| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): Will the Home Secretary be more specific on what he means by early next year? Is it by the end of January, for example?
Mr. Straw: I wish that I could be more specific. I hope--I say "hope" because of the complexity of the Bill's provisions and the need for parliamentary draftsman to have sufficient time--that it will be by the end of February, which would be sufficient time. I realise that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in the matter. Once the Bill is published, it will, among other things, go before the Select Committee on Public Administration--of which he is a member, and which undoubtedly will seek to interrogate me extensively on its provisions. Subsequently, subject to business managers, there will be a full debate on the Bill in the House.
Freeing information about public services and authorities has to be matched by the protection of information held about private individuals. On 16 July, the Data Protection Act 1998 received Royal Assent, implementing a European Community directive agreed by the previous Government.
The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 received Royal Assent on 19 November, and provides for establishing a register of political parties. It will, among other things, prevent what has become known as the Literal Democrat problem, where candidates purposely use misleading titles to deceive voters and thereby pick up votes. The Act will prevent the deception of voters by Literal Democrats or others.
That Act is but one part of a programme to improve public confidence in the functioning of political parties and to sustain high standards of conduct in public life.
Allied to that action will be publication, by the summer recess, of a draft Bill to implement the main findings in the Neill committee's report on the funding of political parties. The House will recall that, earlier this month, we were able to debate that committee's report. I was greatly encouraged by the large amount of cross-party support for its recommendations.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
The Home Secretary says that the proposed new legislation will implement the committee's main findings. How can he possibly justify suggesting that when he has rejected the committee's most important finding, on referendums?
Mr. Straw:
If the hon. Gentleman reads the record of the debate, he will see that I did not reject that finding. I made it quite clear that I was far from rejecting it. I make it clear to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that, in the debate, I raised issues not about using public money in referendum campaigns--there should be evenness in funding--but about practical problems, most likely in a referendum on the single currency, of Ministers' access to official advice on, for example, possible turbulence in the markets. That is exactly the point that I made when we debated the matter about four weeks ago.
It seems to be a matter on which we should be able to reach sensible agreement on both sides of the House. There will be a substantial period during which there can be proper consultation with the Opposition, and it is plainly in the interests of all concerned if we can move forward on the matter on the basis of agreed proposals.
Mr. Bercow:
If the Home Secretary is saying, on behalf of the Government, that he is in favour of fair funding for referendum campaigns, will he take this opportunity publicly to rebuke the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who made it clear in a recent television interview that he did not support such a proposition and attacked the Neill committee recommendations on the issue?
Mr. Straw:
I know of no such suggestion by my right hon. Friend. I draw to the attention of Conservative Members my words of 9 November:
I am delighted that we have been able to make such swift progress on devolution. The people of Scotland and Wales will be able to vote for Members of their new Parliament or Assembly just days after the second anniversary of the election of this Government.
The effect of devolution in Northern Ireland will be equally profound. Words such as "historic" and "momentous" are bandied about all too freely, but they
are perfectly apposite to describe the Good Friday accord. Peace in Northern Ireland is a goal for which successive Governments have been striving for many years.
For the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies and the Greater London mayoralty and authority, we have developed voting systems that are tailored to the functions and geographical spread of the institutions--as we have, famously, for the European Parliament. On Wednesday, we can debate the finer details of the closed list system for the sixth time in a month.
We have all been elected on a closed list. There is no better example than the 12 lackey Members--there are many more--who went on the chicken run. In none of the constituencies concerned--Southend, West; North-East Hampshire; Mole Valley; Worthing, West; Stone; Charnwood; Bromley and Chislehurst; Surrey Heath; Hitchin and Harpenden; North-West Cambridgeshire; Mid-Sussex; and North-West Hampshire--were the voters given a choice in who should be the Tory candidate. The candidates were parachuted in by Conservative central office, or the Members parachuted themselves in, scared stiff--rightly--that they were going to lose the seats from which they were fleeing. The idea that the voters had some additional choice is preposterous.
Mr. Brazier:
The Home Secretary has passed quickly over the genie that has been uncorked by devolution. What will the Government's attitude be should one of the first acts of the new Scottish Parliament be to exceed its remit and call for a referendum on the independence of Scotland?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. We are in danger of straying outside the terms of the motion. I would not want the Home Secretary to be tempted to do so.
Mr. Straw:
I have been trying to stick to the spirit of "Erskine May". The subject of the debate is the constitution and Parliament; the detail is about the Neill committee and House of Lords reform. The hon. Gentleman should read the White Paper on Scottish devolution, which sets out the answer to his question. As for the best electoral system for this House, we had a full debate on the Jenkins report earlier this month.
The topic that has generated the greatest heat from the Conservatives, if not very much light, is reform of the House of Lords.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe):
I am afraid that I have not had the pleasure of hearing all the debates on the closed list system. Is that the full extent of the Home Secretary's defence of it? We are used to Members of Parliament and candidates exaggerating their personal vote in elections. The right hon. Gentleman's proposition is that it makes no difference to the electorate who stands. I would not normally choose an example from the Labour party, but does he remember when the Labour party chose Peter Tatchell as its candidate in a by-election in south London? Surely that was the single reason why a safe Labour seat went to the Liberal Democrats. It has stayed in the hands of the Liberal Democrats ever since. The electorate begin with a political loyalty, but it is preposterous to say that they do not want to know which individual is expected to represent that party locally.
Mr. Straw:
Of course I remember the Bermondsey by-election at the end of January 1983. The right hon. and
"We are talking not about spending money, but about having access to advice to which they"--
Ministers--
"would not have access to during a general election campaign."--[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 58.]
Everyone must recognise the difference between a referendum campaign and a general election campaign: a general election campaign takes place when a Government have finished their work and are seeking re-election; a referendum campaign takes place while a Government are in office.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |