REFERENDUM (Hansard, 17 July 1967)

§ Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a referendum to be held with a general election. My proposed Bill makes provision for only the mildest form of referendum—I would call it a form of complete public opinion poll. I have tried, I believe successfully, to avoid the well-known objection to the principle of the referendum.
The Bill provides that Parliament shall, at a General Election, allow a poll at the same time as the election for M.P.s, on certain issues selected by Parliament, but limited in number by Parliament. The Bill is drawn in very wide terms, simply because, in Committee, hon. Members will best be able to fill in the details which would suit the House of Commons.
My supporters and I have immediately in mind as issues for a referendum such particularly contentious items as the reintroduction of corporal punishment and capital punishment. I mention those because the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and my lion. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who support the Bill, have their own opinions on them, but are also anxious that the public should express an opinion. I, too, have strong opinions on these matters, but none of us is of the same mind. Recent changes in the law relating to homosexuality and to abortion will be in people's minds at the moment, but the Bill would not specify any particular subject—that would be for the House to decide.
I seek to obtain the opinion of the electorate, such as we have never had before except by the small sampling of public opinion polls, so that Parliament will be in no doubt about the will of the people on the issues put before them. Those issues would, I hope, be selected by, perhaps, a Select Committee from a list of suggestions made, I suppose, by hon. Members to the Committee by leave of the House. I visualise the selection of items of such importance as create 1451 wide public concern, and about which the political parties, or, in the main, Members of Parliament, have never sought a mandate from the public, and which in General Elections the public have had no opportunity at all to express their view.
For the most part one has in mind the sort of subject brought before almost every Parliament in Private Members' Bills—items on which the public are well-informed and which I believe, we in this House are in no better position, or are no better qualified, to judge than anyone else. I do not, of course, refer to complicated matters which demand great study and thought from elected Members of Parliament.
Though, by the Bill, Parliament would not be bound to place any one matter before the electorate, it would give the public a fair deal. There could well be contentious items that we cannot forsee. One that has just emerged rather strongly in Birmingham is the legalisation of brothels. That is seriously proposed by city councillors and members of the public as a means of containing the nuisance caused by prostitutes. I have refused to bring in a Bill to deal with that subject, but in these days of the liberalisation of morality who knows what will come before us at any moment?
Other things that come to mind are blood sports, and the like. On none of these have we a complete idea of what the public would wish, yet we represent the people, and are supposed in the House to do their will. Now that the Government gives facilities for Private Member's Bills—and I do not argue that point—anything can happen against the will of the people without the authority of the people.
I find myself in favour of some of the items I have mentioned, but not of some existing or proposed legislation, but no one can confidently assert that any of these things represents the will of the majority of the people. The important thing is the will of the majority of the people—democracy. We all claim to believe in democracy. We recommend it abroad, we legislate for others to practise it, we have gone to war for it, yet we do not fully practise it ourselves. I must admit that even in the Bill I would not allow for what I call the full com- 1452 plete measure of democracy. Now we have some chance to say whether or not we will grant a larger measure of it to our people.
The form of referendum practised under our law by means of town polls has proved of great value. Among the countries which have experience of referendums are Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Ireland, Germany, France and Italy, but all in a fuller, different and stronger form than I propose. A referendum has been held on the sale of alcoholic drinks, and even in this country we had a kind of local referendum on that subject. Other items have been nationalisation, monopolies, social services, rents and prices, and military services.
These are all interesting studies, but my Bill does not purposely intend to stretch the matter as far as that, but, rather, to deal with those subjects for which at present Private Members' Bills are brought forward.
I have been asked about the Common Market—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he is seeking leave under the Ten Minute Rule.

§ Mr. Gurden
I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I will cut down my remarks, and merely say that times have changed and that, by the use of television, radio and Press we now have a more educated and informed public. Gone are the arguments against the referendum that might have been valid when so many people could not read or write.

§ Mr. Denis Coe (Middleton and Prestwich)
I oppose the Motion. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) has sought a rather interesting and novel way of introducing the referendum into this country, but I suggest that his Bill would compound the difficulties already existing by adding a few more. The hon. Member says that Parliament should decide the issues to be presented to the electorate at a General Election, but I suggest that this Bill would mean that the Parliament that was ending would, in effect, bind its successors on items that it believed should be put before the general public.
1453 The choice would, presumably, be made by a Select Committee during the lifetime of the previous Parliament, but if, in the long run, Parliament as a whole was to decide, the Government of the cay, of whatever party, would decide what issues, if any, would be put before the public. The effective decision on the matters to be put to the public would rest with the Government of the day, so that the hon. Member's Bill would add to the power of the Executive, and not lessen it.
By confining a referendum only to times of General Elections, the hon. Member is suggesting that only then can we decide to discuss such moral issues as he mentioned. I should have thought that, if we were to introduce a referendum, it should be held at convenient moment when issues of great importance arose. Under his proposal, a disproportionate amount of time would be given to the particular issues under consideration and not to the manifestos of the political parties, which ought to be the most important things being discussed at a General Election.
Then there is also the problem of the size of the vote. The hon. Gentleman thinks, presumably, that he has got over his problem by having it at a General Election, but it does not follow that the electorate would vote in any great numbers on particular issues put before them alongside the general vote for the parties.
Therefore, I believe that many of the difficulties which exist anyway when one talks about referenda are present in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but my most important point is that the whole suggestion of referenda being used in our electoral system works away from our system of representative government on which the whole basis of our democracy rests. En a system of government such as ours, the centre of democracy must rest with this Chamber because, the moment one moves away from this and introduces a system of referenda and other extraneous ways of trying to find out people's views, one is weakening our democracy.
1454 When the electorate go to the polls at a General Election, they know that they are electing a person who belongs to a party, or not to a party, who will be their representative, responsible to them and responsive to their views. He will be responsible for the next five years or less, depending on the date of the following election, for carrying forward, in his view and in his conscience, what he believes to be the right issues.
The moment we introduce other ideas, such as referenda, we are breaking away from that system and in our system of government that is not the right thing to do. The hon. Member mentioned other countries which carry out referenda, but it is fair to argue that we are concerned here with the system of government in this country—and that system depends on the effective working of democracy within this Chamber.
What would happen—as I believe has happened in other countries where referenda are used—is that, so far from what he wants being achieved, they would be or could be used by the Government of the day to appeal over the heads of the Chamber, just as in ancient Greece the Charismic leadership of the day appealed to the mob and tried to get Greece away from the idea of a representative Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a solution of how we should gauge public opinion which would damage Parliament and not enhance democracy.

§ Mr. Speaker
Objection having been taken and since a Division has been claimed, I am bound by paragraph 4 of the Sessional Order to declare proceedings on the Motion deferred until the end of today's business.