| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Straw: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have already given way a great deal.
Nor was any attempt made in the other place to answer the point made by the Conservative Lord Bethell--no friend of this Government--that Members and aspiring Members of the European Parliament would be known only to a tiny minority of the electorate, and that choices made between them would inevitably involve much randomness. I remind the House that the noble Lord said in a letter to The Daily Telegraph, which was published on Monday:
"I wonder, though, if the Conservatives want the elections to be fought on the fully 'open list' system. If so"--
18 Nov 1998 : Column 966
-
this is a warning that Conservative Members would do well to note--
"they will run into problems. The open list offers a choice so wide as to be confusing, especially since hardly any of the several hundred candidates whose names will be put forward have any public profile. Ballot papers will carry 50 or more names. Hardly anyone will know of them. Voters will mark their crosses at random."
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): What has that to do with us?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) asks what Europe has to do with us--
Mr. Alan Johnson (Hull, West and Hessle): It has very little to do with her.
Mr. Straw: Well, I understand her xenophobia, even though I do not share it.
I have never supported the proposition that, just because something happens in Europe, we should follow it, and I do not think that anyone supports it. However, the people of Germany, Greece, France, Spain and Portugal are just as committed to the principle of democracy as we are. They have been ready to accept the system. It has worked, and there have been no complaints about its fairness there.
I would also point out, in particular to the hon. Lady, but also to her hon. Friends, that she may have forgotten--those on the Conservative Front Bench have plainly forgotten it, but we have not--that the closed-list system was exactly the system that the Conservative Government used two years ago. [Interruption.] It is no good groaning about it. I know that Conservative Members do not want to be reminded of any of their history, but the closed-list system--
Mrs. Gorman:
The right hon. Gentleman is being insulting.
Mr. Straw:
I am not insulting the hon. Lady, but I will be happy to give way to her.
Mrs. Gorman:
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is substituting rhetoric for argument, I have stated in this House, and will do so again, that I do not particularly admire European systems. On examination, one realises that, over the centuries, they have produced unstable Governments or dictatorships, whereas our system of first past the post has guaranteed a democratic system under which this Government have flourished.
Mr. Straw:
Those countries use modern systems, which have not produced what the hon. Lady suggests.
The Conservative Government introduced the closed-list system only two years ago. The system that the Tories now say raises a fundamental principle of
democracy is the very one that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), described as "fair and balanced"; he said that it would produce "a representative outcome".
As became obvious to all who heard the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield on Monday, there was really no way out of that box. All he could come up with was that the former Prime Minister had decided to use the system because of the "special circumstances" of Northern Ireland. The principal special circumstance was the creation of a path to democratic government in the Province.
Are we seriously being asked to believe that the former Prime Minister chose the closed list notwithstanding the fact that he believed at the time that it was an anti-democratic system? Of course he did not. He chose it because, as he said, it was fair, balanced, and representative; he also chose it for all its other merits of simplicity, which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spelled out at the time.
Over and above the arguments for the change, a simple, stark fact stands out. On each of the four occasions when the Government were defeated in another place, the outcome of the vote would have been different without the votes of the hereditary peers. Last night, the Labour Government achieved one of their highest votes ever for any of their legislation. A clear majority of those--from all parties and none--who were appointed to the other place on their own merit, voted for the closed list. Only the votes of the hereditaries--including 103 Conservative hereditaries--who are in the other place not on account of their own merit, but through the chance of their birth, defeated the Government's proposal.
The end of the Session is almost upon us. The Government remain committed to the electoral system in the Bill. If the other place persists in its stance, it must do so in the knowledge that it will cause the Bill to fall in this Session. The Government will have failed to achieve one of their manifesto commitments because of the obstruction of another place--a clear breach of the doctrine established by Lord Salisbury, the great- grandfather of the current Leader of the Opposition in another place.
Both on the merits of the issue, and on the constitutional principle, the House of Commons is right. I ask it to send the clearest possible message to the other place.
Sir Norman Fowler:
The Home Secretary has spoken on this matter four times, but his case is becoming significantly weaker and more threadbare. He has again set out the range of arguments that he used first time round. He keeps quoting Lord Bethell, but Lord Bethell said in the debate in the House of Lords last night:
The Home Secretary is wrong in all his arguments. Moreover, many people will object to the arguments that he directed against named hereditary peers; those arguments will do neither his cause nor his reputation any
credit, especially as--[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) should listen. One of the noble Lords who has consistently voted for the Government is Lord Warner, who was sent to the House of Lords for no reason other than the fact that he was the Home Secretary's special adviser. We shall not take lectures from the Home Secretary on this issue. As for Cross Benchers--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The Whip must be quiet.
Sir Norman Fowler:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Home Secretary ignores the argument about Cross Benchers and says that they normally vote with the Conservative party. Historically, that is rubbish. In the previous Parliament they voted almost consistently against the Conservative party. Cross Benchers' votes show that anyone who considers the issue from an independent point of view comes out against the Government's proposition.
The Prime Minister calls the position that we are in an affront to democracy. The true affront to democracy is to have a closed list, which denies the public the right to choose a candidate; to put power in the hands, not of the electorate, but of the party bosses; and to force this measure through in spite of all the arguments made, not only by Conservative Members and the House of Lords but, time and time again, by Labour Members.
The Home Secretary says that we have a constitutional problem, but he has no one but himself to blame for the mess that the Government are in. He has ignored all advice and pushed ahead with the closed list. If there is a constitutional problem, he is its author. His handling of the Bill has been an example of blundering incompetence, and all his arguments have been discredited.
The Home Secretary has made it clear that if the debate is lost we will go back to first past the post. I have made it clear that I would prefer that; but that is not the issue. The issue is the form of electoral system that we have under proportional representation. I am tempted to ask the Home Secretary whether his announcement that we will go back to first past the post is a threat or a promise. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Mr. Ronnie Campbell, please be quiet.
Mr. Cash:
I have found it difficult--in fact, impossible--to vote with my party on this question, because I am so much against the principle of proportional representation, but I congratulate the Opposition on the fact that it looks as though we will go back to first past the post; and thank God for that.
"I know that we cannot have a closed list, which is abominable. My noble Friend on the Front Bench is quite right."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 1139.]
The Home Secretary cites as support among Conservative peers someone who regards the closed list as abominable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |