| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): Would the hon. Gentleman concede that the 1975 referendum was held
simply to cover up the splits in the Labour party? The then Labour Government could not take a firm decision themselves, so they subcontracted the decision to the people of this country. They held a referendum to cover up the splits that the issue had caused in their own party.
Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman might be partially correct, but it does not really matter; if he had been listening to what I was saying, he might not have intervened.
I accept that, at that time, the Labour Government were divided, but they made a clear decision, right at the start, that all members of the party, both inside and outside Parliament, should be able to campaign whichever way they wanted during the referendum. We gave the people the opportunity at an early stage--we had been members of the Common Market for only a short time--to decide whether our future lay within the Common Market. The decision taken at that time underpins the way in which we have proceeded in the many years since then, through the single market, the Maastricht treaty, and so on.
It is true to say that about two thirds--a majority--of Labour Members at that time supported the view of the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson that our future lay in Europe. Outside the parliamentary Labour party, about two thirds of Labour supporters rejected that view and only one third were in favour. I make no apologies for the fact that I campaigned vigorously for a yes vote. That did not help my immediate progress within my party, although it did not prevent my selection as the Labour candidate in 1981 to contest the seat of Burnley in the 1983 general election.
Mr. Gareth Thomas:
I share my hon. Friend's scepticism about the role of referendums and his fear that they will undermine the strength of Parliament. Although the Government were divided in 1975, that is no reason to argue against referendums--indeed, we could argue that a referendum should be held when a major constitutional issue must be determined and none of the political parties can reach a consensus about it.
Mr. Pike:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It may be that this country will further strengthen its links with Europe over the next 20-odd years.
I referred to the events in 1975 because a clause in this Bill mentions the media. We must look back to 1975 and ensure that we do not make the same mistakes. Although I campaigned for a yes vote in 1975, I believe there was overwhelming pressure on the public to vote yes--despite the steps that were taken to try to ensure that both cases were represented fairly. The broadcasting media was not the only culprit: the overwhelming majority of the press campaigned for a yes vote. This Bill refers to controls on, and access to, the broadcast media, but it does not mention any other ares of the media. It is the same with general elections: we often talk about balance and access with regard to the broadcasting media, but we do not always insist that the same rules apply across the board.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge):
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the 1975 referendum. Does he accept that there is a distinction between a genuine referendum, when the Government remain neutral and there are real
Mr. Pike:
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Government will state clearly that they want the people of this country to vote yes overwhelmingly in a referendum on the euro. That was our position at the last election. We also said in our election manifesto that we would hold a referendum on the voting system. So we have a mandate to hold those referendums. Furthermore, we declared our intention to hold referendums on self-government for Scotland, Wales and London. I do not believe that a choice must be made between holding a referendum or going to a general election.
Judy Mallaber:
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks. When canvassing during the election campaign specifically on the issue of the euro and whether a referendum could be useful in resolving that question, I met strong Labour supporters who were unhappy about the euro and, similarly, Conservative supporters--although not very many--who were in favour of the euro and unhappy about their party's policy in that regard.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when views differ within the political parties--although the Government might wish to advance a particular view strongly--it may be helpful to hold a referendum so that the electors do not have to sign up to an entire policy platform? That is particularly important when it comes to major constitutional issues, as I may wish to disagree with my party in a referendum.
Mr. Pike:
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; that is a key point. I have strong views about the voting system and the euro. At the end of the day, I hope that the Government will reach the same conclusions on first past the post--although they may not. It is clear that we should hold referendums to decide such questions. Through his Bill, the hon. Member for Blaby seeks to ensure--as did the Neill report--that people have a genuine opportunity to consider fairly both sides of the argument. I accept the legitimacy of that point.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas:
My hon. Friend points out correctly that the Neill committee called for fair rules in referendums. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with this Bill is that it lacks a series of controls recommended by the Neill committee, such as the requirement to register any campaigning group or individual intending to incur expenditure of more than £25,000? It also lacks any provision to ban donations from foreign sources.
Mr. Pike:
I thank my hon. Friend--that is my next point. On the question of publicity, I believe we must regulate the whole of the media, not simply the broadcasting area, if we genuinely wish to ensure that a referendum campaign represents both sides fairly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) is correct to say that the Neill committee cites certain figures and contains recommendations
regarding donations by organisations and so on. The Bill's failure to address those points is a serious omission. The Bill also fails to address the question of free mailing and the free use of public rooms. That is not an issue in parliamentary and other elections in this country, and I believe that the same rules should apply to referendums.
I agree with the principle of the Bill. Its introduction provides an opportunity to discuss the issues, but I do not think it goes far enough. I hope that the Bill will not make progress today and, if it does, I hope that it will be much amended in Committee. I look forward to the Government's introducing legislation that addresses all the Neill committee's recommendations, rather than one specific point. The hon. Member for Blaby recited a rather nonsense list of draft Bills, the majority of which were introduced by the previous Government but fell when the general election was called. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The Government are fully committed to acting on the Neill committee's recommendations sensibly and positively. They will legislate on the conduct of all elections and referendums.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross):
I strongly welcome the initiative and success of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in introducing the Bill. It is an important opportunity for the House to express its concern to ensure that referendums, which are becoming a regular feature of our constitutional development, are conducted fairly and command complete support--not only while they are being conducted, but afterwards.
In the past 18 months, we have had more referendums than we had in the previous 18 years--perhaps because there was a period of constitutional stasis prior to the last general election--and that has underlined the importance of making rapid progress on the matter. At least two referendums were promised by the Government in their manifesto before the election. The first relates to the possibility of an alternative electoral system for Westminster and the other to the adoption of the euro.
Those are major issues for the country and the setting up of referendums on those questions should be subject to regulation that has been determined prior to the enactment of the necessary Bills to enable the referendums to be held. We need what the constitution unit has called generic referendum legislation. I am encouraged by the fact that the Government are committed to publishing--this summer, I believe--a Bill setting out their conclusions on the Neill committee's recommendations, particularly on an electoral commission.
It is desirable that the work of regulating elections and referendums should be in the charge of a body that is seen to be independent of the Government. The current arrangements are far from satisfactory. The hon. Member for Blaby was right to draw attention to our particular experiences. It was not satisfactory that the Government
decided to put a two-question referendum to the Scots without any prior cross-party discussion. That was bounced on the Scots. The outcome was not unfortunate, and I dare say that the Government's political judgment could not be faulted in that case. However, the referendum should have been processed by agreement.
Similarly, the single referendum question put to the people of London about the proposed reform to establish a mayor and an Assembly did not allow for the expression of diverse opinions that might have been more redolent of exactly what the people favoured. Once again, there was a question about the question.
Those two experiences point to the appropriateness of what the hon. Member for Blaby advocates in his Bill: the commission should be able to proffer advice on the referendum question to the Government and Parliament when the arrangements for particular referendums are being contemplated.
The genesis of the hon. Gentleman's proposals goes back a long way. There has long been an awareness of the need for fairness in referendums. I draw attention to a Labour party policy paper, published in 1996, "A New Voice for England's Regions", which says that the Labour party would establish a body that would be
The hon. Member for Blaby properly referred to the important recommendations of the commission on the conduct of referendums, established in 1996 by the Electoral Reform Society and the constitution unit at University college, and chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne. That commission concluded:
"directly and solely responsible for all aspects of electoral administration and for ensuring freedom and fairness in all aspects of our electoral system."
There have been calls from the House for an electoral commission to regulate referendums and elections, notably in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs of September 1998, HC 768.
"The conduct of referendums should be entrusted to a statutory independent body, accountable to Parliament, in order to ensure maximum confidence in the legitimacy of the results."
Extensive reference has been made in the speeches of the hon. Members for Blaby and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) to the recommendations of the Neill report published in October 1998. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members broadly agree with those recommendations and want them to be enacted as soon as possible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |