| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hughes: I seek to intervene one last time before the Minister sits down, as I anticipate she is about to do. This is a question to which I do not know the answer. Does the hon. Lady happen to know whether, within the EU, city or city-wide elections, such as those for the Paris or Barcelona councils, particularly in countries such as France or Germany where this is a real live issue--
Mr. Wilkinson: Why just in the EU?
Mr. Hughes: It could apply elsewhere, but I am concentrating on our neighbours. Do such countries have thresholds? Is there a precedent of city-wide, European, urban, multi-cultural, multi-race elections?
8.30 pm
Ms Jackson: I do not have that information at hand, but I shall be happy to obtain it and write to the hon. Gentleman. I stress again that this is a decision for the House inasmuch as the system that we are introducing is unique. As I have said, it is a new form of government. What we are considering would be the first example of a threshold being set in such circumstances. Every aspect of the systems that we are proposing must ensure public confidence. We do not want the proposal to be nodded--or even voted--through without the most comprehensive debate. In the clear knowledge that we want to return to the issue, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Ottaway: I appreciate the Minister's measured response to the debate. She is right to point out that this is a sensitive subject.
I was not clear from her concluding remarks whether she was giving an undertaking to have another look at the issue. Perhaps she might like to clarify that.
Ms Jackson:
I should be delighted to. I repeat yet again that the Government want the most detailed and searching debate on the issue. We are prepared to examine it again, but we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to set a threshold. We have argued for 5 per cent., but we want opinions outside the House to be discussed and examined. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, we shall be happy to discuss the issue in detail.
Mr. Ottaway:
This is the moment to discuss it in detail. What is the Minister proposing? Is she saying that if we withdraw the amendment she may make a concession on Report? It is important for that to be clear to help the Opposition make up their mind on their stance.
Ms Jackson:
Because of the sensitivity of the issues and the unique nature of what we are proposing, we should be able to listen to the arguments now that the debate has been entered into. They have mainly been in favour of what we are proposing, but there will be arguments against. I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that we are grateful for the opportunity to return to the issue on Report.
Mr. Ottaway:
I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Wilkinson:
Is my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Minister's extraordinary quasi assurance the same as mine? Does he feel that the hon. Lady is refusing to relinquish the power of the Secretary of State to decide the threshold, which will not necessarily be the natural threshold under the d'Hondt formula? Does he also agree that it shows the fatuity of the proportional d'Hondt system that it leaves us scratching around to decide whether to exclude particular candidates with derisory numbers of votes that would never secure election under a proper first-past-the-post system?
Mr. Ottaway:
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I hope that he will not be offended if I stick to the
Ms Jackson:
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has reduced the tenor of his contributions by implying that the Government do not regard what we have been debating as particularly important. I should like to make it abundantly clear that the Government will not re-examine the principle of a threshold, but we are prepared to examine the level at which it would be set. It is necessary for the whole House to be able to consider that. If he will withdraw the amendment, we shall have an opportunity for greater debate on Report.
Mr. Ottaway:
I interpret that as an undertaking from the Minister to review the level at which the threshold is set and to revisit the matter on Report.
We have a problem. I share the concern of other hon. Members about extremism. I respect those from inner-city seats who have to fight it. The Conservative party backs them in their fight. However, there is a problem. London has a huge ethical minority. I believe that it is 25 per cent. [Hon. Members: "Ethical?"] I am sorry; a huge ethnic minority. If we add the further 5 per cent. from eastern Europe, the figure is 30 per cent. A respectable candidate who based his candidature on ethnic origins would be precluded by the Bill.
That is where the conflict comes. We have a desire to be democratic, but we also want to combat racism. The problem is inherent if proportional representation is introduced to a city such as London. The Government cannot have it both ways. They can have an electoral system that does not take a chance. If they introduce a different system, those risks are inevitable. The Government did not feel it necessary to introduce the mechanism in Wales or Scotland. This is not an easy decision to come to, but the Conservatives have come down in favour of the democratic argument and we believe in the natural threshold.
However, in the light of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
I shall be brief. We do not propose to divide the Committee. To help those who may have arrived expecting a Committee vote, let me say that my judgment is that there will not be one. If they want to stay, they are welcome, but, if they do not, they can go somewhere else.
The previous debate, quite properly, became something of an exploratory discussion between the Minister for Transport in London and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I want to say only that the Liberal Democrats will happily enter unconditionally into discussions with the Government. I hope that the correct interpretation of the Minister's response to the previous debate is that, outside the Committee, some discussions can take place between the parties whose members represent London in the House of Commons.
We retain our preference for the position that I expressed in the previous debate: it would be better if that power did not reside with the Secretary of State, and if the recommendation came from a body that was not party political but independent, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested. I hope that the Government can be persuaded on that point--I do not suggest that they are not open to persuasion. I understand that the Minister for Transport in London has a preferred position, but it would be helpful if, in responding to this short stand part debate, the Minister for London and Construction said, as he always does on sensitive issues, that, outside the Committee, we can pursue ways of reaching an agreement.
If we do that, and if, in next year's elections, people stand on racist or extremist platforms, we can--as we eventually did during the second Millwall by-election--express a common view. On that occasion, the Conservative party and the Labour party, to their credit, and the Liberal Democrats were clear about how we should counter those who had entered the democratic process properly, but had done so to undermine the rights of everyone to participate equally in it.
Mr. Raynsford:
This short stand part debate brings us to the end of the Committee's deliberations on the first four clauses and two schedules of the Bill. We have had an interesting series of debates on an innovative constitutional arrangement that will give London a new type of leadership and create new electoral arrangements. Inevitably, in that process, difficult issues have arisen, one of which is the scope for unrepresentative and vicious parties, peddling racial hatred, to try to secure legitimacy through election. All of us who are familiar with the problems that occurred in Millwall in the early 1990s know how dangerous that threat is to good race relations in London, which is why the issue must be taken seriously.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |