Parliamentary Monitoring

Published: Friday, January 8th 2010

Provisions for service personnel to vote overseas

Justice Minister Michael Wills defended the government’s arrangements to ensure that military personnel fighting in Afghanistan would be able to take part in this year’s General Election:

If there are any barriers hindering the participation of service voters in elections, we must remove them. To that end, we are introducing new registration awareness campaigns and targeted registration arrangements. We are exploring using supply flights to support postal voting by personnel in Afghanistan. We have set up a working group consisting of officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and the Electoral Commission, as well as representatives of the armed forces, to explore further improvements.

Eleanor Laing, a Conservative Shadow Justice Minister, was not satisfied by this:

He has set up a working group, but it is too late. The Government changed the rules nine years ago to make it more difficult for service personnel to vote, and at the last general election 40 per cent. of service personnel were unable to vote. Only 60 per cent. of the people fighting for our country were able to express their democratic opinion. It is too late now. The Minister has come forward with kind words, working parties, promises and letters, but the Government have done nothing to make it easier for service personnel to vote. I am sure that at the coming general election, which we all hope will be soon, the situation will not be any better than it was last time, because the Government have taken no action.

Straw answers questions on Alternative Vote, rules out proportional element to Commons voting reform

During oral questions for the Ministry of Justice, January 5, Justice Secretary Jack Straw was asked about the government’s support for the Alternative Vote:

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, North Luton): If he will make it his policy to retain the current electoral system for elections to the House of Commons.

Jack Straw: The Government have repeatedly made it clear that no change in the electoral system for the House of Commons would be made without a decision of the British people in a referendum. We published a comprehensive review of voting systems in January 2008. In his speech at our party's conference in September last year, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that he believed that there should be a referendum early in the next Parliament on whether to move to the alternative vote system for elections to the Commons, and we are giving consideration to how this can best be put into effect.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right honourable friend accept that the existing electoral system not only maintains the strongest possible link between individual voters and their Member of Parliament, but makes for the maximum possibility of electors choosing their government, and not leaving it to post-election dodgy deals between parties?

Jack Straw: That is one of the many merits of the single-member constituency majoritarian system, and it is one of the reasons that has always led me wholly to oppose proportional representation, which is essentially a deceit on an electorate because manifestos have no value and the real manifesto is the subject of brokering after any election. That said, my honourable friend will know that the alternative vote is also a majoritarian system.
What we are talking about is a referendum in which there would be a great debate about which of two majoritarian systems would be most appropriate for this century.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield): David Taylor [the Labour backbencher for North West Leicestershire who died suddenly over Christmas] was a personal friend, and although he and I differed dramatically in politics, I admired him for his independence and his courage. Is the Secretary of State aware that if we move away from the present system of election to this House, the likes of David Taylor will become fewer and fewer in this House, and that is a reason why we should stick with first past the post?

Jack Straw: I understand the point that the honourable gentleman makes about the dangers of proportional systems. However, the Australian federal system uses a system of alternative voting, and there is no evidence that members of the Australian federal Parliament lack independence or readiness to speak their mind.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge): Will the Secretary of State not acknowledge that first past the post has led to a series of governments with big majorities in this House, but with barely more than a third of the vote? It is entirely possible that we will get another one this year. How does it help to restore public confidence in politics at this time of all times to have, over and over again, a governing party with very little support in the country, with the vast majority of the electorate having rejected that party at the election?

Jack Straw: It is a feature of majoritarian systems, and always has been, that it is rare for there to be an absolute majority of voters in support of the government of the day. The difference is that majoritarian systems ensure that the largest minority forms a government. What the Liberals want is a system in which the smallest minority determines the government. We know that from other countries, not least Germany, where the third party simply changed the government of the day without there being an election to secure that change.

David Howarth: The Secretary of State is wrong even about whether the party with the largest number of votes always gets the largest number of seats under the present system. It does not. To call the system majoritarian when the leading party does not have a majority of the votes is rather a strange description. Is not the truth that both in 1997 and again in different words in 2001, the Labour party was happy to give the impression of being a reforming party, but as soon as it won the election under the existing system it reneged on its promises?

Jack Straw: I remember exactly what we said in 1997, because the responsibility was mine. I never gave the impression of being someone who had suddenly had a Pauline conversion in favour of proportional representation, because I had not and have not. What we said was that we would establish a committee, quite properly, to examine new systems of voting. That committee duly reported under the chairmanship of the late Lord Jenkins, and the truth was that there was not a consensus for change, and had the matter gone to a referendum I think it would have been seen as a waste of public money. We now propose a choice for the British people that preserves the best of our system, and there is an opportunity for a great debate about whether we follow what the Australians have done, which in some respects has added to the robustness of their constituency-based system.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East): May I invoke the spirit of David Taylor and offer my right honourable friend some robust advice? Does he accept that the alternative vote system does not necessarily produce any more proportional an outcome than the first-past-the-post system? The only way in which that can be remedied is through top-up seats, but does he accept that they would inevitably create two classes of Member in this House? Is it not too much of a risk to go ahead with such a system?

Jack Straw: I accept what my right honourable friend says-

Mr. Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage): Sit down then.

Jack Straw: I was going to add a gloss to it. On my right honourable friend's first point, no one has ever suggested that the alternative vote produces a proportionate result. However, by definition, it requires each individual Member to be elected by at least 50 per cent of those voting, and many see that as one of its merits. It avoids the problems of so-called AV plus, which would lead to two tiers of Members of Parliament. I think that that would be anathema, and would never gain the support of the British people.

Vote counting, oral questions, Commons, January 5

During the same oral questions session, January 5, the Justice Secretary was asked about maintaining the current usual practice of counting votes as soon as the polls have closed:

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester): Regardless of the electoral system, the votes will need to be counted. Does my right honourable friend agree that the best way to count them in this country, as traditionally we always have, is on election night rather than on a subsequent day?

Jack Straw: Yes. I have made very clear our preference for vote counting to take place on election night, and there has been correspondence between myself and the chairman of the Conservative party on that issue. By law it is a matter for returning officers to decide on, but we believe that there is no good reason in the vast majority of cases why counting cannot take place on election night as it has in the past. The reason-cum-excuse that has been offered is the need to verify postal votes. We all accept that need, but good returning officers are showing that they can do the necessary verification before the close of the count in respect of the vast majority of postal votes, not afterwards.

In a written answer to the Electoral Commission Committee, the Electoral Commission stated that it is “entirely appropriate for them [returning officers], as independent statutory officers, to decide to hold the count on Friday if they are clear that this is necessary to ensure an accurate result”.

Electoral Fraud, oral questions, Commons, January 5

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough): I represent a constituency in which, two years ago, there was ballot stuffing - roll stuffing - by a Conservative local government candidate. Will the Ministry consider making resources available, on the basis of risk, to local authorities in which there might be a risk of ballot stuffing, in order to ensure that that does not occur in the forthcoming general election?

Michael Wills: Of course we are always happy to look at any measures to deal with fraud. It is absolutely disgraceful when events such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency happen. Of course we will look at any concrete proposals. I want to reassure her that we are doing everything we can to combat fraud in our elections.

Votes at 16, oral questions, Commons, January 5

Justice Minister Michael Wills was asked about lowering the voting age:
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North-East): [asked] What recent assessment he has made of the merits of lowering the voting age to 16 years.

Michael Wills: The Youth Citizenship Commission's report noted that opinions were divided on lowering the voting age to 16. The government are now considering the report and how to make progress on it.

William Bain: I thank my right honourable friend for that reply. Does he accept that, 41 years after the previous lowering of the voting age, there are powerful arguments for considering a further reduction to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds? Under the current system, some young people have to wait almost until their 23rd birthday to vote in a UK general election. Surely someone who is old enough to pay tax in this country, and old enough to join the armed forces, is old enough to exercise the democratic right to vote.

Michael Wills: I am grateful to my honourable friend. Of course he is right to say that there are arguments in favour of lowering the voting age, which is precisely why we asked the Youth Citizenship Commission to look at the issue. However, it found that opinion is divided, even among 16 to 18-year-olds. We have to proceed carefully. The only way that we can make radical changes in the voting age, as with anything else to do with the electoral system, is - as far as we possibly can - on the basis of consensus.

Written statement on Welsh constituency boundaries

Justice Minister Michael Wills announced, January 5, that the Boundary Commission for Wales has begun an interim review of the boundaries for Brecon & Radnorshire and Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney constituencies, which would affect both Westminster and Welsh Assembly elections.

Future dates

Monday, January 11th – Johnson v Johnson
Home Secretary Alan Johnson debates with the London Mayor Boris Johnson at Policy Exchange.
Motion: This House believes that Proportional Representation would make Parliament more representative of the people’s will, enhancing our democracy and transforming politics.

Monday, January 11th – Impact of party list electoral systems, House of Lords
Crossbencher Lord Alton of Liverpool has tabled a short debate on voting systems, which will begin at around 7pm in the Lords chamber. Lord Bach will represent the government’s position during the debate.

Tuesday, January 12th – Electoral Reform Society holds its New Years Reception
Drinks from 6pm in Cholmondely Room, Houses of Parliament. Invitation only.

Wednesday, January 13th – Referendums, Lords select committee
Peers’ constitution committee will be discussing the role referendums should play in British politics. Evidence will be given by Baroness Helena Kennedy and Unlock Democracy’s Peter Facey.

Tuesday, January 19th – Constitutional Reform & Governance Bill, House of Commons
Committee of the Whole House debates amendments to the Bill, including an expected amendment to introduce paving legislation for a post-General Election referendum on changing the Commons voting system from FPTP to AV.