| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.53 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): This matter arises directly from Madam Speaker's pronouncement on 22 March, in which she said:
- "Under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, the seat is vacated with effect from 19 March."--[Official Report, 22 March 1999; Vol. 328, c.1.]
The problem is that for some considerable time--arguably since shortly after the last general election--the people of Newark effectively have been unrepresented because they have not had the full range of representation in the House that voters in a constituency would normally
expect from their Member of Parliament. An issue immediately arose because people who are in the unfortunate circumstances in which Mrs. Jones found herself cannot properly represent their electors when they have been subject to the sort of accusations that were made in Newark.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
As a Nottinghamshire MP who has witnessed Mrs. Jones's work at first hand, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that her constituents were receiving a full service until the time of the court case. I suggest that we allow Mrs. Jones the chance to have her appeal heard on 12 April so that her constituents can benefit from her continuing service.
Mr. Forth:
I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to make his judgment on how effective Mrs. Fiona Jones has been in the House. I cannot say in detail what she has been doing in Newark, but I suspect that her activities in this place have been somewhat limited. [Interruption.] Labour Members seem to believe that what they do in this House is of no consequence, but I take a different view.
Mr. Hogg:
Will my right hon. Friend inform the House that such is the Labour party's confidence in the appeal of Mrs. Fiona Jones that it decided not to meet her legal costs?
Mr. Forth:
I shall come to the appeal in a moment. The other point that I want to make--
Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you please point out to right hon. and hon. Members that they are not delaying Government business by conducting this debate? Instead, they are truncating a debate on a very serious issue that confronts the British people. The Stephen Lawrence debate is extremely important--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The current debate is perfectly well in order. There are many occasions in this place when there is competition between priorities as various matters are raised.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members, will you confirm that there is no reason why the next debate should not continue until a later hour than is scheduled at present? That would mean that the debate would not be truncated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Forth:
I am pretty certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would not oppose a 10 o'clock motion, were one to be moved, as we recognise the full importance of the next debate. I hope that Labour Members are not suggesting that simply because the next business is very important, the very important business that we are now discussing should be swept aside and ignored by the House. We must clarify the position when circumstances arise such as those in Newark. We must be clear, as a House of Commons, how we want to respond
I wish to complete my reply to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford). If Mrs. Jones had been the excellent representative in Newark that he claims, presumably the Labour party would have nothing to fear from having an early election involving either Mrs. Jones, if it were possible to do so, or her successor, reflecting in her glory.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
I have no wish to prolong the debate because I hope to speak in the next one, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as a former Nottinghamshire county councillor who knows Newark extremely well.
This issue in Newark is about faith in the proper democratic process and in adequate representation, and it bears some relationship to the next debate. Against that background, it goes way beyond party matters or issues. The issue is about restoring the faith of the people of Newark in their elected representatives. That is a more fundamental issue than anyone has mentioned in this debate so far.
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am sure that we all suspect that the faith of the people of Newark in the political process has been shattered. It is important that we give them an opportunity to restore that faith at the earliest possible date.
The little argument that we have heard from Labour Members seems to revolve round the fact that, as there will be a relatively early opportunity for an appeal to be heard, there is no need to have a by-election at an early date. They seem to be saying that that is all right. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said that we do not know whether the matter will end on 12 or 13 April; it could go beyond it. In fact, it could continue for a considerable period beyond that. It is unacceptable for the Government to be arguing that the people of Newark should be patient and wait for what might be a very long and exhaustive process to be completed. It is entirely unreasonable to expect the people of Newark to wait, unrepresented, for an indefinite period before a by-election takes place.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West):
Are there not just two lowly, non-partisan points that need clearing up? Is not the first that the only relevance of the appeal is whether the former Member of Parliament will remain disqualified for five years, not whether there will be a by-election? Is not the second piece of information that the House deserves to hear from the Leader of the House--whether in an intervention or at the end of the debate--the earliest date, by her reckoning, that the by-election could take place?
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That reinforces the point that I was making a moment ago, and goes a stage further. After the appeal process is exhausted, however long that might take, there would have to be a further selection process by the Labour party if it stuck to the argument that we have heard from Labour Members--
Mr. Hogg:
As a Member who represents a constituency adjoining Newark, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the prospect of the Labour party in Newark selecting Mrs. Fiona Jones as its candidate is negligible, because the local Labour party is wholly split. Unless she is parachuted in by those on the Government Front Bench, under no circumstances will she be the candidate.
Mr. Forth:
It is not for me, or even for my right hon. and learned Friend, if I may say so, to intrude on the Labour party's selection process.
If, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said, Mrs. Jones has performed an excellent job in representing the people of Newark, in spite of her difficulties, and if the Labour party is serious in its belief that she is essentially innocent and will be declared so after an appeal process, I should think that Mrs. Jones would have to be considered a possible candidate in the Labour party's selection process after the appeal process has been exhausted.
All these matters are of the greatest importance and could give rise to the thought that the House might want to reconsider the procedures surrounding by-elections, even in these unusual and, I hope, never-to-be-repeated circumstances. Because such important issues are involved, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire has done the House and the people of Newark a service in bringing the motion before the House today.
I hope that the Leader of the House will make it clear to the people of Newark that if the Government use their massed ranks to vote down the motion for an immediate by-election, the Government will at least have the decency to tell the people of Newark when they can expect to have a new Member of Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made:--
The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 97.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |