| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Marek: I am reminded that my Conservative opponent joined the Labour party yesterday for other reasons to do with the Conservative party's inability to form an Opposition. I am sorry about that because it ought to form an Opposition on this. I do not wish to be rude, but simply putting one's head in the sand and saying that one is for first past the post or nothing is not the best way of opposing what I think is a sleight of hand on the part of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his Front-Bench team.
I agree that the system should be one member, one vote. If new Labour means anything, it means one member, one vote. But my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will tell the House that it is difficult to get one member, one vote in the election for Labour candidate for the National Assembly for Wales. Somehow or other, the Labour party, or at least Millbank tower, seems to think that new Labour and one member, one vote is all very well for certain things, such as getting rid of clause 4, but when it comes to electing the Labour candidate for the National Assembly for Wales, it is not the best system and we must consider all sorts of other possibilities.
The election that took place between my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West in the summer had, as one section of that electoral system--
Dr. Marek:
Bear with me for 10 seconds, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am talking about open and closed lists. That election had something called party units where members have two or three votes, which was not right.
At one end of the spectrum, open lists give electors as much access as possible so that they can distribute their votes between the candidates according to their individual judgment. At the other end, one member, one vote puts everybody on an equal basis, with no weighting between one set of electors and another. Unfortunately, the closed-list system allows fixers to get their way, which is the real reason why I oppose it. As there is no possibility of the Government not having their way this evening, I hope that they have listened to what I and other hon. Members have said and that, in the 24 hours or so that remain, they will do something to get this measure right.
Mr. Sayeed:
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for this debate is not about proportional representation, despite what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, or about the House of peers, as the Home Secretary implied. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is doubtless embarrassed to propose a system that most of his party thoroughly dislike. This debate is about the Government's decision to enact a system of closed lists, which shows a contempt for democracy and elevates the self-centred interests of the party machine above the wishes of the people.
In so doing, the Government misunderstand their duty. The duty of any Government is to look after the interests of the United Kingdom--which means everyone in the United Kingdom--not to look after the interests of the Labour party. We have seen examples of that in Scotland and Wales; in the fact that the Neill committee report appears to be cherry picked; in the debate on the House of Lords; and in the elections for a London mayor and a European Parliament. As the hon. Member for Wrexham made absolutely clear, there are different rules and interpretations of the rules by the Labour Government. The choices that they make are in the interests not of the country but solely of the Labour party. That is wrong.
If Ministers think that I am unfair, I ask them to consider this proposition. If a person in receipt of the Labour Whip, who was elected on a Labour manifesto, decided to stand for London or Wales and was the preferred choice of the Labour supporters in London or Wales, would the Labour party allow him, whether he was the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) or the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), to stand in the Labour interest? [Interruption.]
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), appears to be leaving the Chamber. I doubt that a Minister will answer that
question, but the answer is probably that the executive of the Labour party, not Labour supporters, will decide who the candidate is.
Nothing more clearly shows the Government's determination to govern in the interests of party advantage than the shuttlecock passage of the Bill. Labour Members should not blame hereditary Conservative peers. It is worth repeating the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Lord Shore of Stepney, a Privy Councillor and for many years a Member of this House--highly respected, extraordinarily able and very honest--said:
Mr. Sayeed:
The way in which the Labour party will operate the closed-list system is utterly objectionable and extraordinarily undemocratic. Most Labour Members believe that as well; I only wish that they would show it in their votes. There are profound objections to the closed list per se, but the way in which the Labour party is operating it is the worst of all worlds.
Lord Stoddart, referring to the Lords amendments, said:
Mr. Robathan:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is depressing that Liberal Democrats in this place now kowtow so much to the Government that they will support them this evening, whereas some of their noble Friends are willing to stand up for their consciences and principles?
Mr. Sayeed:
It may be disappointing, but it is not surprising.
Organisations outside this place are interested in democracy as well, although they may not be keen on my party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has already quoted the Electoral Reform Society, which said of the closed-list system:
We must not leave out Lord Jenkins. I was interested to see how partial the Home Secretary's quotes were. I should like to give him one back, which supports the arguments that I have been making and that some of my hon. Friends will make.
Paragraph 138 of the Jenkins report states:
"But the dangers of cronyism, patronage and corruption are obvious in a system which concentrates power in such an important area on so few people who are basically self-selected. These seem to me to be very powerful reasons why we should not have a list system at all and why we certainly should not have a closed list."
Lord Evans of Parkside said:
"There is little doubt so far as the Labour party is concerned that Labour candidates who are successfully elected to the European Parliament under this system will regard their responsibilities, so far as their future careers are concerned, to lie in obeying the demands and requirements of the National Executive Committee and the leadership of the party."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 742-44.]
Mr. Allan:
I do not wish to detract from the hon. Gentleman's arguments, which are a fair criticism of the way in which the Labour party has operated over selection, but does he agree that the same criticisms could be levelled against the Westminster selection system if the national executive committee of the Labour party or any other party chose to impose candidates in the same way? The problem is not the principle of closed lists but the way in which the Labour party has operated that system. That is not a PR issue.
8.45 pm
"What the amendments seek to achieve is to give the electorate a voice in who is elected to the European Parliament".
It is clear and simple--it is called democracy. A Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Russell, said:
"The basic point is that democracy involves the right to choose both what party and what person will represent us".--[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 1323-28.]
Not one of those speakers in the other place was a Conservative, and only one--the Liberal Democrat--was a hereditary peer, yet their views are clear: they are against the closed list, particularly the way in which the Labour party intends to operate it.
"It is bad for voters, bad for candidates and bad for democracy."
Charter 88 said:
"We believe that voters should be able to choose between candidates of the same party. We are especially concerned that voters are not given the impression that the new voting system is being introduced for party political benefit".
It went on to say:
"We are concerned that if the government insist on the use of closed lists voters may be left with the impression that the voting system has been manipulated for party political aims".
If we continue with a closed-list system, voters would be right to believe that.
"Under a reform system it is crucial that the voters' right to express their view of individual candidates should be at least maintained and preferably enhanced."
Jenkins goes on:
"It would be a count against a new system if any candidate, by gaining party machine endorsement for being at the head of a list, were to achieve a position of effective immunity from the preference of the electorate. This is the essence of the case for open as opposed to closed lists".
I disagree with most of Lord Jenkins's report, but a phrase or two is rather good. That is one of them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |