§ 4.1 pm
§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for electoral reform; to reform the House of Lords; to ensure that no constitutional measure shall be enacted without a two thirds majority of members of the House of Commons; and for purposes connected therewith.This is a simple but far-reaching Bill which consists of a series of what I hope the House will agree are relatively modest proposals which are designed to protect the fabric of our unwritten constitution and the liberties which it enshrines.The proposals have three aims. The first is to preserve our single-Member constituency representation here in the House of Commons while seeking to remedy the manifest unfairness which can lead to parties with a similar measure of popular support achieving grossly disproportionate representation. The second is to recognise that there is a permanent place for a second, non-elected revising Chamber. The third is to achieve a proper balance of power between this Chamber and the Executive by ensuring that no major permanent constitutional change can be enacted without the clearly demonstrated and genuinely full-hearted consent of Parliament.
The first part of the Bill would seek to tackle the often scandalous "votes in relation to seats" anomaly but to tackle it by a far simpler and more readily understandable system than any of the variants of proportional representation, which are themselves often riddled with anomalies. Electoral reform and proportional representation are not necessarily the same thing and it is not necessary to advocate the second to achieve the first.
The Bill would provide for two-round elections in the present single-Member constituencies. Where no candidate in the first ballot had achieved the support of 50 per cent. of those voting, or 33 1/3 per cent. of the total electorate, there would be a second round.
Such a reform would not confront the electors with hypothetical and often unattractive choices and football coupon-type ballot papers. In any second round election there would be two candidates and there would have been at least a week during which voters could reflect on the merits, personal and otherwise, of the candidates remaining, and reflect, moreover, in the knowledge of what happened in the nation on the first polling day.
The second part of the Bill would seek to deal with the question of the second Chamber by a series of simple and, I hope, not too controversial changes. The non-elected revising Chamber has served us well as a necessary brake on the Executive and a forum in which issues can be analysed on their intrinsic merits without too much regard for passing fancy.
Equally, I accept that it is impossible to defend the principle that birth should give an automatic right to sit in Parliament or that there should be a built-in majority for one party merely because hundreds of hereditary peers who rarely attend debates remain eligible to do so.
It is not illogical that in a monarchy there should be a hereditary element in the House of Lords. Under this Bill that element would be limited to a maximum of 200 peers, elected from their own electoral roll at the beginning of each Parliament, in proportion to the strength of the support achieved by the major parties in the election. Peers 744 not wishing to be on the electoral roll would be eligible for election to the House of Commons. In addition, there would be 400 life peers appointed to sit for 10 years, and no Government would be allowed to appoint more than a given number in any one year.
There would be a third and important group of exofficio members—people sitting, as the bishops do at present, by virtue of the office they hold—and I would include in this category leading figures from both sides of industry and local government, so that Parliament would become, in a wider sense even than at present, the forum of the nation.
The third and most important section of the Bill would deal with constitutional measures coming before this House. In many countries in Europe, the Commonwealth and elsewhere, major changes to the constitution can be enacted only if there is a large and specified parliamentary majority. Here a simple majority suffices, and there are two forms of simple majority, the numerical and the whipped.
Under this Bill, there would be a Select Committee of Privy Councillors, presided over by you, Mr. Speaker, which would determine whether a Bill was or was not constitutional. Any Bill so designated would have to receive an absolute majority on its Second Reading, to be submitted to a properly time-tabled Committee stage on the Floor of the House and to receive a two-thirds majority on Third Reading.
I am not foolish enough to suppose that this modest Bill will proceed to the statute book. I introduce it because the time has come for Parliament to address itself to these fundamental constitutional issues. The presence of an overwhelming majority in Parliament is something in which we can all rejoice if that majority happens to sit on our side of the House, but it is important for us always to recognise that humility is a rare but vital political virtue, particularly vital when a party with a vast majority of seats did not necessarily obtain a majority of the popular vote.
I would not like to think that there was ever any truth in Rousseau's gibe about the British being free only at election times. Nor do I want there to be any truth in the suggestion that Back Benchers are enslaved thereafter.
These are vital issues which deserve our careful deliberation, and I suggest that specific proposals should, at the least, be placed before the people by all parties at the next general election. I hope that the House will indicate its general agreement with that proposition, if not necessarily with the details that I have outlined, by allowing me to introduce this Bill today.
§ 4.8 pm
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes the hon. Member wish to oppose the Bill?
§ Mr. Home RobertsonIndeed I do, Mr. Speaker, and I understood that I had given notice both to you and to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) that I intended to oppose it.
I have heard some quite ambitious ten-minute Bills proposed in the House, but this one takes the biscuit. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South may be motivated by an entirely laudable desire to restrain an excessive and oppressive Government — a Government whom he happens to support—and there are a few elements in the 745 Bill which I might in other circumstances be willing to support. For instance, I might have agreed with the hon. Gentleman on the question of electoral reform had he suggested a different form of proportional representation from the one which he is suggesting, but that is a very broad issue. I certainly agree with him that the House of Lords should be reformed. I am sure, however, that all on this side of the House could think of something much more radical and drastic than the sort of hereditary electoral college about which he spoke.
The point which concerns me profoundly is the implication of the requirement of a two-thirds majority in this House on any constitutional Bill. I am a member of the Scottish majority in this House. Fifty-one of Scotland's 72 Members here are committed to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Further, those 51 Members are implacably opposed to all the policies of the present Government. Only 28 per cent. of the Scottish electorate at the last general election supported the Conservative party, and there was an even bigger swing against the Conservatives in Scotland at the local elections last Thursday. The Labour party now controls Edinburgh, something almost unheard of.
It is bad enough for the Scottish majority to have to endure oppressive administration and legislation imposed by the English majority in this House under a Conservative Government. It would be downright intolerable if a two-thirds rule were to prevent a future Labour Government from passing legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament, in accordance with Labour's well-established Scottish mandate. Scotland has already been cheated once by Mr. George Cunningham's 40 per cent. rule. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South is now seeking to impose a 66 per cent. rule, which to my mind would be even more unfair, unreasonable and unwarranted than the 40 per cent. trick which was imposed by an unholy alliance during the administration of the previous Labour Government.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South is rightly horrified by the attack on local democracy which is being mounted by the Government, but he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have the remedy to that problem in their own hands. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for having voted against examples of the oppressive legislation which has been advanced by the Government whom he supports. However, I am sure that he will understand why Labour Members, especially Scottish Labour Members, feel that the Bill is the wrong way to go about improving the constitution.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 144.
746| Division No. 282] | [4.10 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Key, Robert |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Knox, David |
| Beith, A. J. | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Bottomley, Peter | Penhaligon, David |
| Bottomley, Mrs. Virginia | Price, Sir David |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Rathbone, Tim |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Couchman, James | Wainwright, R. |
| Freud, Clement | |
| Gale, Roger | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Mr. Patrick Cormack and |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Sir Anthony Meyer. |
| Kennedy, Charles |
| NOES | |
| Alison,Rt Hon Michael | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Anderson,Donald | Jackson, Robert |
| Ashby, David | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Barron,Kevin | Lang, Ian |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Lightbown, David |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | McCartney, Hugh |
| Beggs, Roy | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Bermingham, Gerald | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Maclean, David John |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | McWilliam, John |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Major, John |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Marek, Dr John |
| Boyes, Roland | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Mather, Carol |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Meacher, Michael |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Mikardo, Ian |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Burt, Alistair | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Butcher, John | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Butterfill, John | Nelson, Anthony |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Neubert, Michael |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Cash, William | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Cohen, Harry | Patchett, Terry |
| Colvin, Michael | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Conway, Derek | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Coombs, Simon | Pawsey, James |
| Cope, John | Pike, Peter |
| Corbett, Robin | Powley, John |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Prescott, John |
| Crowther, Stan | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Radice, Giles |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Dewar, Donald | Roberts,Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Robertson, George |
| Dicks, Terry | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Dobson, Frank | Rooker, J. W. |
| Dormand, Jack | Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Dubs, Alfred | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Eadie, Alex | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Eggar, Tim | Sheerman, Barry |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Faulds, Andrew | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| Fisher, Mark | Skinner, Dennis |
| Flannery, Martin | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Fox, Marcus | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Stern, Michael |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Gould, Bryan | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Grylls, Michael | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Hamilton,Hon A.(Epsom) | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Watts, John |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Weetch, Ken |
| Hayward, Robert | Wheeler, John |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Whitney, Raymond |
| Hirst, Michael | Winnick, David |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Wood, Timothy |
| Holt, Richard | |
| Home Robertson, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) | Mr. John Maxton and |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Mr. Tom Clarke. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.