VOTING AT ELECTIONS (Hansard, 20 January 1999)

§ Mr. Ottaway
I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 143, line 27, at end insert 'no later than 55 days prior to the date set for the ordinary election'. This is a probing amendment. Schedule 2 provides that lists of London member candidates must be submitted by the registered political parties, but there is no time scale. We want to ascertain the Minister's thinking on that.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey)
The amendment would set for parties wishing to field candidates in the elections 973 for London wide members a limit of 55 days before the assembly elections to submit their lists to the Greater London returning officer.
The amendment is unnecessary and impractical. The time limits for the close of nominations in elections are normally laid down in secondary legislation, but the amendment would put a time limit in the Bill, which we believe would be an unnecessary constraint.
If the normal time limits for local elections are used for the assembly elections, the last day for nominations under our proposal would be the 19th day before the date of the poll, excluding weekends and public holidays. For an election on 4 May 2000, nominations would have to be in on or around 31 March—about five weeks before polling day. We see no need to extend the campaign further, and electors will have every opportunity to get to know who are the candidates on a particular party list.
The amendment could mean that nominations for London wide seats might close at a different time from nominations for constituency seats and mayor. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) would agree that that would be nonsense, because half the campaign would be under way and half the candidates would still be undeclared. He would also agree, after listening to my remarks, that there is no need for the amendment. There is no reason why we should not keep the normal time limits for local elections.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I welcome the Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, to our debate. I am tempted to say that her arguments are persuasive; this is not an issue that we have decided is a great cause to fight. There is logic in having a similar date, and there is certainly logic in not extending the formal campaign. No one who has been through an election campaign would want a six-week formal campaign instead of a three-week campaign. The pre-campaign will be bad enough without the formal campaign being elongated.
It is perfectly proper for the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to table a probing amendment, and we should reflect on what the Minister has said. If we need to, we can return to the matter. Ideally, the list would be published on the closing date for individual candidacies for constituencies, if we are to have the system proposed by the Government.

§ Mr. Ottaway
I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Ottaway
I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 144, leave out lines 25 to 37.
The amendment would remove the artificial 5 per cent. threshold, which any candidate seeking to be elected to the assembly by the list system has to surmount. There are many political views in this country that we disagree with, many that we find unacceptable and, on rare occasions, views that we find repugnant. Politicians of the left, the right and the centre usually find common cause in fighting and resisting the policies of the extreme right and the extreme left. We do so because we choose to, and because we are committed to the political process, but we are also committed to the democratic process.
974 Everyone has views, particularly Members of Parliament, and we exercise our democratic right to express those views. One had only to go outside the House into Parliament square this afternoon to see demonstrators from Chile expressing their views for and against General Pinochet. Nowhere is the opportunity to express one's views in a civilised way more enshrined in tradition and culture than in this country. One of the most enjoyable ways of spending a Sunday afternoon is to go to Speakers' Corner, where the wide variety of views expressed range from the extreme to the eccentric.
That commitment to democracy led us to table the amendment. The rationale behind it is straightforward and simple: if 4 per cent. of Londoners express support for a candidate and if, under normal circumstances, that is sufficient for him or her to join the assembly, it is right, proper and democratic for that 4 per cent. to have their voice heard on the assembly.
However, under the system that the Government propose for the assembly—devised, I understand by a Mr. d'Hondt—any party standing for the London assembly will need at least 3.8 per cent. of the vote to get one of its members on to the assembly and, under extreme circumstances, that figure could drop as low as 2.8 per cent. Thus we are debating the difference between 2.8 per cent. and 5 per cent. Conservative Members would far rather accept the natural threshold than the arbitrary imposition of an extra 2.2 per cent. Why is someone's view unacceptable if 3 per cent. vote for him, but acceptable if 5 per cent. do so?
The moral for the Government is that one cannot just pick and choose with the electoral system. If they do not like the consequences of proportional representation, they should not introduce it in the first place. The Conservative party is fundamentally opposed to the principle of PR. It produces weak, divisive Governments and assemblies, and severs the link with constituencies which we regard as important. Israel is experiencing a nightmare situation, with religious groups with low percentages of support holding the balance of power to the country's detriment.
7.45 pm
It is all very well for the Government to have thresholds when it suits them. They had no threshold in the referendum for London and they had no such artificial threshold in Scotland or Wales. They should not have a threshold in London just because they might disagree with someone's political views. This matter goes to the core of democracy. If the Government cannot stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this important debate. Those of us who have been involved in London politics for a long time understand its significance. It will be the last substantive debate on the Bill and I hope that the Committee will excuse me if I take a few minutes to outline the issues.
May I make it clear that the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power to prescribe a threshold—a percentage of the vote that a party needs to surpass in order to be elected—and that the maximum threshold would be 5 per cent.? I remember hearing a perfectly reasonable response from the Secretary of State, whose good faith I do not doubt. He said that he would consult widely on the matter before determining his view.
975 My colleagues and I propose to vote against the schedule tonight because, at this stage, we do not want to concede that the discretion should be left in the hands of the Secretary of State, nor do we want to jump to the conclusion that, for the first time in Britain, a threshold will be set at 5 per cent., which is what will happen if we leave the schedule in the Bill.
There are two main issues. The first is, how do we accommodate smaller, perfectly democratic parties?

§ Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town)
Like the hon. Gentleman's.

§ Mr. Hughes
No, not like ours. Ours is a large party, although it is perfectly good and democratic. Indeed, it is a much older party than the hon. Gentleman's.
This is a relatively easy issue. The obvious party to mention is the Green party, which has made a good contribution to British politics and to many of the political systems in the European Union and beyond. It has an interest in the outcome of this debate and would agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that, if there is to be a threshold, it should be the natural threshold, which works out at 3.8 per cent.
Those who, unlike the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), have not received the briefing or done the work, might ask why the natural threshold is 3.8 per cent. I thought about it and calculated that, if there were 25 members, the threshold would be 4 per cent. However, 25 members plus one are needed for the counting, so 3.8 is the threshold. My gut reaction on the general question of a threshold for the assembly is that we should have the natural threshold. The weakness in that argument is that the threshold is determined by the size of the assembly, which is in a sense arbitrary. I understand that.
Let me be absolutely honest: if we have a bigger assembly, as we propose, with 40 members, the threshold will be smaller. To get one seat out of 40 requires a threshold of 2.8 per cent. There is therefore no definite point at which the threshold is right.
The second issue is whether a top threshold of 5 per cent. should be set. Britain has never had a threshold before, so it is a new experience for us and it is perfectly proper that we should debate it. It would require a persuasive argument to raise the threshold from its natural level.
As I have said, I am no great expert in this matter, although I have an interest in electoral systems. I should like to cite four examples: New Zealand and Germany have a 5 per cent. Threshold—I am well aware that Germany has had a threshold for a long time as it is a legacy of the post-war settlement, imposed on it by this country as part of its redemocratisation and to avoid a repeat of what happened in the 1920s; Italy has a 3 per cent. threshold; and Israel has a threshold of between 2 and 3 per cent. Thus there is a range of thresholds in other perfectly reputable modern democracies.

§ Mr. Linton
I challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Britain has never before experienced a threshold in its voting system. Although we have never experienced an explicit voting system, the Opposition recommend that we accept the natural threshold of 3.8 per cent. We had a natural threshold in our voting system throughout the 19th century when, in all seats other than those in Ireland, 976 there were only two candidates in practically every election. There was therefore a natural threshold of 49.9 per cent. During most of this century we have had three-cornered contests, so the threshold has been 33 per cent. Our system does include a threshold, so it is odd that the Opposition argue against one.

§ Mr. Hughes
The hon. Gentleman's point is relevant to the wider debate, although it is not as relevant to recent history. I thought that he was going to give the example of Northern Ireland. It is true that Northern Ireland has a natural threshold, because it has had a single transferable vote system for a long time, but Great Britain does not.
We have never had a prescribed threshold, nor has the Secretary of State had the power to determine a threshold. I am troubled about the prescribed threshold, because it is arbitrary—a 5 per cent. maximum is arbitrary. Even if the Secretary of State acts in good faith, the power would be on the statute book and could be varied by order at a later date.
The Neill committee, and the Nolan committee before it, recommended that such electoral matters should go before an electoral commission. The Government have accepted that for Scotland, and there is such a proposal for the House of Lords. My instinct is that the matter of whether we have a threshold and what it should be must be referred to someone who does not have a party political view and does not have a party vested interest—a point that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) made in debates on other amendments. I am making the point in a non-oppositional way.
The threshold will be set by a Labour Secretary of State, who will assess what will be the right threshold for the elections to be held next year. It will make a big difference to the Green party whether the threshold is 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 per cent. It could determine whether Labour has a majority in the assembly. In the general election, Labour got 49 per cent. of the votes cast in London, so it almost had a majority. If that were replicated, a decision on the threshold could determine whether Labour would get a majority on the assembly. That is a hugely political matter.
Whatever advice the Secretary of State takes—the Callaghan Administration rejected the boundary commission recommendations at the end of the 1974–79 Government—he may make a much-criticised decision that is alleged to be party politically driven. We should avoid that. I ask Ministers to subject the matter to independent assessment before they make a proposition, so that it is out of the party political domain.

§ Mr. Fitzpatrick
Will the hon. Gentleman express his personal opinion about whether the Government are taking a cynical approach to deciding the threshold for party political advantage or whether their approach is a genuine attempt to ensure that extremist parties have no place in a London assembly?

§ Mr. Hughes
I am coming to that point and, in that sense, the hon. Gentleman and I come from the same political part of London. I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me when I said that I respect the good faith of the Secretary of State. I do not doubt that the Government want to deal with that issue, and they would be criticised if they did not do so. I am not suggesting that they are 977 trying to gain party political advantage. I am making the point that if the House gives any Minister of any Government the power to make the choice, his choice, given he is a political animal, will be affected by the political factor. The choice of a 2, 3 or 4 per cent. threshold could determine whether the Green party got a seat, and that could determine whether the Labour party had a majority.
I want to address the question of how we deal with non-democratic, right-wing, illiberal, extremist and fascist parties. In every parliamentary election that I have fought in the docks and in the east end of London, I have had right-wing, racist opponents. I am happy to say that, without any thresholds, we have taken them on and seen them off. Over the years, the one thing that has united all three of the main political parties in my seat is the fact that, between us, we have been able to keep the vote for right-wing parties as low as possible, and in spite of expectations, they have never achieved more than about 2 per cent. I regard that as very important.
What dangers do we see coming down the track from the right-wing parties? Philosophically, being a purist, I would prefer to start with a natural threshold, but I concede that we should not reject a prescribed threshold out of hand. There is a danger that, with 14 seats and a list system, extremists could whip up a right-wing agenda and get people out to vote for a right-wing party when they otherwise would not have done so.
A racist candidate knows that he cannot win in the seat of the Minister for Transport in London or in the seat of my friend and neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). In a first-past-the-post system he will never get more than a few per cent. of the vote, but he takes part to incite racist views. Thank God, the right wing has only ever won one election, which was in Millwall a few years ago. The problem was rapidly dealt with, for which I pay tribute to the Labour party. The Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for London and Construction played a large part in that, and I pay tribute to them unreservedly. I would rather a thousand times that Labour won every seat in Tower Hamlets or anywhere else, than any of the right-wing parties. It would be unacceptable if right-wing parties were to win seats.
A list system makes a difference. I am concerned that if we present to people the prospect of an extreme right-wing candidate being elected with 3.8 per cent. of votes cast, it may act as an incentive. They may think that they will get a right-wing candidate elected, whereas post-war electoral history shows that extreme right-wing parties have done badly in London—I put aside the rest of the country.
We should not be simplistic about the past. The figures for the average votes cast across London for the British National party or the National Front show that they have done badly in the past, but their candidates have not stood in most seats. They have stood in only a few seats, so the figures give a false average. They have got a higher percentage of votes in the seats for which they have stood. It is still only about 1 per cent., so we must be careful not to award them a bigger influence or political importance than they have. Under the legislation, members of those parties will be able to stand as candidates for the 978 assembly. Past voting figures are not a good comparison, because there has never been a slate of right-wing candidates.
We share the Government's view that if the assembly is to represent London and if black people, Asians, Africans, Caribbean people and people of all backgrounds, races, creeds, colours and characteristics are to feel part of the electoral process and to be encouraged to take part in it, we must ensure that they are not subject to harassment, intimidation or political annihilation by people who have a dogmatic, undemocratic and racist agenda.
I am sympathetic to the idea of a threshold, but I am unsympathetic to the proposal that it should be decided by the Secretary of State, however ethically aware and eminent he may be. I am unsympathetic to the idea that we should today, without any further debate among colleagues whose views we have not heard, decide that it should be no higher than 5 per cent. and that that is the absolute, because that figure has been plucked out of the air.
I hope that, however we vote, hon. Members will agree that there should not be a "take it or leave it" conclusion—that the Government should not say "We have thought about this, and therefore we are absolutely right." They may be right, but we nevertheless need to have the debate. Let me make an offer to the Minister for Transport in London, whose credibility in this regard I have no reservations about endorsing. Ultimately, I should prefer an agreement to be reached between conventional, democratic, proper political parties, in relation to "green" parties but also in relation to how we deal with right-wing, racist, anti-democratic parties. If the outcome of this debate is Ministers' being able to say, "We are happy to get the best objective answers to these questions", it will be very welcome.
8 pm
We support the removal of the provision from the Bill for the moment, but that should not be interpreted as opposition to a debate or a threshold. We need consensus. I am sure that the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who represent the borough opposite mine across the Thames and who have had experience of such issues, agree that is better for democracy. We have a common interest in securing the best possible democratic traditions. We all want to ensure that people who are bigoted, prejudiced and racist—people of whom I have been a victim when, as an MP, I have taken them on—are put on the margins of politics and never obtain a toehold in this country, as they have in some of our neighbouring countries across the channel.

§ Mr. Fitzpatrick
Let me say immediately that I respect the views expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and do not for a moment question the integrity of the Liberal Democrats.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the racism that is endemic in a minority of the east London community. As I have said, I respect his party's integrity. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that the British National party won a by-election on the Isle of Dogs in 1993, partly because of policies employed by the Liberals in Tower Hamlets. Those policies were condemned not just by the Commission for Racial Equality and by hon. Members on 979 both sides of the House, but by the High Court, as being racist in their application to housing. In the climate that was created, the BNP was able to exploit antagonism in impoverished communities in relation to unemployment, housing problems, overcrowding and all the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and I experience in Southwark and Tower Hamlets.
I commend the Liberal Democrats for taking action. Let me make a belated suggestion. I know that members of the hon. Gentleman's party, including him, wanted disciplinary action to be taken against elements in Tower Hamlets. Friends of mine in the party argued for some time that it had been hijacked, and I do not for a second suggest that the responsibility lies directly with the hon. Gentleman or his party, but there is some culpability. Extremists of the right will try to infiltrate all political parties to pursue their own advantage.
In 1993, the BNP won a by-election on a first-past-the-post basis, gaining nearly 1,600 votes and beating Labour by seven. We employed our resources massively to win back the seat, doubling our vote to 3,000; but the BNP increased its vote to 2,000. I speak as one who represents part of Tower Hamlets and part of Newham—an inner-city east London seat with a multi-cultural population, like those of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). My point is that, as it is easy for racists to play the racist card when it comes to poverty, overcrowding and homelessness, we should introduce artificial requirements to ensure that the racists have no platform.
In the GLC elections of 1977, the National Front scored 19 per cent. In that context, a 5 per cent. threshold would be meaningless. I want to engender a multi-cultural London and to promote the diversity and richness that already exists. In a democratic society, there is no place for people who say, "You do not have a right to live. You do not have a right to a job. You do not have a right to live here, in dignity and with respect." We need thresholds of decency. I see this as nothing other than a genuine attempt by those who are concerned for society to make it clear that there is no place in that society for racism. I accept that many views exist about political theology, ideology and philosophy, but there can be no place for those who take a discriminatory or prejudiced approach to people because of the colour of their skin, their race, their sexuality or their religious origin.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, so that people do not receive an unhelpful false impression, will he confirm that the 19 per cent. figure that he gave for the 1977 election was not—thank God—the London-wide figure, but was only a local figure? Nothing approaching 10 per cent. has ever been achieved across London.

§ Mr. Fitzpatrick
I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me.
We have seen what can be conjured up. In France, the National Front and Jean-Marie le Pen command a respectable number of votes. Thank goodness for the winning team in the French world cup, which was multi-cultural. Zinedine Zidane scored goals in the final. If anything cheered anti-racists throughout the world, it was the French winning the world cup. I have no 980 hesitation in saying that, in a Parliament dominated by English Members. They may not be the greatest lovers of French culture, but, as an expatriate Scot, I do not have the same difficulty.

§ Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow)
When we discuss the election of one local councillor, should we not bear in mind that in 1981 Jean-Marie le Pen managed to secure the election of only one local councillor, but 10 years later there were 1,000 in France? It takes only one to provide the electoral credibility that can start the process. That is why it is so important for the Government to provide for a 5 per cent. threshold.

§ Mr. Fitzpatrick
The bottom line is that fascism is not about democracy, about respect for the 5 per cent. threshold or about respect for humanity or individuals. The BNP and the National Front will put on an electoral facade in order to con people. They will say, "We are looking after white interests." But we know that, as soon as they have been beaten in the ballot boxes, they will take to the streets. They will continue to perpetrate violence against black people, and people who do not agree with them—against political opponents like all of us in the Chamber.
There is no place for racism, extremism or fascism in our society. There is no disagreement about that. That is why Labour Members wholeheartedly support the Government's threshold, which we see as a message or symbol. We have read about the Lawrence inquiry, and we know what is happening in society. We are determined to create dignity and decency, and we must convey that message.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has said, if we give such people an inch they will take a mile; so we must give them nothing. We must give them no space in which to breathe, or to peddle their propaganda. We must prosecute them whenever possible when they express their views in writing, and we must not give them space in which to operate as a political organisation. We have learnt the lessons of history, from Germany and elsewhere. Such people must not be given a toehold.
I respectfully suggest to Conservative Members that, although a 5 per cent. threshold introduces an artificial obstacle to democracy, democracy itself is too precious for us to give such people the air to breathe. This is a small step towards depriving them of their platform.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
I admire the moral conviction of the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), but I cannot share his conclusions; rationally, they do not stand up. I wholeheartedly support amendment No. 58 and, on this occasion, we have support from the Liberal Democrats.
As I said at the outset, there is, as Kenneth Starr might have observed, a pattern of behaviour emerging. Clause 3 contains the power for the Secretary of State to dictate the timing of the second and third elections to the Greater London authority. In schedule 1, which we did not debate, the Secretary of State has the power to decide when a boundary commission should examine constituency boundaries. Now, in schedule 2, the Secretary of State will have the power, if the schedule is passed unamended, to decide whether the threshold should be above the natural one, under the d'Hondt formula, of some 3.8 per cent., up to a limit of 5 per cent.
981 It is surely for us to decide what the threshold should be during the passage of the legislation. I concur wholeheartedly with the judgment of my hon. Friends that it should be the natural threshold. If the d'Hondt formula has any merit—it has little—it is that it does at least set a natural threshold that eliminates the possibility of, I will not say rogue candidates, but not serious candidates, who have minimal support, being returned to office.
I caution the House against artificially limiting the accession to the assembly, by diktat of the Secretary of State, of representatives of political parties that the Government may not support and the objectives of which they may not share. To do so is fundamentally undemocratic. It is for the electorate to decide who their representatives should be.
If the electorate votes in sufficient quantities normally—that is, without such interference—to secure representation, they should be permitted that representation. If they are not, frustration results and the likelihood is greater, rather than less, that those who are denied representation will pursue anti-democratic, perhaps violent means to achieve their political objectives.
We have seen with the proscription of Sinn Fein and other parties that such proscriptions are unwise. Setting an artificially low threshold will not have the result that the parties on the Government Benches desire.

§ Mr. Linton
Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it can be fundamentally undemocratic to support a threshold of 5 per cent. if he supports a system that has an implied threshold of at least 30 per cent.?

§ Mr. Wilkinson
I do not support any artificial threshold. I just happen to feel that the person who secures the most votes in any particular electoral area should be returned, however many people vote for him or for her. As I have said, it is not a matter for such jiggery-pokery.
In my political career, I have seen people putting up supposedly hopeless causes. When I was first elected in Bradford, a representative of the Pakistan People's party stood in the Manningham ward in Bradford, West. It may have seemed totally illogical, but, at that time, to the Pakistanis, it seemed the right thing to do. No doubt Mr. Bhutto was pleased that they had a candidate, but that is beside the point. The lesson to be drawn was that the Pakistanis felt that a PPP candidate would have represented their interests best. Had he been elected, be it by 30 per cent., as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggests could have occurred, I would have accepted that result.
8.15 pm
Who are we to decide which party or affiliation is unworthy of election? The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town cites the National Front. The Front-Bench team of the Labour party might suggest old Labour in certain circumstances, the Socialist Workers party or goodness knows who else. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) argued, the Greens might be denied an office that, without such interference, would properly be theirs; so might supposedly racial parties.
982 In part of the east end, it could be a Bangladeshi candidate; people in that area might feel that a Bangladeshi was right. In Brent, it could be a Gujarati, or, in Southall, a Sikh. One does not want London to polarise on such racial lines, but, in certain circumstances, it might be better that there should be the possibility of such racial representation than that it should be artificially denied.
The schedule as drafted demonstrates yet again the determination of Her Majesty's Government to proscribe, to interfere and not to allow the House to make its judgments. That is wrong. Electoral arrangements should be made here rather than by the Secretary of State or the commission, because commissions tend to be appointed by Her Majesty's Ministers.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I do not think that I was suggesting that we delegate the power to the commission. I was suggesting that we delegate the power to make the recommendation to a body such as that, but that it comes back to this place—Parliament—to make the decision on the basis of that advice.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
Of course. The hon. Gentleman is right. I was not following his remarks accurately enough in drawing the interpretation that I did, but I was thinking, for example, of other commissions that are told to do things on our behalf, such as the one on which Lord Wakeham will serve. I tend to misjudge commissions because they tend to be packed with people who will offer the advice that Her Majesty's Ministers seek.
I welcome the fact that, on the issue of thresholds, if on few others, there is genuinely bipartisan agreement between my party and the Liberal Democrats. We are right. We should stick to the natural threshold of 3.8 per cent. under the d'Hondt formula.

§ Ms Glenda Jackson
We are grateful for the opportunity that the amendment has afforded the House to discuss an important and serious issue. At present, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have power to set a threshold of not more than 5 per cent. of the vote which a party or independent candidate would have to attain in order to win a London-wide assembly seat. We are under no illusions and we would regard it as grossly irresponsible if we did not listen and continue to listen to what the House says, and welcome and ask for views on what we propose.
If the Bill is passed, It would be the first time that such a threshold has been set. We acknowledge that the reason why we have made the proposal is because we are presenting a unique electoral system in London. It will be the first time that the systems are being used to create this type of authority and city-wide government, and the city is, as virtually every Member has pointed out, multi-racial.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of normal thresholds. Our proposals are ones that the people of London have agreed should be put in place. We are ensuring that the rest of the Bill goes through here. The Government's proposals have been overwhelmingly voted for in the two days of debate. But it is undoubtedly the case that, in certain constituencies, and in certain circumstances with many parties and, in some instances, individual candidates, 983 those systems might result in a highly proportional result. Someone could be elected on less than 3 per cent., rather than what I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has been said to be the normal threshold of 3.85 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) made a particularly passionate yet reasoned speech, speaking, as he does, for a multi-cultural constituency. He said, and I agree, that there should be no place in the House for those who represent racism, fascism or extremist views of any kind. There is, should, and must continue to be a clear message from the House that we would fight those who would use such arguments to return themselves to this place, and in particular, to what we are proposing as a city-wide government for London.
This House is a torch for democracy, and has been for all its history, but there have been too many examples in the quite recent past of an unwillingness to counter immediately the forces of extremism, and we have seen them take over.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
I in no sense belittle the ethical impetus which drives the Minister's arguments. But, quite candidly, we should fight evil forces of every kind in politics on the hustings and in every way possible in all our activities. But if a representative of the Marxist-Leninist fringe faction, or some racist party, secures the requisite number of votes by any natural system, be it d'Hondt or any other, we should respect the view of the electorate and try to counter the arguments of that person once duly elected.

§ Ms Jackson
I respect the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but I cannot in all honesty accept his argument. I have touched on the point that he has made with regard to normal thresholds and how they, in the unique system that we are putting in place for the first time in Britain to produce a unique form of city government, could, as I have had occasion to say, enable extremist parties to be elected with less than 3 per cent. of the vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town highlighted the kind of increase that there was in extremist parties in Millwall, even under the first-past-the-post system when parties were united in contesting those candidates. I repeat that the Government are proposing a unique form of city-wide government, but one which affords the opportunity for a genuinely representative, multi-racial, gender-balanced assembly, where small parties can be returned. Because of the dangers that we have experienced in the past and the potential for such dangers in the future, the Secretary of State should have the power to set a threshold.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), in his opening contribution, referred to what he regards as the iniquities of any form of electoral system other than first past the post. He described the detrimental impact of such a system in Israel. He failed to touch on the fact that Germany has had a form of proportional representation. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, the threshold there was imposed by the allies after the second world war, precisely to ensure that there would not be a rise of fascist and extremist parties.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also referred to parties such as the Greens, and the fact that, in some instances, a normal threshold would 984 impact against their being returned. No one is arguing that the Green party is extremist. I well remember the European elections when the Greens polled more than 4 million votes but, under that system, could return no Member to the European Parliament. That is slightly outside tonight's debate, because our electoral system for this unique form of city-wide government has been agreed.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I simply wish to clarify one point, because I may have misheard the Minister or she may have said something that she did not intend to say. She said that the Government want to prevent people from being elected if they represent extremist views and are below the natural threshold. My understanding is that the real debate, if we take percentages, is whether we accept the natural threshold which, given the Government's proposition, is 3.8 per cent., or whether we put up a higher threshold between that and 5 per cent. If a party received less than 3.8 per cent., it could not be elected in the next election for the London assembly because that would not be sufficient.

§ Ms Jackson
No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the argument. I was responding to a point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood based on the definition of a normal threshold which, in this instance, as we have heard, could be argued to be 3.85 per cent. But, as I pointed out, it would be entirely possible, given our system, for someone to be elected at a threshold much lower than 3.85 per cent. The issue here is not that we are looking to create an artificial threshold on party political grounds. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he had no doubt that the present Secretary of State would not consider that for one moment, and I understand what his concerns may be in the future.
We wish to have an inclusive assembly, which allows a range of interests and views to be represented. But we are creating a unique form of city-wide government for a unique city. Given the system that we will introduce to elect the assembly and the dangers inherent in it, we believe that it would be right for the Secretary of State to have the power to set a threshold. We are proposing that that should be a threshold of not more than 5 per cent. of the vote.
Because this is an issue of such importance, and because the matters raised tonight are so sensitive, but are of major importance in a democratic society such as ours, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw the amendment in the clear knowledge that the Government would not institute anything without the most—as I had occasion to say earlier—real debate on the issue.

§ Mr. Hughes
I seek to intervene one last time before the Minister sits down, as I anticipate she is about to do. This is a question to which I do not know the answer. Does the hon. Lady happen to know whether, within the EU, city or city-wide elections, such as those for the Paris or Barcelona councils, particularly in countries such as France or Germany where this is a real live issue—

§ Mr. Wilkinson
Why just in the EU?

§ Mr. Hughes
It could apply elsewhere, but I am concentrating on our neighbours. Do such countries have thresholds? Is there a precedent of city-wide, European, urban, multi-cultural, multi-race elections?

§ Ms Jackson
I do not have that information at hand, but I shall be happy to obtain it and write to the hon. Gentleman. I stress again that this is a decision for the House inasmuch as the system that we are introducing is unique. As I have said, it is a new form of government. What we are considering would be the first example of a threshold being set in such circumstances. Every aspect of the systems that we are proposing must ensure public confidence. We do not want the proposal to be nodded—or even voted—through without the most comprehensive debate. In the clear knowledge that we want to return to the issue, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Ottaway
I appreciate the Minister's measured response to the debate. She is right to point out that this is a sensitive subject.
I was not clear from her concluding remarks whether she was giving an undertaking to have another look at the issue. Perhaps she might like to clarify that.

§ Ms Jackson
I should be delighted to. I repeat yet again that the Government want the most detailed and searching debate on the issue. We are prepared to examine it again, but we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to set a threshold. We have argued for 5 per cent., but we want opinions outside the House to be discussed and examined. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, we shall be happy to discuss the issue in detail.

§ Mr. Ottaway
This is the moment to discuss it in detail. What is the Minister proposing? Is she saying that if we withdraw the amendment she may make a concession on Report? It is important for that to be clear to help the Opposition make up their mind on their stance.

§ Ms Jackson
Because of the sensitivity of the issues and the unique nature of what we are proposing, we should be able to listen to the arguments now that the debate has been entered into. They have mainly been in favour of what we are proposing, but there will be arguments against. I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that we are grateful for the opportunity to return to the issue on Report.

§ Mr. Ottaway
rose—

§ Mr. Wilkinson
rose—

§ Mr. Ottaway
I give way to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
Is my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Minister's extraordinary quasi assurance the same as mine? Does he feel that the hon. Lady is refusing to relinquish the power of the Secretary of State to decide the threshold, which will not necessarily be the natural threshold under the d'Hondt formula? Does he also agree that it shows the fatuity of the proportional d'Hondt system that it leaves us scratching around to decide whether to exclude particular candidates with derisory numbers of votes that would never secure election under a proper first-past-the-post system?

§ Mr. Ottaway
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I hope that he will not be offended if I stick to the 986 point that I am trying to make with the Minister: whether she is making a concession to look at the issue again and return to it on Report. If so, we may well listen favourably to her proposal that we withdraw the amendment, but otherwise we consider the matter rather important. Perhaps she would like to clarify that.

§ Ms Jackson
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has reduced the tenor of his contributions by implying that the Government do not regard what we have been debating as particularly important. I should like to make it abundantly clear that the Government will not re-examine the principle of a threshold, but we are prepared to examine the level at which it would be set. It is necessary for the whole House to be able to consider that. If he will withdraw the amendment, we shall have an opportunity for greater debate on Report.

§ Mr. Ottaway
I interpret that as an undertaking from the Minister to review the level at which the threshold is set and to revisit the matter on Report.
We have a problem. I share the concern of other hon. Members about extremism. I respect those from inner-city seats who have to fight it. The Conservative party backs them in their fight. However, there is a problem. London has a huge ethical minority. I believe that it is 25 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ethical?"] I am sorry; a huge ethnic minority. If we add the further 5 per cent. from eastern Europe, the figure is 30 per cent. A respectable candidate who based his candidature on ethnic origins would be precluded by the Bill.
That is where the conflict comes. We have a desire to be democratic, but we also want to combat racism. The problem is inherent if proportional representation is introduced to a city such as London. The Government cannot have it both ways. They can have an electoral system that does not take a chance. If they introduce a different system, those risks are inevitable. The Government did not feel it necessary to introduce the mechanism in Wales or Scotland. This is not an easy decision to come to, but the Conservatives have come down in favour of the democratic argument and we believe in the natural threshold.
However, in the light of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I shall be brief. We do not propose to divide the Committee. To help those who may have arrived expecting a Committee vote, let me say that my judgment is that there will not be one. If they want to stay, they are welcome, but, if they do not, they can go somewhere else.
The previous debate, quite properly, became something of an exploratory discussion between the Minister for Transport in London and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I want to say only that the Liberal Democrats will happily enter unconditionally into discussions with the Government. I hope that the correct interpretation of the Minister's response to the previous debate is that, outside the Committee, some discussions can take place between the parties whose members represent London in the House of Commons.
987 We retain our preference for the position that I expressed in the previous debate: it would be better if that power did not reside with the Secretary of State, and if the recommendation came from a body that was not party political but independent, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested. I hope that the Government can be persuaded on that point—I do not suggest that they are not open to persuasion. I understand that the Minister for Transport in London has a preferred position, but it would be helpful if, in responding to this short stand part debate, the Minister for London and Construction said, as he always does on sensitive issues, that, outside the Committee, we can pursue ways of reaching an agreement.
If we do that, and if, in next year's elections, people stand on racist or extremist platforms, we can—as we eventually did during the second Millwall by-election—express a common view. On that occasion, the Conservative party and the Labour party, to their credit, and the Liberal Democrats were clear about how we should counter those who had entered the democratic process properly, but had done so to undermine the rights of everyone to participate equally in it.

§ Mr. Raynsford
This short stand part debate brings us to the end of the Committee's deliberations on the first four clauses and two schedules of the Bill. We have had an interesting series of debates on an innovative constitutional arrangement that will give London a new type of leadership and create new electoral arrangements. Inevitably, in that process, difficult issues have arisen, one of which is the scope for unrepresentative and vicious parties, peddling racial hatred, to try to secure legitimacy through election. All of us who are familiar with the problems that occurred in Millwall in the early 1990s know how dangerous that threat is to good race relations in London, which is why the issue must be taken seriously.
988 As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London made clear, the Government believe that it is right for there to be a threshold to provide a safeguard against such an eventuality. No measure can provide a guarantee, but it can help to provide a safeguard. We recognise that different views have been expressed about how that threshold should be determined, at what level it should be set and how it should be expressed. Some might argue that it should appear in the Bill, rather than be determined by the Secretary of State. For that reason, my hon. Friend was happy to give the undertaking that the Government would reflect on that issue and return to it on Report.
That is illustrative of the approach to the legislation that we have taken and will continue to take. Wherever possible, we shall try to secure agreement on issues of general concern to London.

§ Mr. Hughes
The Committee has rightly emphasised the importance of the issue. It would be helpful if the Minister could make one more offer: to do as he has done in respect of other matters and, not only promise further Government reflection, but convene outside the Committee a forum in which we can try to reach agreement between the three parties whose members currently represent London in the House of Commons. Ideally, we will have reached a common view on the issue by the time we go into the elections for the Greater London assembly.

§ Mr. Raynsford
I fear the hon. Gentleman will have difficulty in securing the degree of consensus he hopes for, given the fundamentally different positions adopted by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on most issues. However, I have given an undertaking that the Government will reflect further and I am happy to meet representatives of the Liberal Democrats and of other parties who wish to come to see me in the period between now and Report stage. With that, I urge the Committee to agree to the schedule.