we must balance concerns about the barriers to participating in the electoral process that might be put in the way of smaller parties against our wish to ensure that the electoral process is not trivialised, exploited or made to produce perverse results, through the prominence of parties that operate undemocratically.
4.45pm
The Government appeared on Second Reading to be a little lukewarm about their own proposals. It seemed to me that they were not entirely convinced about their proposal to reduce the deposit. I tabled the amendment as an alternative way to achieve some of the objectives of those who objected to the reduction in deposit—by increasing the number of subscribers. That would at least have the benefit of providing that, with a smaller financial requirement, candidates should be able to give a more obvious demonstration of electoral support in the constituency, by providing an increased number of assenters.
There is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposal in my amendment. Although the Electoral Commission does not support it. It does not believe that the number of assenters is a sensible determinant. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I wanted to offer the opportunity to consider it. I am, at best, agnostic about the Government's proposal to reduce the deposit, although I do not believe that financial constraints are the right way to discourage fringe candidates, as they also entail the disadvantage of discouraging small parties from participating in elections. I am, I hope, a good democrat. Plurality is better than monopoly in such matters.
Nevertheless, there are arguments to suggest checks and balances. My amendment would be one way of dealing with the matter. I should like the Minister's comments, during which he may say that he is not inclined to pursue the reduction in deposits in any case. A significant number of hon. Members of all parties would be relieved about that and would feel that the Government were taking the right approach. I am satisfied to wait for the Minister's response.
Mr. Djanogly: The amendment would increase to 100 the number of people subscribing to a nomination
Column Number: 45
paper from the current provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983. It would require candidates to obtain 102 subscribers, including a proposer and seconder, to validate their nomination, rather than 10, including a proposer and seconder, which is the current requirement.
We note, as did the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, that the Electoral Commission does not support the amendment. The commission recommended two options to improve the deposit and subscriber system in its 2003 report ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom''. Both options recommended the abolition of the current subscriber system, following extensive review and consultation. We are in favour of maintaining deposits as a barrier to nomination in elections. We shall discuss that later. The greater the number of subscribers required at the point of nomination, the greater the barriers to participation in the democratic process and we must be careful to maintain the correct balance.
The amendment goes too far. Where candidates seek to represent, and have been selected by, registered political parties, the additional requirement to provide a list of subscribers is particularly unnecessary. Obtaining 100 signatures on a nomination form would be a time-consuming operation and for some candidates potentially very difficult or even impossible. The requirement to obtain signatures does not represent a true test of electoral support, and acquiring signatures is arguably more a test of administrative competency than of electoral support. In addition, requiring a substantial number of subscribers can significantly increase the administrative burden on returning officers as they have to verify all signatures for each candidate.
It also seems unlikely that the 100 signatures would prove a genuine barrier to extremist groups. Indeed, extremist groups would often be the most able to rely on a small but sufficient number of dedicated supporters to meet such a requirement. Equally, it seems unfair to genuine, mainstream candidates who may not be well resourced—some of them may have few active local supporters to count on and yet may still gain large numbers of votes—to force them to spend time collecting these signatures rather than allowing them to devote all their efforts to the real democratic business of an election, meeting and persuading those who are not already their supporters. Given the existing deposit rules, which we support, the extra burden would be unnecessary and probably ineffective.
Mr. Binley: Ten candidates stood in my constituency when I was elected. I am a little concerned about this matter but I am not sure that the amendment would solve the problem.
Mr. Heath: I am not, either.
Mr. Binley: No, I didn't think you were. It seems to me there is a balance between protecting a democratic right and allowing genuine candidates to take part irrespective of the size of the support for the position they represent, and protecting the democratic process
Column Number: 46
from those who wish to use the election for their own rather spurious ends. I cite a case in the election before last in Northampton, where a candidate sponsored by the Daily Star ripped off her plastic nurse's uniform at the count and whose photograph appeared in that paper.
Chris Ruane: Dreadful.
Mr. Binley: You say dreadful—
The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Ms Harriet Harman): It is dreadful.
Mr. Binley: It was not very pleasant at 3 o'clock in the morning, but my point is that we all want to protect the democratic process from that sort of activity so we must strike a balance between the need to open up democracy and the need to protect it. We need to give more thought to the matter.
The Chairman: At my first election, Screaming Lord Sutch and Miss Whiplash were candidates.
David Cairns: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was quite candid in introducing the amendment. Essentially, he said that there was a possible quid pro quo, but as he was not sure whether we would do the pro quo he was not certain how robust the quid would be. I do not want to pre-empt it, but I shall listen carefully to the debate on the next amendment to see whether it is as robust as it was on Second Reading. In that debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House clearly stated, with great vociferousness, that people did not want the threshold at which deposits were lost to be reduced from 5 to 2 per cent.
Given that the hon. Gentleman is allowing the debate on this amendment to be a possible exploration of the following amendment, I think the hon. Member for Huntingdon dealt with the case very well. There are practical issues involved but they are not insurmountable. It is not beyond the wit of an intelligent election agent to manage such things, nor is it beyond the wit of a good ERO to check them, but it is another burden and it adds to bureaucracy when we want to remove it. However, as I said, the problems are not insurmountable and if we were wedded to the principle they would not, in themselves, be sufficient to deter us.
I like the second argument made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the true test of whether someone has local support is whether they get votes. Of course, that can only be gauged after the ballot, but the amendment would insert an additional, slightly artificial hurdle before the ballot, testing whether an individual has local support. The test of whether an individual has local support should come on polling day. I think that is the principle that the hon. Gentleman was outlining.
I have noticed in the Committee that the Electoral Commission is often prayed in aid of whichever side happens to agree with it on an issue. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome who said that the commission did not agree with the proposal. Indeed, it wants to go in completely the opposite direction and do away with the system altogether. That is the position for election to Scottish Parliament:
Column Number: 47
there is a self-nominating procedure in which no assenters or subscribers are required. I understand that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are entirely happy with that system.
We are keeping the situation that we have had in this country for a long time, in which there is some sense of one having to do a bit of work rather than just sitting in London or wherever, and declaring one's self to be a candidate all over the place, in every constituency, without making any effort. We balance that against the two factors that I mentioned: the practicalities, which could be overcome, and the principle, which may not be the biggest principle in the world. Taken together they mean that the case presented by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is not strong enough for us to move to the position that he outlined. I entirely accept the spirit in which he moved the amendment: as a probing amendment to open the debate—perhaps in advance of the discussion that we are about to have on the next amendment.
| 
