HC Deb 25 March 1998 vol 309 cc624-31 10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths)

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 2, line 36, at end insert— '()No order shall be made under subsection (3), and no order in connection with an ordinary election subsequent to the first shall be made under subsection (4), unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Assembly.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 183, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out from 'have' to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert 'one vote (referred to in this Act as a constituency vote).

  1. (2) The constituency vote is to be given for a candidate to be the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency.
  2. (3) There shall also be calculated an additional member vote for each registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates to be Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included.
  3. (3A) The additional member vote for each party shall be the same as the constituency vote of the candidate of the party in that constituency.'.
No. 211, in page 2, line 43, after 'tar, insert 'a candidate who is a member of'. Government amendment No. 75.

  1. No. 184, in clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 24 and 25.
  2. No. 185, in page 3, leave out lines 32 to 43.
  3. No. 186, in clause 6, page 4, line 3, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'additional member'.
  4. No. 187, in page 4, leave out lines 10 to 13.
  5. No. 188, in page 4, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert
'for a registered political party under subsection (1)(b) is referred to in this Act as the electoral region figure for that party.'.
  1. No. 189, in clause 7, page 4, line 20" leave out 'or individual candidate'.
  2. No. 190, in page 4, line 22" leave out 'or individual candidate'.
  3. No. 191, in page 4, leave out lines 33 and 34.
  4. No. 212, in page 4, line 36, leave out
'in which they appear on the list' and insert 'of the number of votes cast for the candidates'.
  1. No. 192, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'or individual candidates'.
  2. No. 193, in page 5, leave out lines 4 to 8 and insert
'a recalculation has been carried out under section 6(1)(b) after adding one to the number of votes given for each party with that electoral region figure.'.
  1. No. 194, in page 5, line 10, leave out 'or individual candidates'.
  2. No. 195, in clause 8, page 5, line 17, leave out from 'vacancy' to end of line 20 and insert
', the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency shall be returned under the simple majority system. (3A) No election held under this section shall call into question the election of Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included at the last ordinary election.'.
  1. No. 196, in clause 9, page 5, line 39, leave out from '(2)' to second 'the' in line 40.
  2. No. 216, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'that list' and insert
'the list from which the Assembly member whose seat is vacant was returned.'. No. 213, in page 6, line 6, leave out from 'them' to end and insert 'received the greater number of votes.'. No. 197, in page 6, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert 'there is no—one who satisfies the conditions in subsection (3),'. No. 24, in clause 11, page 7, line 11, leave out 'any provision of, or made under,' and insert 'the provisions of'.
  1. No. 23, in page 7, line 12, leave out from 'Acts' to end of line 14.
  2. No. 25, in page 7, line 22, at end insert
'and (d) substitute for any provision requiring the payment of a deposit a provision requiring the signatures of a specified number of electors.'. Government amendment No. 153.

Mr. Griffiths

In Committee, we undertook to consider further whether the order-making powers in clause 3 to adjust dates of elections might be exercised by the assembly rather than the Secretary of State.

Generally speaking, the Government's approach is for the House and those directly accountable to it to be responsible for electoral matters relating to the assembly. We recognise, however, that Members of the Assembly would have a legitimate self-interest in decisions concerning the dates of elections. They would be well placed to advise the Secretary of State in taking his decision. Accordingly, we propose that the order-making powers should be properly exercised by the Secretary of State in consultation with the assembly. Amendment No. 74 would provide for that eventuality.

Amendment No. 75 responds to the issues raised in Committee. Hon. Members will recall the concerns expressed that the Bill as drafted might prevent parties from submitting a party list comprising one name only. It was certainly not the intention to rule out single-name lists. As promised, the Government have considered the matter, and I am pleased to offer the House the clarification that amendment No. 75 provides. It confirms that parties will be able to submit a single name for an electoral region.

Amendment No. 153 is a technical amendment. Under clause 11(5), the return of an Assembly Member at an election may not be questioned except under the provisions of part III of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as applied by or incorporated in order made by the Secretary of State. Part III of the 1983 Act provides for an election to be challenged by means of an election petition. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that in the context of the clause and to establish consistency with clause 15(3)(a), which makes what would otherwise be the first reference to an election petition but does not cite the legislative source.

Mr. Ancram

I should like to speak to amendment No. 183 and the other amendments standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends that are effectively consequent upon the amendment. I do so in the light of points that were raised earlier, to which I must briefly return because they set out the reasons for our concern in tabling the amendments.

The present system of voting as proposed in clause 4 allows for two votes that will be cast separately. The first vote will be for direct elections to constituencies, in the same way as hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies are elected at the moment and on the same constituency boundaries. The second will be for constituency parties or individuals that will be aggregated over a given region yet to be determined, although it is likely to be the European constituencies of the past. That total aggregated vote will then be dealt with under what is known as the d'Hondt system. Success in the direct elections is taken into account in dividing the aggregate vote before the ranking of that vote takes place to decide how many seats are won on the regional list. It is even more complicated than that, but I will not go through it all now.

The real problem arises because there is a distinct possibility of abusing the system, which is designed to create proportionality, in a way that defeats proportionality. That is done by what has become known as split-ticket voting. That is nothing new; it happens in Germany, where there is an additional member system. The difference here is that it is possible, under the provisions of the Bill, to register parties which are essentially identical but pass under different names—Plaid Cymru for the direct elections and the National Party for Wales for the regional list; the Labour party for the direct elections and the Independent Labour party for the regional list; the Conservatives and the Unionists, and so on.

If a split-ticket vote of this kind is achieved, the effect of the d'Hondt divider is totally avoided. Thereby representation of a party can be substantially increased on the regional list. The figures I gave the last time we debated the subject showed that, on I May last year, had there been a Labour party for the direct elections and an Independent Labour party for the regional list, the difference would have been between 64 seats under the system as it should work, and 91 seats under the system if it were distorted in this way. That clearly shows that the purpose of what has been sold by the Government as a proportional system could be completely defeated.

We have been looking for ways to prevent that. I originally tabled an amendment that sought to ensure representation across the two lists. The Government asked me to withdraw it, and said that they would think about the matter further. I then asked whether we would be able to see the draft of the registration of political parties legislation, which we now expect to see after Easter. I had hoped to find there a solution that would prevent the registration of identical parties—parties which I have in the past called alter ego parties. The Minister said at the time that he would examine that legislation to see whether it would deal with those issues. Unfortunately— we have already had an argument about this today—that legislation is not before us, so we cannot tell whether it will provide an answer.

All I have been able to get is the Government's submission to the Neill committee, attached to a written answer on 9 March, setting out in general terms what the Bill will contain. It takes us no further forward: The Registration Bill will have two key purposes. These will be to give a formal legal status to 'registered' political parties and thus enable them to field lists of candidates for the proportional representation systems proposed for the elections to", among others, the National Assembly for Wales"; and secondly, to prevent the use of misleading descriptions … In order to achieve these purposes, it is intended that the Bill should provide for compulsory registration in certain circumstances, and the voluntary registration of any other political parties". There is no qualification or restriction—nothing to say that there will be any way of preventing alter ego parties or hence the manipulation of the system to which I have referred.

I reluctantly accept that this Bill will leave the House before we know whether the registration of parties Bill will deal with what is, on any view, an attempt to avoid the purposes behind this system. That is why we have tabled another amendment tonight. I realise that it has its shortcomings; I am sure that the Minister will tell me that it will get in the way of individuals standing for the regional list.

However, instead of giving two votes that could be exercised on a split-ticket basis, the amendment allows only one vote. That vote would be cast initially for the candidate in the direct election constituency, and thereafter it would be counted within a given region as the party vote. Thus the same votes will be used for the same purposes. A vote cast for Plaid Cymru in the direct elections will be counted as a Plaid Cymru vote in the regional lists, and could not be counted under any other nomenclature. The same would apply to a Labour or a Conservative vote. Unless we find a solution to that problem, we shall build into the system something that will discredit the assembly in its infancy and undermine its credibility in the long term.

On 2 March, the Minister referred to that practice by saying: Such cynical manipulation of the system would be an affront to the electorate and would undermine the democratic credibility of the elected body."—[Official Report, 2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 804.1] Given those words, the Minister has a responsibility to find a solution to that problem. The simplest solution should be in the registration of political parties Bill. Whether it will be, we do not know.

Mr. Leigh

I am trying to follow my right hon. Friend's argument, but I do not understand the problem. I accept that proportional representation systems are complex, but I do not understand why someone cannot vote once, and why the votes cannot be aggregated between the parties. It seems such a fair and obvious solution that I cannot think why everybody does not accept it.

Mr. Ancram

That is precisely what my amendment sets out to do. I accept that the Government want individual candidates on the regional lists, and will turn down the amendment because it prevents that from happening, for technical reasons. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is the simplest and quickest way to deal with the problem. In the absence of that solution, we shall need to look for an answer in the registration of political parties legislation. I regret that the draft legislation is not available to us today. It is wrong to ask us to consider such an important matter without all the available information, particularly as it must be available somewhere if the Bill is to be published in a week or two.

In the light of his comments about the unacceptability of potential abuse of that system, if the Minister will not accept my amendment, which I shall seek to press, I hope that he can find another way to proceed.

Mr. Livsey

Amendments Nos. 211, 212 and 213 seek to provide for open-list voting for the additional member part of the elections. Amendment No. 211 provides that the second vote of each elector will be for a candidate on a list. Amendment No. 212 changes the counting system so that candidates on a list are elected in the order of votes cast, not according to the order in which the party has placed them. Amendment No. 213 deals with vacancies in electoral region seats under the open-list system created by amendment No. 211. It provides that a vacant seat is allocated to the person on the list who receives the next highest number of votes.

Under the system that Liberal Democrats would adopt, candidates for electoral regions would be listed on the ballot paper in alphabetical order by party. Electors would use their votes to vote for a candidate on the list, as opposed to a party, as in the Bill.

The issue of open and closed lists was discussed extensively during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. As a compromise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) tabled amendments to create open lists in which voters would have the option of voting for a party or for a candidate. Voters who voted for a party would be deemed to have accepted the order of candidates selected by the party. That would have given voters an opportunity to express a view on the party list—an opportunity that is lacking in the Bill.

The Home Secretary considered that option carefully, but decided at the last minute not to accept the amendments. He said that the system of providing a choice between a party and a candidate suffered from a fundamental and incurable weakness, in that voters' preferences for individual candidates were not necessarily translated into electoral success. He argued that that was because a significant proportion of voters vote for the party, and individual votes for candidates on the list were unlikely to change the order of candidates.

Amendments Nos 211 to 213 address that argument by giving voters a completely open list, with a real opportunity to elect the candidates whom they prefer. As part of the consultation process, during deliberations on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, research on the issue of open and closed lists was carried out. A poll of 1,130 people by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London school of economics concluded it is likely that a clear majority of voters … would prefer to see an open list. There are other examples, which I will not go into now; but the overwhelming evidence is that voters prefer open lists. 10.30 pm

Open lists allow voters to choose candidates from within parties, expressing preferences for men or women or for ethnic-minority candidates. The only possible argument against open lists is party management. As the poll evidence shows, voters do not like having candidates imposed on them. Open lists are not more likely to lead to fighting between candidates in the same party if they are controlled by a single agent for each party, who oversees a budget.

The voting system used for the first elections to the assembly must have the confidence of the Welsh people. The amendments would increase their confidence, and might encourage more participation in a fair and open electoral system.

Mr. Win Griffiths

The issues raised by amendments Nos 183, 184 and 191 to 196 are important, and I do not dismiss for a moment the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We have given a great deal of thought to the matter and to the various solutions that have been suggested, but I am not convinced that there is an answer that can be provided for in electoral law. The various solutions that have been suggested are, in many ways, more undemocratic than the circumstances that they seek to address.

The solution presented by this group of amendments, for example, would undermine the democratic credentials of assembly elections in three ways. First, voters would be allowed only one vote—for the constituency candidate. If voters want to vote for the candidate of one party in the constituency, and for the list of another party in the electoral region, why should they not have that choice?

Mr. Leigh

Why should they want to do that?

Mr. Griffiths

The record shows that, in countries where there is an additional member system, voters can be quite sophisticated in voting for an outstanding individual who may or may not be a member of their party. Also, in voting for additional members, they may decide that, given the luck of the way in which the election may turn out, it would be just as well to vote for some members of a party in order to retain a reasonable balance in the politics of their country.

Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok)

In many parts of my country, people vote for the most prominent anti-Conservative candidate under the first-past-the-post system in order to defeat the Conservatives, and then want to vote for the candidate of their choice in the list system. The system that is now being proposed would stop the people of Wales uniting to back the most popular anti-Conservative candidates in individual constituencies, which must surely be a bad development.

Mr. Griffiths

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Scottish contribution, which was full of wisdom.

We believe that smaller parties' main hope of winning seats in the assembly may be the party list vote in the electoral region. We in the new Labour party are now so inclusive that we want to give everyone—even the Conservatives—a chance, by having an additional member system anyway. Such a system would enable smaller parties to maximise their potential for party list seats if they ran candidates in one electoral region, but it would not be helpful if they had to run candidates everywhere, as was proposed earlier.

Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Devizes pointed out, his system, as outlined in amendment No 183 et al, would prevent independents from being able to run in electoral regions.

There are questions to be asked about ticket voting, and we must ask them, but there is also a danger of overstating the likelihood of the potential for collusion being realised. I have already said that it would take a very sophisticated degree of cynicism within or among parties to attempt such a manipulation of the system.

I am sure that, if there were any attempts at such collusion, the vigilance of other political parties and the media would soon expose it. I do not think that exposure would reflect well on the guilty party with the electorate, and that in itself would be a real deterrent. It is in parties' own interests not to undermine the democratic integrity of the assembly by cynical manipulation.

Mr.Ancram

rose—

Mr. Griffiths

Just a moment. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the chance to speak shortly.

On behalf of the Labour party, I am prepared to say publicly and openly that my party will not try to deceive the electorate by entering into any such collusion. It would be easy for all the other parties in the House to make a similar commitment, which would kill the split ticket idea altogether.

Mr. Ancram

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his offer; whether he can deliver on it is another matter. I do not know how the Labour party is organised these days, so I do not know whether, when he talks about "my party", he is talking merely for the Labour party in Wales.

Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has just told us that that is precisely what he and his colleagues in Glasgow intend to organise between the Labour party and the Co-operative movement. So there are already signs that such activity is being planned in one part of the Labour party in the United Kingdom, even as we are being made a kind offer that it will not happen in another part of the Labour party in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister accept from me the thought that it is just that type of divided view within his party that causes me great unease on the subject?

Mr. Griffiths

I have made it clear what the position in Wales will be, and I am sure that we can think of ways of ensuring that such things do not happen, and electors are not given the wrong impression about what people really represent.

Mr. Livsey

May I assure the Minister that my party would not wish to abuse the system, either.

Mr. Griffiths

I am pleased to hear that.

Amendments Nos. 211 to 213, to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) spoke, were designed to give voters in the list system the opportunity of looking at a list with all the potential candidates on the ballot paper.

The voting procedure is new, and we want it to be as simple and straightforward as possible. Everybody will know exactly who is standing on each party list, and if people have a preference for one list as opposed to another, under our system they can vote for the party that offers the best list. Notices will be prominently displayed in polling stations, and parties will be able to circulate fully all their lists in each of the electoral regions. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments.

As for amendments Nos. 24 and 23, I remind the House that the purpose of clause 11(3)(a) is to enable us to draw up orders relating to the procedure for assembly elections that are appropriate for elections under the additional member system.

We shall introduce an elections procedure order in the autumn, and we want to make it as elector-friendly as possible. Because of the additional member system, we want to be able to take into account more than the Representation of the People Act, and we shall ensure that the order will be subject to an affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament before it can come into force.

Mr. Ancram

Will the Minister explain to the electors in Wales how the d'Hondt divisor works?

Mr. Griffiths

A research paper in the Library explains that. As a former Member of the European Parliament, I am well aware of how that system works.

Amendment No. 25 is a departure from the practice of requiring candidates to be supported by deposits in favour of lists of voters backing potential candidates. I want to give hon. Members the opportunity to vote on the matters that concern them. We do not want to depart from the established practice of deposits. It is a useful discipline. If signatures had to be collected, they would have to be verified, and a decision would have to be made on what was a reasonable number. Returning officers would have to do all that at a time when they were busy enough.

I appreciate what Plaid Cymru is trying to do in broadening the scope for candidature, but the Government want to stick to some sort of a deposit. I promise that it is not likely to be onerous. Therefore, I hope that amendment No. 25 will be withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Back to
Forward to