House of Commons
Friday 19 March 1999
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
Referendums Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.34 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I went to Brussels on 3 December to visit the European Commission. Hon. Members will pleased to know that I shall not make a speech about the current problems of the Commission. Nor shall I speak about the single currency. However, not knowing that there was a private Member's Bill ballot, and not knowing its result, I was surprised, on reaching my office the following day, to find a large number of messages from people who wanted me to call them. Anyone who comes high in the ballot quickly discovers that he has friends he did not know about--or indeed, has never met.
One is inundated with suggestions for the topic of a Bill. In some ways, that is somewhat insulting--it suggests that one has little imagination and that there are no issues on which one feels strongly. Perhaps most extraordinary were the hundreds of letters I received from supporters of Friends of the Earth. I have been a paid-up member of Friends of the Earth for many years and I know a great deal about the issues on which people wrote to me from all corners of the kingdom. I wonder whether any Member of the House is so feeble that he or she would choose the topic of a private Member's Bill solely on the number of letters received.
Some sensible suggestions were made by serious organisations, and I was tempted by several of them. I was tempted, too, by my own hobby horses and by issues in which I strongly believe. However, one suggestion seemed justified beyond all others. I trust that no one will suggest that my choice has shown a weakness in my character. I have taken up the issue because of the merits of the case, and I was put under no pressure of any description to pursue it.
I cannot pretend to believe that referendums are the best way of governing in a parliamentary democracy. Nevertheless, I accept that the decision on some fundamental constitutional issues is so important that every
voter should have the opportunity to register his or her opinion and to decide the matter. In holding that opinion, I agree--rather unusually--with the Prime Minister, who said on 24 July 1994:
Other referendums proposed for the future might have an even more fundamental impact than those already held. Both main parties fought the general election on a pledge to hold a referendum before joining the single currency, and the Liberal Democrats may have pledged that too. The Government have made it plain that they will stand by their pledge.
Proportional representation might be the subject of a referendum, although, as the Labour party is split straight down the middle on the matter, that seems marginally less likely at the moment. If proportional representation were to be introduced following a referendum, it would change the face of government in the UK.
Regional assemblies may be introduced following regional referendums, and that could lead to a fundamental shift of authority from both national and local government. We have even heard some pretty strange ideas about holding referendums by county or district on whether fox hunting should take place in a particular locality.
I have introduced the Bill, therefore, because referendums are here to stay--at least in the short term.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay):
Does my hon. Friend think that there has been a curious omission from the Labour Administration's referendum mania? No one is proposing a referendum for English people about whether they would like their own Parliament.
Mr. Robathan:
My hon. Friend takes her individual position on that matter, but I have never met anyone in England who really wants a Parliament. I do not think that many people in Wales want a National Assembly, but that is another matter.
Referendums are here to stay--at least in the short term. I am a democrat and I believe that the democratic process must be fair, and must be seen to be fair. That idea is neither unique nor original to me; I am delighted to say that the realisation that referendums need fair rules has been growing for a number of years. It is to the benefit of a referendum if people can concentrate on the issues rather than on technical questions about the mechanics of referendums and whether they are equitable and fair. If they are not, people will argue about the result after it has happened.
Fair rules should facilitate a result that is beyond question, and that can be accepted by all as a true and fair account of the wishes of a well-informed electorate. In November 1996, the joint Electoral Reform Society
and constitution unit commission on the conduct of referendums, under Sir Patrick Nairne, concluded:
The referendums campaign, which was largely organised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), attracted a large number of signatories with all sorts of backgrounds. Certainly, many Conservatives signed up, but there were also a large number of Liberal Democrats from both Houses, Labour peers, at least eight Labour Members who stuck their heads above the parapet, Law Lords, bishops and academics, again from all parts of the political spectrum.
I stress that that was not a concerted or a sustained campaign. Together with other Members of both Houses I received one letter, which might just as easily have gone in the waste paper bin with all the junk that we get, including innumerable pleas to sign early-day motions on some obscure subject. Given the low-key nature of the campaign, the support that it has engendered is remarkable. That is because those people who concern themselves with democracy are concerned to establish a fair method of organising referendums.
My Bill has 11 sponsors. Deliberately, there are three Labour Members, three Liberal Democrats and three Conservatives including me. We also have the invaluable support of the only Independent in the House, the hon. Member for Tatton, who is in Kosovo and so could not be here, together with one representative of the smaller parties. All four parts of the United Kingdom are represented. The House will appreciate that all the Conservatives come from England. Also, those four places that have had referendums are represented. Therefore, the sponsors represent a genuine cross-section of the House and, indeed, the country.
The real genesis and spur for the Bill was the Neill committee report, "Standards in Public Life", on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom, which was published last October. It made some sensible and important recommendations on the future conductof referendums, but the first recommendation on referendums--the 83rd recommendation of the report--encapsulates all the others:
"Although there are cases for having referendums on certain issues and indeed we have said we will have one on the electoral system, I am actually not a great exponent of government by referendum."
Curiously, the Prime Minister seems to have changed his mind a little. The people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London have all had the opportunity to vote in referendums over the past 18 months. Referendums, therefore, have--for good or ill--become part of the government of the United Kingdom, and part of the political process.
"There are no established rules, accepted by the main political parties, for the efficient and fair conduct of referendums. If referendums are to be held in the future and their results accepted, they should be conducted efficiently and ensure the fair presentation of competing views."
I do not always pray in aid the Electoral Reform Society, but that organisation generally wishes to see a fair and democratic process. For instance, on proportional representation we would disagree, but we would agree about the need for a fair referendum on that matter. Indeed, the aims of the Bill have widespread support across the political spectrum and from many organisations that may disagree on issues but agree on democracy. As well as the Electoral Reform Society, Charter 88, the Institute for Constitutional Research and the Jenkins commission have all identified and supported the need for fair rules.
"In any referendum campaign there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters."
19 Mar 1999 : Column 1386
The report quotes evidence given by Peter Riddell ofThe Times. I do not always agree with him--he is rather new Labour for me--but he gives reasoned evidence when he speaks of the
The report also comments on how political expediency can play a large part in determining how a referendum is organised at present. The report recommends that the Government of the day should remain neutral. One piece of evidence quoted in the report states that the Government, being on one side of the referendum in Scotland, was also able to
"implications . . . for the way in which the political process operates, for fairness in funding and indeed for fairness in operation. Some things have happened which are already worrying . . . There should be clear rules over the funding of referendum campaigns, the current procedures are chaotic and unfair, especially when the Government is itself a participant."
"write the rules and an information leaflet and send it to every house."
Neill agrees that the Government's being a player and writing the rules is fundamentally wrong.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |