| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BILL PRESENTED
Wildlife
Mr. David Lepper, supported by Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Ms Julia Drown, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Tom Brake, presented a Bill to provide for conservation purposes to be furthered by any person discharging a function under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; to make new provision for the protection of certain species and sites; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 252].
Conduct of Referendums
5.33 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set up an election commission with powers over the conduct and financing of referendums.
I accept that, in certain cases--where major constitutional change is involved--it is right to consult the people. However, a referendum is not a mere opinion poll to be used at the whim of the Government of the day. Opinion polls and focus groups have become popular with the Government, and we all know that if one asks the right question, one gets the right answer--or, rather, if one frames a question in a certain way, one will get the answer one wants.
That is all very well if the object of the exercise is to determine which soap powder washes whiter, or which instant coffee tastes most like the real thing. Such a cavalier approach is not acceptable when the point at issue is whether there should be a fundamental change to our voting system, whether the pound should be merged with the euro, or whether the composition of this Parliament itself should be altered. We are likely to be faced with referendums on all three of those issues, among others, some time in the near future.
It is truly incredible that the Government are willing to conduct referendums on such fundamental aspects of our democratic system, but are unwilling to entrench that very process of consultation in a properly determined framework. I hope that the House will agree that it is not only desirable but necessary to establish fair and clear rules, and to appoint an independent arbiter to govern the conduct of referendums.
The Bill will give legislative effect to the reasoned plea for real referendums--a campaign which was launched by my Conservative colleagues, and which has the support of hon. Members from all parties in this House, several Members of another place, the Electoral Reform Society, Charter 88, the Constitution Unit and the Institute for Constitutional Research. The Bill will also implement the recommendations of the Neill committee on standards in public life, which were published last month.
The main effects of the Bill will be: first, to set up an independent commission, the members of which shall be nominated not by the Government but by the Speaker; secondly, to give a remit to the commission to report within three months on a clear set of rules to govern the conduct and financing of referendums, including such issues as who is eligible to vote, what constitutes a sufficient majority, how the question can be worded and how access to public service broadcasting shall be determined; thirdly, to prohibit the holding of any referendum except those conducted in accordance with the rules laid down by the independent commissioners.
The Electoral Reform Society has called this a level playing field for referendums. It is hard to imagine why anyone who upholds democracy would wish to see a
referendum conducted other than on a fair and level playing field. If the purpose of consulting the people is to secure legitimacy for important constitutional decisions, first, voters must be well informed about the arguments on both sides of the campaign, and, secondly, the side which loses must be confident that the fight was fairly conducted.
For those two conditions to apply, the information campaigns must be adequately funded, and the funding must be equally balanced. It will therefore be necessary to provide for public funding for the campaigns, as the Neill committee recommended. It is utterly absurd that, at present, we have a democratic system which conducts general elections under strict rules--to our great credit in the UK, as one of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world--yet we have, over the past year or so, condoned a situation in which the Government have been able to spend substantial sums of taxpayers' money promoting only one side of a referendum campaign--for example, in the outrageously one-sided campaign in Wales. There can be no argument--it simply is not fair.
It is essential that an independent commission should lay down reasonable, clear and fair rules for funding on both sides of referendum campaigns as a matter of urgency, and certainly before another referendum is called--which, given the new-found enthusiasm of some Ministers for a single currency, could be at any minute.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask leave of the House to bring in this important Bill, but it should not be left to a humble Opposition Back Bencher to bring this matter before the House and to attempt to put into legislation a framework for the fair conduct of referendums. If, by any chance, the Bill fails to become law, and I suppose there is every chance that it will not--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends. It is a pity that we are nearing the end of this Session. I sincerely hope that every hon. Member who believes in defending the democratic process will join me in calling on the Government to produce a Bill that will have the same effect in the next Session.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Desmond Swayne and Mr. Shaun Woodward.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing accordingly presented a Bill to set up an election commission with powers over the conduct and financing of referendums: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 18 November, and to be printed [Bill 253].
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt):
I welcome the opportunity to debate personal pensions mis-selling. It is a matter that directly affects the lives of many people, but it also raises deeper questions that affect us all, about the way in which the pensions industry is run, how it is structured and what role it can and should play in helping people provide for their futures.
The scale of pensions mis-selling is profoundly shocking. Hundreds of thousands of people have been mis-sold pensions and as many as 2 million people's cases will need to be looked into. The sheer scale of the problem makes its resolution a priority for the Government.
The matter is also of central strategic interest to the Government. We are facing a future in which people increasingly need to save. Employment is less certain. Increasingly, people can look forward to long periods in retirement and it is not possible through the tax system alone to help everyone to enjoy the standards that they have come rightly to expect.
However, before saving, people need to have confidence in the products that they use and the companies that look after their savings. The pensions mis-selling episode of the late 1980s and the early 1990s was a terrible betrayal of that confidence and forceful action is needed to put it right.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
Does the hon. Lady recognise that she and her ministerial colleagues substantially damaged the very real hope that people have of providing for themselves by giving the impression that the whole industry is riddled, if not with corruption then certainly with incompetence? She has seriously damaged people's opportunity to provide for their future while at the same time the Government are constantly raiding the state pension.
Ms Hewitt:
That is absolute nonsense. The damage was done to people's confidence in the financial services industry by those responsible for the mis-selling of personal pensions. It was compounded by the failure of the previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, to put right the scandal of that mis-selling when it was first discovered. I shall return to that matter.
The performance of the financial services industry is also a vital ingredient in the future success of the United Kingdom economy. Many of the failings that led to mis-selling, and indeed to the delays in putting it right, are symptomatic of deeper problems within some--not all--pension firms. Senior management have to take their responsibilities seriously and ensure that their firms have effective management systems and that due priority is given to proper customer care. Firms must deal with those issues in their own commercial interests. Any firm that fails to look after its customers properly can scarcely expect the public's confidence or custom.
Delay is one of the problems that has dogged the review. Mis-selling started in 1988, and the research that confirmed the extent of the problem was published in 1993. The review was started in 1994. The first deadline for completing the priority review was December 1996. The deadline came and went and only a tiny proportion of cases had been dealt with--delay after delay.
Thanks to my predecessor and to determined action by the regulators, the industry was finally jolted into action last year. Now, genuine progress has been made. More than three quarters of the most urgent cases--the priority cases--have now been resolved. The life companies in particular have made big strides. On average, they have now resolved approaching 90 per cent. of their priority cases, and some have done even better. By the end of the year, all firms must have completed their priority cases, or face the consequences.
Even after that milestone is finally reached, much will remain to be done. I intend to see that the momentum that we have established since the general election is maintained. Now, all the firms must gear up to tackle phase two of the review, which broadly speaking will deal with the cases of younger people. In other respects, it is simply an extension of the phase one process, although there is a new approach--an innovation--to identifying which investors should be in the review, building on the experience of the first phase. Because of that, the phase two review process should be less onerous for firms.
In maintaining the momentum of the review, I regret to say that the main challenge that I face--still--is resistance from parts of the industry. That is not to say that all in the industry are of the same mind. I am pleased that many, including some independent financial advisers, are now genuinely committed to the review process and see the benefits of getting on with the job. Some have even gone so far as to re-examine the way in which they do business and to learn the lessons of the past, because they know that that is the best way forward. I urge all firms to follow their example of constructive action.
[Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 6th and 14th May, 25th June and 2nd July (HC 712-i to iv).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Hill.]
5.40 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |