Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I have reservations about amendment 136. I fully understand the spirit in which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) argued for it, but I have concerns about requiring the agreement of the Speaker’s committee on the Electoral Commission. Would the committee have to agree on absolutely every bit of material, therefore having some sort of editorial control, with only their imprimatur and nihil obstat determining what goes? I am not sure that it would not put the committee in a potentially invidious position—indeed, hon. Members have already asked questions about what side of the argument the committee members are on. The safeguard that the amendment is trying to achieve might turn out to be more complicated and hazardous.

I prefer amendment 136 to amendment 247, however, because the latter would basically create not a difficult position for MPs sitting on the Speaker’s Committee, but an absolute veto by one campaign on the work of the Electoral Commission and indeed on the seemly and properly informed conduct of the entire referendum. To give each campaign an outright veto would be to give it too tempting an opportunity. Some of us come from territories where we are used to vetoes lying around the place, and they do not usually stay there as unused ornaments; they end up being used deliberately, effectively and destructively.

[Mr Jenkin]

The effect of my amendment is clear. It states:

“The Electoral Commission shall not issue any explanatory documents to persons entitled to vote in the referendum”

unless agreed by both campaigns. It is very clear. It would not prevent the Electoral Commission from carrying out its other work.

[Mark Durkan]

We are being told that no explanatory documents will be issued unless they have been approved by both campaigns. It could easily be in the interest of one campaign—for instance, a campaign saying, “We probably should not even be having the referendum anyway because it is not necessary”—simply to object. In such an event, no explanatory information could be issued, and then the conduct of the referendum would be seriously and fundamentally compromised.

Some of us have experience of seeing how referendums have been conducted in other jurisdictions.

[Mr Jenkin]

The yes and no campaigns will receive considerable public funds and will have a free mailshot. Each will explain the voting systems in its own way. That is a perfectly fair way of conducting a referendum. After all, at general elections, we do not ask an authority to explain the issues of the day to the British people; we let the British people make up their minds on the basis of what the political parties send out. That is the conventional way of running a referendum.

[Mark Durkan]

I will give the example of referendums conducted in the south of Ireland. The Referendum Commission has clearly gained some experience in how to manage the dissemination of information and how to deal with the various claims that emerge from different campaigns—and it has had to do that authoritatively and effectively. There are lessons to be learned from the Irish experience about how this referendum can be conducted. I would have a difficulty with putting absolute control over the Electoral Commission’s role in the hands of either campaign.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point of allowing the Electoral Commission to issue information about the systems under consideration in the referendum is to ensure that those who wish to vote in that referendum have access to impartial information about the options available to them, not to partial information from either the yes or the no campaign?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady is right. That has certainly been the experience in the south of Ireland, where the Referendum Commission has played precisely that role and had to reprimand some individuals for claims—whether exaggerated arguments or not fully factual explanations—made on behalf of yes and no campaigns. It is appropriate that somebody be charged with providing neutral information, rather than the fairly colourful and possibly extreme suggestions that will come from both the yes and no campaigns. Those who are very committed might tend to be over the top in some of the material they produce. Certainly that has been the case in some referendums in the south, which is why the Referendum Commission there was developed and given this sort of role, and it is why the Electoral Commission will have to play the same role here. However, we have to be careful not to put the Electoral Commission in a difficult position in respect of the approval that it must secure in relation to anything that is issued, although campaigns obviously are—and should be—free to make their case.

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Does he agree that an ancillary danger of the amendment is endless delay? If one campaign raised objection after objection to wording, would that not muddy the waters and endanger the very date of the referendum?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, that is precisely what could happen, and if the controversy and disagreement on the wording all tended to come from one side rather than the other, that could create an insinuation of bias on the part of the Electoral Commission’s conduct and intent as well.

I give hon. Members a warning. Perhaps this is not a warning, but bad advice; or rather, perhaps it will turn out to be advice that I am ill-advisedly giving to some Members who would campaign against AV. The experience in some of the referendums in the south is that no campaigns have basically adopted campaigns of misinformation. They have created a lot of confusion and controversy around relatively straightforward issues, and then resorted to the tactic of campaigning on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because I shall sit down soon and the hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution then.

We have already seen an attempt to create confusion, with some of the obfuscation and the diversionary amendments from hon. Members previously. I am particularly worried that amendment 247 could be a recipe for serious mischief and utter grief as far as the conduct of the referendum is concerned. I wait to hear what more the Government will say about their amendment 264, which seems relatively straightforward. However, if the choice is between the two non-Government amendments in the group, I would prefer amendment 136, although I have my reservations.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If we have a body such as the Electoral Commission which needs to be impartial, it is most important that we should not charge it with deeds that put it in a position where others may think that it is not being impartial. I therefore hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), because there is a danger here.

The process may start with the best of intentions. The Electoral Commission might feel that its draftsmen and women are sufficiently capable of setting out, in short and clear prose, exactly how the two different systems operate. However, it is easy to tiptoe from straightforward explanations of complex systems to value judgments. As we have already heard from my hon. Friend in speaking to his amendment, the language describing the two systems is already charged with prejudice and opinion. Calling the current system “first past the post” may make it attractive to those who like horse racing, but it may also make it anathema to those who do not, because it perhaps invites a comparison with the grand national, about which people have passionate views, both for and against.

“First past the post” is not a particularly elegant way of describing a system in which the person who gets the most votes wins, which is probably how I would describe the current system. People can win an election by having more votes than any other candidate in that election. That is a relatively simple approach, but it is not contained in the name of the system. I find the alternative vote much more difficult to describe. As colleagues will know, I am probably not a great fan of it. It is inherently complicated, because of the reallocation of votes and the fact that people who vote for losing candidates effectively vote twice, while people who vote for winning candidates vote only once. Again, however, that takes us into opinion. I am setting out my opinion, but how does one describe the system in language that does not in some way prejudice that description or imply that the extra choice for some electors is a good thing, and that people should therefore warm towards it?

It will be very difficult for the Electoral Commission to come up with language describing both systems that is thought to be fair, and this is particularly true for the alternative vote. There will be rows over the question, which will drag the Electoral Commission into the proper conduct of the election. That raises the danger of a well-intentioned body being dragged into a political argument that it should be well above, leading to the possibility of one or both sides in the referendum campaign feeling that they have not been fairly treated, because a word, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph or even a whole document was in some way misleading, or was telling only half the story or using prejudicial language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel]

I tabled the amendment because the campaign to lower the voting age to 16 is well established. The argument we are making is that 16-year-olds are perfectly able to take responsibility and to have a well thought-out and well argued opinion. We need to focus on that. Personally, I would have no problem with allowing 14-year-olds to have a say, but that is not what we are arguing for today, although I know plenty of 14-year-olds who are very capable of making responsible decisions. The reason we have a limit at 16 is the same as the reason for having a limit at 18—it is arbitrary. I argue that we need to lower the age, because people can take responsibility. As has been said, 16-year-olds are allowed to go to war, and with the consent of their parents they are allowed to get married. They can do any number of things. Although the limit may be arbitrary, the campaign is well established and we need to draw the line somewhere. At present, it is being drawn at 18, but I would like it to be 16.

[Mark Durkan]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Currently, registration details are taken from people who are 16 and 17. They are not eligible to vote, but they are eligible to register, subject of course to having achieved that age. The registration details of many people aged 16 and 17 are already available.

[Natascha Engel]

That is absolutely spot-on. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way.

[Mark Durkan]

She will regret this.

[Sammy Wilson]

She probably will, because I am a bit confused about the argument for the amendment. It started off as an argument that, as people would be using the system to vote at the next election, they should have some say about it. As has been pointed out, that ought to mean reducing the age to 14, because 14-year-olds will be using the system. Then the argument changed and we heard that we had to choose an arbitrary age, and it was 16. What is the central point that the hon. Lady is making? Is it that people should have a say about the system that will be used when they first have a vote at a general election? If that is the case, why is the age not 14? Why not choose any number at all and put it in the amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall contribute briefly in support of amendment 332 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). Like her, I speak as a former 16-year-old, and also as a former chair of the all-party group on youth affairs. It is important that in this debate, hon. Members in all parts of the House are listening to the organisations representing young people who, as she said so eloquently, have been campaigning for many years for the principle of votes at 16.

I was 16 in 1983, and there was a general election that year which some of us remember only too well. I stood in a mock general election in my school and I came fourth as the Labour party candidate, although 14 years later perhaps made up for it by winning in that same constituency in 1997. I cite that because in my experience 15, 16 and 17-year-olds are often extremely interested in politics. The case that has been made for votes at 16 is about recognising the rights of citizenship that include the right to vote in elections.

The referendum gives us a first opportunity to try out the notion of giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds. As a supporter of that, I am confident that it will work and that many 16 and 17-year-olds will choose to participate, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave. Those who are more sceptical will have the opportunity to see whether it might not be quite so successful in practice.

My hon. Friend, who was subject to many questions and interventions, made the case clearly as to why it makes sense for 16 to be the age at which the limit is set. Of course, as she said, it is to some extent an arbitrary age, as is any age. An age lower than 16 would be problematic and would raise practical issues about the registration process, as hon. Members have said, whereas we already ask 16 and 17-year-olds to put their names down when placing people on the electoral register each year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, it is a straightforward proposition to suggest that 16 and 17-year-olds should be entitled to vote in the referendum.

[Mark Durkan]

A further consideration, certainly in the context of registration in Northern Ireland, is that anyone registering must give their national insurance number. Obviously, that would be available only from the age of 16.

[Stephen Twigg]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important additional point in support of the proposal.

I encourage hon. Members in all parts of the House to be brave and to support the excellent case that has been made this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire. I respect the fact that there are some in the House who, in principle, are opposed to any lowering of the voting age from 18. If Members feel that strongly, the onus is on those of us who support a reduction to 16 to persuade them. I am more sceptical of those who fought an election on a manifesto to reduce the age to 16 yet are telling us today that although they support the reduction in principle, this is not the opportunity for us to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I was not in any way underplaying the seriousness of the issue in those cases where these events happened. I was simply outlining the fact that it was not as widespread as people might have thought from the television coverage; I wanted to put it in context. However, as I said, I absolutely acknowledge that for those people who were affected, the problem was clearly very serious, and we want it to be solved, but we do not necessarily think that the proposal under discussion is the right way to solve it. There is a danger of creating as many, if not more, problems than those we are trying to solve in the first place. The law of unintended consequences might apply.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the Minister not accept that the problem is likely to be more acute in circumstances such as those in Northern Ireland, where voters will be using three different ballot papers? Regardless of what combination arrangements are put in place in respect of separate ballot boxes and so forth, that is likely to cause more delay. I also ask him to remember that in the last general election some of us had our counts delayed by dissidents who were directly attacking the democratic process. Sadly, it is likely that in some places in Northern Ireland there could be disruption outside the polling stations, which will add to the problem.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raises two separate issues. The latter problem is clearly one that I hope does not arise, although he says it may well. If so, it must be managed on a case-by-case basis. We cannot make provision in legislation for that, but we want to make sure we solve the problem.

The hon. Gentleman’s first point about the combination of polls next year highlights exactly why we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission and officials who administer elections across the UK to put in place sensible combination provisions to ensure that the elections run smoothly. It will be for those responsible for delivering both the elections and a referendum to look at what the likely turnouts will be and what complexities might arise from the elections, particularly in places such as Northern Ireland where there may be a number of polls with different electoral systems, and to put plans in place. One of the things that the Electoral Commission will be examining, certainly as far as the referendum is concerned, is whether people on the ground have made those arrangements. I know that the chief counting officer will be ensuring that the counting officers and regional counting officers have exactly thought through some of these issues to ensure that they do not arise again, and of course they have the power to direct some of these things to be sorted out appropriately, a power that they did not have for the election.

To be fair, it is worth making the point that although the Electoral Commission was criticised to some extent this year, it was not responsible for delivering the elections in those individual cases. It delivers the guidance and it encourages returning officers to think about some of these issues, but in the areas where there was a problem it was largely the responsibility of the individual returning officer for not having planned properly or having had proper contingency arrangements in place. That is where the responsibility lies, and we need to ensure that that does not happen again.