| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Electoral System
4. Mr. Winnick: When he will make a statement on what electoral system is to be used in the next general election. [24615]
Mr. Straw: The independent commission on the voting system has begun its work and has been asked to report
within a year. After that, we intend to introduce legislation for a referendum so that the electorate may decide on the future electoral system for the Westminster Parliament.
Mr. Winnick: Why is there any need for a change to the system for elections to Westminster? Were not those who argued that the existing system meant permanent Tory government proved wrong--fortunately--last May? What we do not want is permanent coalition government.
Mr. Straw: My personal views on the matter are well known and I have not changed them in recent weeks. I set them out at some length on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
Many people believe that we should have a different system. My hon. Friend will recall that the former leader of the Labour party, the late John Smith, proposed that the matter be resolved by way of the electoral commission and then by referendum. I was pleased to advise the 1995 Labour party conference that that was the way forward. Those of us who take one view should be sufficiently confident in it to believe that it will be shared by the British people.
Mr. Forth:
Will the Home Secretary do his best to ensure that the electoral commission and, thereafter, the electorate, are made fully aware of the experience in New Zealand, where people were persuaded to choose what appeared to be a rather simple and easy option and, according to the evidence, have bitterly regretted it ever since?
Mr. Straw:
I know that the commission under Lord Jenkins is to make several trips. [Hon. Members: "Who is he taking with him?"] I have no idea whether commission members are taking their wives or partners--and I am not sure whether they will travel as far as New Zealand.
There is much to be said on both sides of the issue. One of the difficulties with the New Zealand referendum was that it was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the New Zealand electorate were asked simply to vote for the status quo or for an undefined change. The New Zealand people voted for change on the basis of some sentimental belief in the future and were then presented with a system that has caused great problems.
Mr. Skinner:
Is it not a fact that Italy has had proportional representation in some shape or form for God knows how long and that it has had about 50 different Governments since the end of the second world war? Does not the cockeyed idea of PR come from the Euro-fanatics among the Liberal Democrats? It is part of the common market disease. We have had a basinful of it on account of the next Euro-elections--as recommended by the Liberal Democrats. I urge my right hon. Friend to stand firm and ensure that Westminster elections are conducted according to the first-past-the-post system--and we shall knock the living daylights out of all of them.
Mr. Straw:
I must admit that I have noticed rather less enthusiasm for proportional representation on the Labour side of the House since 1 May. I point out to my hon. Friend that the Labour party commission under Lord Plant--
Mr. Skinner:
He is not standing for election.
Mr. Straw:
No, he secured a position of permanent election in the other place. The Labour party commission
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley:
At a time of regrettable cynicism about politicians and growing confusion about democratic accountability, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the link between the Member of Parliament at Westminster and the constituency is widely recognised? Is it unfair of those who believe that the Labour party wishes to diminish the authority of Westminster to see tinkering with electoral systems as part of that campaign?
Mr. Straw:
The right hon. Lady's latter point is profoundly unfair: in no sense do we want a reduction in the authority of Westminster. However, I profoundly agree with her first point. If we look to continental systems, where there is no constituency basis, we see the development of political elites that are detached from the electorate. I have spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches and nine months on the Government Benches and I believe that it is our constituency base which gives vibrancy to British politics and a proper accountability.
5. Mr. Peter Bradley:
What plans he has to ensure that young offenders are asked to repair the damage they do to victims and to the community. [24616]
Mr. Straw:
A key aim of our plans to reform the youth justice system is to encourage young offenders to face the consequences of their behaviour and to make amends to their victims. We have brought forward, in the Crime and Disorder Bill, proposals for a new reparation order, which will require the young offender to make reparation to the victim, where the victim desires it, or to the community. Reparation will also be an element of the new action plan order, the existing supervision order and the proposed final warning scheme.
