| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.32 am
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): My request of the Leader of the House is that she considers urgently referendums and the way in which they have become part of our political process. I am increasingly worried by the frequency with which the Government resort to referendums and by the lack of thought that has gone into the way in which referendums are used as part of our political process.
We have all become used to the process: the Government have an idea about change of some sort, usually constitutional change; public opinion is softened up, although details may or may not be provided as to the nature of the changes to be made; the question is put and an announcement is made of overwhelming support for whatever was proposed. That announcement is made regardless of the turnout achieved or the size of the majority achieved among those who did bother to vote--a widely varying pattern has emerged in that respect. My question, which urgently requires an answer, is whether that is a legitimate or valid political process. The answer depends on several key factors, none of which has yet been satisfactorily addressed. My contention is that the Government, who have resorted so frequently to the mechanism of the referendum, have not given serious thought to the way in which that political device is used or to its potential effects.
We all know how crucial is the question. The outcome of a referendum depends to a large extent on the question put, and the most recent example is that of the London referendum. There was much debate about whether there should be two questions--"Should we have a mayor?" and "Should we have an executive body or assembly?"--but the Government cleverly decided to put those two separate questions together in a single question. Many of us argued that that was the wrong approach, which invalidated the process because the proposal involved two quite separate new political entities for London, but the Government insisted that only one question be asked. They got a yes answer on an extremely low turnout, despite the fact that little detail was given of what sort of powers were to be exercised or the relationship between mayor, assembly and boroughs.
That problem became even more obvious in the Scottish and Welsh referendums. The only question put to the people of Scotland was, "Do you want a new Parliament?" but no reference was made, except in the broadest terms, to the relationship that might exist between that Parliament and any other constitutional body. Crucially, the people of Scotland were not asked, "Are you content with a one-chamber Parliament? If you are to have a separate legislature for Scotland, would you not prefer to have the constitutional and legislative security of a two-chamber mechanism, whereby there would be a safety mechanism available?" In the Welsh referendum, the people of Wales were not asked, "Do you want a strong Parliament of the sort proposed for Scotland, or are you content to have a much weaker body, which looks like a gesture assembly?" My point is that the question asked is always crucial and that, more often than not, the really important questions are not asked at all. They are assumed or subsumed into a single question,
so that the people are not given the opportunity properly to consider the issues put before them or what other options might be available.
The next consideration is the vexed one of thresholds. Do we believe that any referendum on constitutional change in our country will legitimise that change by a simple majority of yes votes, regardless of the number of people who choose to turn out and vote? Is abstention to be seen as a positive political statement or as an expression of indifference? The classic example is the London referendum, in which only one in three Londoners bothered to vote. I should have thought that that turnout was in itself a statement of the indifference of two out of three Londoners to the question being put, yet the result was hailed by the Government as an overwhelming triumph and an endorsement for their proposals to change the whole basis of London government for some time to come.
Even more important is a question that might surprise some hon. Members: who should be asked? That might appear to be self-evident, but I resent the fact that the people of England were never asked for their views on matters relating to Scotland or Wales. Questions crucial to the future of the United Kingdom were asked, yet the vast majority of the population and the electorate of the United Kingdom has not, to date, been asked for its view on the issue of giving greater powers to a Scottish Parliament or to a Welsh assembly. The English people will be affected and are to be the paymasters for the whole process, but they have not been asked whether they want the process to continue, or whether they are prepared to continue to pay for it.
That argument even applies to the London referendum. London residents were asked, but the millions of people who travel to London, who work in London and who sustain London in many ways were not given an opportunity to express their views, even though their way of life might be seriously affected by the decisions taken by a London mayor and assembly. The answer to the question of who should be asked has not been properly thought through.
The timing of the question is always crucial. We should consider whether it should be entirely at the discretion of the Government of the day, as the timing of the referendum usually has a distinct bearing--or at least an influence--on its outcome.
One could draw many conclusions from all this. My preferred conclusion is that we should never use referendums; I doubt that they are a proper, valid or legitimate way in which to settle complex questions. For those who argue in favour of them, I shall review the deal that I make on such occasions and say, "I might be persuaded if you would grant me a referendum on the restoration of capital punishment--a subject that has long been close to my heart." If we are all agreed that referendums are to be a key mechanism of political decision making, why not hold one on that subject? Even that would raise the questions that I have mentioned. The choice of question would be crucial--a matter of life and death in some cases.
A question also arises about the irreversibility of referendums. Once a matter has been determined by that, in my opinion, dubious political mechanism, should there be a minimum period before the question may again be put? When will we be allowed to ask the people of
Scotland--and, I hope, in future, England--whether they believe that it was a good idea to have a separate assembly, a completely new bunch of politicians, more levels of bureaucracy, more expense, salaries, offices and so on? When will they be asked again whether that was really what they wanted? Supposing, as a result of a referendum, capital punishment were restored--as I suspect would be the case were the question to be asked--when could we revisit the issue and ask again whether people wanted that?
The political mechanism of the referendum gives rise to so many questions--the way in which it is used, the timing, the content of the questions, even who is entitled to vote--that obviously no thought can have been given to those questions by the Government, as they have decided to resort to the mechanism so frequently to legitimise, or seek to legitimise, their policy proposals.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this extended Adjournment debate. Whatever modernisation of the House of Commons takes place, I hope that this institution will remain because it is valued, especially by new Members who have discovered the opportunity that it provides.
My short contribution, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), concerns child care, and especially the need to regulate people who work with children in individual private homes--nannies, an awful expression, but one that we are stuck with.
Last week, I had the pleasure of holding a parliamentary reception for representatives from the Playpen campaign. I thank hon. Members who supported that reception, and especially hon. Members who supported early-day motion 1262, which is sponsored by me and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), in a display of cross-party unity on this issue.
The Playpen campaign was set up last year, in the wake of Louise Woodward's arrest in the United States, when it was recognised that there was an urgent need for Government intervention to protect children, parents and nannies from unscrupulous practices and unsuitable people in the child care profession. Playpen campaigns for the setting up of a non-profit-making, independent national nanny register to check credentials, exclude or deter unsuitable people and protect children from abuse and bad practice. It argues that there should be a requirement to register, which should be a condition of employment, and that the registration process should include checks on an applicant's identity, academic career and qualifications, work career, character and criminal record.
It is incredible that this loophole in the law remains, and was not plugged by the Children Act 1989. Playgroups, nurseries and child minders are registered by the relevant local authority, by the social services
department and so on, but there is no requirement for regulatory controls or registration of people who work in the home of the child's parents. That anomaly must be addressed. There is not even a requirement for nannies, or potential employees who are on a nanny register, to hold a first aid certificate, never mind a professional certificate of qualification.
A recent television documentary highlighted some of the potential abuses in the profession. It showed allegedly reputable nanny agencies sending people into parents' homes without checks and with references that had not been taken up. A pornographer, heroin addict or thief could obtain employment through a nanny agency, and gain the trust of parents and the ability to look after their most precious charges, with absolutely no control, making possible tragedies such as those that occurred in the Louise Sullivan and Louise Woodward cases. That unacceptable situation needs to be resolved before further tragedies occur. We want no more Louise Woodwards or Louise Sullivans.
Playpen has representatives from several reputable organisations, including the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses, based in Derby, and the Chiltern college for nursery nursing in Reading, in my constituency, and from respected child care trainers. I pay tribute to a founder member of Playpen, Cheryl Winton, a wonderful lady whose daughter, Jemma, was brain-damaged by abuse in her own home by an unqualified nanny. Cheryl is determined to ensure that other parents do not go through the private hell that she went through, and I suggest that we have a duty and a responsibility to plug that loophole.
How did we get where we are today? I do not believe that any hon. Member would argue that this situation is tenable and that the loophole does not need to be plugged. As usual, we have to look to the activities of the previous Government, especially the former Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, one Neil Hamilton, who piloted through the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
I do not believe that the previous Conservative Government set out to deregulate nanny registers. Having studied the record, I am also aware that the Opposition failed to spot the consequences of the 1994 Act. Labour Members made representations in Parliament concerning models, actors, musicians, seafarers and agricultural labourers, but we all missed the consequences of de-licensing--deregulating--employment agencies. Now anyone could set up a nanny register and provide people to work in the privacy of people's homes, with their children.
I am thankful that the climate is changing. I welcome the publication of the Green Paper, "Meeting the Childcare Challenge", and I welcome the fact that the campaign has cross-party support. I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Social Security is prepared to meet a delegation from Playpen and that the Green Paper mentions the issue of regulation for all persons involved in child care.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |