Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Richard Shepherd and David Winnick

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

I am not going to beat about the bush. I am not in favour of the change. I am not going to pretend I am and put forward various reasons why the Lords amendment should be accepted. If I had any doubts at the beginning—I must confess that at times I did consider the possibility of a change in the electoral system—the way this Government have gone about their business has certainly persuaded me to support the no campaign.

An article in today’s Evening Standard by a former editor of The Spectator makes a valid point about how little interest there is in changing the electoral system; there is very little enthusiasm for that. As I asked yesterday, where is the pressure? Where are the letters and e-mails? Where are the people coming to our surgeries and saying, “This is the most crucial issue of all”? It is important to bear in mind the fact that there would have been no possibility of such a referendum if the Conservatives had a working majority; indeed, they would be arguing the opposite of what the Minister was saying.

I do not want to eat my words. On many occasions, when I was sitting on the Government Benches, I said that the view of the elected Chamber should prevail. I do not deny that I said it, and I cannot say that I have drastically changed my mind. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has made the point that the Conservatives were only too willing to allow the unelected Chamber to overturn the decision of the Commons when there was a Labour Government.

I have no desire to eat my words, but on a major constitutional issue the Government should be willing to listen, even more so when we are talking about a voting system that has been in operation for a long time and there is so little evidence of a desire for change. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, the only reason why the measure is being introduced is the coalition. There is no other reason whatever. There is certainly no enthusiasm for it in the Conservative party, either on the Back or Front Benches.

When the Lords last voted on the proposal the majority was only one, but today it was 62—including 27 Conservative Back Benchers and, in many respects more important, Cross Benchers. They do not have a particular party view, but it is understandable that they should be concerned that if there is to be a vote on a change to the electoral system there should be credibility in the turnout. The provision is not binding. The point has been made on a number of occasions: if turnout is less than 40%, it does not mean that there will not be another referendum. The Government and Parliament can reconsider the position. What if turnout is less than 30%? Will we really work on the assumption that that gives sufficient credibility and is sufficient justification for changing the electoral system?

The Minister said that if there was a threshold, it would be an incentive for the no campaign. Surely it would be an incentive for the yes campaign. If the yes people are so keen on change, it is up to them to campaign as hard as possible to persuade the electorate of their case. The Government have put through most of the measures in the Bill. They should show some generosity and consideration for the strength of feeling. They should not be so obstinate. [Hon. Members: “Be nice.”] There would be no harm at all in the Government showing a less obstinate spirit and recognising the strength of feeling both in this place and next door.

If there was a free vote in the House of Commons, this measure would be overwhelmingly rejected.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The Government give as their reason for disagreeing:

“Because the outcome of the referendum should be determined by those who vote in it and should not depend on how many do not vote.”

I challenge that. I do not accept it. One of the reasons why I challenge the process is that we are under a guillotine. During the whole passage of the Bill we have been guillotined. Their lordships are part of Parliament and therefore used to be considered custodians of the constitution, so that we in our party passion might not force through something that altered the balance of the constitution. I oppose the motion for that reason.

The Bill is a major constitutional change. No one has argued otherwise. It will change the voting system. We have almost universal suffrage. Everyone is entitled to vote. If they choose not to exercise—

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Richard Shepherd and David Winnick

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

To avoid any misunderstanding, I make it clear that I am not making my maiden speech—I did that quite a few years ago! I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for his fine speech, and to everyone else who has spoken today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). They will I am sure all make valuable contributions to the House and the parliamentary party.

I have opposed identity cards from the start, and I dispute with the Home Secretary, who gave the impression that the Conservatives hold the high ground, that they—and they alone—have stood against identity cards from the beginning. That is not the position. Inevitably, if we are frank, there have been divisions within the two main parties over identity cards—some being for, some opposed. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary referred to a ten-minute Bill put forward by a Conservative Member, but I shall go back further. In July 1988, a ten-minute Bill was proposed by another Conservative Member, who is no longer in the House, with the purpose of bringing in identity cards. It is interesting to note that the Bill was defeated, even though the Conservatives had a majority, and that not one Labour Member voted in favour. Everyone who voted for the unsuccessful Bill was Conservative, so no high-ground propaganda please, because it serves no purpose. Incidentally, taking part in that Division 22 years ago, in the No Lobby of course, was someone we all know—Tony Blair. I think his views somewhat changed later on.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, in August 1996, when Michael Howard was Home Secretary, it was announced that the Conservative Government intended to introduce an ID cards scheme. So, again, there is clear evidence that the Conservative party, at one stage, considered ID cards to be essential. The Conservatives thought that not for dubious reasons, but for the same reasons my party concluded—wrongly, in my view—that ID cards were necessary. My opposition persisted when the Labour Government decided to bring in the cards. Moreover, under a Labour majority, a comprehensive inquiry was conducted by the Home Affairs Committee, and I was the only person on that Committee who voted against the scheme. Conservative Members voted with Labour Members in favour of ID cards in 2004.

I have always taken the view that my opposition is absolutely firm, except for one factor: if I could be persuaded that ID cards would help in the fight against terrorism, I would change my mind, because I believe—I am sure the same applies to all Members of the House—that the security and safety of our country and people must come first. Were there such evidence, I would reluctantly support ID cards. However, as has been said enough times today, there is no evidence that terrorism would be prevented by ID cards. The atrocities on 7 July 2005 would not have been prevented. Reference has been made already to the atrocity a year earlier in Madrid, where more than 100 people were murdered by al-Qaeda, and there is no evidence that ID cards in Spain could have prevented, or did prevent, such atrocities.

As to the argument sometimes put forward that, although identity cards would not and did not prevent such atrocities—I only wish they could have done—they nevertheless helped to bring the culprits to justice, I have to say that there is very little evidence for that. We need to bear in mind, of course, that for years, Spain faced a different terrorist campaign from ETA, but again identity cards have hardly helped in any way.

The police remain in favour of identity cards, but no one is surprised by that. In making his maiden speech earlier today, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made a valid point about what happened in 1952, I believe, when a person refused to show his identity card to a police constable. What happened to the person was upheld by the courts and identity cards were abolished.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

No, the person was found guilty; the law was the law. In the judgment, however, the reason why the law was intolerable was given: its maintenance for a security or emergency situation such as war should not prevail in peacetime. It was the Churchill Government, elected in 1951, who then did away with that law.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, and I never agree on economic issues, but we tend to share certain views on civil liberties. He is right in what he says about the Churchill Government, and I am sure that the Attlee Government would have done the same, had they been re-elected in 1951. We are going back a long time, but I am not aware that the Conservative Opposition in the 1945 Parliament argued for the abolition of identity cards. I am glad that those cards were abolished; I did not want to see them come back after half a century.