PUBLIC OPINION REGISTER (Hansard, 23 July 1969)

§ Mr, Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a published register on which opinions in relation to Government Green Papers and certain other Government policy documents may be publicly expressed and recorded prior to further Government action I am seeking the support of the House to bring in a Bill to set up a public opinion record office as part of the Labour Party's policy to extend the scope of public participation in Government decision-making. I want, first, to quote from the 1964 Labour Party election manifesto, which says: Our belief is that the community must equip itself to take charge of its own destiny and no longer be ruled by market forces beyond its control. We are working for an active democracy, in which men and women as responsible citizens assist in shaping the surroundings in which they live. … In furtherance of that, and so that we can create a method whereby people can become involved in decision-making, I submit to the House a very simple proposal. I do so by saying that I believe that it is the belief of everyone on this side that we should make the House a parliamentary workshop, and that if we are to do that we must find ways of bringing the workers into the whole process of Government decision-making.

The Labour Party owes many thanks to those who have formulated ideas to bring these about—not least to Mr. John Thane, of Transport House, who has done a great deal of work on this subject. I also hope that, by introducing the subject this afternoon, we will encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to reveal some of the most exciting ideas that I know he has been working on for a long time on the creation of an institute of public opinion. I hope that the House will join me in saying to him that we look forward to hearing of the research and the work he has been doing now for so long.

The Bill deals with another aspect and will work something like the following. Following the publication of Green Papers and certain other Government 1747 documents, and within a given time, nonprofit-making groups of not less than 25 people should be able to submit to a public opinion record office their ideas or criticisms contained within, say, 400 words. The record should be printed in a similar way to HANSARD as we know it at present, but not attached to HANSARD. It should be printed at convenient intervals throughout the year.

I think that the first question which is asked about this is one so often debated throughout the country. We ask all those groups of men and women vitally concerned in parliamentary debate and parliamentary decision what, if they were given an opportunity of selecting one opportunity among themselves to come along to the House of Commons and take part in a debate on a Green Paper, they have to say? That, I think, is the crux of the thing—finding a means whereby Parliament can understand what those people are saying, to give them an opportunity of participation in parliamentary debate even though they may not be here in person. Parliament could learn a great deal from understanding the views of people throughout the country.

The Government have introduced seven Green Papers in all and I want to quote from three of them. The first is the Green Paper recently issued dealing with public expenditure, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: The Government are issuing this Green Paper so that their proposals may form the basis of wider public discussion. It is an important point to make and every economist in the country is concerned about this Green Paper. Every institute of economic study, every statistician, is vitally concerned with the proposals, and I think that everyone would agree that it is essential to get our economic arithmetic correct. But when the Chancellor says that the purpose is that the Green Paper should form the basis of wider public discussion, how do these people get into the discussion so as to record their opinions?

The second Green Paper I want to quote from, "The Task Ahead", was issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in February. He wrote this in his introduction: 1748 It is right that these prospects and the choices with which they present the country should be the subject of discussion not only with industry, but also in Parliament and among the public as a whole. It is the purpose of this document to provide the necessary basis of fact and economic assessments on which discussion can proceed. I know that many trade union branches which would like to take part in this discussion and which have a great deal to say, for instance, about the re-allocation of industry and many other problems which are outlined in the document. Yet these people find themselves unable to take part.

The third Green Paper from which I quote was issued by the then Minister of Health in July last year. He outlined the purpose of the Green Paper and invited members of the public, professional organisations and many others to take part in a wide public debate, and he wrote: To sum up, my aim is to reach a clear view, based on full debate.… This Green Paper is intended to focus the debate as the time for important and far reaching decisions draws near. Tremendously important issues were involved in that Green Paper as to the Future of the National Health Service but again, how did the Minister propose to include the public in the discussion and, indeed, how would the medical groups themselves and various other professional people take part?

We have no desire to imitate the ideas which have been practised in the United States whereby a Congressman can read into the Congressional Record up to 300 words of extraneous matter. Nor do we want to imitate the practice which gives him the right to add two pages to the Congressional Record Appendix. We feel that this is open to abuse and has many limitations. Indeed, it is open to the permission of the Congressman to include comments in the Congressional Record. There are weaknesses in that system and we do not want to go along in that way

Our purpose, therefore, is to experiment with some completely new ideas of bringing people into the confines of parliamentary debate, of making it possible for parliamentarians to understand the things which are being said throughout the country. At the moment, the only way open to the public is to issue a letter to The Times, or some other 1749 newspaper, in the hope that the Government machine will take note of it, or they can write to the Minister. But if that is done it is discourteous, whilst writing to him, at the same time to publish to the Press their letter to him. We know that very often these letters find the way to the Whitehall incinerator, which is perhaps known as the "laugh and tear-up box". That is often the end of ideas Resented to the Government as part of the great debate.

I believe that the Labour movement is sincere in wanting to enlarge the scope of our democracy and to make it possible for people to get involved in it and to make their views known and to take part in the wider debate. That is why I seek leave to introduce the Bill.