| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heath: We are the masters now. The Minister has official responsibility for electoral arrangements, yet another Department interferes in everything that he does and says that he cannot have what he originally asked for. That is not joined-up government; it is
bullying by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Labour party for their own objectives. That is what we object to so strongly.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the Minister's lickspittle conduct is extremely effective. Does he agree that the historical musings of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the Salisbury convention are wholly inapplicable in this case given the absence of a manifesto commitment? Does he recall that, on any of the three occasions during the Conservative government highlighted by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), the Labour party complained about the behaviour of the upper House? I do not recall that.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman invites me to do two things. First, he invites me to engage in a discussion with the hon. Member for Rhondda that Mr. Deputy Speaker has said is beyond the scope of this debate, so I shall not do so. Secondly, he invites me to support the view that another place without an elected mandate ought to frustrate the will of this House when it considers matters other than the constitution and the protection of human rights and liberty, which I think are its proper province. I am not prepared to do that, because I want reform of the other place and will not defend its present arrangements.
I will, however, defend the right of another place, as constituted, to look dispassionately at legislation before it and to take a view which is nothing to do with my arranging my troops at the other end. For heaven's sake, I could not even arrange my colleagues behind me. If more than one were here at the moment, I might try to do so.
I am not in a position to tell my colleagues in the other place how to vote; they will reach their own judgment. At the moment, their judgment is that the Government are engaged in a process of bullying and inappropriate action that is against all the tenets of our constitutional settlement, and they are right to take that view. I just wish that the Government would accept that they have the Bill that they asked for in the first place, and that they would please stop throwing their toys out of the pram, and behave like a grown-up Government.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I am moved to do so by some interesting distortions of the truth. I challenge any Member who served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that gave birth to the Electoral Commission, or who participated in any of the subsequent stages, to tell me that any Member, at any stage, moved an amendment that sought to give the commission the power to instruct. [Interruption.] Stop chuntering over there! That never happened, and it was never the intention of this House or of the upper House, so far as I can see, that the commission be given a power to instruct. It is there to give advice, and advice it has given to the Government and to this House.
Sir Robert Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have been present in Committee Room 11, where the Minister said that the Government were taking
instructions from the commission in respect of electoral boundaries because they were required to do so by European legislation. So it has already been stated in legislation that the commission should be supreme, and that it should be obeyed when giving advice in this area. We are saying that when such advice is given, it should be taken extremely seriously.
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the subject of boundaries, but it has nothing to do with the procedural process.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that the Lords have a duty to protect the constitution. There is one fundamental and overriding constitutional point that must take precedence over all else: that only one House is elected. We have yet to have in its entirety the debate on the nature of the second Chamber, what its powers ought ultimately to be, and whether, indeed, it should even exist. A few Members present voted for its abolition [Interruption.] I hear some cheers from behind me. At this point the second Chamber has no ability constitutionally to put aside the powers of this House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) hinted, the Conservatives are riding on the coat-tails of the Liberal Democrats in this Chamber, in the upper House and, indeed, in the north-west. They have no policy of their own. They are looking for convenient electoral gain, and they seek to achieve it through a mechanism that would minimise turnout.
Mr. Borrow: Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that not a single north-west Liberal Democrat Member is in the Chamber to explain why they are preventing their constituents from voting by post in June?
Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley said was spot on. At local government level, Liverpool city council seems terrified of the concept of higher turnout. In what better place could we campaign for higher turnout than in Liverpool, where, regrettably, turnout has been far too low for many years? So far as Liverpool city council is concerned, the Liberal Democrats are frightened of a higher turnout.
6.15 pm
Andy Burnham: We are probably 10 weeks away from the elections. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important voices now belong not to those in this Chamber or in the one down the Corridor, or to those in the Electoral Commission, but to the returning officers in the north-west and the regional returning officer? According to my information, they are all in favour of postal voting going ahead.
Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point and any right-thinking person will agree with him, but that does not mean that he will get unanimous support in this Chamber.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on distancing himself last week from the outrageous statement of the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Chris Davies, that
people who want postal voting are lazy. Why does the hon. Gentleman not demonstrate his anger at that statement by voting with us tonight?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Before making one or two brief points, I should point out to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that elevating paid officials the electoral registration officers above Members of either House is rather strange parliamentary logic.
The other place has as much right to take the stand that it has taken on this issue as it had to throw out Mrs. Thatcher's War Crimes Bill. One should remind Labour Members that the House of Lords has behaved with a degree of vigour and robustness, no matter which party has been in government. All that it is seeking to do on this occasion is to look properly at what the Electoral Commission is recommending. No matter what sophistry Labour Members indulge in, the fact is that the commission has said that it does not believe that there should be a pilot in the north-west.
Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Not yet. The commission's statement is a fact, whatever arguments Labour Members might advance and whatever the Minister might say. Indeed, he has changed his mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) pointed out. The Minister took one line in December and is now taking a very different one although, admittedly, he has taken it for the past eight weeks. In taking that very different line, he is flying in the face of the commission's advice. This House is right to listen to that advice, and it would be far better advised to say, “Let us have three pilots,” which would constitute a concession on the part of many. Frankly, I would rather have no pilots at all. I do not like the idea of compulsory postal voting, but I recognise the fact that the commission has been asked to make some recommendations, and that the figure of two pilots has been increased to three. However, I recognise I ask the Minister to do likewise that the commission does not believe that the north-west should have a compulsory postal ballot.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Whatever the hon. Gentleman might say, he cannot change that fact. The advice is clear and unequivocal, in letters from the chairman of the commission, Mr. Sam Younger. It is a great pity that Mr. Younger, in whom I have great confidence, has been placed in this extremely difficult and embarrassing position.
Mr. Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall certainly give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend not think that the Minister should apologise to the commission and to the returning officers who have been left in muddle, owing to this Government's delay and bungling?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Not for the first time, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, whose reputation for
incisive sagacity is exceeded by no one. Mr. Sam Younger and his colleagues, who seek to serve this country and the electoral system with objective, impartial advice, should receive an apology. We are now moving, because of the ridiculous timing —It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [8 March].
The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 172.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |