David Heath (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Leader of the House, Law Officers (Constitutional Affairs); Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

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.

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.

See this speech in context