| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Walter: I thank the Minister for his response. I am slightly--I would not say entirely--reassured that he has taken on board our points, particularly on amendment No. 44. On the basis that he seems to accept their spirit and suggests that they should be incorporated in other, later legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 61, line 13, at end add--
'(6) The exact number, nature and wording of
(a) the question or questions, and
(b) the possible answers to each question
in a referendum or other poll to which this Part applies shall be determined after consultation with the Commission; and any views expressed by the Commission shall be published.'.
The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in clause 97, page 61, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 34 and insert--
'The date of the poll in the case of any referendum to which this Part applies shall be fixed by the Commission, and'.
No. 48, in clause 101, page 63, line 34, leave out 'after consulting the Commission' and insert--
Sir Patrick Cormack:
In responding to the previous group of amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), the Minister used some interesting turns of phrase, of which I made a note. He talked of, "We might as well put in place", "It will be convenient" and "It makes sense." I hope that he will respond to amendment No. 45 in a similar spirit, because it would make sense and be convenient to implement the provisions suggested in it and the consequential amendments that we have tabled.
There was much talk on Monday, when we debated previous clauses, of the role of the commission and of the Speaker's Committee that will oversee its work. However, there seems to be no place for the commission in the crucial, central part of the Bill on drafting questions on referendum forms. The amendments would ensure a
specified, proper and official place for the commission. It should be consulted on the drafting, so that it may be satisfied, beyond doubt, that the wording is not loaded.
Members of Parliament are called on more than others to fill in questionnaires day after day. Frankly, I make a practice of refusing to do so.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I am glad that the Minister takes the same line. His apt sedentary intervention underlines the need for the amendments.
It is easy to load a question, thereby almost directing the answer. The commission should be consulted and any views expressed by it published, so that people may take due note of what it has said.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
The Committee knows that my hon. Friend's eloquence is legendary. Do I interpret him correctly if I say that, without the amendments that he is eloquently advocating, the danger is that the commission would be nothing but the Prime Minister's hapless glove puppet?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I am always reluctant to allow any colleague to put words into my mouth, particularly when they come from my hon. Friend's silver tongue. If we do not incorporate the amendment, the danger is that we shall have an emasculated commission, which, at the very point of delivery, cannot exert influence or even express an opinion.
In a sense, therefore, my hon. Friend is right. We are concerned about the commission. We want it to have due and proper influence on the way in which questions are worded. We want its views to be known to all so that, if there is conflict or doubt, those who are called on to vote on any issue will know what the commission has said.
I hope that there is common ground between parties that the commission should be a respected body, whose general impartiality and approach is never questioned. If the commission is to have such a reputation and to maintain it through the years, it must have influence at such a crucial point.
The Minister has acknowledged, not only in his sedentary intervention, but in the context of the Bill, that there is some force to my argument, so I hope that he will accept the amendment. Even in the new clause, which we shall debate later and which I therefore cannot debate now, and which is so draconian, there is a specific reference to the commission and a role assigned to it. How much more important it is, then, to assign a role to the commission in clause 95.
Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton):
I shall be brief. The independents have not been widely consulted on this measure. Indeed, regrettably, they have not been consulted at all. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was his belief that independents were usually Conservatives in disguise. That is not always and invariably the case.
I support the amendment, because I believe that the Bill contains some anti-democratic elements, of which this provision is one. The commission's independence is
paramount, as it is in the nature of political parties--all political parties--to take power or to hold on to power. It will be extraordinarily difficult to safeguard the independence of the commission and its right to speak for and protect the interests of all the people in the country, who may not necessarily belong to a political party but who have profound political interests. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Mr. Stunell:
The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the amendment.
The three national referendums most likely to be held over the next few years are all on issues on which I would want the answer to be yes--Lords reform, the European Union and proportional representation. However, my strong desire for a positive result when those referendums are held does not blind me to the fact that those who set the questions have tremendous power to determine the outcome.
Every politician, I suppose, wants to win by fair means or foul, but I want to win primarily by fair means.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Having enunciated that novel--or perhaps traditional--Liberal Democrat policy, will the hon. Gentleman explain the ratio?
Mr. Stunell:
I am glad to have livened up the debate somewhat. The difficulty in discussing the Bill, as I said in a previous debate on the Floor of the House, is not that Members of Parliament are too poorly informed to discuss it--a fault that sometimes arises, if I may say so--but that we are too well informed to discuss it properly.
Regardless of the passion with which we want a particular outcome in politics, we have a duty to ensure that the processes used to reach decisions are fair, proper and balanced, not just to produce the desired outcome, but to ensure a fair opportunity for alternative views to be expressed and heard.
The point made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is one that we may not want to state on the Floor of the Chamber, but which we would certainly admit elsewhere--that is, that politicians never want to give up power. They will take power and hold on to it. I do not exclude the Liberal Democrats or any other political party from that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tatton would allow me to say that even independents, once elected to the House, are sometimes tempted to stay. They may resist that temptation, and the Bill is about resisting temptation.
The intention of the amendments, if not their precise wording, is right. They reserve to the commission some of the fundamental decisions about how referendum questions will be phrased and put to the public. That is a proper reservation of power and duty to the Electoral Commission.
I understand the Government's thinking. I understand that there is a certain amount of expedience in this Parliament and, in their mind, in the next Parliament and possibly for the next thousand years. They will set the questions. However, a day will come when they will not set the questions. They might then wish that the Electoral Commission had a bigger role than that for which the Bill provides.
As a Liberal Democrat, I seldom get to set the questions. Although I support a specific outcome, I am well versed in the need for safeguards against power. I urge the Government to look favourably on the amendment's intention, if not the precise wording.
Dr. Godman:
I have been a Member of Parliament for 16 years, but I never thought the day would come when I found myself in some agreement with a Conservative, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack); a Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell); and an Independent Member, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). I may get into trouble, but they have raised important points of principle about setting a fair question or series of questions in a referendum.
'on the recommendation of the Commission'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |