I follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) with great pleasure. This morning, after I had struggled into the House through the tumbleweed on the floor, the gales blowing through and the emptiness of our proceedings, I noticed that a money resolution was, unusually, tabled for debate before the business that we are to discuss. Given that it was not, as my right hon. and learned Friend has rightly pointed out, on the Lisbon treaty or anything like that, I read what it was about. I note that it shows the fatuity of the Bill, which produces babies every time we do anything on it. We are debating money resolution No. 3; each such resolution charts a special little sub-Bill that is stuck into the midst of it. So, as we continue our proceedings on the Bill, we are now tacking on another Bill—as that is what it is. The money resolution represents what should be a separate Bill in its own right. As my right hon. and learned Friend has indicated, if it were a Bill, we would be able to explore all the arguments on this issue.
I know that the Prime Minister has abolished boom and bust, and I now know that he wants to reform our voting system, but let me make an observation. The first-past-the-post voting system goes back to before time almost. It was the way by which, in ancient societies, in a one-vote system, the individual who had the most votes came first. It was the most simple rubric for determining who should be elected. That is how things were, but there has been a reversion. I am told that the Liberal Democrats support the money resolution and the purposes behind it. They have forgotten the advice of Lord Jenkins in his commission's report. The system that we are debating cannot be said to be an equal or proportionate system any more than the first-past-the-post system can. It therefore means that the least-objectionable candidate is elected. I note that the Jenkins report talked about seeking not consent but acquiescence. There is no sense of consent regarding the motion, certainly on the Conservative side, and the best that the Government can seek is acquiescence to it. I do not acquiesce to the money resolution; I note simply that it is a distraction.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Money) (No. 3)
Proceeding contribution from
Richard Shepherd
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c777-8 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:54:21 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_623755
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_623755
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_623755