Mr. Bradley:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to crime, prevention is a great deal better than cure? Will he join me in commending the Wrekin community safety partnership, which has done much to divert young people from offending, to reduce levels of crime and to enhance the quality of life in the community in my constituency?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe to put the victim back at the centre of our judicial system? Does he accept that reparation orders will play a great role in doing exactly that?
Mr. Straw:
I am happy to commend the work of the Wrekin community safety partnership.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we want to put the victim back at the centre of the system. The problem at present is that far too many offenders do not understand that there are victims of their crimes other than themselves. Part of the purpose of our youth justice
system is to ensure that young offenders face the fact that they have offended, that there is a victim, and that the victim is not them.
Mr. Evans:
Does the Home Secretary agree that it is wrong to suggest that the majority of young people offend? The vast majority do not and it is a shame that they are all tarred with the same brush. In the context of the small proportion of young people who do offend, surely it is right that the victim should be properly consulted about reparation. We should endeavour to ascertain how he or she feels about how the young offender should pay back the price to society--or even to them, the victim.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision about boot camps? When the system was operating, it was shown to be extremely effective. The vast majority of my constituents, who are neighbours of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, thought that the idea of boot camps was long overdue. They will think it a great shame if they are done away with. Indeed, doing away with them might send the wrong message to young people, who might be given the impression that they can get away with crime.
Mr. Straw:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that the victim is consulted; there are a number of schemes to extend that process.
The previous Administration set up two high-intensity schemes that were described as boot camps. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are nothing like the brutal boot camps that exist in the United States. There is one at the Thorn Cross young offender institution; the other is at Colchester military prison.
I had to close the Colchester military prison experiment on the ground of cost; each place was running at £32,000 compared with £17,000 in an ordinary young offender institution and £21,000 at Thorn Cross. Furthermore, the evidence is that the Thorn Cross experiment does a marginally better job than that at Colchester.
6. Mr. Gerrard:
If he will make a statement on the fire service settlement for 1998-99. [24617]
Mr. George Howarth:
The proposed settlement of 4.8 per cent. for the fire service has been widely welcomed in the fire service community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will set out his proposals for a final settlement for the standard spending assessment later today.
Mr. Gerrard:
My hon. Friend will be aware that while an extra £4.4 million in London will help to stop some of the most serious cuts, there will still be a difficult financial situation for the London fire and civil defence authority. There may still be some cuts and the possibility of station closures. Will my hon. Friend tell us what further steps he may be able to take to help the authority get out of the difficulties? Will he look especially at the
Mr. Howarth:
The settlement that we have proposed compares favourably with that proposed by the previous Government, who over the past three years announced settlements of 4.2, 1.5 and 0 per cent. respectively.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been concerns. Indeed, a section 19 application is currently under consideration by Her Majesty's chief inspector in respect of London. When I receive the inspector's recommendations on station closures and the arrangements for the Thames, they will be given serious consideration.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said repeatedly that we will not take any decisions that place the London public in danger of being in any way damaged or injured by fire, and that consideration will be uppermost in our minds.
There is concern throughout the country--not only in London--about the pension scheme and the costs involved. The previous Government set up a review and I hope shortly to publish the results of it, but there is no easy solution to the difficulties facing the fire service pension fund--and, for that matter, the police service pension fund.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
Does the Minister agree with--or will he dissociate himself from--the remarks made by the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union in the latest edition of "Firefighter", who said
Mr. Howarth:
Yes. Her Majesty's chief inspector examines every proposal and advises the Home Secretary and me--on every occasion--whether it is safe to go ahead with it. Whatever the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union may have said, the fire services are in quite good shape--and in even better shape since we announced last December the best settlement that they have had for many years.
"many . . . fire authorities simply do not have the financial resources to provide a safe and effective service for the public"?
Will the Minister confirm that any fire station closure or appliance relocation could be done only with the approval of the Home Secretary, and even then only when he is satisfied that there will be no loss of safety or effectiveness to the public?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |