| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robathan: I do not want to detain the hon. Gentleman, as I should like other hon. Members to have a chance to speak. He has twice said that the Government
have a duty to inform people, but he has also said that he will oppose the Bill. The Bill is about allowing people to make informed choices. Each side of the argument will be presented to everyone so that they can understand what it is that they are being asked to vote for. If only one side of the argument is given, how can anyone make an informed choice?
Mr. Thomas: I entirely agree with the principle that the public should hear both sides of the argument, delivered loud and clear. I should like there to be upper limits on spending so that fairness exists and so that the voice of parties to the arguments can be heard in equal proportion. However, there are fundamental problems with the Bill, and I cannot accept it.
Much has been made of the fact that the no campaign in Wales, which was poorly financed and resourced, achieved quite a degree of success. Most political parties in Wales--with the notable exception of the official Opposition--were in favour of the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales; it was an important commitment in the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru general election manifestos. My own view is that there ought not to have been referendums in either Scotland or Wales because devolution was clearly a fundamental principle at the heart of the general election campaign. There was a stark division in both Scotland and Wales between the Conservatives and Labour on that principle.
The role of broadcasters during the referendum campaign in Wales was problematic. Broadcasters must give a balanced view of both yes and no campaigns, but they must surely be entitled also to give weight to the strength of opinion. To create an artificial balance would be completely wrong-headed. All political parties in Wales--except the Conservatives--supported devolution. It was artificial to allow the no campaign so much coverage when it had little support outside certain areas. Points made this morning about the Bill's problematic broadcasting provisions have highlighted a fundamental defect in the Bill.
Mr. David Davis:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand from the news that the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) has been found guilty in the election expenses-rigging trial. Have you received any notification from the Government that there will be a by-election?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
I have had no notification of a statement.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay):
I, too, add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on producing this important Bill, which
In passing, I must inform the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that hon. Members who are prepared to act as the Government's pooper-scoopers rarely come up smelling of roses when it comes to promotion. The hon. Gentleman illegitimately took up almost an hour of the House's time to pour out a lot of nonsense--he knew it was nonsense--in the hope of doing deals with his Front Bench.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said, we could be forgiven for thinking that the Government do not intend to introduce any fairness into the system in time for the referendum that they have promised after the next general election, if they happen to win it. We will have a referendum if we win the election. The Government are deliberately delaying introducing that fairness because they do not want it for that referendum. As has been remarked, they are already pumping money into their side of the debate. That is why we are here this morning. We are trying to allow the people of this country to have a legitimate say in a matter that is of crucial importance to our future democracy and independence.
I had intended to raise two issues, but as one was partly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)--what I would have called the thresholds involved in a referendum and what he calls the legitimacy of outcome--I will move on to the second in the interests of brevity.
That issue is the scope of referendum, and we may deal with it in Committee. We need to define to some extent the issues that could legitimately qualify for Government support. As the hon. Member for Hendon remarked, ballots of parents concerning a school would clearly be outwith the scope of any legislation dealing with referendums, which should be held on matters of national importance--issues that should be the concern of every citizen at the time of the referendum.
The question of who is to be balloted in a referendum is another issue. I mention that because, in the recent past, there have been a number of referendums dealing with matters of fundamental importance to the whole population--the future of the legitimate structure of the United Kingdom--in which voting has been restricted to certain parts of the country. Had even all those of Scottish birth been given the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, we might have had a different outcome--and that will not have escaped the Government's attention. The point of that referendum was not to take note of public opinion but to achieve the political objective of the Government of the day.
The same was true in Wales where, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, the turnout was extremely low--that is relevant to the question of the threshold that should be allowed. In the London referendum, the turnout was derisory. However, the Government now legitimately claim that they have a mandate to go ahead with a new form of administration and, again, they have a political motive. The Government know full well that the central part of our capital city sensibly returns Conservative councils such as Westminster--despite all the abuse and concoctions of the Labour party to discredit it--
and Kensington and Chelsea. Though we do not know this from elections, I suggest that the City of London would be Conservative. If we tack on Wandsworth, we have a core in the centre of London likely to remain predominantly Conservative. The Government's actions are designed to undermine that position.
That brings me to the electorate in referendums and the Government's intention to exclude certain parts of the country from the overall game plan. Most particularly, that means the people of England. They, too, have a legitimate case, under the Government's criteria, to be asked whether they want a government to handle domestic issues that affect people who live in England and no other--a government of the sort that the Scots, and, to a large extent, the Welsh, will have.
Mrs. Ellman:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman:
I want to make progress. The hon. Lady has made her speech and others want to contribute.
I challenge the Government to say why people in England are not to be afforded the same courtesy and democratic right accorded to other parts of the United Kingdom. Several people who have written to me about this tell me that they also write to the Prime Minister, only to be told that there is no real interest in the issue. That is not a legitimate reason for excluding the people of England, because the referendums have presented them with an anomalous situation. Major domestic concerns such as health and education and welfare will be decided by separate Parliaments in Scotland and Wales, but Scottish and Welsh representatives will be free to vote on such issues as they affect the people of England. I hope that that will be at the forefront of deliberations in Committee.
The outcome of all this should fair to all citizens. So far, the Government's referendums have been anything but. They have been politically motivated and exclusive and do not qualify as legitimate consultation of the people. Polls are one thing, but matters likely to affect the construction of the United Kingdom are for general elections. The Government would say that they brought those things up in their manifesto and that they are therefore legitimate.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West):
As other hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, fair rules on referendums and elections are clearly an important
I am slightly surprised to see so many members of the Conservative party supporting a referendums commission in the light of the evidence that Lord Parkinson gave on its behalf to the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Committee noted that he was not convinced that an electoral commission was necessary or, indeed, that it would be desirable. It seems a remarkable volte-face, so soon after he gave that evidence, that so many Conservative Members should now support the Bill.
I fear that the Bill was born of the Conservative party's hysteria on all matters to do with the euro and their opposition to any future sensible attempts to modernise our electoral system. It is a badly drafted Bill that raises more questions than it answers. Therefore, I will not support it or urge the Government to support prolonging its life. Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing such a high slot in the private Member's ballot and on the way, albeit misguided, in which he set out his case.
The background to the Bill lies in our party's decision to extend the remit of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. One of the most important recommendations made by the Neill committee was for the establishment of an elections commission. Recommendation 93 of its fifth report states that one function of such a commission should be to keep referendums and referendum campaigns under review, and that reports should be made to the Government and to Parliament about them.
In the debates on 9 November on the Neill committee's fifth report, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly stated his intention
In the concluding part of his speech on 9 November, the shadow Home Secretary said, or at least claimed, that he wanted to see legislation
Clauses 2 and 3 relate to the need for equal access to core funding to enable at least minimal campaigns to be mounted by designated pro and anti campaigns. Yet, in paragraph 12.35 of the fifth report, the committee states unequivocally:
The question in my mind is why the hon. Member for Blaby, backed by so many of his hon. Friends, is proposing a referendums commission and not an elections commission. I suspect that the Conservative party fears an elections commission. It fears the honesty, transparency and integrity that a commission would demand of all political parties. The Conservative party was most reluctant to see lasting reform of party funding. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), consistently opposed extending the remit of the Nolan committee to party funding.
1.10 pm
"to produce a draft Bill before the next summer recess and to bring forward legislation so that new rules can be in place for the next general election."--[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 53.]
The hon. Member for Blaby said in answer to my intervention that an elections commission would take over the role of a referendums commission. In the light of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's assurance, a referendums commission is entirely unnecessary, since legislation to establish a much more crucial elections commission, with a role in referendums but with even more fundamental responsibilities, will come before the House.
"that covers all the report's proposals, for referendums as well as elections."--[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 66.]
Yet here is the Conservative parliamentary party turning out in force to support a proposal that is not in the Neill report--indeed, much of it flies in the face of what he recommended--and does not cover the bigger picture of elections.
"We believe that the new Election Commission should be the body both to receive applications for core funding from organisations intending to campaign in any referendum and to decide which of the organisations should be in receipt of the core funding."
The report mentions an elections commission, not a referendums commission.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |