European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Roger Godsiff Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this momentous debate, which will determine the direction of our country for decades to come.
I strongly support our system of representative democracy, whereby electors send their representatives to Parliament to exercise their judgment and then to vote as they think fit, whereas referendums are, as far as I am concerned, direct democracy, where power moves from Parliament to the people. I have to say that I am not a fan of direct democracy or referendums. I much prefer representative democracy, but there are occasions, as occurred on the EU, where it is right that the decision is put straight to the people. There was a precedent for that because, under the Labour Government in 1975, a referendum was called on whether we remained in the Common Market.
Like everybody else in the country, I had to make my mind up as to how I was going to vote in the referendum. On balance, I took the view that it was better for the long-term future of the UK if we left the European Union. My main reasoning for that was that I did not believe that attempts to create a European superstate modelled on America were going to be in the long-term best interests of the people of Europe. I was particularly concerned by the fact that the people of Europe, in all the countries, had never been asked whether they wanted the EU to evolve into a “United States of Europe”. I also did not believe that the EU was capable of reform from within, and that has been shown by the failure of Governments of both parties to reform what even The Guardian calls the “ridiculous” common agricultural policy.
However, if the EU had become a confederation of independent states working together on common issues and sharing best practice, with a small secretariat in Brussels or somewhere else, I would have been more than happy to support it. But that was not going to happen, because the project people were never going to allow it to happen, nor were they going to tell the people of Europe exactly what the ultimate objective of the EU was. It had to be integration by stealth, which I believe has contributed to the rise of populist parties on both the left and right throughout Europe over the last 10 years.
After the result was announced, I made it clear that, now that representative democracy had reasserted itself, I would respect the views of the 66% to 34% majority opinion in my constituency in favour of remain and I would not vote to trigger article 50; that I would press for a meaningful vote on the final deal to be put to Parliament; and that I was not opposed to having another referendum on the finally agreed package, so that the people could make the final decision. Therefore, I did not vote to trigger article 50; I pressed the Government, along with others, to have a meaningful vote on the finally agreed package, which was accepted by the Government; and I added my name to the amendment to the Lords amendment, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and called for the finally agreed package to be put to another referendum.
All four wards in my constituency of Birmingham Hall Green voted to remain, so I believe that it was incumbent on me as their representative—whatever my personal views—to vote the way that I have, but I respectfully point out to my colleagues on the Labour Benches that 70% of them represent constituencies that voted leave. Six out of 10 Birmingham constituencies voted leave. All the other cities and large towns of the west midlands—Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton—voted leave. I am not convinced that there has been a seismic shift of opinion and that those people would now vote differently.
The finally agreed deal has now been put before the House. From the discussions I have had with my constituents and the representations I have received, I do not believe that it is acceptable to the majority of my constituents, and I will therefore not be voting for it.
Extricating ourselves from the political straitjacket of an embryonic European superstate was never going to be easy, and the Prime Minister and our civil servants deserve credit for their efforts in putting this deal together, but I do not believe that it will command a majority in the House. Unless another option wins majority support, I can see no other way forward but to put the decision back to the people in another referendum. We must be under no illusions—if we do that, it will have profound constitutional repercussions for this country. However, the electorate made the original decision through the direct democracy of the referendum and, if Parliament cannot come to a decision, it is up to the British people to make their choice as to whether they wish us to remain, to leave or to accept the terms put before the House by the Prime Minister.
Early Parliamentary General Election
Roger Godsiff Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I, too, will be voting against the motion today, because it is totally unnecessary. I say that as somebody who voted leave on 23 June last year and who has had a grudging respect for how the Prime Minister has conducted herself since she took over. However, her justification for holding a general election is quite frankly disingenuous. To suggest that she needs a mandate to negotiate Brexit is ridiculous. She was given that mandate on 24 June by a majority of the British people, and it is now up to her to carry it out. If she wants to have another election or referendum at the end of the process, so be it, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said, to justify it now is purely opportunistic.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister says that she needs a larger majority because the business of the House is likely to be disrupted by Opposition parties or by the House of Lords. She ought to look back to what happened when the Wilson Government were in power between 1964 and 1966. He had a majority of four. The Callaghan Government governed for five years in the 1970s without any majority. If she fears what could happen in the House of Lords, she should do exactly what Tories have done in the past and flood the place with her own people to ensure that she gets her way. There is no justification for her argument that she needs a larger majority in order to get business through the House.
To take the arrogant view that the electorate should concentrate purely and simply on one narrow issue is to treat the electorate with contempt. I can speak only for my constituents, but when they consider the issues, they will be asking questions. Why is every school in my constituency losing out under the new funding formula? Why is the city council having to make horrendous cuts? The Government have cut the support grant. Why are waiting times at local hospitals increasing? There are just not enough staff.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
In my hon. Friend’s questions about why things are happening in his constituency, will he ask Ministers why my children’s school, which is in his constituency, now has classes of 32 children? I do not remember that happening under a Labour Government. Does he agree?
Mr Godsiff
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the Labour Government, we had the Building Schools for the Future programme and Sure Start centres. Under this Government, that programme was stopped and Sure Start centres are being closed left, right and centre.
My constituents will ask other questions. Why is it that more and more hard-working families are being forced into the humiliation of having to use food banks? They just do not have enough money at the end of the week to feed and clothe their families. Why are energy consumers paying ever-increasing prices? Utility firms are ripping them off in the sacred name of competition. Why are young people, married and unmarried, unable to acquire proper housing, often having to stay with in-laws and parents? Those views will be echoed throughout the country. There is no justification for this election, and I will certainly oppose it.
UK's Nuclear Deterrent
Roger Godsiff Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
May I say at the outset that I was a multilateralist during the cold war? I supported the balance of terror in Europe, I have never been a member of CND and, indeed, once the atom was split we could not unmake it. But the world has changed, and that is why I have changed my view.
May I also acknowledge the genuine and understandable concerns of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies that are intimately involved in the renewal of the Trident project? I would feel exactly the same way if I was representing their constituents, with 30,000 jobs at risk. I understand that, but the cost of this programme is admitted to be between £31 billion and who knows what, because the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have not answered the question put by the leader of the SNP about the final costs of the programme. I do not believe that can be justified as value for money when I think a number of the arguments are flawed.
What are those arguments? Usually three are put forward. The first is that the system is independent. It is not; the UK has four nuclear submarines, each of which can carry up to eight missiles. The UK does not own the missiles; it leases them from America.
Alberto Costa
Can the hon. Gentleman please explain to the House what precise technical expertise he has to suggest these are not genuinely independent missile systems?
Mr Godsiff
The UK leases the missiles from America, where they are made, maintained and tested. Our four submarines have to go to the American naval base in Georgia to have the missiles fitted. That is a fact. It is of course said by those who support renewal that we have “operational independence”. Bearing in mind that we do not own the missiles but lease them from America, I just do not believe that there is any scenario in which a British Prime Minister would authorise a submarine commander to use the nuclear weapons anywhere in the world without first notifying the Americans.
Dr Julian Lewis
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is being very reasonable in his approach. The point about the second centre of decision making, which both Republican and Democrat American Governments have supported since 1958, is about the danger that another country might think it could pick off the UK without the Americans responding on our behalf. They probably would respond but it would be too late by the time the aggressor found that out. That is why knowing that the UK can defend itself is welcomed by the Americans, so that no fatal miscalculation of that sort can be made.
Mr Godsiff
I have debated these issues with the right hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions and I respect what he says, but I just do not agree with him.
The second argument put forward is that if the UK did not have nuclear weapons, it would, somehow, lose its place on the UN Security Council. That is nonsense, because when the Security Council was formed only one of the five permanent members had nuclear weapons—America. If it is now argued that to be a member of the UN Security Council, one has to have nuclear weapons, countries such as Japan, Germany and Brazil, which have legitimate claims to become part of an enlarged Security Council, would not be allowed to join, but three countries would be able to join—North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan, because they all have nuclear weapons.
The third argument is that nuclear weapons give us protection in an ever-changing world. This country, like all other developed countries, faces threats to its security from rogue states, international terrorist groups and groups within our own society who want to destroy it. As I have said many times, these threats are best met by our membership of NATO, the most successful mutual defence pact in history. It never attacked anybody between the time it was set up in 1948 and the end of the cold war. The tragedy of NATO has been that after the cold war—after the Berlin wall came down—it changed from being a mutual defence pact and became the world’s policeman, and that has caused enormous problems in its member countries. I believe that our security is best guaranteed by NATO, but I also believe that all the countries of NATO should contribute towards the cost of the nuclear umbrella; they should not get a free ride from America.
The way to deal with threats from terrorism, domestic or international, is by having a fully staffed and fully financed Security Service, by ensuring that the police have the money to do the job they need to do and by ensuring that our own conventional forces are given the tools for the job when they are sent into military conflicts on our behalf. The Chilcot report, which came out a week or so ago, graphically identified the deficiencies in materials and protections that our troops in Iraq faced. British soldiers should not go into any conflict on our behalf without the best equipment and protection we can give them.
Let me make this final point. We have witnessed terrible terrorist atrocities in the past year or so, and we witnessed the London bombings, but did our ownership of nuclear weapons prevent these things? We saw what happened in Paris and at the weekend in Nice, but did France’s nuclear deterrent prevent those things from happening? I am not convinced that spending a huge sum on renewing our nuclear deterrent, which I do not believe is independent, is justified; we should support NATO, back it and contribute to it, but I am not convinced that this is value for money. That is why I will vote against the motion this evening.
ISIL in Syria
Roger Godsiff Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
As has been said on many occasions during the debate, everybody agrees Daesh is a threat to us all, to our way of life and to our liberties, and that it has to be destroyed. However, I am not convinced that dropping more bombs on Syria will add anything to the defeat of this organisation. There are already a lot of bombs being dropped by Russia, America and France. Apart from not destroying Daesh, they are creating terror among the population, resulting in the mass displacement of the Syrian population. This, in turn, is causing huge problems for European Governments who are trying to cope with the flood of refugees.
We in this country should of course support France. We should provide that support and solidarity in various other ways. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) outlined some of them. Other Members have outlined other ways in which we can assist. We should provide logistical, intelligence and special forces support to the Kurds and the elements of the Free Syrian Army who are actually doing the fighting on the ground. It is only ground forces—Arab ground forces—who will eventually bring about the displacement and defeat of Daesh in Syria.
The Prime Minister has said that there are 70,000 Syrians ready to fight. I take him at his word and we shall have to see. I suspect, however, that this assertion will come back to haunt him in the same way that the assertion made at the very same Dispatch Box, that the UK was only 45 minutes away from a nuclear or chemical attack by Saddam Hussein, has continued to shred the legacy of a former Prime Minister.
We can also share with the French and our allies our expertise in monitoring and breaking up terrorist cells, because we have long experience of doing that in the UK. Furthermore, we should go to the UN and seek support for safe havens to be created within Syria. This would be in our interests and in the interests of other European countries. It would also be humanitarian in helping not to force the population out of Syria.
There has been one voice, among the many that have been raised today, that has not been heard: a voice from somebody who has experienced Daesh and been a hostage of that organisation. I refer to the French journalist, Nicolas Henin. In a recent article he wrote:
“I know for sure that our pain, our grief, our hopes, our lives do not touch them. Theirs is a world apart…Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims”.
But he went on to say:
“They came to Paris with Kalashnikovs, claiming that they wanted to stop the bombing, but knowing all too well that the attack would force us to keep bombing or even to intensify these counterproductive attacks.”
He ended by saying:
“I know them: bombing they expect. What they fear is unity.”
We must have unity of purpose in speaking out and destroying Daesh. The Prime Minister will have his majority tonight and he will win the vote, but I do not believe he has won the argument.
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons
Roger Godsiff Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I have been to Syria on two occasions as part of delegations and had audiences with President Assad, and they were certainly illuminating. Syria is ruled by him as a family fiefdom and has a history of brutality. Its political structure—the Ba’athist party—is modelled on the old Russian Communist party. I say that because I do not, however, believe that President Assad is a fool, but I will return to that later.
What has happened to the people of Syria is a crime against humanity, and it is imperative, as the Leader of the Opposition said, to bring the conflict to an end as soon as possible. War crimes have been committed by both sides, and Assad should be held accountable in due course for declaring war on his own people. When it was alleged that chemical weapons had been used in the latest atrocity, I welcomed the fact that UN weapons inspectors were to go to the site. However, I was very concerned when almost immediately the Foreign Secretary appeared on television, dismissively making pre-emptive comments about the fact that the evidence that they might find may already have disappeared or have been contaminated and that they might not find anything. I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary is not an honourable man, but his comments reminded me very much indeed of what was said in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq by the USA and Britain.
We were told at the time that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. We were told that the weapons inspectors would not find any WMDs because they had been very well hidden. We were told that there was incontrovertible evidence from the intelligence services that WMDs existed. Finally, in the last debate on the subject in the Chamber, we were told that the WMDs could hit this country within 45 minutes. What happened subsequently? We found out that what was said was not true, that the intelligence had been sexed up, that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist and that political decisions had been taken at President Bush’s ranch in America way before the conflict began.
Indeed, I ask the Government to answer this tonight: if the Chilcot committee report could be published, instead of disappearing into the ether, a lot of people would like to know whether what I and other people have said is correct, so when will the Chilcot report be released? Furthermore, as I and others have said, the consequences of Iraq caused poison to enter British politics, leading to a total distrust of politicians and Governments. There are, of course, consequences in this case, and they have been well outlined by other Members.
Turning back to President Assad, I said at the outset that I did not think he was a fool. He was educated in the west; he was trained as an eye specialist; and he is married to someone who was brought up in this country and worked for a merchant bank. The Assad family has ruled Syria for generations and it is not, of course, averse to brutality or atrocities. Assad’s father killed 50,000 people after an uprising in Homs during his reign. This is a brutal family, but let us consider this: the regime, as we all know, has chemical weapons, and it used to have a nuclear capability, which was taken out by the Israelis in 2007.
Tim Farron
On that point, I agree that Assad is not a fool. Will he therefore sit up and take notice of the fact that although Syria is not a member of the International Criminal Court, if we built up a dossier to convict him as a war criminal at some point in the future, he would have nowhere to go if he did not comply?
Mr Godsiff
As I have clearly said, I believe that Assad should be held accountable for his actions and should be brought before the international courts.
The regime has the full patronage of Russia, which can veto resolutions in the Security Council. Syria has some of the most sophisticated weaponry around, supplied by Russia and Iran, and it has total control over the skies in Syria. It has helicopter gun ships, and also a surrogate army fighting with Syrian Government forces in the shape of Hezbollah. As my good friend the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) rightly said, what is in this for Assad? Why should he deliberately participate in an atrocity guaranteed to bring an international response—the one thing that he does not want, and the one thing that all the disparate organisations fighting against him do want?
Mr Jenkin
The American intelligence services believe that Assad did this; the British intelligence services believe Assad did it; the French and even the German intelligence services believe it; and the whole Arab League thinks Assad did it. Is this debate to be conducted on the basis that we in this House know better than all these experts? Can the hon. Gentleman name one expert on Syria who does not believe that President Assad is responsible for this attack? Name one.
Mr Godsiff
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman in this way. I said earlier that what happened over Iraq had poisoned British politics, but more to the point, many Members vowed privately at the time—the hon. Gentleman was here—that they would never again believe one single solitary assurance given by any Prime Minister who came to the Dispatch Box to say, “Trust me; I’m taking this country into a military adventure.”
Let me return to this point: why would Assad do this? What is in it for him? Dictators have one unifying thing in common: they want to remain in power; they want the spoils of being a dictator and all that goes with it. Why on earth, then, would the Assad regime wish to bring on itself cruise or Tomahawk missiles? Why on earth would it want western countries to get involved in the Syrian civil war? Why on earth would it want to lose power?
Immigration
Roger Godsiff Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
The questions of how many people we need in the UK to sustain the standards of living we all want and of what role immigration can play in answering that question have been taboo subjects for much too long. The reason is that ever since Enoch Powell made his infamous speech in Birmingham back in 1968, most politicians from mainstream parties, with a few exceptions, some of whom have been brave, some foolish and some both, have steered clear of the subject for fear of saying something that would be called politically incorrect and thus being labelled as racist or anti-immigrant by the media. Because mainstream parties and politicians have not debated these issues and the effect that immigration might have—I say “might”—on jobs, wages and public services, we have left the field wide open to those racist and xenophobic parties that want to talk only about immigration and put their own particular spin on it.
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to hear the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. It is such an important point. If the House does not debate these issues sensibly, calmly and rationally, we cede the field to the extremist parties, which none of us wants. Does he agree that the most important people in this debate are the hundreds of thousands of British people, of all races, who are looking for work at this moment but are in strong competition with large numbers of immigrants? They are the people whom we must keep in mind. They are of all races and they are British.
Mr Godsiff
I was going to come to that issue later, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his point.
As has been said, this silence on the questions of how large a population the UK should have and of how much more immigration we should allow is not shared by the wider electorate, who want the issue debated, as is confirmed by opinion polls, all of which list immigration as one of the electorate’s top concerns. For politicians here to ignore this fact while continuing to peddle the simplistic free-market mantra that immigration always benefits the economy and raises living standards, that immigration, together with the free movement of people and economic globalisation, is wonderful, and that the trickle-down effect benefits everybody, is not only an insult to the people of this country but ignores the pressures that an increasing population puts on public services, particularly housing, health and education, in areas such as mine, which is one of the most multiracial constituencies in the country. It does a great disservice to the cause of good community relations in our multicultural society.
I want to say a little more about the myth that immigration brings growth. This myth is peddled usually by elements of big business that do not want the responsibility of training young British school leavers and graduates—do not forget that 1 million of them are unemployed and cannot get jobs. Instead, these elements want as big a pool of labour as possible, from anywhere in the world, to hire and fire so that they can push down wages and increase profits, shareholder value and, of course, their bonuses. As much research has shown, the reality is that immigration can add a small percentage increase to gross domestic product, but there is no evidence that it benefits per capita GDP or individual living standards for the vast majority of people. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the population see their wages fall and have to face increased competition for social housing, education and health facilities.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. Given that he represents a very multiracial constituency, does he agree that some of the strongest advocates of a mature debate on immigration come not from the white British community but from communities of second and third-generation migrants?
Mr Godsiff
The people who visit my surgeries and constituency meetings come from all different backgrounds, including, as the hon. Lady says, many who came to the country in the 1950s, who put down roots and who have contributed enormously to the vitality and well-being of the great city I live in and to the benefit of the country. They are just as concerned as everybody else about the argument over how many people we need in the country to sustain their living standards.
I do not want to talk about how the UK manages the 1 million-plus visitors and students who come to the UK every year, other than to say that I welcome genuine visitors and students, provided, of course, that like everybody else they comply with the terms of their visas. They should return at the end of their visas. As an aside, however, I wish to refer to something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said about the number of people entering and leaving the country. Every year in the 1990s, I consistently used to ask, “How many people come to this country on short-term visas issued by the Government?” The answer I got back—every country was always listed—usually said that the figure was something like 950,000 to 1 million. That was very illustrative. However, the second part of my question was: “How many went back?” The answer was two lines: “We don’t keep that information.” That was absolute nonsense; indeed, it was ridiculous. We need to put back in place a system whereby we count people in and count them out.
The UK is one of the most crowded countries in Europe. It is not me who said that; it is the European Commission. It estimated that over the next 50 years the figure in the UK would rise by 16 million. Those are not my figures; they are the European Union’s figures. It predicted that Britain would become the most populous country in Europe by that time.
I represent one of the most diverse and multicultural constituencies in the country. As I said to the hon. Lady, the multicultural make-up of my constituency has added hugely to the vitality of the great city of Birmingham. Immigration into the United Kingdom since the first immigrants came in after the second world war has added enormously to the life of the United Kingdom. I welcome that, but we have to address the issue of how many people we need in the United Kingdom to sustain our standard of living. If we do not, I fear that the good community relationships that have been built up in my city and many others will be threatened. I do not want to see that happen.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Roger Godsiff Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I am most grateful for being called to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to say at the outset that I support the Government’s proposal to hold a referendum on the alternative vote system. I supported my Government when they introduced their proposals on 9 February and I have not changed my views since. I reread the record of the debate on 9 February and found it interesting that not one of the Conservative MPs who spoke was in favour of having a referendum on AV and that the Lib Dems’ spokesperson made it clear that their support for the proposal was only on the basis that they wanted to get rid of the first-past-the-post system and have proportional representation. I make those points in view of what I am going to say in a moment.
I repeat that I have always supported the AV system, because it is not proportional representation—the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) pointed that out— but an improved version of the first-past-the-post system, whereby the winning candidate has to get 50% plus one vote. Although I welcome the proposed referendum on AV, I very much regret the fact that the Government, despite their saying that they are being radical, have not been prepared to be even more radical; they could have not just proposed that there should be a referendum on changing the voting system to AV, but had another question on the ballot paper asking whether people wished to have obligatory voting in the United Kingdom. That happens in Australia, which also uses AV for its House of Representatives. It is not just me saying this, because the Electoral Commission and the Select Committee on Home Affairs have both said that there should be a proper public debate on this issue.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should also have that debate. Does he agree that if we are going to examine that, we will also need to examine the issue of compulsory registration? We are all concerned about the large number of people who are not registered to vote, and we must tackle that difficult question, too.
Mr Godsiff
In theory, registration should be compulsory at the moment. Indeed, I saw something issued by Greenwich council saying that people should put their name on the register of electors and could be fined £1,000 for not doing so. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
We live in an age where all parties, rightly, make great play of the virtues and obligations of citizenship. I would have thought that it was a basic obligation of a citizen of the United Kingdom, who chooses to live in a democratic country, to take the trouble to express their view through receiving a ballot paper when a general election is held. Bearing in mind that the coalition Government are proposing five-year, fixed-term Parliaments, it does not seem to me an onerous obligation to place on a citizen of the United Kingdom once every five years.
Of course, I am not saying that an individual citizen should be obliged to vote for any party or candidate. People are perfectly entitled to do what they want with their ballot paper once they have received it. They could deface it, for example, or rip it up. Indeed, all of us will have stood at counts and seen ballot papers on which electors have put either no mark at all or certain marks in order to express their views on all the candidates—sometimes in the most colourful language. I have absolutely no problem at all with somebody doing that, because the important thing is that they will have expressed their views, whatever they might be and however offensive I might find them, and I believe that that is a basic obligation of a citizen in a democratic society.
Furthermore, by moving to a system of obligatory voting, we could begin to address the very important issue, which several Members have raised and the Electoral Commission has highlighted, whereby 3.5 million-plus people are missing from the electoral register. The majority are not on the register because the head of household did not register them, because they were not in when the council canvasser called or because they did not think that they were entitled to be on it.
Mr Godsiff
That might well be the case, and I shall come to that point in a moment. I hear what the hon. Lady says, but in my opinion the majority of people who are entitled to vote but missing from the electoral register do not deliberately choose not to be registered. However, it is quite true that during the furore over the poll tax a large number of people deliberately left their names off the electoral register, because Mrs Thatcher’s Government, in their wisdom, decided to use the electoral register as the basis for levying it.
By far, the majority of people who are eligible to be on the electoral register but not registered are younger people, those from lower-income social groups, those who live in rented subdivided houses, people who do not have a strong command of the English language and individuals who have learning difficulties. If voting were obligatory, there would be a much stronger emphasis on electoral registration officers ensuring that, in every household, everybody who was eligible to register was registered.
I very much hope that the Government will seriously consider allowing the electorate to express their opinion on obligatory voting in the United Kingdom, particularly given that we are moving towards a system that is used by Australia, where voting is obligatory and, in comparison with Britain, the turnout is more than 90%. Indeed, it would make absolute sense if such a question were on the same ballot paper as the one under discussion, because the argument about cost just does not come into the debate. We are going to have a referendum anyway, and nobody can convince me that two questions on a ballot paper would increase the cost. So, if ever there were a time when the Government could hold a ballot, it is now.
If the coalition Government say, “No, we are not going to do that,” we will be left with the bizarre situation in which the Conservative party does not want AV, and in which the Liberal Democrats do not want AV—because they want PR—but will vote for AV for reasons of expediency and still hold a referendum on it. If the answer to that question is no, however, they are not going to hold a referendum to ask the people whether, on a second question, there should be obligatory voting in the United Kingdom. That is bizarre. I do not wish to make a partisan point, but the Deputy Prime Minister dotted his speech with phrases such as, “Not for us to decide,” “The will of the people must prevail,” and “The final decision should be with the electorate.” I suspect that, if nothing else, such a question would certainly engender a lively debate throughout the country, and I commend it to the Government.