§ 2.38 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows>:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what their intentions are in regard to a revision of the present electoral system under which a political Party advocating policies which have been rejected by a majority of the electorate at a General Election can come into power as the Government of the country, and under which minority Parties can be and are inequitably under-represented in the elected Chamber of Parliament.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no statement to make on the subject of the revision of the present electoral system.
LORD REAMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for answering my Question. But as the Answer itself, though it came up to my expectations, did not quite reach my hopes, may I ask him two small supplementary questions? Apart from any questions of expediency or timing, does the noble Earl accept or reject the premises upon which my Question is based? Secondly, would the noble Earl dissociate himself or his Party from the opinion expressed by Sir Winston Churchill, as reported in Hansard of March 7, 1950, in these few words, if the House will allow me to quote them [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 472, col. 143]:
…we must not be blind to the anomaly…Nor can we… overlook the constitutional Injustice done to 2.600.000 voters who voting upon a strong tradition have been able to return only nine Members to Parliament…we 4 should set up a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of electoral reform.I would ask the noble Earl whether he intends to ignore that anomaly and constitutional injustice, both of which are greater now than when that opinion was expressed.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I should be better able to answer the question about whether I agree with the noble Lord's premises if I knew what the Liberal policy was. Perhaps I may be excused for not knowing their policy on this subject or, indeed, on any other. The noble Lord asks whether I dissociate myself from words used by Sir Winston Churchill. I would certainly follow Sir Winston this far, at any rate, and say "we must not be blind to an anomaly."
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the Liberal Party is quite prepared to accept the policy which was laid down and approved by the Speaker's Conference in 1917? That policy was again approved by the Speaker's Conference in 1930, and it was supported by Liberals and Conservatives. Is it not time that the Conservatives should display the same enthusiasm which they displayed on that occasion?
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, does my noble friend recall that that policy was not supported by the last Speaker's Conference on the subject?
§ EARL ATTLEEMy Lords, has the noble Earl observed across the Channel the disadvantages of a number of small Parties with no decided principles.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I think that noble Lords have noted that. Our present electoral system does not produce a mathematically perfect result, but it does work and it does ensure that the Parliamentary Party in power, forming the Government of the Day, broadly represents the main trend of public opinion. No doubt the question of an alternative vote, or some variety of proportional vote, will be argued for many years to come. If the noble Lord wishes to put this matter into his Party's Election programme, no doubt he will do so, and I should not wish to deprive him of that little bit of policy.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, are we to understand from the noble Earl's 5 reply that the Government consider that the present vicious see-saw, Tory—Socialist, Socialist—Tory, should go on for ever, to match the vicious spiral of prices and wages?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, the noble Viscount will know that one of the elementary rules of a see-saw is that if two people get on to one end they can deprive the other side of the power to move the see-saw.