| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): I have sat through many of the 34 hours of debate, so hon. Members will not accuse me of coming new to the issue. Three myths are being propagated about this guillotine motion. The first was perpetuated by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). It is the idea that this is all about a debate between this House and the upper House. It is not; it is a debate on a guillotine motion strictly confined to the question of how much time should be allowed for debate of this Bill in this House before we send it back to another place. It is then for another place to determine how to deal with it in the light of the events of the previous Session.
The second myth is that the Bill had all the attention that it needs during previous debates. Let me instance two respects in which that is not true. Firstly, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) rightly pointed out that on Second Reading on 25 November 1997, the Home Secretary left his mind open on open and closed lists. Interestingly, it was on 9 March, before Report and Third Reading, that he told the House that he opposed open lists and favoured closed lists; the Committee had concluded its deliberations on 5 March. The Home Secretary came back to the House when only one day's debate was left for open and closed lists.
Although the Committee was able to examine the Bill, it was not examined on the basis of the Home Secretary's final decision on open and closed lists or of his explanation for the decision. Although lists were debated several times in this House, much of the debate was on whether we agreed or disagreed with the Lords in their amendments, not on whether this House wanted to substitute a different form of open list from that chosen in another place.
Mr. Allan:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lansley:
I shall in a moment because the hon. Gentleman understands my point perfectly well. In Committee, the Liberal Democrats proposed a Belgian list system, which the Home Secretary wished to consider. That was not the system sent back to this House by their lordships, which was a perfectly viable alternative open-list system that was not then debated at length in this House.
Mr. Allan:
The hon. Gentleman noted our amendment but there was a Committee in the other place in June in which the issue was debated at length. A vote on open
Mr. Lansley:
That is a weak argument with a weak defence. The Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition on the matter has moved to the defence that we do not need to debate it in this House because there was a debate in another place. That will not do. The debate on open lists has still not taken place to a satisfactory extent in this House for the simple reason that we have not had an opportunity to move a series of different amendments. Because of the way in which the debate on the amendments moved by the Lords took place, questions such as those that I raised about the form--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The only hon. Member who has kept to the guillotine motion was the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Every other hon. Member has gone on to matters that could easily be brought up on Second Reading. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
Mr. Lansley:
My purpose is straightforward and I shall be as brief as I can. I want to show that there are valid reasons for allowing greater time for this debate because these matters have not yet been satisfactory debated in this House. I shall not dwell on open and closed lists because I have shown by reference to the timetable so far that debate has not taken place in this House in the open-ended form in which it should have.
The third myth--the Government's third false statement--was the Home Secretary's assertion that we are dealing now with exactly the same Bill. Earlier in the debate, I made the point, which was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), that we are not dealing with the Bill that was sent back to the other place with an amendment on reviewing the electoral system. Although I realise that Ministers will say that we are not dealing with that Bill because of the requirements of the Parliament Act 1911, it begs the question--if the Government persist in their intention of using closed lists--in what form should the Bill be sent back to the other place? Should it be sent back specifying closed lists and no review, or with a review? What intentions do the Government have to amend the Bill further in the other place?
I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Second Reading to elaborate on the point that we are not dealing with exactly the same Bill that we debated for all those hours in the previous Session. Not only have recent events, for example, the European parliamentary by-election in Scotland, suggested a valid need for amendments on by-elections--and we have not debated such amendments--but attached to the Bill is an explanatory memorandum differing from that which applied to the Bill that the House considered in the previous Session.
The Minister will know that, with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, Ministers must now make a statement in a Bill's explanatory memorandum on its compatibility with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary made such a statement of compatibility on 26 November--therefore, after the point at which the House could have debated the previous Bill.
The point--which we shall debate subsequently, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am merely trying to demonstrate that there is a point of real substance--is that article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, which was brought into force by the Human Rights Act 1998, states:
After passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the important issue for the House to decide is whether it is right for us to pass this legislation in the form in which the Government are proposing it. If I catch your eye on Second Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to elaborate on that argument.
In only a few moments, I have demonstrated that--in addition to the amendments that my hon. Friends have tabled, which should be debated, but for which the Government have allowed inadequate time--a range of issues should be addressed.
Question put:--
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot,"--
so far so good--
"under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
It is entirely debatable whether the Bill is compatible with that convention provision, and whether voters will be able to express an opinion on issues such as the moral stance taken by a party's candidates on issues of conscience or to express freely their opinions on the choice of candidate presented by a party. It is far from demonstrable that the Home Secretary is right on the matter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |