| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.40 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): I begin by thanking the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for curtailing his remarks. The Minister and I have agreed to accept the same inhibitions, so I hope to be forgiven for not giving way.
The House has united on one matter in this debate--the quality of the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). It was splendid. He spoke with admirable eloquence, lucidity, wit and brevity. I know that he represents the fifth generation of his family to be here, but if he can keep up that performance, he will be a worthy follower of his father. Seeing father and son together during that maiden speech was one of the pleasantest sights of my many years in the House. I wish the hon. Gentleman an illustrious parliamentary career. If he can even begin to emulate his father as a parliamentarian, he will be an adornment to the House well into the next century.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central maintained another tradition by being non-controversial in his maiden speech and not giving us much of an inkling of his views. It was apposite that his tribute to his predecessor, Derek Fatchett--in which all hon. Members would wish to share--was echoed by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen), who, in a very robust speech, reminded us that Derek Fatchett was chairman of the first-past-the-post committee.
The House is at its best when there is no strict party division. In an excellent debate, and some good, robust speeches, both sides of the argument have been put. Sadly, I cannot include the Home Secretary's speech among them. The right hon. Gentleman gave us almost half an hour of genial waffle--indeed, he has been at his engaging best all day, as earlier he offered his mea culpa
with great wit and panache. We understand that the Home Secretary could not admit that he was wrong for a second time, but he suggested that the Government would not hold a referendum in this Parliament. If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, I shall of course give way to him, but his suggestion shows that the Government's election promise is already broken. If so, they may as well ditch it, and thereby please hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The status quo was defended in some splendid speeches--by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). However, I hope that they will forgive me for saying that the speech by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston really hit the nail on the head. He said that the great virtue of the present system was that it enabled the electorate to send a Government packing and indicate their dissatisfaction in a way that was impossible under an election system that resembles a football pools permutation.
That speech should be read, marked and inwardly digested by every hon. Member in the House, and I commend the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston on it. It reminded me of this morning's broadcast by that doughty octogenarian Baroness Castle, who said that this country wanted hands-on politics. She said that the present system gave us that, and that other systems would not.
There were defenders of change. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that he could see a ripple spreading through the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is good on ripples, but he is not one to make waves. I suppose that we shall have to wait and see what happens, but the right hon. Gentleman's case was not convincing. Eloquent speeches were made by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), but none of them answered the questions about the Jenkins system.
This debate was about the system for elections to this House. Specifically, it was about the Jenkins system, which has been offered as an alternative. That system would create second-class Members of Parliament who would not represent constituencies. They would not be as well regarded as those who do represent constituencies.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk made the point that our system's greatest single virtue is that we represent all the electors in our constituencies. No system can be better than that.
There was talk about 50 per cent. and Jenkins. A respectable way to achieve 50 per cent. and electoral reform is to have a two-round election, but no one suggested that. The extraordinary, pseudo-sophisticated document cooked up by Lord Jenkins and his cohorts is of no consequence and should be thrown away.
In common with many hon. Members--and certainly with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)--I love the House and most things about it. I even love the Liberal Democrats, when they get here on their own merits. However, I shrink at the prospect of an assembly of Yeovil clones or political Ovaltinies. That is what we
would get if we moved towards proportional representation, and that is why the Liberal Democrats want it.
I am old enough to remember the radio doctor. In one wonderful broadcast he castigated J.B. Priestley, that intellectual giant of the left. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will remember the occasion: at the end of the broadcast, the doctor said, "Chuck it, Priestley." When it comes to proportional representation, I say, "Chuck it, Straw. Chuck it, Blair. Get rid of it. It's no damn good to anybody." Proportional representation is a way of getting what no one really wants. It is the last refuge of the hopeless, and elevates to absurdity the doctrine of the underdog by enshrining the constitutional principle that those who never get chosen must always get a prize. Lewis Carroll would have been proud.
No powerful or plausible argument has been made for the Jenkins system. As I said, the debate has been about how this House should be elected. The Prime Minister has nailed his colours to the fence on which he has sat for so long that the wobble has entered his soul, but he has said that Jenkins is the alternative.
Jenkins will not be an improvement, so we should reject it. There is no point in putting the country to the absurd and time-wasting expense of a referendum on it. Perhaps a better system can be found for the country to consider, but I remain to be persuaded. We should vote tonight to show that the House of Commons is united in preferring a system that produces stable and proper Government.
Those hon. Members who read English at university may remember the following verse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth):
This has been a good debate, despite the partisan remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I congratulate the Opposition on giving us the opportunity to debate an important issue which exercises us all.
I join all those who have sincerely congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on his maiden speech. A few of us--my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) included--have been by-election candidates. It is always daunting to make a maiden speech, but to do so as the sole new intake is even more so. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently and with passion. His remarks about Derek Fatchett were well judged and a fine summary of a man who was a friend to many of us. We all look forward to further speeches from my hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was of course characteristically coy about his own views on proportional representation.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
What are the Minister's?
Mr. Howarth:
I shall come to that.
One person has been missing from the debate, but frequently referred to--Lord Jenkins. It is a little unfair to those who sat on his commission that it is constantly referred to as though he alone did the work. Some worthy people worked long and hard to come up with the proposals.
Dr. Julian Lewis:
May I place it on the record that the one Conservative member of the Jenkins commission dissented, disapproved and distanced himself from its recommendations?
Mr. Howarth:
I am glad to have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to get that off his chest.
The terms of reference of the commission were as follows:
Several hon. Members--in particular the right hon. Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen)--asked the great unanswered question about the Jenkins proposals. That question is whether the proposals would lead to different classes of Member in the House of Commons.
No matter how we examine that point, there would inevitably be conflict if two people represented different parts of an area who were elected by different systems. Members would bid to see which of them should take on cases. For constituency work that ought to be clearly allocated, constituents would be able to shop around to find the Member most prepared to take on the case. It is inevitable that that would raise problems of identity. Who would represent the constituency? Would there be two
classes of Member of Parliament? I suspect that there would, and Scotland and Wales will give us an opportunity to judge how that system will work.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was characteristically thoughtful. He mentioned the effect that the turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections had on the local government elections held the same day. He will recall that that was not the first time that wide-scale elections have coincided with local ones. In 1979, I stood for election not to this House but to Knowsley borough council, and the high turnout gave me a majority in my council ward far larger than those of many Members of Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about weekend voting, specifically on Sundays. As he knows, in some parts of the country--particularly in Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland--Sunday voting would create problems for people of certain religious denominations. Weekend voting would, however, resolve some turnout problems.
"I dreamt last night that Shakespeare's ghost
I was thinking of that the other day, and my version would be:
Sat for a civil service post.
The English paper for the year
Contained a question on King Lear
Which Shakespeare answered badly
Because he hadn't studied Bradley."
"I dreamt last night that Gladstone's ghost
That is what would happen if we supported Jenkins. We should see it off tonight and get rid of it. The Government have broken their pledge for this Parliament and should ditch it once and for all. Let us retain this Parliament as it always has been--properly elected according to a system that everyone understands. Most people regard that system as fair and sensible, and consider that it produces stable government.
Stood for a town on the south-west coast
The electoral system then in force
Meant he came first, but the seat was lost."
6.50 pm
"The Commission shall be free to consider and recommend any appropriate system or combination of systems in recommending an alternative to the present system for parliamentary elections to be put before the people in the Government's referendum.
The proposals produced by the commission met those terms of reference as well as could be expected. I do not necessarily endorse the proposals, but the commission examined its terms of reference, and produced something as close to them as possible.
The Commission shall observe the requirement for broad proportionality, the need for stable Government, an extension of voter choice and the maintenance of the link between MPs and geographical constituencies."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |