Grand Committee
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
(14 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, I have the usual announcement to start with: if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 4 : Main duty of Office
Amendment 20
Lord Eatwell
“( ) In fulfilling its duty imposed by subsection (1), the Office must assess and report on the risks to the public finances.”
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, before moving on to Amendment 20, I shall make a couple of general remarks about how we have done so far. All sides want, I think, to make the Bill a success. That is not really a matter of political dispute. The Committee has already unearthed some serious failings in drafting. For example, on fiscal policy, the OBR is supposed not to regard a critique of economic policy as within its remit, but on the issue of judging the sustainability of fiscal policy the context of general economic policy is within its remit. What is it to do? Is it one way or the other?
Then there is the question of Clause 5(3)—the clause with the inverse meaning, as I think of it now. Everybody thought that it was designed to prevent something from being done, but then we discovered to our amazement that it is all about what has to be taken into account. This sort of obscurantist drafting gives the law a bad name. There were also the statements in the charter, notably the reference to “intergenerational fairness”, over which we have the grave suspicion that the person who drafted the phrase had not the faintest idea what it meant.
Yet none of these is a political issue. None of them really merits the instruction, “Resist”. All of them are items to debate and to correct. This is a fine example of why technical Bills such as this should go to pre-legislative scrutiny. Be that as it may, my message to the Minister and to the anxious officials behind him is: “Loosen up”. Let us use this Grand Committee for the constructive purpose that it was intended to have and try to do what we all want, which is to ensure that this Bill works, works well and works for the long term.
With respect to Amendment 20, the OBR has made a major step forward in recognising the uncertainty around the probabilistic nature of economic forecasting —and quite right, too. However, this has clearly not yet penetrated the thinking of government Ministers. In the Chancellor’s Statement last Monday, he boldly declared that the OBR had ruled out the possibility of a double-dip recession, when in fact it had done nothing of the kind. The OBR suggested that there was a 50:50 chance that the growth rate would be 2.1 per cent next year but that, at the same time, there was a significant chance of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent that growth would be zero—that is, that there would be a double dip.
However, while the assessment and presentation of the uncertainty of forecasts have been greatly improved, no progress has yet been made on the other risks embodied in the Government’s overall fiscal position. For example, it is now clear that for the last decade—and I recognise that this was under the previous Government—tax revenues have been overly dependent on taxation of financial services. The severe problems in financial services contributed disproportionately to the fall in government revenues and to the growth of the deficit. This, which is a sort of all-eggs-in-one-basket problem, is a standard feature of corporate risk analysis and could, with value, be introduced into the analysis of public policy as well. Similarly, everyone is now aware that the UK economy has become seriously unbalanced, which is just the sort of issue that would be highlighted by regular and careful risk analysis. If the OBR were to extend its analysis of uncertainty to include a risk-sensitive analysis of the public finances, it would provide a complementary and extremely valuable service to policy-makers and align public policy-making with the best practice in private policy-making and private risk assessment.
Chapter 4.10.1 of the charter relates risks only to,
“risks surrounding the economic outlook”,
but associates the economic outlook only with the forecast, not with the state of the economy as it is. This amendment focuses attention on a wider concept of risk—the risk inherent in the underlying parameters of the fiscal and economic stance—and, by doing so, extends risk analysis into the areas of best practice that are now found in the private sector. I beg to move.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I am happy to start by saying that I agree that we should, as far as possible, stick to the technical. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for confirming that he would like to make this a technical analysis of the Bill.
I agree that it is critical for the OBR to assess the risk to the public finances and that that should be clearly set out. The amendment proposes that this provision should be in the Bill, whereas we propose that it should be in the charter, first focusing on the economic risks and secondly focusing on the fiscal risks. As the noble Lord said, there are references to risks in chapters 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 of the draft charter: the first relates to the economic forecast and the second relates to the forecasting of the public finances. I believe that together those two references to risk give the OBR a clear and wide-ranging remit. I will think about the specific drafting in the light of the points that the noble Lord has made, but I believe that the charter is the right place for this. Clearly, the drafting on the sorts of risks that the OBR looks at should not in any way constrain it from looking at the relevant risks, so I will have a look to make sure that, on reflection, we have got all the risks covered.
The OBR has, of course, a duty to act consistently with the charter, so it should not be necessary to include this provision in the Bill. However, we must get it right in the charter, which is where I think we should leave it. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Eatwell
Gosh, that was quite a loosening up. I think that the noble Lord has taken the point. In my reading, the charter seems to confine risk analysis to the probabilistic analysis of forecasts—to the fan charts and so on. I want to stimulate the OBR to think about the risks inherent in the economic posture, if we may call it that, of the country at any one time. On the two illustrations that I gave, I think that if forecasters, particularly official forecasters, had been sensitive over the last decade to the excessive share of taxation coming from the financial services and had realised the risk of having all one’s eggs in one basket or had been sensitive to the problems associated with the overall balance of the economy, which I know the Government wish to address, we might have had some danger signals hoisted earlier than they were. However, in the context of the Minister’s assurance that he will look at this issue and perhaps amend the charter accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins
“( ) The Office must publish with its forecasts the assumptions on which they have been based.”
Lord Higgins
My Lords, it should be convenient, as has been suggested, that we discuss Amendments 26 and 39 at the same time. This is an important aspect. We are going into a situation where the Government have an official forecast, but a great many other forecasts will be produced at the same time. The helpful document produced by the Treasury, Forecasts for the UK Economy, shows just how many other independent forecasts there are, but the OBR one will clearly have a particular and unique importance. If it is going to be compared with forecasts by other forecasters, we need to know the assumptions on which the official forecast is based, because we all know that the assumptions that are made essentially determine the outcome of the forecast.
I realise that the charter also refers to the assumptions being spelt out but it seemed more convenient in this instance to put that into the Bill. Indeed, I am inclined to think that this is so important that it ought to be in the Bill rather than in the charter. There seems to be general agreement in the draft charter that this should be so, but, I am not clear where these assumptions appear in the first example that we have been given of an OBR report, Economic and Fiscal Outlook—November 2010. It would be helpful if we were told exactly where the Government believe that these assumptions are being spelt out.
The other amendments also relate to what one might in simple terms describe as the “model”. In this context, I am not clear precisely what model is being used. The Treasury had a model, of course, which was published and was used by various outside organisations, including the so-called ITEM group. Are we to understand that the OBR forecast will totally replace the Treasury forecast that used to appear in the Red Book? If so, is the OBR none the less going to use the same model that the Treasury used, or does it have a model of its own? In either case, it would be helpful if my noble friend could place in the Library, or publicise more widely, exactly which individual model is being used; we would then have a better basis for comparing it. Are we also to understand that if the Treasury model disappears, the ITEM group—for the benefit of Hansard, I should point that it is spelt out in capital letters rather than just being referred to as the “item group”—will go on using the Treasury model, or will there be a replacement?
I agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, about the importance of getting the technical aspect of these matters straight. The technical arguments are important if the OBR’s forecasts are to have the credibility that they ought to. I would be grateful if my noble friend could respond to those simple points so that we understand where we are going in the future. Perhaps he might point out to me where the assumptions are specified in the November document that was the first example of the OBR’s work.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston suggested to me that I should follow the introduction of this group of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, by speaking now to Amendment 39. As noble Lords will be aware, this is simply an alternative means of achieving the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeks.
One of the most important aspects of any piece of serious economic analysis is that it should be capable of being replicated. If the OBR’s forecasts are to achieve the status that we on this side and, I presume, the Government hope for them, they must be capable of being replicated. This can be done only if full information is available at the time of publication.
The issue of replication is typically associated with the natural sciences, where replication of experiments is a fundamental requirement of any empirical scientific statement. However, the Minister may be unaware that it is now standard practice for any article published in a leading applied economics journal to provide the electronic address at which the data and other relevant information required to replicate the results in the article are available. In these days of large datasets and complex econometric models, data accessibility is critical to effective peer review—even effective assessment of whether any analysis or forecast should be taken seriously.
Amendment 39, in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Myners, will ensure that effective appraisal of OBR forecasts and other economic analyses are possible. As is made clear in the preface to the OBR report that we discussed last week, compiling the fiscal forecast requires detailed information from many government departments. That is why our amendment refers not only to data and methods but to costings, which the OBR are required by the charter to confirm. In other words, all the raw materials on the basis of which judgments have been made and forecasts have been constructed should be available for objective assessments of those forecasts to be made. This will not involve any significant extra burden on the staff of the OBR, since the data and costings must already have been assembled in electronic form for the OBR to do its work.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised an interesting point about the model that might be used by the OBR. We have been told that the Treasury will retain its own forecasting unit. We would like to know whether the forecasting model to be used by this unit is to be the same as the model used by the OBR, in which case any differences in forecasts would simply be matters of judgment. That would surely be a ridiculous duplication. It would be much better to develop alternative perspectives, since they can often throw fresh light on difficult problems.
In supporting the general line that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has taken, I simply add that we want to be in a position where serious researchers can replicate the approach and findings of the OBR in order to be able to evaluate them effectively.
Lord Peston
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware from my remarks last time in Committee that I would not have set up an OBR. I regard it as a waste of public money, to be perfectly honest, but I entirely accept that we are going to have an OBR, since the Government have a majority in the other place and in practice seem to have a majority in your Lordships’ House. Therefore, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Eatwell that, if we are going to have such a body, we might as well make it a better one, rather than a worse one. Therefore, we have a duty to scrutinise the proposed legislation and come up with a variety of suggestions, in the hope of persuading the Minister that we could make a better fist of it than the Government have done so far. There I echo the remarks of my noble friend.
On this group of amendments, I repeat something that I said last week. The OBR’s November economic and fiscal outlook report produced a series of forecasts that are not based on any recognisable or explicitly stated economic theory. This is forecasting without theory, which is slightly different from forecasting without a model, although the two are connected.
I have found it difficult to discover from the economic and fiscal outlook report what assumptions the OBR has made—and, presumably, will continue to make—about the way in which the economy works. The central issue as far as serious economics is concerned is whether it is assuming that the economy is a self-adjusting mechanism that will come to a full employment equilibrium—the kind of assumption that what I regard as obsolete economics used to make—or whether it is taking for granted, first, that the economy will not come to an equilibrium at all or, secondly, that there are multi-equilibriums and it does not know where the economy is going to go. Whatever the case, many believe that, wherever it settles, it is most unlikely to settle at anywhere recognisable as a place of full employment.
On a related matter about the facts and how seriously we should take the OBR forecasts as they are now, we have available, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pointed out, the immensely helpful survey published by the Treasury of all the independent forecasts, to which I shall refer further on Report. I have analysed the independent forecasts statistically and it is interesting to note that, given the averages, standard deviations and the other statistical criteria, the forecasts of the OBR and the independent forecasters for 2010 and 2011 are much in step. However, it is extraordinarily interesting to note that the OBR forecast for 2012—that GDP will grow at 2.6 per cent per annum and will continue to grow at that kind of rate—is remarkably optimistic compared with the forecasts of the independent forecasters; it is statistically significantly different. The OBR has not discussed this matter, nor have outside commentators, but your Lordships—we shall return to this issue on Report—have to ask how the OBR has come up with this optimistic view.
There was a time when the Conservative Party believed in the free market—those days seem long gone—and would have taken it for granted that, as the independent forecasters overwhelmingly are in the business of making money from accurate forecasting, they have a tremendous incentive to forecast accurately. Therefore, if one had a choice, one’s normal inclination would be to say, “If you believe in the free market, you will choose the free market forecasts as opposed to the OBR’s forecasts”. We shall return later to the significant issue of the optimistic OBR forecast for 2012 against the rather more pessimistic forecasts of the independent forecasters.
There may be two good explanations for the difference: first, many of the independent forecasters do not look that far ahead and we may have a biased sample of what we get from the Treasury; and, secondly, the OBR may have more information—for example, it may be better advised on government policy—than the independent forecasters. I am not saying that necessarily the OBR is mistaken; I am saying that the difference is, from any analytical and statistical point of view, noteworthy.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I, too, speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Unlike my noble friend Lord Peston, I am in favour of the OBR. However, I share with my noble friend some anxieties about whether we need another set of economic forecasts. We should warrant another set of forecasts, in particular if the Treasury is going to produce its own, only if those from the OBR prove to be better and more accurate than those produced by commercial forecasters and other bodies. Therefore, it is important that we are able to analyse the forecasts made by the OBR, in order to understand the logic behind them and the assumptions that have been employed. That can best be done—and the veracity, standing and confidence that we wish to have in the OBR supported—if the model used by the OBR is freely available for analysis by peers, commentators and parliamentarians.
I have one question for the Minister. He has advised us that HMT will continue to produce its own economic forecasts. However, he has criticised HMT’s forecasts on the grounds of their accuracy and the spin placed on them by politicians. If he believes that HMT was leant on by politicians, it would be interesting to hear some examples, because during my 18 months in government I saw no evidence of Treasury forecasts underlying government policy being influenced in any way by politicians. The Minister has also criticised the amount of content of HMT’s published forecasts, including the fact that HMT did not publish forecasts for unemployment. Will he confirm that in future HMT will publish a full and comprehensive set of its own economic forecasts, which will in particular include forecasts for employment and unemployment?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, this discussion has been interesting because it confirms how much material the OBR has already published, in its economic and fiscal outlook and alongside it, which enables us to have a richer discussion than we might ever have had in the past. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is nodding. We have made considerable strides. I do not want to rake over old ground, as the noble Lord, Lord Myners, provokes me into doing, but we must keep coming back to the point that he makes by implication—namely, that we have employment and other forecasts in the 150-page economic and fiscal outlook document. We have many pieces of data that we did not have before and we will continue to have them in future.
I hope that we all agree that there is a huge amount of additional transparency. We have fan charts and all sorts of other things that make clear the basis on which the forecasts have been produced. These forecasts are in no way made or influenced by Ministers or their political advisers. I think that we all agree that transparency is at the root of what we are trying to achieve.
The amendments in this group seek to ensure that the OBR publishes the assumptions, economic analysis, data, methods and costings that it uses to compile its reports. We believe that that is absolutely achieved in the design of the structure that we have put forward. The OBR will have a statutory duty to act transparently. Chapter 4.8 of the charter states that,
“the OBR is to act openly, setting out with clarity the assumptions and judgements that underpin its work. It should proactively seek to make available its analysis”.
Thus the general duty is in the Bill, which is backed up by the wording of the charter that expands on it.
We now have evidence from last Monday’s document and the surrounding publications of the OBR about how it will do this in practice. Perhaps noble Lords have looked at the 20 Excel spreadsheets on the OBR’s website. I suggest that these give convenient access to the forecast data in a way that has not remotely been done before. In addition to those spreadsheets, over 20 separate documents with supplementary information have been published by the OBR since August.
One of the tests of whether this meets the legitimate demands of the most sophisticated external forecasting bodies is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted earlier this year, which is that the OBR had by that stage already published more detail than ever before on the assumptions underlying its forecasts and on the impact that changes in those assumptions would have on revenues and spending. We have made a significant step change. A lot of the information is available in electronic form. The construct of the Bill plus the charter achieves what we all want from this.
I turn to the specific points raised, particularly by my noble friend. The OBR has complete discretion over the model that it uses and what methods go around the modelling. In its recent economic and fiscal outlook report, the OBR had already made some adjustments to the methods that it used in June, so it is moving the way in which it has adopted the Treasury model. The Treasury will continue to retain economic and fiscal forecasting expertise because ultimately Ministers need to be supported by a forecasting capability. That will include the possibility of the Treasury continuing to use its own model, but the official forecasts will be those of the OBR.
Baroness Browning
Will my noble friend confirm that, in the event of the Treasury not using the OBR’s forecast, it will give a full explanation of why it differed from the office’s views?
Lord Sassoon
Yes, I can confirm that, although that is not in any way the expectation.
On the specific question of the ITEM Club and the model, the club will no longer have a statutory right to be given a copy of the Treasury model because that arose from the Industry Act 1975, which is being repealed. It will be for the Treasury to consider whether it continues to make the model available, but that will not be a statutory matter any more.
On how the arrangements between the OBR, the Treasury and other parts of government work, that will be set out in the memorandum of understanding, including use of the Treasury economic model, although of course it is entirely at the discretion of the OBR as to what tools, models and methods it uses.
On the question of where the assumptions are to be found, I can certainly find them littered throughout the document published last week, including, for example, table 3.6 on page 67, which as I read it is a mixture of inputs and outputs. There are other assumptions made right through the document.
On the critical question of the approach to economic forecasting raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that is summarised in paragraph 3.7 on page 28. I am glad that people find the Treasury monthly report on the latest independent forecasts useful. It is intended that the Treasury will continue to publish that document and make it available on the Treasury website.
I think that the construct between the Bill and the charter covers all the issues on transparency, something that we all seek, and I suggest that the evidence so far of the OBR in practice means that we should have confidence in that construct. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell
I agree with the noble Lord that the amount of information that is published has increased, to general benefit. I spent a few happy hours over the weekend playing with the Excel spreadsheets on the OBR website and plugging them in to a model that I use to think about the economy. I found some interesting inconsistencies and will write to Mr Chote about them.
The point that has come up several times in our discussions concerns the balance between the Bill and the charter. The charter can be changed readily, as it is not primary legislation. We must give careful consideration to whether, for example, transparency as defined in the charter gives a sufficiently strong underpinning to the need to reveal information, or whether statements such as those in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, or in those proposed by me and my noble friends, should be in the Bill. This has come up several times. It is an issue that we should take away and consider carefully before Report. Where should we strike the balance between an explanatory charter that gives guidance to the OBR and the statutory requirements? I do not have a firm opinion. However, on this issue I lean toward the idea that it should be in the Bill rather than in content that could later be amended. Of course, it would have to be put before Parliament—we know the charter procedure—but it can be changed. If we really care about this, perhaps we should put it in a form that cannot later be changed. This is a matter for future consideration.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister, who has clarified a number of points. I will come back to an obvious and fundamental one. I am still not in the least clear why we will have both an OBR forecast and an official one from the Treasury that will be useful for Ministers. I simply do not understand this.
Lord Sassoon
Perhaps I may clarify that. There will be one official forecast, which the OBR will produce. The Treasury will retain a modelling and forecasting capability, but it is absolutely not the intention, and will not be the case, that there will be another official forecast from the Treasury. Ministers simply require the Treasury to retain that capability, so that if, in circumstances that we do not at all anticipate, the Chancellor or the Treasury want to take a different view from that of the OBR, they will retain the capability of doing so. There is absolutely no intention that there should be anything other than one published forecast, which will be put out by the OBR.
Lord Eatwell
I do not quite follow that. If the Treasury is going to disagree, or at least have the capability of disagreeing, with a forecast put forward by the OBR, how can it do that other than on the basis of a forecast of its own? I note that the word “published” was slipped into the Minister’s final sentence. Surely if the Treasury is going to have the capability of assessing and disagreeing with the OBR model, it must have some forecast of its own.
Lord Myners
Perhaps I, too, may make a comment. I took the Minister’s reply to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about situations where there is a difference between HMT’s forecast and the OBR’s forecast as confirming that the Treasury will be clear about the fact that its own forecast was different and that its policy decisions were informed by its own forecast rather than by that of the OBR.
Lord Higgins
I find this rather difficult. The Minister raises his eyebrows. I simply do not understand what the purpose of this forecast is going to be. Perhaps I may expand on that for a moment. We had an official forecast and we presume that the Government will operate on that basis, but apparently there is to be an internal forecast on which Ministers will base their decisions. The noble Lord is shaking his head.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, there will not be another official internal forecast. There will be the forecast of the OBR, but that does not mean that the Treasury should not have the capability to—and it will—look at underlying assumptions on which the forecast is based, to make sure that it understands where the OBR is coming from and feels comfortable with it. There will not be some other internal official forecast; there will merely be a capability within the Treasury—and it is important that there should be such a capability—whereby Treasury officials can look at and understand the assumptions on which the OBR’s forecast is made. That will not require, and there is no intention for, the Treasury to produce any separate forecast of its own.
Baroness Browning
My earlier question came from reading the evidence of Professor Wren-Lewis to the Select Committee. He considered that if,
“the Treasury decides that the OBR model is wrong in some sense, I think basically then it is up to the Treasury to decide whether it wants to move to an alternative model or an alternative way of doing things whereby it produces its own forecast and does not rely on the OBR”.
I understand that the Government accepted that when they responded to the Treasury Committee. That was what prompted my earlier question.
Baroness Noakes
Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that much of the debate in Committee has been concerned with establishing that the OBR is properly independent of the Treasury. One of the corollaries of having an OBR that is properly independent and that we are all jolly keen to see in a separate building, with staff who are not too intertwined with the Treasury, is that the Treasury will have given away the ability to make some its own appraisals of the economic position. Clearly, it cannot leave itself completely denuded. It would be frankly ludicrous if, in setting up the OBR as a completely independent body to inform the public debate and to be the official forecaster, as my noble friend the Minister has repeatedly said, we left the Treasury with no internal capability to judge for itself whether or not it was happy with what was coming out of the OBR. It would therefore be entirely logical for the Treasury to retain some forecasting capability. In extremis, the Treasury may wish to rest its judgments on its internal forecasts, rather than those produced by the independent OBR, but even without those extreme conditions the Treasury will need to be satisfied that what is coming from the OBR is fit for the purpose of decision-making.
Lord Burns
My Lords, perhaps I may add to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The OBR will produce two forecasts a year. Between them, data will emerge, conditions will change and all kinds of things could happen in the world at large. The Treasury will need to take a view during that period of whether or not the events that are unfolding are consistent with the forecasts. The Treasury will want to prepare for future announcements of one kind or another. It is hugely important that it retains the capacity to monitor what is happening to the economy in the mean time, to make an assessment of whether unfolding events are consistent with the OBR’s previous forecast and to prepare itself for the work that continually goes on. One of my worries throughout the establishment of the OBR has been that some capacity within the Treasury will inevitably be required if the Treasury is to continue to do the job that it does month by month. The Treasury has to prepare Ministers for speeches, answering questions and making observations on whether or not the economy is evolving in the way that it thought. The idea that there should be no capacity left in the Treasury to make this kind of analysis is frankly unrealistic.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, from our side, the point is not that that capability should not be there, as it clearly should be. However, confusion was introduced into the discussion by references to a Treasury model and forecasts, which puzzled us all, as opposed to having a capacity to critique and develop the modelling of the OBR.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I should like to think further about what has been said on this issue.
Perhaps I may raise a further point in relation to the model. Over the past 80 or 90 years, we have had a huge difference of view as to whether one should adopt a Keynesian or a monetarist approach to these problems. My impression is that the OBR now has an essentially Keynesian approach and that the monetary aspect does not appear in the discussion at all, other than to say, “Well, of course, the Bank of England is targeting inflation”, and let it go at that. However, as I have previously pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, and others, until we got into quantitative easing the Bank was concerned purely about the price of money—the rate of a single rate of interest—rather than the quantity of money.
I am not the least bit clear about the proposal as it now comes here and to what extent the OBR is taking monetary factors into account. Let me illustrate this by giving an example from many years ago. I am delighted to see that the basic approach to economic forecasting on page 28 is to decide on how much excess capacity there is and then to see to what extent aggregate demand gradually increases and absorbs that excess capacity. That was precisely the policy that we adopted in 1970 under the Heath Government. We said then, in the clearest terms, exactly what is being said now on page 28. Unfortunately, this was misinterpreted as a dash for growth and we were absolutely pilloried by those who said that the money supply had been going up very fast. In fact there was a big difference between the money supply, the money supply figures and what was happening to aggregate demand. The point that I am seeking to make is that this does not take into account the effect of quantitative easing, for example, or, if it does, I am not clear where that would appear in these forecasts, although no doubt the Minister can enlighten us.
Given that we are told that the Bank of England is going to make yet a third, quite different, forecast in addition to the, I am almost inclined to say, surreptitious one in the Treasury—I accept fully the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—I am worried that the fiscal and monetary side is not sufficiently integrated in the forecasts.
Lord Myners
Further forecasts on the economy are made in government. I believe that the Department for Business also produces its own economic forecasts. Almost as many forecasts are produced in government as are produced in the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, makes an important point. This might not be the right forum in which to discuss this, but the balance of intent behind the decisions currently being made by the Monetary Policy Committee is more focused on the words that come after “and subject to that” in its remit than on controlling inflation—that is to say that, in an environment in which fiscal policy is reducing demand in the economy, the onus for sustaining demand is coming from monetary policy, with considerable risk, in my judgment, of inflation.
There is no recognition in the Keynesian thinking of this document about the importance of monetary policy. We have what the Americans call a saltwater analysis of economics rather than the freshwater or Chicago school analysis associated with the monetarist view. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on where monetary policy comes into the OBR’s thinking.
Lord Sassoon
I love it when noble Lords preface their remarks by saying, “This may not be the place in which to discuss these things”, and then go into freshwater and saltwater fishing. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has already said that his study of the 20 spreadsheets has raised some questions that he will address directly to Mr Chote. If my noble friend Lord Higgins would like me to relay his questions to Mr Chote, I will be happy to do so—or he may wish to write directly. Either way, I will return to the amendment. We have so much transparency already that it is provoking lots of questions that I am sure Mr Chote and his colleagues will be happy to answer. I will be happy to act as postman if that would be helpful.
Lord Higgins
I gladly accept that offer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Eatwell
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, at Second Reading it was acknowledged on all sides of the House that requiring the OBR to write what was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as its own school report was not the best way of achieving an objective appraisal of the office’s performance. However well intentioned or even self-critical an organisation might be, it is inevitable that self-assessment embodies a number of allowances, or perhaps things taken for granted that have become embedded in the organisation and are not made explicit, with the result that the sources of any underperformance are not articulated as clearly as they might otherwise be. That is why the provision in the Bill for self-assessment is ultimately unconstructive and even damaging to the reputation of the OBR. Far better to have an external assessment—I will propose a form of external assessment later—that confronts all aspects of the forecasting, such as methods, data, sources, judgments and presentation. The greater credibility and novel insights of such an independent appraisal would enhance both the performance and the reputation of the OBR. The self-assessment procedure is unsatisfactory and it would be a great help if this provision were removed from the Bill by our acceptance of Amendment 23. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has already referred to the fact that I did not support the OBR carrying out an assessment of its own forecasts, as set out in Clause 4. I stick by that view, for the reasons that the noble Lord has given. However, I cannot support his amendment because, without another amendment, it would take out of the Bill a requirement for any assessment of the accuracy of OBR forecasts. I do not understand why the noble Lord has not grouped this amendment with later ones that would set up a peer review committee to perform this function. It would be a retrograde step simply to take out of the Bill a requirement for an analysis of the accuracy of the OBR’s fiscal and economic forecasts. I would rather have an unsatisfactory review than none at all.
Lord Eatwell
I was hoping to provide space for those who feel as strongly as I do, as apparently does the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to suggest alternative arrangements. Indeed, I have put forward my own proposals, which we will discuss later, but a variety of methods could be suggested.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I, too, am a bit puzzled as to why we are discussing only half the linked story, but my noble friend has it right when she talks about the defective nature of this amendment in taking out the requirement for an assessment of the accuracy of fiscal and economic forecasts. No doubt we shall come to the question of whether there is any other way of doing it later, when I might not be quite so keen on what she has to say. However, I certainly agree with her that it would be inappropriate to remove the requirement for an assessment of the accuracy of the forecasts. It is an important requirement that there should be such an assessment—
Lord Peston
May I interrupt the noble Lord? I am totally puzzled now. The noble Lord uses the word “requirement”. The people who comprise the OBR will not be idiots. They are going to be experts and qualified economists. Quite independent of what is in this Bill, if the forecasting is not working well, they will ask themselves why they got it wrong. There is no need for a requirement here unless you assume that a bunch of morons is going to be appointed to the OBR. If you get a forecast wrong, you immediately ask why you got it wrong. Why is there a need for a requirement to do something that would be a normal way of working?
Baroness Noakes
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it is not so much the requirement to do the assessment as the requirement to publish it that is important.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am confused by this, because there are certain other things that I would have thought it would be impossible for the OBR to miss out, such as focusing its forecasts on government economic policies. Where there was a strong wish to put certain things into the Bill that were not there, now it is being said that it is blindingly obvious that the OBR would assess its own performance, so no provision is needed. What goes in the Bill and what does not are matters of judgment. It is my view that this is a sufficiently important matter to justify being included. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, will no doubt be comforted by that, because he has already played back to me the fact that the OBR has stated in its document, Analysis of Past Forecasting Performance, that it is,
“fully committed to transparency, and each year will produce a full and detailed report analysing the accuracy of its economy and fiscal forecasts, and explaining the differences between forecast and outturn”.
It goes on to talk about giving further detail on its forecast methodologies. The office is going to do this anyway and I would like to think that it would be done without the Bill requiring it. However, it is sufficiently important that there should be absolutely no doubting the fact that it will be done.
This is not something that of itself is easy to do. The analysis of forecasting requires fiscal forecasting skills that are in scarce supply. To make the assessment requires access to and full understanding of the data. Critical to the whole process is that actually doing the assessment yourself makes it a learning experience. That goes to the heart of why Mr Chote and his team will do it anyway. We certainly expect to see the OBR doing this and the office has said that it will. However, in the Government’s view the requirement should be on the face of the Bill. In the absence of a discussion that we have not yet had about alternative approaches, I suggest that this is where we need to leave it. For the moment, therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell
While I agree with the Minister that doing an assessment yourself makes for a learning experience, having someone else do it makes for an even more pointed learning experience. I apologise to the Minister for the fact that he has been forced to speak half-heartedly about this amendment because he has not had the opportunity to discuss Amendments 40 and 43, which cover the issue and which I see as linked. I do not know how the grouping got made up in this way, but there we are. The noble Lord is suggesting that I did it. I can assure the Committee that that does not fall within my skill set.
Lord Eatwell
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is, as we say, a learning experience.
Lord Higgins
It is very simple. You ring up the Whips Office and say, “I don’t like the way in which it has been divided up”.
Lord Eatwell
I am grateful for the supervision. However, if we look forward, we will be discussing a set of amendments about which I feel very strongly in the context of reinforcing the powers of the OBR. If those amendments are accepted, that would require this amendment also to be accepted. While withdrawing the amendment at this time, I will be intrigued to see how the noble Lord, who will clearly appreciate the wisdom of my future amendments, manages to square accepting them with rejecting this one. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Barnett
Lord Barnett
My Lords, Amendment 25 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. Everything that I have heard so far this afternoon in these brief debates confirms to me why my noble friend Lord Peston and I have been right to wonder whether the huge expense of setting up the whole of the OBR is worth it. In particular, this amendment relates to the whole issue and is central to it. Indeed, the only person whom I have heard using the word “audit” in relation to this 150-page OBR report is the Chancellor. He is worth quoting. He said:
“I can confirm to the House that the OBR and its new chair, Robert Chote, have audited all the annually managed expenditure savings in today’s statement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/10; col. 949.]
My experience of auditing is now a bit out of date. Indeed, once you become a major partner in an audit firm, particularly a senior partner, you do not do a lot of actual auditing. Yet I did a little before that and I am bound to say that, when you give a clear audit certificate, there are no exceptions to it. How on earth can you give an audit certificate in relation to the OBR report? The fact is that it is just not possible to give a wholly unqualified audit certificate in relation to the OBR report. Perhaps I might give one or two examples of why it is impossible.
The words “uncertain” and “uncertainty” go right through this report. Quite obviously, I am not blaming the OBR for that. If you are making, as it is, forecasts and assessments, there is bound to be uncertainty. It quite rightly admits that openly. It is not worth quoting all the examples when there are so many of them, but it refers, in the case of the central forecast, to significant uncertainty. Now if, in your report, you have a significant uncertainty that relates to the whole of the report, how on earth can the Chancellor say that everything that it has said is right and that it is all audited? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, can tell me what it means. It is not clear to me. It is nowhere in the report, but it was at the heart of the Chancellor’s Statement introducing the comprehensive spending review. He said that the OBR had “audited” the annually managed expenditure savings. In fact, the OBR report refers very often to “estimates”. I assume that it will be accepted that you cannot audit an estimate. Page 25 talks about an “equal likelihood” of growth being up or down—it could be all kinds of things. To say that there has been an audit is clearly nonsense. It is done solely to let the public know that this great new independent OBR is giving the Chancellor an overall audit. However, it has not given him an audit, because it cannot. The report states that it is “difficult to draw conclusions”, but the Chancellor says that there has been an audit. The report says that there are “expectations of interest rates”—I wish that the Chancellor would give me some examples of expectations that could be audited; I have never heard of one. I have not come across anybody who can give me a certain forecast of interest rates for tomorrow, let alone for five years, but those “expectations” are central to the forecast, which itself is significantly uncertain.
I worry about Robert Chote, who has taken on the job of chair of the OBR. It is clear that he is an independently minded man who did a great job with the Institute for Fiscal Studies. However, he is allowing the Chancellor to use him. I am very sorry to see it. The Chancellor is using the respected independence of Robert Chote, and now the OBR, to say what a great job he is doing. That is very worrying, because there is a clear danger of the very perception of the independence of the OBR being undermined. I have quoted previously from the foreword to the OBR’s 150-page document, but it is worth doing so again. It states that,
“we have also drawn heavily on the help and expertise of officials across government”.
It then lists the many government departments whose expertise has been used. Despite having asked Questions, I still have not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, or from anybody else how often, either formally or informally, the OBR has met the Chancellor and his colleagues. It is not unimportant to know these things. It is all part of the very perception of the OBR. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, will at least see that it is important to accept the amendment, because it goes to the heart of the independence of the OBR, which the Government want to have us believe. I find it hard to believe. I am sorry that the Government are using—I use the word carefully—Robert Chote and his colleagues to give the Chancellor the aura of being right, when it is clear that they cannot do so and are not doing so. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has gone a bit over the top in describing Mr Chote and his colleagues as being “used”. The Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor, to which the noble Lord referred, spoke of an audit of the annual managed expenditure savings. It was not an audit of anything other than one part of the totality of the package that my right honourable friend announced last month. The noble Lord has extrapolated from a relatively small use of the word “audit” into something much bigger that is not justified.
I agree, in a sense, that people such as myself, my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who have an accounting background, tend to think that the term “audit” is reserved for this statutory audit function, has a very specific meaning and applies only to the audit of financial statements. However, the term means only “independent examination”, and in that sense I do not see any reason why the figure should not be used.
However, I say to the noble Lord that even when considering the audit of annual financial statements, those statements contain loads of assumptions and forecasts. To do an impairment review, you have to forecast cash flows for 10 years and choose discount rates and things such as that to calculate the figure that you put on your balance sheet. For your pension liabilities, you have to do even more complex calculations involving even more assumptions about the future. So even “audit” has to deal with these difficult areas of future estimation, even within the concept of statutory audit.
It would be helpful if the Treasury were to be reminded that the term “audit” has a rather technical meaning; it would be better to say something like “has independently examined”. Perhaps the Minister could take back to the Treasury that its lexicon could have that amendment added. I come back to my basic point, though, that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has gone a little over the top on this amendment.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for delivering my script for me. Perhaps I should declare my interest as a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. There is certainly a technical use of the word “audit” that we chartered accountants and other accountants are used to using. As my noble friend Lady Noakes has explained, my right honourable friend was using a more general use of the term. The Chancellor used the phrase in the very specific context of,
“audited all the annually managed expenditure savings”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/10; col. 949.]
To be clear, there is no question of the OBR doing an audit in the sense used by, say, the National Audit Office. In the context in which my right honourable friend used the word “audit”, it is completely clear that he was talking about scrutiny of those particular savings, as set out in the terms of reference given to the OBR when it scrutinised the Government’s policy costings. If the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, wants clarity on the meaning of the word, the terms of reference are clear.
In answer to the questions about the number of contacts between the OBR and the Treasury, that information is now published on its website. Between 4 October and 29 November 2010, there are seven recorded contacts: four e-mails, two meetings and one transmission of a hard-copy document. As I say, all those details are on the OBR’s website for people to look at.
The clarity over the OBR’s role is provided for through the provisions in the Bill and the charter. There is no intention for the OBR to do an audit in the technical sense of the word. I hope that it has been useful to have had this short discussion to clarify that that is indeed the situation and, having agreed that, I do not think that we need to clutter up the Bill in the way that the amendment proposes. On the basis that it is not strictly necessary, I ask the noble Lord if he might withdraw it.
Lord Peston
My Lords, when it suits him, the noble Lord is keen on the casual use of language. Can I take it that “audit” does not now mean audit? Does it mean to scrutinise? Can we see the documentation corresponding to that scrutiny? Is it available?
Lord Sassoon
Indeed, my Lords, as I said, the form of the scrutiny is set out in the terms of reference given to the Office for Budget Responsibility for its review of the spending review and were published as part of the spending review documentation on the Treasury website. If it would help the noble Lord, I can read out the key paragraph of the terms of reference for the Office for Budget Responsibility. Paragraph 4, entitled “Economic and fiscal forecasts”, states:
“The Spending Review will allocate spending between departmental expenditure and annually managed expenditure within the envelope set at the June Budget. As part of the Spending Review, and consistent with the approach taken in the June Budget, the OBR will provide independent scrutiny of the Government’s estimated costing of annually managed expenditure (AME) policies”.
Lord Peston
I am sorry, but I would really like my question to be answered. I do not want to know the form; I want to see the actual scrutiny. Nothing in the big document includes that scrutiny. The Chancellor claimed, using the Minister’s words, that the OBR had scrutinised all these expenditure savings. I should like to see the document which says, “We looked at this and this is our analysis”. I want to see the scrutiny; I do not want to know how the office did it. I want to know that it was actually done. I have not the faintest idea of where to look for this scrutiny, but it is not in the big document—which is what I call it because I cannot remember its name. Where is it?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the scrutiny is one of the things that underpin what the noble Lord calls “the big document”. If the OBR had any questions about the AME numbers, it would litter its document with commentary on it. However, it is quite clear from the terms of reference given to the office by the Treasury that it was required to and did scrutinise the AME numbers and was free to make any comments it felt like making on them.
Lord Peston
I would like to see where they are. I know the difference between form and substance, and I would like to see the substance.
Lord Sassoon
I would need to go back to the Treasury website, but I believe that in among all the supplementary documents there is a commentary. That is on the website, but I do not have with me the suite of documents which back up the big document. However, I believe that the material is set out in the supplementary documents. I would be happy to send the noble Lord a reference for where to find it.
Lord Myners
Before we rush away to look for this information on the website, let me say this: the noble Lord is a Minister within the Treasury and shares a floor with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so no doubt he can give us some sense of how this scrutiny operated. I am trying to imagine in my mind’s eye the 12 or so employees of the OBR scrutinising annually managed expenditure. I am trying to imagine how they would look at the AME of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, let alone its subdivisions, or the AME of the Department for Work and Pensions. Can the Minister at least give us a flavour of how that work was conducted? That would whet our appetites before we see the full information on the website, as he has assured us we can.
Lord Sassoon
As the noble Lord knows very well, if he would like to ask the question, I will pass it on to Mr Chote and his colleagues who, I am sure, would be happy to answer on how they carried out those parts of their remit. It is for them to say how they carried out their remit, and if the question has not been answered satisfactorily by the information already published on the website, I am sure that they would be happy to respond to further questions. Again, I offer my services as post boy, if the noble Lord would like me to pass on the question.
Lord Myners
I am not sure that the answer is entirely satisfactory. The Chancellor described this as an audit. He went beyond the language used by the OBR. We are asking the Minister of the Crown, based in the Treasury, to give us a sense of how this scrutiny was conducted. I am beginning to feel that the Minister does not know the answer. If that is the case, it would be helpful if he said, “I have no idea how this was scrutinised”, after which the Committee could form its own view.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, the Opposition are getting overexcited this afternoon. The small phrase in the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor that there has been an audit of the AME savings is being considerably overinterpreted. As my noble friend suggested, it would be helpful if Mr Robert Chote were asked to say how he conducts this aspect of his work. I am sure that if there are then further questions that noble Lords wish to raise, they will be able to. It would be helpful if my noble friend references any material that is already publicly available. However, it is not reasonable to go beyond that this afternoon.
Lord Eatwell
While agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I think that there is an important point here. If there is a process of scrutiny that is designed to give us a degree of confidence in the Government's costings and in the forecasts made by the OBR, it would be helpful to know, when the OBR scrutinises the costings by the various departments of their savings, whether it agrees with them 100 per cent. If it does, that would be very disturbing and unfortunate: it would be like an old Soviet election. We would expect a degree of disagreement—perhaps not much, but a bit—which would give us confidence in the scrutiny process. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us whether in the scrutiny process the agreement was 100 per cent or rather less.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to bring this back into perspective. Of course the OBR scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, acknowledged just now, will be based on challenging the assumptions underpinning the AME costings. How it then formed the judgments that it did is for the office, not me, to interpret. However, I am happy to point noble Lords towards what has been published and see whether there is anything else that the OBR thinks would be helpful to say on the matter after the discussion this afternoon. Clearly, the OBR will not sign off on its scrutiny of AME savings if it does not think that the methodology and the numbers are reasonable.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, there is no need for noble Lords to waste their time looking at websites. I submitted a Written Question to the Minister asking when the OBR scrutinised these particular points. The Answer stated that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, passed my question to Robert Chote, who quickly gave me an answer. He referred in particular to chapter 3 of the 150-page document. I went through chapter 3 very carefully. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I could not see in the whole of the chapter any details about scrutiny—far from it. Chapter 3.2 states:
“This is our central projection, or in other words, we believe there is an equal likelihood that growth will turn out to be higher or lower than we forecast”.
How do you scrutinise that? Or perhaps you should audit it. Or perhaps I have been going over the top, as the noble lady, Baroness Noakes, said. If I really wanted to go over the top, noble Lords on the Committee would know that they have heard nothing yet.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seems to think that she is still sitting on the Front Bench. I do not mind that. She was very good on the Front Bench. Occasionally she got it right. However, today she tells me that I am over the top. I wish someone, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, would explain where I am over the top. I have said that Robert Chote is being used by the Treasury. That is undoubtedly the case, and all that this brief debate has done is emphasise that. Indeed, the Minister has still not replied, or perhaps he has accidentally overlooked replying, to my Question about how often since or before this report Robert Chote and his colleagues met the Chancellor and other Ministers.
Lord Sassoon
Forgive me, but I went through the detail of what was published on the OBR’s website by Mr Chote, and I shall say it again. According to the document released by the OBR on its website, between 4 October and 29 November 2010 there have been seven substantive contacts between the OBR and Treasury Ministers, special advisers and their private office staff, including four e-mails, two meetings and one transmission of a hard-copy document. The details of the two meetings are included in the log on the website. I have tried to give this information and I repeat it now. There have been two meetings—on 4 November and 18 November. The details are set out on the website.
Lord Barnett
I must tell the noble Lord that I may not be doing my job properly, but I do not spend my life going through Treasury or OBR websites. Perhaps I should; it might make me better informed. I would not go “over the top”, as the noble Baroness described me. I doubt it. It might make me even more so. The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, has now told us information that I confess I had not read on the website. It may be that every other Member of the Committee has read it on the website.
Lord Barnett
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, read the website carefully. She did not quote it to me, but I now have the figures, which are a bit disturbing. I will read them with greater care later. Once again, Robert Chote is doing the job that the OBR is being set up to do—to tell the world how good the Treasury is. I had a little experience at the Treasury for five years. Officials are excellent, in my experience. I can see them over there, but they are not nodding, because they would not do that. The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, can nod on their behalf. He is quite right; they are very good. I always found them to be excellent. However, that does not make the Chancellor right in saying all the things he says, either in introducing the comprehensive spending review or at any other time. I confess not only to being not over the top but to being too moderate in my remarks. I am very concerned.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, a Division is taking place. Does the noble Lord feel that he can wind up in 30 seconds, in which case I am sure he can carry on?
Lord Myners
“( ) There is a duty on the Office to comment on the completeness, balance and accuracy of major economic statements made to Parliament by the Treasury, particularly the Budget.”
Lord Myners
My Lords, in many ways the points that I want to make here have already been made by my noble friend Lord Barnett regarding an earlier amendment, and I run the risk of being accused by the Minister of, in his term, raking over the coals again. The key issue here, though, is to ensure that Mr Robert Chote and his two fine colleagues on the committee of the Office for Budget Responsibility are not put in a place where their words are taken to be saying more than they actually do.
As noble Lords know, I continue to express support for the creation of the OBR and of the appointment of Mr Chote and his two colleagues. I also commend the Government for the steps that they have taken to ensure that there is an independent process around appointments to the committee of the OBR. I regard the document published last week as being a significant improvement in financial governance in the country.
It is therefore perhaps somewhat churlish to say, “This is all very good but perhaps we should have a little more”, but there was one thing missing last week in the Chancellor’s Statement to another place. He put a lot of spin, to use tabloid language, on the OBR statement. He is not the first Chancellor to do that; his predecessor but one was particularly prone at times of the Budget and the Pre-Budget Report to putting spin on information contained in the Budget—indeed, to the point of often forgetting to mention things that were in the Budget which were subsequently regarded as being very important. I would not want to see the OBR used in the same way.
The purpose of my amendment is to seek to ensure that, when the report of the committee of the Office for Budget Responsibility is produced for Parliament by the Chancellor or by a Treasury Minister, there is a reasonable test of the completeness and the accuracy with which the report is described to Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has already indicated, the report last week is replete with language about uncertainties, such as fan charts and the use of terminology to suggest probabilities and risks around central forecasting.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords wish that Chancellors were models of balance and completeness in the way in which they present figures, but the noble Lord, Lord Myners, is placing an unrealistic burden on the OBR if he expects it to undertake this task. For example, he uses the word “balance”; balance is not an objective fact but, to a considerable extent, is a subjective view. That goes equally for “completeness”—at what point does the failure to refer to the paragraphs on page 73 in the OBR report render the Chancellor’s statement incomplete? When the Chancellor has made a political speech on the economy, to expect the chair of the OBR to audit it, to coin a phrase, in some way as the noble Lord suggests is, frankly, impossible. While I agree with the sentiments behind the amendment, I do not think that it is workable.
Lord Burns
My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, knows that what he is asking for is impossible; we also know that he can be very good at creating a little bit of mischief every now and again and we have to see this amendment in that light.
The OBR can be responsible only for its own documents; it cannot possibly hold the Chancellor to account. That is a job for Parliament, including the Treasury Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee. I can think of nothing that would make the job of the OBR more impossible than to give it a task that began to resemble this. The key thing is that the OBR has to be kept out of the political debate but the noble Lord, Lord Myners, implies that he would like to plunge it directly into that debate. I am sure he has used the amendment as a vehicle to make quite sensible points about some of the practices that occur from time to time, but the OBR will not protect us from those.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Myners, accused himself of being churlish. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, accused him merely of creating mischief. I offer no view, but agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and with my noble friend Lord Newby, that his amendment would widen the OBR’s remit into completely inappropriate and vastly different territory from that covered by the Bill. The very focused remit in the Bill covers forecasts and the sustainability of the fiscal position. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, talked about the OBR commenting on the presentation of its report by the Chancellor—which would be difficult, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—but his amendment goes much wider and is concerned with commenting on major economic statements, which covers a huge range of things well beyond the OBR's focus. I come back to the concerns that were expressed by noble Lords at Second Reading about the critical importance of the impartiality of the OBR. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said:
“I am sure it is right that the OBR should not become embroiled in political controversy”.—[Official Report, 8/11/10; cols. 16-17.]
That is exactly where the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, would take it—well beyond the sustainability of the public finances, which should be its remit. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Myners
My Lords, far be it from me to wish to cause mischief. I have listened with great interest to the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Burns, and of the Minister. The Minister is correct that the wording of my amendment is very wide—wider than the OBR itself. However, I have often found it helpful in life to start wide, listen to the wise comments of others and narrow down. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggested that the word “balance” was capable of widely differing definitions, which would raise issues of implementation, and that possibly the phrase “absence of bias” might be better. I will reflect on that before Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston
Lord Peston
My Lords, of course I tabled Amendment 29 before I had heard the Minister’s replies to many other amendments. What he emphasised most was the independence of the OBR and its ability to make up its own mind what it wants to do. I assume therefore that when I say it should be able to do this, he will get up and say that it can if it wants to. I do not think that I need to detain the Committee much longer, but I would like to hear the Minister confirm that the OBR can do what it wants. I beg to move.
Lord Sassoon
I shall try to be almost as brief. I agree absolutely that the OBR should have access to external expertise and that there should be appropriate transparency around this. The design of the OBR will allow it to have access to external expertise as it sees fit, and indeed the office held a range of discussions prior to producing the recent forecast. The office may convene advisory panels if it thinks that that sort of external perspective would be of help.
My only difficulty with the amendment is that the office would be required to publish the evidence taken from expert witnesses. I think that it should be for the OBR to determine what it thinks it is appropriate to publish. That is because we do not want to constrain freedom of exchange. The office has a general statutory duty to act transparently, within which context obviously it will think carefully about what it should publish. Further, although I hope that it will not be necessary, there is of course the backstop of the Freedom of Information Act to which the OBR is subject. I think we should leave it to the discretion of the OBR to choose to publish evidence from such experts as it consults.
I hope that my response has given the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the confirmation that he was seeking, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston
I thank the Minister very much for that answer. I, too, am making the assumption that the OBR will read our debates and therefore know what we think. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins
Lord Higgins
My Lords, it may be convenient also to consider Amendments 31 and 32. When I first looked at Clause 5(3), it seemed fairly straightforward. It states that if the Government’s policies are relevant to the OBR’s performance of its duties, the office should not look at any alternative policies; that is, it should not suddenly say, “We want to look at the policies of the Labour Party as well as those of the coalition and make a comparison between the two”. That is what I understood it to say. The alternative proposed in one of the later amendments is rather more stringent than that, in that it effectively provides that the office should not look at any alternative policies at all, while the other amendment says that it should. So, in a sense, we have a choice. On balance, it is arguable that the Government, having reflected on this, came to the view that the OBR should not look at alternative policies, which might create a very confusing situation. Nevertheless, the subsection does seem to be unnecessarily restrictive.
To my surprise, during a discussion in our previous Grand Committee, it turned out that the clause was intended to do something quite other than what it appears in simple terms to do, and we had a lengthy discussion about that. I still do not understand either what the amended interpretation was supposed to do or how it would do it. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some idea of that now, or alternatively could consider the matter further. However, as it stands, the provision seems to be quite straightforward. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, when I prepared my speaking note for a discussion of this series of amendments to Clause 5(3), I wrote the following: “The intention behind Clause 5(3) is clear and sensible”. I now realise how enormously wrong I was in that observation, because, following our discussion last week, to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has just referred, it is apparent that Clause 5(3) is neither clear nor sensible. These amendments give us at least an opportunity to talk around the issues and provide some material for the Government to help them to bring forward—as I hope and am confident they will—their own amendment to Clause 5(3).
Amendment 31 was prepared when I thought I knew what the clause meant: that the OBR should focus on developing a successful forecasting methodology and applying it to the evaluation of government programmes alone, keeping out of the arena of political controversy. The noble Lord quoted me on that just now and I stand by my belief that it should be the case. Even on these grounds, the clause is not well drafted. As I pointed out at Second Reading, it might be possible to conceive of opposition policies that do not impinge on government policies. My example was of an employment programme for which funding had been secured from the European Union so that there was no impact on the Government’s fiscal stance. Such a programme would not be an alternative but an addition to anything that the Government themselves were doing. Therefore, there is a degree of ambiguity as the clause stands.
My Amendment 31 seeks to eliminate this ambiguity by stating explicitly that in so far as OBR reports include an assessment of the impact of policies, reference should be made to government policies alone. I believe that my redraft of Clause 5(3) unwittingly achieves with far greater clarity what we now know the Government were hoping to do with their subsection, which is rather messy—indeed, hopeless—at the moment. It embodies the positive statement that government policies should be taken into account, which is what we were told it was supposed to do last time, and ensures by the use of “only” that policies emanating from elsewhere will not be part of the appraisal or forecasting activities. I think that I have actually cracked the Government’s problem for them.
It will be evident from what I have said that I disagree with the goals of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which would take this out altogether, or tabled by my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Peston. I say that the OBR should focus on the Government alone and that it would be unfortunate if it were turned into a sort of policy referee. It might be possible if economic forecasting was a precise science, but it is not and there will always be a certain amount of judgment involved. It is not like a measuring rod with which you can say whether something is accurate. That is not what economic forecasting is about. At an appropriate time, I will move Amendment 31. I believe that the Government will bring forward something like this to solve the problems that we have identified in this part of the Bill.
Lord Higgins
I should perhaps have said in my opening remarks that I had, in effect, had second thoughts. It may be that my amendment simply leaves open the question, but we really want to clear it up.
Lord Peston
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 32, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Barnett. When I first saw subsection (3), I must say that I was appalled, in particular by the words “may not consider”. This body is supposed to be independent and, unless we are to get a new form of thought police brought in here, can presumably consider anything that it likes. That does not mean that it should be involved in a report on itself. However, to tell a group—at the moment, a group of three expert economists—that what it can think about is limited by an Act of Parliament is absolutely absurd. I draw the Committee’s attention to what “may not consider” means; that you cannot even think or talk about something and that it has nothing to do with you. This is incompatible with the group’s independence and professionalism. I wonder what serious, self-respecting economist would wish to work under those circumstances. I would not, under any circumstances, be willing to work and be told that. I can remember the sad old days in the Treasury when everybody was told that under no circumstances were we ever to discuss or use the word “devaluation”. It did not have any effect: we just did it privately or secretly, and so on. That was the worst example of this that I can remember.
I was appalled by this subsection and I thought that taking out “not” was the best way of dealing with it. However, the method proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is better still: take out the whole subsection. It may well be that we could put in another clause of a more positive nature. It is perfectly obvious that the OBR’s job is to consider the whole issue in the context of government policy, because, as the Minister has emphasised—although I slightly disagree with his logic—the OBR is not a decision-making body, it is just a forecasting body. I do not entirely accept that distinction, as noble Lords are aware, but I can at least see the Minister’s position. I accept what my noble friend Lord Eatwell and others have said; that forecasting is the OBR’s main role. There should not be a clause in what will eventually be a statute telling the OBR what it may consider, unless the meaning of “consider” in the English language has changed. My general view is that the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was much better than mine or that of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. We should remove subsection (3).
Lord Newby
We had a long debate on this issue at our previous meeting and I am not going to rehearse all the arguments. I suggested, out of frustration, that we were spending too long on this form of words, which, in slightly more words, actually had the same purpose as Amendment 31. We did not spend any time looking at it, because we were considering the amendments in order. However, Amendment 31 is clear and achieves the purpose that we sought to achieve in our debate last time, which was that the OBR, in making its assessments, obviously should take account of government economic and other policies. Equally, in the context of the second part of the subsection, the OBR’s role should not be what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, thinks it would be. It should not be able to stray and look at anyone’s alternative policies—that way madness lies. The OBR must have a straightforward remit to look at what the Government are proposing and work on the assumptions that the Government are making in their policies.
Lord Burns
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I had hoped that the purpose of the clause was to restrict the activities of the OBR to avoid it getting into political trouble. There are two clear cases where I could see this happening. One is where it is asked to continue a practice that has emerged in the past 20 or 30 years, whereby a Government ask the Treasury to cost the opposition manifesto as an election approaches. That practice has been divisive and has not suited anyone. I had hoped that this clause, by restricting the OBR to consideration of government policies, would prevent the Government or anyone else—for example, the Treasury Committee—asking it what the effect would be of implementing the Opposition’s manifesto.
The second thing that I had hoped would be avoided was getting into the sort of detailed arguments that took place in the summer about what the effects of particular packages of measures would be on economic activity, unemployment, the PSBR and so on. The remit given to the OBR by the Bill, as I read it, is to tell us what the effect would be on public finances of a whole set of government policies, taking into account the world environment and everything else, and whether or not the Government are on a sustainable path as a result of that collection of policies. That remains very challenging and is what the OBR’s job should be restricted to. It is set out early in the Bill. I had assumed that this clause was there to prevent encroachment, or a widening of the OBR’s remit to include a number of other things, all of which would lead us into a difficult area of political activity.
Lord Burns
My Lords, for the reasons that I have set out about the importance of the political impartiality of the OBR, I felt that the original subsection (3), although a little inelegant, did much of its job. However, I also support the spirit of Amendment 31, although I am a little concerned about the use of “effects”, which could in future give someone the opportunity to ask to have particular subsections of government measures analysed for their effects on the economic outcome and on the public finances. I worry that going down that road could cause problems in future.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, perhaps I might go back to confirming what we are seeking to do and not to do in the Bill. We have discussed all these related issues at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has got it pretty much spot on in terms of what we are trying to achieve, but for the avoidance of doubt I shall restate it.
With regard to the core forecasting remit, the intention is that the OBR should consider government policies and not other policies. To take the point made the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, we want to ensure that the OBR can take account of external shocks, for example, so in technical drafting terms his amendment would not quite work as it focuses narrowly on policy. We agree, anyway, that it is the Government’s policies and not other policies that need to be considered. We must not leave out the fact that, in doing the forecasts, the OBR can look at scenarios and at other issues.
With regard to the noble Lord’s specific question about an EU-related policy, either it has been adopted by the UK Government and is therefore included in government policies or it is not. Either the EU policy example has been adopted as policy in the UK or it has not, therefore it falls accordingly. That would get picked up, so that much is clear. Equally, it is the clear intention that the OBR should not be drawn into costing alternative policies, whether they are opposition policies or just other scenarios or partial packages of policies. That is what is intended by the construct in the Bill, and part of it is clarified by paragraph 4.12 in the draft charter.
Even though I am convinced that the Bill achieves what most, if not all, of us are trying to achieve in these various respects, I take to heart the fact that we have spent a lot of time going around the interaction of Clauses 4 and 5(3) and, to an extent, the relationship with Clause 1. Notwithstanding the fact that I think that the Bill works as drafted, I am listening carefully to all the points being made. I will go away and see whether anything can be done to make it even clearer in the Bill what the intentions are. However, it is difficult drafting. We should certainly not take out Clause 5(3) in its entirety, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out, we want to make sure not only that the forecasts are concentrated on the right thing but that the OBR is not drawn into other political controversies.
Lord Peston
Can the noble Lord give one clarification on that? We all agree that, if we are going to have an OBR, we must keep it out of political controversy, but do the “government policies” to which he referred include the behaviour of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England?
Lord Sassoon
When I talk about government policies, I mean government policies. What assumptions the OBR makes about monetary conditions, interest rates and so on touches on an issue about which my noble friend Lord Higgins asked earlier. I have undertaken to relay his request to see whether Mr Chote wants to say any more about how the OBR considers monetary policy issues. Certainly, while I said that the OBR should consider government policies, there are lots of other things that it needs to consider. It is clear that it is making assumptions about interest rates and so on that are taken broadly from what the Bank of England lays out.
Lord Peston
Since we are putting this on the statute book, is it the case that the OBR would not be offending the law, as it will eventually be, by paying great attention to what the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England was up to? I merely want some reassurance on that. There is no way in which it can do any forecasting unless it does that.
Lord Sassoon
I assume that in all normal circumstances it will look intently at the forecasts of the MPC about future inflation and interest rate prospects.
Lord Burns
Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Peston. One must assume that the Monetary Policy Committee will abide by the law under which it conducts its affairs.
Lord Sassoon
In summary, I cannot promise that there is any way of making all this clearer. I think that there is consensus among us as to what we are trying to achieve in this area. I shall think hard about whether we can make it even clearer. On that basis, I ask my noble friend Lord Higgins to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, that is a very sensible reaction on the part of the Minister.
Lord Eatwell
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I agree entirely with the Minister that there is a clear degree of consensus on what we are all trying to achieve. However, there is a degree of consensus that Clause 5(3), as currently drafted, does not achieve it. When we have concluded Committee, I intend to write to the Minister about this matter and a number of others where I think that we have total consensus on what we want to achieve and even perhaps to suggest meetings prior to Report to sort it out. That way, everybody can be clear about and comfortable with what we shall in due course pass into law. Having said that, I really do not see how Clause 5(3) can survive as currently drafted but, given that we are now really clear about what we want to do, we can sort something out.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, the whole purpose of a Committee stage is to get to the bottom of certain difficult aspects of a Bill. I am sure that it is right that the Minister should look at the matter very carefully between now and Report, in particular with the parliamentary draftsmen. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others can look at it as well. It might be helpful to keep in touch on whether we all agree on the amendment to table or whether we should put down alternatives. At all events, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Eatwell
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, Amendment 36 refers to Clause 6(1)(b) and seeks to remove the attempt to qualify Clause 5(2). I begin by confessing that, on close inspection, my amendment is imperfectly drafted. I did not wish to eliminate any guidance that the charter might provide with respect to the beleaguered Clause 5(3) because guidance is certainly needed there. However, if Amendment 31—or something like it—appears on Report, the qualification of Clause 5(3) will be unnecessary. The core purpose of the amendment is to remove the ability of the Government to use the charter to qualify Clause 5(2).
Noble Lords may think that the terms “objectively”, “transparently” and “impartially” are perfectly well defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and that no further guidance or qualification is required and, if they examined the draft charter, they would find that they were absolutely right to think that. Taking just one of the words which one would think would be easy to understand, I invite noble Lords to consider the charter definition of “objectively”. Paragraph 4.7 of the charter states that this means that,
“the OBR should not analyse or comment on the particular merits of Government policy”.
The problem is that the philosophical issue has been pushed on to another word because we now need a definition of the word “merits”, as I will illustrate.
In Clause 5(3), which we have toiled over for some time, the OBR is required—as we all agree—to consider government policies that are relevant to its forecasting duties. Let us suppose that the OBR demonstrates that a particular government policy results in an increase in unemployment—and one must give credit to the Government and to the OBR for now publishing unemployment forecasts—then, as it is universally accepted that unemployment is a bad thing, such an assessment will inevitably reflect on the merits of the policy. If it increases unemployment, that is a bad aspect of the policy and is a comment on its merits; it cannot be anything else. Therefore the definition of “objectively” has been qualified in such a manner that it no longer has the generally accepted meaning of the word.
If we accept the guidance of the charter, the OBR could not comment on what is happening to unemployment because employment and unemployment are universally accepted as merits and demerits. Trying to define these words is simply an exercise in exclusion and limitation. The words have clear, commonsense meanings. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, told me earlier, the word “impartiality” in government circles has already been defined by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. A definition of the word exists in government life and it does not require another one. If the Treasury definition were contrary to that of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, that would be very disturbing.
The question is: why do we need this? The fundamental danger in Clause 6(1)(b) is the possibility of further guidance distorting the normal meaning of words that are fully understood in common parlance. It is far better to rely on common sense in understanding these words. The lack of qualification gives them strength; any qualification would seriously weaken their value. I beg to move.
Lord Turnbull
I support the amendment, at least in so far as it relates to Clause 5(2), for much the same reasons as those set out by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. These words are meant to be drawn either from the seven tenets of public life set by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or from the synonyms for them in the Civil Service Code. If there is any amendment to be made it is that Clause 5(2) should bring the words used into line with the accepted vocabulary that is used in these other documents. You would then dispense with Clause 6(1)(b) as it relates to subsection (2).
At Second Reading, the most telling criticisms that were made on an occasion where this initiative was largely welcomed, was the sense that independence was being granted with one hand by the Treasury and that another clause subtly began to claw it back, and that this somehow undermined the sense of true independence. We can dispense with this and, if any changes are desired, the wording of Clause 5(2) can be brought into line with the vocabulary that is used in these other statements of the values of public life.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I find this interesting because what the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull, have said exemplifies why we need some back-up explanation of these terms in the charter. That must be the right place for it because the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, started by saying that we could rely on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the three terms but then went on to refer to the usage given to the terms by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That in itself points out that, even on his construction of how these words should be used, there are at least two sources. I have neither the OED nor the committee’s statement in front of me, but I would be surprised if they were precisely the same. Then the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred to the Civil Service Code.
In arguing for the amendment, the noble Lords have precisely explained the difficulty that we are in: however you do it, you go back to different sources for the meaning of these important terms. It is therefore important in the charter to try to tease this out. I agree that this could be done in a number of ways; it could refer to the OED, the Civil Service or a number of other things. However, this discussion has reinforced my view that somewhere we need to provide some guidance.
I shall give the Committee another example, very much in this space, about the kind of difficulty that we can otherwise get into, and this relates back to one of our previous discussions. The US Congressional Budget Office has an impartiality remit, but it defines “impartiality” to mean that it has to include analysis of policy proposals made by all political parties. I think that we all agreed earlier that that is precisely what we do not want the OBR to do, and that suggests to me that it is a reason why we need to give a bit of guidance in the charter for what the three critical terms mean. Indeed, Robert Chote himself, following questions on impartiality, told the Treasury Select Committee:
“I think you want to make sure that the remit of the OBR is agreed ex ante, rather than the subject of a contentious debate ex post on whether it is doing what people want it to do … if it is left to the OBR on its own to draw the line, there will always be people just below the line who will be disgruntled … which will reflect on the OBR”.
That was in the context of a wider discussion about the virtues of, and the need for, clarity.
Nothing is set out in the charter that can undermine the Bill. The guidance can relate only to functions conferred by the Bill; it cannot add to or distort them. Further, as we have noted, the charter must be approved by another place before it can come into effect. I have listened carefully to the debate, which has suggested to me that even those who say that we do not need the interpretation of the charter are actually using different definitions. I think that the charter is the right place in which to provide the OBR with the clarity that it quite rightly seeks. For that reason, and because the noble Lord admits that the amendment does not quite work technically, I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Eatwell
I am grateful to the noble Lord. If we get Clause 5(3) right, it may work very well, but we have been chewing this matter over perhaps to excess. The Minister made one point about the issue of impartiality with respect to the Congressional Budget Office. While there is some relationship between the CBO and the OBR, the Congressional Budget Office is actually a creature of Congress. That is different from the OBR, which is a creature of the Executive. It means that we have a very different issue before us.
I am still disturbed by the definition of “objectively”. As I pointed out, the notion of merit and demerit is rather difficult in and of itself, and therefore, in preparing for the final draft of the charter, I would like the Government to consider whether the word “merits” conveys exactly what they want it to.
Lord Sassoon
I am not sure whether this will help, but just to be clear, we are expecting the OBR to assess the impact of policies on forecasts. So there is no question of merits and demerits, other than that we are trying to exclude all questions of merit and demerit and keep to the factual impact of policies. I am struggling a bit with any suggestion that we are somehow dragging the OBR into considerations of merit or demerit. The noble Lord took the example of employment and unemployment. All we ask of the OBR is that it should tell us what the factual situation is and absolutely not to comment on its merits or demerits. There is no question of enormity of judgment by the OBR in this or any other respect.
The basic underlying language here is the same as that which applies to the National Audit Office in the National Audit Office Act 1983. That is all we are trying to replicate in this respect, even though this is scrutiny and not audit.
Lord Eatwell
The noble Lord sounds like the fellows in my college whose standard reaction to any proposal of mine is, “We’ve always done it that way”. One peculiarity in the drafting of this Bill and of the charter is that everything is defined in terms of negatives. What we have in the charter is that the OBR should not analyse or comment on the particular merits of something. Why not say what you mean by using words such as, “The OBR should analyse or comment only on the impacts of Government policy”, as the Minister has just said? Why is everything defined in terms of the negative? Why can we not say what we want to achieve in positive terms?
The other problem with this is that I give the Government enormous credit for incorporating Clause 5(2) in the Bill. They deserve tremendous credit for doing that. However, subsection (1) weakens it, not necessarily as presented now, but it provides an opening for future Governments to change this guidance. That is what we do not want. It is unfortunate that this qualifying subsection is incorporated in Clause 5(2), which is tremendously to the Government’s credit.
I shall take away the Minister’s comments and think about them. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins
Lord Higgins
My Lords, the amendment, which has a whole clause to itself, is not difficult to understand. The Bill as drafted states:
“The Office must aim to carry out its functions efficiently and cost-effectively”.
The amendment seeks to delete the words “aim to” so that it reads, “The Office must carry out its functions efficiently and cost-effectively”. There would be a loophole if the office could simply say that it was aiming to do this when it may not achieve that objective. More sensibly it should be mandated to operate efficiently and cost-effectively, otherwise it may overspend its budget by an enormous amount and say, “Do not worry, these are unforeseen circumstances. We aim to do it”. I beg to move.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, of course the OBR should be cost-effective and efficient—there is no question about that—and the amendment seeks to increase the requirement for it to be so. However, in reality the amendment would not change in substance the requirement on the OBR because, if it was ever challenged on this point, the challenge would be subject to what it would have been reasonable for the OBR to have done. I agree with my noble friend that it would be nice if we could have more direct language here but I am advised that the amendment would make negligible difference. That is because if it was ever tested in a legal context—one hopes it will not be—the reasonableness of what the OBR had done would be encapsulated in the words “aim to”.
At the risk of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, jumping up again, I have to say that this is the same as the requirement on the National Audit Office, as set out in Part 2. It is not necessarily a good defence; I merely observe—
Lord Sassoon
Of course, in the wider context, the accounting officer will have to answer for the OBR’s cost-effectiveness and efficiency and it will be subject to the normal governance and scrutiny arrangements for public bodies. Those scrutiny arrangements will include an audit, I say advisedly, by the NAO, which will have the power to examine and report to Parliament on a number of matters, including the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the OBR.
I thank my noble friend for trying to tease out what is going on here. It has enabled me to ask questions and to establish that the words as originally drafted essentially encapsulate the test that a court would use if the OBR was ever challenged. On the basis that we are trying to arrive at the same point, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins
It will be a question of it coming not to court but to the NAO, which is dealt with in the second part of the Bill. It seems to me that the office would have been on much stronger ground if it was simply told that it must carry out these functions than if it merely said, “Oh well, if it’s all right, I was aiming to but I’ve failed”. None the less, to a degree I take the point made by my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, this might be a convenient if somewhat early moment for the Committee to adjourn until Thursday at 2 pm.
House of Lords
Housing Benefit
(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their proposed housing benefit changes on the number of homeless children.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Drefelin, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, we have carried out an impact assessment on the changes to housing benefit. This was published on 30 November 2010. It does not contain an estimate of the impact on homelessness as we cannot anticipate the behaviour of tenants or their landlords. To reduce the risk of households becoming homeless we have a substantial package of financial and practical support in place, and we are giving households up to nine months’ transitional protection so that they can look for alternative accommodation if they need to.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, the Government’s impact assessment that the Minister referred to estimates that 450,000 children will be affected by these benefit changes. Shelter estimates that 129,000 children will be forced to move home and that 54,000 live in families whose income, after housing costs, will now be pushed below £100 a week. Given that the Government say that they intend to take forward further analysis of the child poverty effect, should they not suspend these controversial orders until that important work is complete?
Lord Freud
My Lords, there are some extraordinary claims being made around these measures. There are some heroic assumptions in the Shelter figures. For instance, they are based on an average shortfall of £18 a week, which is well above what the shortfall will be. I should point out that 40 per cent of people in the private rental sector move every year and 70 per cent move within three years.
Lord Rix
What advice can the Minister offer people with a learning disability, who might find that they can no longer pay rents, which are increasing all the time, particularly in the London area? Does he think it appropriate that the Government should inflict trauma on people less able to cope with that trauma, some of them very vulnerable indeed?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the Government are fully aware that some people will have to make adjustments in their living arrangements. That is why we have put a large amount of resource into helping that transition process. The current figure, which we announced last week, has been increased by another £50 million to a total of £190 million over the SR 2010 period.
Lord German
My Lords, the Government have told us how many people will be affected in the private rental sector by the changes that they have laid. On the other side the argument now seems to be that, if you take out issues around London, no one will see their rent reduced and they will therefore be turfed out on their ear. Meanwhile, the Government believe that the private sector will reduce its rents. Why is the Minister so convinced that the private sector will reduce its rents?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question, which gets to the heart of the issue. There are three reasons why we think there will be an adjustment in the marketplace. First, we as taxpayers represent 40 per cent of the private rental market. Secondly, there have been some surveys of landlord attitudes; roughly half say that they are prepared to reduce rates. Obviously, they are sending a message back to the main buyer. Thirdly, last week we put in place a mechanism to help that adjustment process. We are prepared to pay direct rents to landlords where they are prepared to show flexibility in helping people to stay in their homes.
Baroness Sherlock
Will the Minister comment on the concern expressed by charities that families may be forced to move repeatedly? In particular, can he comment on the fact that all the evidence shows that families at risk who move repeatedly can be put out of the reach of the social services? What steps will the Government take to protect vulnerable families in that situation?
Lord Freud
My Lords, one of the points that was raised by SSAC, the advisory committee, was that by having two sets of changes in April and October we were potentially making people make two sets of adjustments. That is why we fine-tuned our arrangements, as we announced last week, so that they come into effect in April, but there is a nine-month period for people to make an adjustment. We have also put in £50 million to help local authorities deal with the transition—some of which will be difficult—to make sure that it goes as smoothly as possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
As it is very important that families are kept together, can the Minister assure us that in the instances where families have to move—we all appreciate that we do not know how many yet or how that will be—every effort will be made to retain families as a complete unit rather than split the children away?
Lord Freud
My Lords, in response to my noble friend on that very important question, clearly we have every intention that families should be kept together. That is why we are putting so much money into managing the transition—£190 million—to make sure that it goes as smoothly as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, is the Minister aware of this morning’s report form the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that highlights the significant number of children in poverty who live in households where the parents are in work? Will the impact of housing benefit changes affect working and non-working households alike—with families becoming homeless and, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested, being forced to move away from employment however badly paid they are?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an incredibly important point. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported today, the latest figures show 2.1 million children in poverty from working families and only 1.6 million from out of work families. The whole purpose of our reform of the benefit system is to get rid of that problem—to make sure that there is a smooth transition between out-of-work and in-work, that work always pays, and that it has the effect of bringing people out of poverty.
Police: Retirement
(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the decision of a number of police forces forcibly to retire police officers who have 30 years or more service.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, the Government have not made any such assessment. It is the responsibility of police authorities and chief officers to manage the resources and staff available to them to ensure effective policing for the communities in their area. They are best placed to consider operational decisions including the impact of using their powers under Regulation A19.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, does the Minister not think it extraordinary that some of our most experienced police officers are being forced to retire while the Government are prepared to waste millions of pounds on the election of police commissioners? Can the Minister tell me how many police officer jobs will be lost in order to pay for the politicisation of our police force?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the Government do not accept the conclusion to which the noble Lord has just leapt. As things stand, the officers who are eligible for retirement, having 30 years’ service, number 3,260 out of a total force of 143,000 warranted officers. Therefore, I do not think that we should exaggerate the quantum of those involved.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, will the Minister ask the police authorities to carry out an impact assessment on crime and security because of the cuts in numbers? Will she ensure that those cuts do not have an adverse impact on the recruitment of people from black and ethnic minority communities, which is a serious problem in police forces?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the Government continuously assess the impact on policing of the measures that they take, but the matter that we are talking about is an operational one. I am sure that the police will wish to ensure that there is no discrimination in their recruitment policies.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is a matter not just of numbers but of quality? Notwithstanding the autonomy of local police services, will she prevail on them at least to consider the loss of experience and wisdom, not to mention the loss to the public purse, arising from arbitrary and enforced retirement after 30 years’ service? Will she ask them to give the fullest consideration to maximum flexibility when choosing retirement for any person?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, this is an operational matter for the police and I am sure that they will take note of what the noble Lord has just said. A number of chief constables, including the head of the Metropolitan Police Service, have indicated that they do not wish to lose the experience that is available to them. I remind the House that this power is available to the police. It permits them to retire people; it does not oblige them to do so.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, my question relates to specialisations. I accept that these decisions have to be made by local police forces but, for example, as the Minister will well know, people such as counterterrorist support officers working for NaCTSO tend to be at the very end of their careers and have huge experience. I believe that somehow the Government have to make a judgment in the overall balance of the advice that goes, for example, to the architectural industry and other areas. Does the Minister have any way of measuring the cuts that are being made in various areas so that there is a national view of the impact on areas as important as counterterrorism?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, as I have just said, this is a power that is open to the police, and senior police officers are not obliged to take this measure, among the measures that are open to them. The Government are clear that we need police to be available on the streets. HMIC has noted that 11 per cent of the available police force is invisible to the public at any given moment. In other words, we need to drive out a great deal of the bureaucracy that was imposed on the police by the previous Government. I am absolutely certain that the police will take their responsibilities seriously in ensuring that terrorism does not in any way prevail in this country.
Lord Laming
My Lords, the Metropolitan Police has one of the finest child protection units in the country—indeed, nowadays I would say even beyond this country. Can the noble Baroness use her influence to ensure that, in the reductions that are to take place across the board in the police force, the highly specialised units that deal with the most vulnerable children are properly protected?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I am sure that the House shares the sentiments that the noble Lord has just expressed and I have no doubt that the police do too.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, where does age discrimination fit in here, if it fits in at all, either legally, if the discrimination legislation has come into force, or morally?
Baroness Neville-Jones
The regulation relates to the number of years of service that an officer accrues—that is, 30 years—and it is the only measure that the police have under the existing system for retiring people in the public interest. However, that does not necessarily correlate to anyone’s age. I do not think that it is an age discrimination matter; it is a length of service issue.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, how do the Government intend to preserve a service when individual services may take a decision which does not allow for national coverage to be maintained? How are the Government going to make sure that does not happen?
Baroness Neville-Jones
It is a matter of the close links that the Government have with the police. I am sure the police will wish to ensure, through ACPO and their other organisations, that the net result of the decisions taken by individual commissioners makes sense in policing terms. I have no doubt that the Government will be in touch with them over this.
Schools: Pupil Premium
(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Crosby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be the requirements for a child to be eligible for a pupil premium.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the Government consulted on the eligibility criteria for the pupil premium earlier this year and that consultation ended on 18 October. This consultation included proposals for eligibility criteria, including free school meals, tax credit data or commercial packages, as well as on whether to include looked-after children and service children. We are considering the outcome of the consultation and will make an announcement in due course.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may remind him that at present children on free school meals get roughly half the proportion of GCSEs at A to C level as those who are not on free school meals—that is to say, their attainments are half as great. Given that, can the Minister tell us how he will ensure that pupil premiums are indeed paid to advance the attainments of disadvantaged children and that schools are not tempted to use those payments to encourage more children on the edge of getting five A to Cs rather than those where the return will be certainly slower? Will he consider making it an entitlement—not a general grant but an entitlement—for each disadvantaged child?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful to my noble friend, and I agree with her that it is extremely important that the purpose of the pupil premium—to help the children who need it most—is upheld in the system we deliver. She is absolutely right about the disparity in educational achievement between children on free school meals and those who are not on free school meals: 54 per cent who are not on free school meals get five A* to C while only 27 per cent who are on free school meals achieve it. The point about ensuring the money is used for the purpose for which it is intended is absolutely right. Our intention is that it will be for heads to spend as they think fit the money which will go to schools, in the way that they believe can best deliver help to the pupils they know. However, they will have to account each year for how the money is spent. I agree with my noble friend that one would not want the money to be used for people who are, as it were, gaming the system. That is part of a broader consideration we need to take about how to ensure that the system is not gamed in future.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The point about the pupil premium is that it is linked to deprivation. As we all know—no one better than the noble Lord, Lord Rix—there is a lot of overlap between children with SEN and children with deprivation. The key point is that the pupil premium is intended for deprivation.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, considering that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children are the most educationally deprived of any section of the community, will the pupil premium be payable automatically in respect of those children?
Lord Hill of Oareford
That is an extremely good question. I suspect that there is a question around the identification of those children, but if they are being educated and are registered in school, and if they fulfil the eligibility criteria, as one would imagine they would, then the money for that would go to that school.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, who will monitor the annual review to which the Minister referred, which is at the discretion of head teachers, and who will be responsible for undertaking that review? How will those head teachers themselves be held accountable?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I said, my Lords, the intention is that those head teachers will spend it as they think fit. It will be a matter for their judgment because they know the pupils best. If, for instance, they think that the money would be better spent on one-to-one tuition rather than something else, they should make that judgment. We suggest they should have to account publicly to parents and publish how the money has been spent, so that people can see the linkage between the money and what it is spent on.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, given the importance of early intervention, will the Government supply an equivalent amount of money to early-years settings that take children from very disadvantaged backgrounds? If so, will the same criteria be used as are used for children who are at school beyond the compulsory school age?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As my noble friend will know, because she and others in her party have campaigned for this so hard, the Deputy Prime Minister announced fairly recently that there will be a sum, building up to £300 million over the spending review period, for extending help for the most disadvantaged two year-olds in early education.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, will the eligibility for the pupil premium be broadly similar to that for the current education maintenance allowance? If the Government are serious about increasing educational opportunities, should not eligibility for the pupil premium passport entitlement to the EMA at 16 and bursaries for tuition at university thereafter?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the pupil premium, as the noble Lord knows, is intended for pupils from the age of reception up to year 11. I am aware of the issues around the education maintenance allowance and the point that underlies the noble Lord’s question. The enhanced discretionary fund, which will be targeted on those who most need the help, will, I hope, deal with some of that. For 16 to 18 year-olds, deprivation factors are already in the funding formula which will help to address some of the same issues.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, what do the Government intend to do with those head teachers whose reports to parents indicate that the money was not used for the premium?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As usual, my noble friend is a few steps ahead of me. We will need to address how we police that, and to reflect on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as well. We are not yet even at the point of announcing the premium so I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend a completely satisfactory answer about what we will do in a year’s time.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
But did not the noble Baroness put forward a perfectly legitimate solution to the problem? In many of the areas of localism, which many of us support, there will be people who do not implement what the Government wish, and they will not be accountable in the way that one would expect. Should we therefore not be moving towards ensuring more entitlement to the basic requirement, such as making the pupil premium an entitlement?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, obviously I heard the point made by my noble friend and underlined by the noble Lord. We need to reflect on these points and will announce before Christmas how we will go forward on the pupil premium, what the eligibility criteria will be, and how it will operate.
Parliament Act 1911: Centenary
(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will mark the centenary of the Parliament Act 1911.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
The Government have no current plans to mark the centenary of the Parliament Act.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I am most disappointed by the noble Lord’s Answer. The Parliament Bill became an Act on 18 August 1911 and a century has gone by. With all the talk of reform, should we not at least set a deadline of 18 August or a date close to it—I do not intend to call the House back on 18 August unless noble Lords so desire it—for the reform procedure?
May I also make a suggestion about any new voting system? The Labour Party says in its manifesto that it wants a proportional system for elections to the House of Lords, and we say in the coalition agreement that we, too, want a proportional system. The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 suggests that the present House of Lords be substituted by,
“a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis”.
Would the Leader please give us his response to that?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sorry to have disappointed my noble friend with my Answer. I fear that I am going to disappoint him again, although I must say that I admire his perseverance after 100 years since the last Liberal Prime Minister passed the Parliament Act 1911. I think he is optimistic to suggest that the Chamber will be constituted on a different basis by August next year, or that any of us will be here to mark that occasion on 18 August. I can tell him, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister intends to publish a draft Bill early next year that makes provision for a wholly or mainly elected Chamber with elections on a system of proportional representation.
Viscount Tenby
Does the Leader of the House agree that a proper and speedy way of marking this celebration might be to give a fair wind to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, on the reform of the House? In this matter I declare an historical interest.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, certainly does have an historical interest, and I admire his perseverance and that of my noble friend Lord Steel, who had yet another Second Reading on his Bill on Friday. I am not one of those who regard the passage of the 1911 Act as one that the House of Lords should celebrate. I think it was a disaster for the House of Lords. We took on the House of Commons at the wrong time, we overstepped the mark, and if it should be commemorated, it should be commemorated by an act of mourning.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, is it not worth reflecting, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who is so persistent on these matters, that one stark contrast between the Parliament Act 1911 and the attempt which the Government are apparently making towards reform today is that the 1911 Act, as the Leader of the House has reminded us, was about defining the powers of the House of Lords in relation to the democratically elected House of Commons? Is it not worth taking a lesson from that in acknowledging that the present reforms are all about a directly elected House of Lords, which would clearly diminish the House of Commons and lead inevitably to conflict or even a blockage between the two Houses? Until the Government address, which they have not done so far any more than the previous Government did, this fundamental question of the effect of an elected Lords on the powers and influence of the House of Commons, they really do not deserve to be taken seriously on Lords reform.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on 1911. It was a moment when the House of Lords did not act responsibly, and this House should not have confronted an elected Chamber. As for everything else that he says, these are matters for the Bill that we will publish early next year and for the debates that will ensue.
Lord Elton
My Lords, when mulling over the proceedings of this afternoon and tonight, will my noble friend bear in mind what many of us have observed over many years, which is that every Government, as they get older in government, want more power in relation to Parliament and that, in this, they are heartily supported by a Civil Service that regards Parliament as a considerable nuisance? Will he therefore, when he comes to frame a measure to remedy the present situation, avoid giving more power to the Government in relation to Parliament as a whole and reflect that this House must always supply, in control of the Government, what the other House cannot?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this Government will be different, which is why so much of our legislative programme is about devolving power to people. The localism Bill, which will be published shortly, and the Bill on elected police commissioners are all about taking power away from the Executive and handing it back to people.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, does the Minister accept that as a matter of legal interpretation, the words “popular basis” apply not only to a directly elected House but to a House that is appointed on a broad popular basis?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that is a good try. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, and I am certain that it was not in the mind of the parliamentarians who passed the 1911 Act.
Lord Tordoff
My Lords, to follow on from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—I think it is our turn here, and it is now 30 minutes.
National Security Strategy Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That a Select Committee of ten members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, to consider the National Security Strategy:
L Cope of Berkeley, L Fellowes, L Foulkes of Cumnock, L Harris of Haringey, L Lee of Trafford, B Manningham-Buller, B Ramsay of Cartvale, L Sterling of Plaistow, B Taylor of Bolton, L Waldegrave of North Hill;
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place in the United Kingdom;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers; and
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:58 - Division on Amendment 5. - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 195 - Amendment 5 agreed.
17:38 - Division on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 210 - Amendment 15 disagreed.
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
My Lords, this is my second offer of a lifeboat to the coalition. Last week, I offered one on the indicative aspect, and today I offer “before 31 October”. It does not alter the Bill in any way or force any change. The coalition can still meet their intention to have the referendum on 5 May, even if they accept my amendment. It is now 6 December. We are five months away from that date, or 20-odd weeks. Royal Assent is some time away. The Bill has to go back to the Commons in any event because there are government amendments to the Bill in your Lordships' House. They were in addition to the 286 government amendments put in the Bill in the other place, which doubled its length from 150 pages to 300 pages. Even then, they could not get it right, because they have come to this House and have already tabled amendments. It is all rush, rush, rush. They must ask themselves, “Can we do it?”. I have to say that it shows a level of faith in local government, the Electoral Commission, the weather and the parliamentary process which, in the words of “Yes Minister” is “brave”. There are 20 weeks to go, and we are on only the second day in Committee in your Lordships' House.
Do the Government have a risk analysis of this process? If not, they are not conducting public administration in the same way that most of the public bodies they are trying to abolish already do. On that assumption, I assume they have a risk analysis, and I ask them to share it with the House, perhaps in the speech that answers this amendment.
My amendment is a contingency measure. I will not argue about the referendum question; that is not the issue and we will come to that later. However, I want to make it clear, as I did last week, that this amendment does not stop the referendum taking place on 5 May. If all the things are in place, fine. The question we must ask is: what happens if they are not? What a disaster it will be if we get a bit close to the date and the Electoral Commission says: “Ten weeks to go and we have not quite got this ready”. We also have to ask ourselves about the administrative procedures that have to be gone through as issues are raised about some of the other processes of local government and the Electoral Commission. Let us leave all those aside for the minute: they are mechanical and administrative. What about the voters? How are the voters going to be dealt with at the last minute in this rush, rush, rush? There is never time to educate the public until such time as they are forced to make a decision. People want to get on with their lives—their work and their families—and they are not interested until the deadline comes. Then it will be: “Oh, I have not heard about this. What does all this mean? Does this mean that Parliament is going to change? What effect will it have? What about the misconceptions about the voting system?”. Time might well be needed by the Government to have a decent information campaign.
It is already known, following a series of YouGov polls commissioned by the Constitution Society a few months ago, that there are considerable problems about this idea. Most respondents do not understand AV. Its summary says that the yes and no votes are evenly balanced, but that exposure to information about AV increases the no votes. Perhaps that is the reason for the rush, rush, rush—because polling evidence indicates that the more people know about it, the more they are inclined to vote no. However, it has to be their choice and they must choose in a free way.
The polls also found that there are a number of widespread misconceptions about AV. Well, there are, and I think a few of those will be deployed in the coming days. The polls also indicated that the same arguments are commonly used to justify votes both for and against AV. In other words, I have only gone through half of the findings in summary form and it is clear that there is a hell of a job to do to explain to the public what all this is about. If it can not be done well before 5 May, that would be an absolute disgrace, because the Government could have plenty of opportunity to avoid having that problem if they accept my amendment.
Before 1997, some of us junior shadow Ministers were sent off to Templeton College, Oxford, for a bit of training. Needless to say, the generals did not go. Two things have always stuck in my mind from those sessions we had with ex-Ministers and ex-permanent secretaries. One was: “Always pilot a change”. That is something that would be well taken by everybody. The other one—and I cannot remember who said this without going back to my notes—was: “It is never too late to avoid making a bad decision”. I once said that to one of our Prime Ministers, by the way. The response I got across the table was: “This is not a bad decision”. The fact of the matter is that I was reminded about that. I am not saying that having a referendum is a bad decision, because if we are going to change the voting system, we have to have a referendum. I am not arguing about that. I am arguing here about the timing of it; 5 May is entrenched in the Bill. There is no get-out from that and we do not want a shambles. The Electoral Commission has already warned the other place and the Deputy Prime Minister has told a Select Committee there, though he did not give any details, about the factors that might cause a problem. However, it would be quite useful to have those teased out because we need to show the public, in case things do start to go wrong or even if it is a success, that these things were thought about beforehand.
Come the referendum, whatever the take of each side on this, that would not be any good. With the public’s misconceptions, there is evidence that we will need a decent education campaign because of what will be thrown on both sides of the argument. We cannot do that until the Bill has Royal Assent. After Second Reading, I realised that certain amounts of public expenditure can be used. Once the Government have secured a Second Reading, certain changes are triggered. But it is only after Royal Assent that the treasurers and accounting officers in local government and other institutions can say, “Hang on, this is really on”.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment 5 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 7 to 12 inclusive by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this amendment, not because I am completely relaxed about whether this referendum on the alternative vote is held on 5 May or later, because I am not. I think that there will be enormous confusion if the referendum is held on the same day as local elections. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has pointed out, this is an extremely complex matter, which is not well understood by the electorate. Therefore, we need a special day. I am not too worried when it is after the local elections on 5 May, but it should be on a separate day. I know that this would involve £15 million-worth of public expenditure at a time of austerity. But this is a very important change in our constitutional arrangements and it has to be properly debated. The people of this country have got to understand what is at stake.
If the referendum is to be wrapped up in local authority elections with certain, say, Labour campaigners saying, “Vote for your Labour candidate, but vote against the alternative vote in the referendum”—the Conservatives would be doing similar—that will be extremely confusing to the electorate. Therefore, it is important that the referendum is held on a separate day. This is a radical and important change in our electoral system, and it should not be allowed to be muddled up in the local elections. I do not think that it will be satisfactory for anyone, whatever the result of the referendum, if it goes through while the electorate do not understand what was going on. We need a separate date. We need to debate it properly and to make absolutely certain that the people of this country understand what is at stake and understand the issues involved in whether we have an alternative vote system or not. That is why it should be on a separate date and why I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his amendment.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, it would seem from what Members were saying at great length last week in a debate lasting nearly two hours, and again from what has just been said, that as a Parliament we have never had to face the prospect of two big decisions on the same day. I remind your Lordships—and I shall be interested to hear from the opposition Front Bench in a moment—that the previous Administration pushed through the referendum on London government and mayoral and Assembly legislation, with the exact same collision of votes on 7 May 1998. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, may like to comment on the following extract from a speech by his colleague Mr Nick Raynsford, who was then the responsible Minister:
“We are holding the referendum on 7 May deliberately to gain the benefits from combining the poll with local government elections. That will result in a considerable saving in public expenditure, which I would have thought all hon. Members would welcome. Separating the referendum date from the local election day would probably result in additional public expenditure of some £2 million to £3 million and could reduce voter turnout. That is not in the interests of democracy or of economy, and the Government do not intend to propose that”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/1997; col. 380]
What was right for London is apparently not right for other parts of the country. Perhaps Members on the other side think that somehow the voters of Scotland and Wales are not capable of taking two quite distinct decisions on the same day but people in London are.
Lord Rooker
I never once referred to combined elections. That is not the issue as far as my amendment is concerned; I know that others in the group are concerned with this. My question is this: what were the relevant dates for that legislation? I know the referendum the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers to was for London only and not national, but how close to the referendum did the legislation start through the two Houses? That is the point that I am raising. I am not arguing against 5 May; I am just saying that if something goes wrong between now and then, my amendment is a lifeboat and we can still have the referendum.
Lord Tyler
I can answer the noble Lord, as it happens, because I have very good brief. That Bill started its progress through the House of Commons on 28 October 1997 and was not completed until well into 1998, so it is a very similar situation to the present one. I go a step further, which is why I hope we are going to get a contribution from the opposition Front Bench. Amendment 12 specifies that this referendum should take place on the same day as the mayoral and Assembly elections in London in 2012. What is right for the goose is surely right for the gander. How can we possibly argue, as Members opposite did for hours the other night—it seemed interminable—that somehow the Scots are not capable of taking this decision on the same day when London has done so in the past, and there is a proposal, which has been supported by at least some Members opposite, to do so again in 2012? I stand up for the Scots as a fellow Celt. I think they are quite capable of taking this decision on the same day, and I hope your Lordships’ House will take the same view.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, there is a fallacy in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. There are certainly many arguments for holding these elections on the same day as elections in Scotland, Wales and England, and there are many arguments against. My point is limited to this issue. Why did Her Majesty’s Government think for a moment that it was right to come to a final determination on this matter without consulting the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? It seems to me, looking at it either with naivety or with remorseless logic, that it was either a case of negligence or a studied discourtesy. Which was it?
Lord Grocott
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has missed the point of my noble friend’s amendment, which is characteristically sensible and clever. It in no way prevents the Government from having the referendum when they want to have it. It simply gives them, as my noble friend has expressed very clearly, another lifeboat. It would have been so much simpler if we had had an indicative referendum, as has already been said, because huge chunks of this document would not have to be debated between now and 5 May, if that is when the Government want to hold the referendum. Those would be matters to consider after the indicative referendum, but the House has decided not to go ahead with that. As my noble friend said, the choice is still there for the Government to take.
I put this to the Government in as gentle a way as I can. Quite often you put documents together before an election, although on this occasion the coalition document was put together after the election. This would not be the first Government in history to find that it was not possible to enact some of their intentions. That would not be a first in British constitutional history.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My noble friend will have noticed the staunch support for Scottish wisdom given by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I am sure that the nation is grateful for that, but if the noble Lord is actually looking at the wisdom of the Scots, will he look at the last time there was a dual election in Scotland, when there were local government elections, a referendum on first past the post for local government, Scottish parliamentary elections on the alternative vote and the criticisms afterwards? It was a shambles for which the Labour Government were rightly upbraided. That is precisely the point that is being made about the potential on this occasion.
Lord Grocott
I very much agree with my noble friend. We have so many different electoral systems—five already with one proposed implicitly in this legislation and another additionally proposed if and when we come to elect the House of Lords. Before long, one will need at least a first year’s study on the British constitution to understand the various electoral systems that are being simultaneously offered to the British public. That is something that requires serious attention.
We all understand the Government’s intention. Apart from financial reasons, I would like them to explain why it is so urgent to get this dealt with by 5 May. We recognise that all too often Governments do not get what they want. That is sometimes for very good reasons. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats know a little about this at the moment in respect of student fees. When that happens, the ideal position to be in is one of some flexibility, which my noble friend offers with this amendment.
I offer one thought. I had the honour of having the responsibility in this House of trying to schedule government business in a way that was, as far as humanly possible, acceptable to the four parties to the discussions—the three political parties operating independently and the Cross-Benchers. It is an extraordinarily difficult business to achieve satisfactorily. For the life of me I cannot see how this Bill, which has not had the pre-legislative scrutiny or proper consideration for a Bill of this size—which is actually two Bills because it will become the Act that delivers the referendum, should the vote go in favour of a change in the voting system—can be considered in the time available between now and next February. It is beyond me.
We are on page 1 and I will sit down soon lest I be accused of filibustering, which I am emphatically not going to do in considering this Bill. We have another 300 pages to go. We have three more Committee sittings before Christmas. We have a half-term break scheduled. There have to be two weeks between Committee and Report on the Bill, three days between Report and Third Reading and heaven knows how many exchanges of ping-pong between the two Houses. It is quite beyond me how that can be achieved. I have not done the maths but, even if we spent all the legislative days left between now and next February on this Bill—assuming we get through, let us say, five pages a day, which would be pretty good going at the rate we are going at present—I do not see how on earth this can be delivered.
If the Government are sensible, there will not need to be any vote. If there is any reason other than the alleged saving for having all these elections on the same day, please let us hear it. The only one that I have heard is the financial argument, which we must take seriously. Of course, the best financial argument of the lot would be the one that I would offer to the Government, which is not to hold the referendum at all. Perhaps we could have the figures on that just to show the probity with which I assessed these questions of public expenditure. If there is another explanation, let us have it, but in the mean time what is conceivably lost by having the flexibility that my noble friend is offering?
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I very much support what my noble friend Lord Tyler said. I think the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gave away his game right in his last remark. I speak as a neighbour of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for goodness knows how many years in Birmingham. He is always unbelievably persuasive and I am quite often on his side, but not on this. We have here a bewildering number of dates, not just his: in addition, we have 30 June, 15 September, 6 October, 13 October and 3 May 2012.
I argue that there is a very positive reason for having it on 5 May, as proposed. I am a strong supporter of referendums, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in what I take his view to be. Against the fashion I took the view that we would be much better served as a nation had we put the big European issues to the electorate right from the beginning in referendums. I said that in my first election manifesto of 1970, so I come to it as a supporter. Following that, however, I also believe that we should have the biggest possible turnout for such a referendum. The fact that 5 May coincides with other elections I see not as a disadvantage but as an advantage. Far more people are likely to produce a good turnout on that day than, say, for a separate election in September or October, let alone in 2012. It would obviously also be far more cost-effective; the extra cost of a separate election would be eliminated.
I cannot see the advantage of what is now being proposed. With all legislation the test should be what is in the interest of the user and the consumer. In this case the consumer is the elector, and I would have thought overwhelmingly that his interest would be very much to have it on the same day. He is much more likely to go out willingly on that day, and we will achieve a much bigger vote.
At this point it is worth remembering the evidence of the Electoral Commission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It is interesting because the committee specifically sought clarification of the commission’s position on the combination of a referendum with other polls. In 2002, the commission had stated that referendums on fundamental issues of national importance should be considered in isolation. Jenny Watson, the chairman, explained that the commission had reconsidered this view and had decided that the evidence was not conclusive enough to support its earlier position that a referendum should never be combined with another poll. According to the committee:
“Ms Watson said that the Commission had decided that on balance there were definite benefits from combining the AV referendum with other polls, especially because there would not be so much ‘voter fatigue, which would be the case if you didn’t combine,”.
That was the commission’s considered opinion against a background of scepticism on this position. I agree with that. I think it is a very strong case. The question is clear and the public are entirely capable of making up their minds on this issue, and it is a bit condescending to suggest otherwise.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
The amendment is not about voting on the same day; it is about a contingency plan in the event of Parliament not being able to deliver in the timescale required to meet 5 May. I am in favour of a referendum, but it is very risky to move forward with the possibility that it could not be held because Parliament cannot deliver. Will the noble Lord address that issue?
Lord Fowler
The noble Lord has had to listen to the debate for only the short time in which we have been speaking to know that the attack is coming on several fronts at the same time. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, stuck to that particular argument, but that has not been the only argument adduced. My argument is, counter to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that all power and effort should be devoted to having the referendum on 5 May because that is to the advantage of the public and the whole system. That is how we will get the biggest possible vote, and it is for that reason that I support the 5 May date. We would be quite mistaken to turn our back on it.
Lord Lipsey
Like many other noble Lords, I did not find it easy to get in here from where I live, in Wales, this morning. I regret that I did not see the groupings suggested for these amendments in advance, because we would have done better to separate the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which would give us a contingency plan in case it was impossible to make 5 May, from the amendments that I and some other noble Lords have put forward, which suggest an alternative date. It is my view, which I shall argue again, that it is not right to have these referendums on the same day.
Before I come on to the aspect of that argument, I shall say a couple of words in response to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who is a great supporter of the alternative vote—and I am glad to have common ground with him. I did not take it terribly well when he said that the debate on this has already been interminable. It is a bit odd to say that a debate has been interminable as you jump to your feet to make a substantial contribution yourself. Leaving that to one side, I believe that this is a desperately important matter, particularly to the people of Scotland and Wales, who have some representatives on the Benches opposite. To say that we have had an interminable debate—I think that we had one of about an hour and a half the other day—suggests that this Government are uninterested in concluding debates in a civilised and thorough manner and merely want to push this Bill on to the statute book with a sort of droit de seigneur because they won the general election. So I thought that was sad.
I also did not find the noble Lord’s 1998 analogy terribly convincing. Yes, there were two separate polls in London in 1998, but they were both on local government matters—elections to the council and changes in the structure of government in London. People’s minds were on local government at that time, and it is not unreasonable to expect a combined vote on that. But here you are having local government elections at the same time as you debate what system should be used for national elections. I certainly do not underestimate voters’ intelligence; it is when Governments try to confuse them that voters get confused. There could not be any recipe more confusing to the voter than combining a referendum on what system should be used for general elections in future with one on who should run their local council tomorrow. That is a very sad combination and, on this side of the House, we have tried various ways to skin the cat and to avoid it.
The other topic that will come up on other amendments is cost; it is the only substantial argument put forward by most of the speakers for the Government for combining the two things. I except the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, from that charge. On this matter, I have just received a most helpful and polite note from the Leader of the House in response to the promise that he made last week to set out the cost in full. It sheds light on one confusion that arose last week, when nobody knew whether it would save £15 million, or whether £30 million would be saved, by having the two things on the same day. I shall paraphrase the noble Lord’s letter, and no doubt he will interrupt if I get him wrong; he said that it would save £15 million, because it would cost less to have the referendum on AV, and that it would save £15 million in addition because it would cost less to have local government elections if there was an AV referendum. My sense is that an official has sensibly not tried to get too sophisticated in the analysis and has attributed half the cost to one thing and half to the other.
That is a great clarification for which the House will be grateful. It enables us to concentrate on the wider figure. I am not going to have a discussion on whether £80 million, £50 million or £30 million is a very large sum of money. My experience is that many people do not distinguish the number of noughts on the end of a figure anyway. If I had £1 for every time the Guardian has said £1 billion when it means £1 million or £1 million when it means £1 billion, I should be rich enough to pay for the referendum out of my own back pocket.
There is a curiosity highlighted by this. If it is worth having such a referendum at a cost of around £80 million, surely it is right to pay an extra £15 million—less than 20 per cent of that—to have a referendum that really means something and settles the argument one way or the other once and for all. Penny-pinching to the tune of £15 million would not make great sense and is in danger of dumping us with an illegitimate referendum. The reality, as every Member of this House knows, is that it has nothing to do with cost. The Government want it on that day as part of a deal. The Lib Dems, wrongly in my view, think that they are more likely to win the referendum if it takes place on 5 May. It has nothing to do with cost, which is a convenient stick to beat opponents with.
So, do we think that combining referendums with local elections is a good thing? It saves money, which is a good thing. Why then, in Wales, is there to be a referendum in March and another in May? Why not combine those two? It would save money. That shows again the vacuity of the cost argument. It is not about cost. That is why the Government are prepared to pay for a referendum on Welsh legislative powers in March separate from the one in May. It is about the view of Lib Dem members of the coalition that they are more likely to win on 5 May and the Government’s view that the Lib Dems can have what they want, as long as they—the Government—get their boundary changes and a reduction in the number of MPs that will increase their advantage in the House of Commons as a result.
This is a crude political deal justified to this House as it was to the other place on arguments that have no substance. I hope that noble Lords will not back the Government in this attempt.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, first, I am a little seduced by the amendment, although I think it is a little sneaky and probably has an overtone. Secondly, I am provoked by my noble friend Lord Fowler, who said that he wishes there had been a referendum before we joined the EEC. I have to say that had there been such a referendum we would not have joined. Thirdly, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hamilton. It is the importance of the occasion and the importance of the outcome that concern me. If there is any doubt at all that that there could be confusion—I am not being patronising about electors—as a result of holding both votes on the same date, I would regret that very much. At all times we should consider the correctness of the outcome. Whichever outcome we may want, it is a matter of what the electorate want.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I agree with the noble Baroness and wish to emphasise the fact that changing the system of election does away with a system that we have had for hundreds of years. The Bill proposes to sweep that all aside on the same day as holding local elections. It is an outrageous suggestion. Changing the electoral system is a one-off instrument that will change voting in this country forever. Yet we will be asked to have a discussion of this huge constitutional change in the midst of local elections.
I was a member of a county borough council for 18 years and leader of it for a number of years. We treated our elections seriously. We spent months preparing a manifesto for the elections and went out and fought the elections on the basis of the manifestos. We in the Labour Party, and in the Conservative Party, argued our case. We went around canvassing for our policies. We spoke through loudspeakers on corners of streets to convey our message to the electorate—although I do not think that they do that now. What will we do if, first of all, we have to convince electors that they should vote for our policies—whichever our party—and, at the same time, ask them to make a decision about a vital and profound alteration to our electoral system?
As I have said before, this is an outrageous proposal which treats the electorate with contempt. The electorate are being asked to change something that they have had for 100 years. They understand the system and have got used to it. In times gone by—certainly something has happened since—the electorate were producing electoral decisions based on a very high turnout, sometimes 75 or 80 per cent. Here we are asking them to change the system without a proper discussion. This system is complex—it is a change that people will not easily understand. People deserve to be informed of exactly what results will appertain from the change and be told exactly how it will work before they can make a decision. That cannot be mixed up with local elections.
I cannot understand why the coalition is bringing this forward. It has time to make a change. Although I do not agree with the AV system, it would probably do better if it had a separate referendum at a different time so that people could be asked to understand what is being proposed. If the Government are unable to change their mind on holding the referendum at the same time as other local and regional elections, they will regret it very much. I urge them to change their minds.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. It gives me, and others, another chance to state yet again that, apart from the occasional speech, I do not find any great resistance among the Labour ranks to the actual fact of holding a referendum. There will be people who are very principled against it and I respect that. However, it has to be judged against the majority. I do not think that my noble friend’s amendment is a destructive or wrecking amendment, designed to defeat the Bill and bring the Government into chaos—although it would not take much, right enough. However, that is another story. The timing of the Bill in relation to other matters this week might split this collaboration Government. Supporting this amendment does not necessarily mean being against the referendum. I would look forward to a referendum and would participate strongly against AV. That is everybody’s right if and when it happens. I make it clear again, especially for the benefit of the Liberal Benches, that I am not against the referendum. Let the people speak and I will do my best to influence them.
Mention has been made of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, yet again aggressively mentioned what happened in Scotland. Frankly, you would need to have been there to see the shambles. It has been indicated that this is a simple thing. There was a sly reference, suggesting that, by expressing doubt about the efficacy of the referendum, we are somehow casting aspersions on our own people. The Scots are pretty good at insulting other people; we are not too bad at insulting our own as well, but do not let anybody else insult us. One had to be there in May 2007. I spoke about this last week so I will not go into too much detail about it.
I find myself being tempted down the road of dealing with the Liberals again so I will spend just a minute on them. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, uses the word “internal” about this debate. My God, this is only a very early stage. Last week, when we discussed the first group of amendments, the only Liberal who spoke was the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The Liberal Benches were otherwise silent. There was no participation, scrutiny or involvement and there were no interventions—nothing. Is that what this House is here for? There might have been an occasional intervention but they were so fleeting that I do not remember them. I see the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, indicating disagreement. I did not hear or see much involvement from the Liberal Benches last week. I think there was one intervention from the Conservative Benches from the only noble Lord who happened to be there at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. If this House is a revising Chamber, as I strongly believe it is, where was the participation? The Liberal Peers should look to their own house on that.
There was no consultation with the devolved Assemblies on holding the referendum on the same day. Before I am accused of repetition, that cannot be said often enough or sincerely enough to get across to the Government just how insulting that is held to be in Scotland. There was no consideration, no consultation and no involvement. Scotland was somehow tagged on as though it was a type of poodle at the end of Westminster. I say that although I am no Scot nat. It has been badly handled and it indicates what has been disregarded in the rush.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made some points; frankly, they could be telling. I do not dismiss in any way what he said. They are relevant matters, worth discussing. However, they are made inoperable in this sense. I have here the business and minutes of proceedings for this House. The forward business for Monday 20 December of this year—not next year—says that it is expected that the Committee stage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will conclude. That is the rush to judgment, referred to by several of my noble friends, which we could all collectively regret, although I hope not. I do not want to cite the Dangerous Dogs Act, which many noble Lords will recall. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, the rush to judgment is dangerous and it should not continue.
My noble friend Lord Rooker has mentioned the lifeboat syndrome, and that is right, because this amendment would give the Government a chance to think again. I keep coming up against a brick wall in the sense that the logical, rational side of me cannot grasp why there is this rush to legislate—a 300-page Bill being rammed through the House of Lords in a matter of weeks. Then the politician in me asks, “Why? There’s got to be a reason”. And once again we come up against the reason: the reason is political expediency. The Conservative side of the collaboration Government are desperate to get their boundaries Bill, and the Liberal part of the collaboration Government are desperate to get a referendum Bill to save their party from destroying itself even more than it is going to do this week. That is political expediency and it is to be regretted. I hope there is a legitimate response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rooker.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I would like briefly to follow up the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, when she asked the question: how important is this? It seems to me that the time taken for debate is a reflection of how important we think this issue is—although I dare say she and I would have perhaps agreed a generation or two ago on behalf of the suffragettes, had our predecessors moved more quickly to give them the vote. It seems to me that, on this issue, we need a thorough discussion about systems of voting and a consideration of how important this is with regard, for example, to elected police commissioners. I am unsure exactly what—
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
I was not making that point at all. The point I was making was not about how the case for or against the referendum was being rushed; it was simply about the date of the decision.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I apologise if I have misunderstood, but it seemed to me that the word “important” was of great significance to this issue, which will have long-term consequences for the way the whole of our political system develops—probably much greater than, for example, elected police commissioners. As I was going to say, however, I would be interested to know what system they are to be elected under—maybe an additional system to add to the ones we have got.
The importance of this issue is greater than considerations of cost—not only because it is not a once-in-a-generation but a once-in-three-generations decision, but also because of the unintended consequences. The consequences might be desirable or they might be undesirable: how we as political parties—which is most of us in the House, although obviously not all— do our politics; how we organise; how we campaign; how we select candidates. All those sorts of issues have yet to be thought through. I was very against my own party’s decision—I am very sorry; I see that I have upset the Front Bench in front of me—to bring in a closed voting system for the European elections. I thought they were wrong, I told them they were wrong, I threatened that I would not vote Labour if they brought that system in. But the women who had called for the vote for women for so long would never forgive me if I did not vote, and I knew that my hand would drop off if I did not vote Labour, so eventually I did. But I thought that the system was wrong, and I maintain it was wrong. What is important, however, is how that has made a difference to how we do our politics. So even if I was wrong and the system chosen was the perfect one, it had consequences for the way that we campaign, for the way that we select and, indeed, for the power of the parties. I think that it gave far too much power to parties in the selection of candidates. We had not had time on that occasion to think through and talk about it. I believe that my party was wrong in doing it at that stage.
However, before we cast our votes in the referendum, I believe that we need a debate on how these different systems have worked. How have the Welsh and Scottish systems worked? How has it worked in Northern Ireland, where there has been a local government system for a long time? How is the European system working? We need that debate and therefore it seems to me important to give us time before we come to this decision. We need time to debate the matter in this House—although we are privileged and that is a luxury—but even more important is to make time for the electorate to consider this important question before we ask it to make such an important decision.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I fear that a number of important issues are all too liable to become confused in the minds of electors on 5 May if the referendum is held on the same date as the local elections. The Government are understandably preoccupied with advancing their policy of a referendum in which the people of this country will be offered a choice as to the future system of elections to the House of Commons. It is a profoundly important issue. Also to be held on that day are local elections, which are profoundly important as well. We ought to keep the interests of local government in the forefront of our minds, as there is a question about respect for local government that we should consider very carefully. However, perhaps I may come back to that point in a second.
Whichever side of the argument we may be on—in favour or against the alternative vote system—and whichever side we are on in the argument about whether there should be some sort of change to the system of electing Members of Parliament, I think we all agree that this is a momentous issue of the utmost importance. It is also an issue that will be considered only on very rare occasions in our political life. I believe that there is a compelling case for keeping the nation’s deliberations on that issue distinct from the deliberations on other important issues that are to be put to the vote. Therefore, in the interests of clarity and wise decision-taking, and, as my noble friend Lord Rooker put it to us, in the interests of simply not rushing the process, there seems to be a very strong case for holding the referendum separately from, and later than, the local government elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, argued in favour of holding the two elections on the same day precisely on the basis that the referendum is extremely important and that it would be most unsatisfactory if it were to be determined on a low turnout. However, I put it to the noble Lord that there is a better and more reliable means of ensuring that there is an adequate turnout, which is to introduce a threshold requirement into this legislation. That is a debate for another day but I think we shall have that debate. Personally, I hope very much that Parliament will conclude that we should not change anything so fundamental in our constitution as our system of elections to the House of Commons on a derisory turnout, that we should insist on a requirement for a minimum percentage of those entitled to vote and that, if that minimum percentage is not reached, there will be no change to the system. I think that that is a better way to secure the entirely valid objective of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.
Perhaps I may come back for a moment to the question of respect for local government. One sadness of my political life is that in all the years that I have been in one House of Parliament or another I have seen local government disparaged and demeaned, and, if I may say so, that has been all too characteristic of Parliament and of Governments of all parties over a long period. We are at risk of showing insufficient consideration and respect for the validity and importance of the local elections on 5 May next year. One understands why in the mid-1970s central government felt that they had to move to restrict some of the more exciting activities of local government. Indeed, one Secretary of State said that the party was over.
But the Treasury—above all, the Treasury, I believe—exploited that opportunity quite ruthlessly. Expenditure in this country and power in this country are, in a way, a zero-sum game, and the Treasury was deeply resentful of any fiscal independence on the part of local government and of any independent rights that local government might have to raise money. So we saw increasing restrictions. We saw capping. We saw limits on borrowing. We saw an increasing tendency of government to ring-fence the grant to local government through specific grants. All of this has been profoundly bad for our democratic culture in this country. If there is an alienation from our politics in this country then I believe that, in important measure, it stems from this source. Therefore I think that we should always think very carefully about the standing of local government, the dignity of local government and, indeed, the independence of local government to act as a check and a balance within our constitution and within the power structure of this country.
To muddle up the issues on 5 May next year could with some justification be interpreted as cynical and as far too characteristic of the habitual attitude of central government and, I fear, of Parliament to local government. For that reason also, therefore, it would be unfortunate if the two sets of elections were to be held on the same day next spring or early summer. However, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker is not prescriptive in this particular matter. It allows a margin of flexibility. It allows the Government to reflect carefully on whether it is wise to hold the referendum on the same day as the local elections. As my noble friend said, it also provides a contingency margin so that, if we do indeed find that the preparations cannot be advanced with sufficient speed and the conditions in which the referendum would be held would be unsatisfactory, the Government can with dignity adjust the date and we can still go ahead with the referendum on this extremely important issue, but we can do so in a sensible set of circumstances. So I hope that the House will be willing to support my noble friend Lord Rooker if he presses his amendment this afternoon.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I rise with one intention only: to ask a specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and ask him to deal with it in his response. In asking it I should declare an interest as one of the political panel drawn from all the political parties, from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, who act as advisers and information givers to the Electoral Commission.
At the moment the Electoral Commission believes that it is possible to hold these elections on joint dates without problems. Along with everyone else, however, it acknowledges—I think this was the key point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker—that problems could arise; and if they do arise, that will have a major impact on how well the referendum—or indeed the elections, but particularly the referendum—is held.
If in the course of events the Electoral Commission decides that it is not able to conduct a referendum in a manner that is acceptable to both national and international standards, will the Government put off the referendum to another date? That is an important question and I hope the noble Lord will address it with some care.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I want to follow that specific question. I am pleased that my noble friend was able to intervene before me. It is not just a question of whether the Electoral Commission would recommend that the date be changed; it is whether the Government for other reasons might wish to change the date of the referendum. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that in 2001 a Government had to defer elections due to the foot and mouth crisis. All over the country, returning officers were arguing with their local authorities that it would be impractical, because of problems at polling stations, to carry out polling on that particular day. In addition to the question asked by my noble friend, I would therefore like to know what would happen in those circumstances.
In Clause 4(7) of the Bill there is reference to,
“Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (postponement of poll at parish elections etc) does not apply to any polls taken together under subsection (1)”,
and subsection (1)(b) refers specifically to,
“a local referendum in England”.
So I think that we should have some assurance about what would happen in the emergency circumstances that might arise.
I had to leave the Chamber for personal reasons during the course of a couple of speeches, but I understand that reference was made to our alleged inconsistency in these matters. I would like to draw the House’s attention to the then Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill which was considered by Parliament earlier this year—a Bill produced by the then Labour Government. Under Clause 29 of that legislation we find my noble friend's amendment. Under “Referendum on voting systems”, it states:
“A referendum is to be held, no later than 31 October 2011, on the voting system for parliamentary elections”.
In other words, we showed in our Bill the flexibility that my noble friend seeks to establish in this Bill. Our position is perfectly consistent with the position that we took earlier this year.
I am very pleased to see a large number of Cross-Benchers in the Chamber today. The other day we debated an aspect of this Bill, when some of us were a little concerned that the Cross-Benchers had perhaps not been able to hear the debate. That is the insufficiency of consideration that has been given to the effectiveness of the electoral system proposed in this Bill. There is a lot of evidence out there to suggest that the optional multi-preference election system under the alternative vote system—which applies not in Australia generally in its federal Parliament arrangements, but only in one state, Queensland—is flawed. There has been a lot of academic work to prove that. In later stages of the Bill I will bring forward evidence, on the basis of international evidence which we have been able to collate, to dismantle systematically the case made for that system.
Even this morning I received a paper on STV which applies under the Scottish system for local elections. The interesting thing about STV in Scotland is that when a by-election takes place there it triggers an AV election. In other words, within the United Kingdom we have examples of AV operating which have not been fully considered by Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, drew my attention to that the other day—he nods his head. What happened in those 32 by-elections in Scotland will be of great interest to the House when we produce that information. This morning I received a document, whose authors are Professor David Denver of Lancaster University, Dr Alistair Clark of Belfast and Dr Lynn Bennie of Aberdeen, on the operation of the STV system in Scotland—not on AV as it applies in individual constituencies when there is a by-election.
More work needs to be done on the electrical system proposed in the Bill before Parliament finally decides what the system should be. Furthermore, in the event that we proceed with the system proposed in the Bill, there should be time for a full public debate before any referendum takes place within the United Kingdom.
Lord Rennard
The noble Lord seems to suggest again, as have a number of noble Lords, that there simply has not been sufficient time to consider the relative merits of electoral systems and in particular AV. Is the noble Lord aware that a royal commission recommended the adoption of the AV system in 1910; that an all-party Speaker’s Conference made the same recommendation in 1917; and that the House of Commons voted for the introduction of the alternative vote system in 1931? Does he consider that this is perhaps the only place where 100 years is deemed inadequate time for consultation before voters are allowed to say how their representatives should be chosen?
Lord Campbell-Savours
That is the intervention of someone who has not done all his homework. It is true that AV was considered, but not in the form that is proposed in the Bill. That is at the heart of my argument. It is a different system. There are three major systems available under the alternative vote and the historic debate in this country has taken place on the Australian system, where it is compulsory to vote. Indeed, if you do not exercise all your votes, under the Australian AV system, your vote is discounted, not even taken into account.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am very grateful to my noble friend, who has certainly done his homework and research very carefully indeed. Have I been advised correctly that the type of AV system that the Government propose should be used for elections to our House of Commons is found elsewhere in the world only in Papua New Guinea and Fiji? Has my noble friend, in the course of his research, found any lessons of more general application from those two laboratory experiments, which may be useful for us to think about as we consider an appropriate system for use in this country in the future?
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have identified those areas, but I think that the more relevant results are those in Queensland in Australia and in Scotland, which we will go through in some detail as we proceed on the Bill.
Lord Campbell-Savours
As I say, I have spent the last weekend talking to people throughout Scotland about how it operates and it is very surprising to see how it operates.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, may I have the temerity to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who correctly told us when it was last discussed, that a lot of us here, and, indeed, in the country, were not around at that time?
Lord Campbell-Savours
At this stage, I shall resume my seat and await later opportunities to discuss these matters.
Baroness McDonagh
I thank noble Lords who have come back to this issue of confusion. Can we knock on the head, once and for all, the suggestion that we are calling people stupid? People are not quite as obsessed by politics as we are and I always thought that it was the role of this House to look at legislation, to look at how it would work out in the country, in the community, in our experience, and bring back any concerns before legislation is passed. That is what we are doing. We are not, for a moment, calling anyone stupid. On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, thought that in changing his parliamentary constituency in Scotland, he had also changed his European parliamentary constituency. I would not, for a second, call him stupid just because he does not appreciate that Scotland has only one European constituency.
I take this opportunity to ask about the 12 cities that are holding a referendum for mayor. I understand that some might be put off until 2012, but will the Minister tell us exactly where we are on that and, indeed, when the localism Bill will enter the House? Before I move off this issue of confusion, I say only that, if we are not careful—this is a serious point—we could end up having more spoilt ballot papers than the majority of votes, either for or against, under the alternative vote referendum. Given the legality of the Bill, there will be deep problems.
Who are we expecting to convey the arguments on the doorstep, if we proceed with an election in May? I would like to see anyone here get together a group of councillors facing re-election. These people are now going through very difficult times, having to cut something like 30 per cent of their budgets over the next four years. There will be serious cuts in adult services, child services and street cleaning, and some people may be moving to fortnightly waste collections. Any idea that you are going to knock on the door and explain that to the public and then say, “By the way, let’s have a chat about the alternative vote referendum”, is not living in the real world. I would like to be a fly on the wall in a room when anybody here attempts to do that. Without people on the ground being active in campaigns, be they for referenda or elections, they are not democratic election.
It seems rather ironic to have a referendum on our democracy at a time when there are elections in some parts of the country and not in others. By that very fact, you will skew—
Lord Tyler
Would the noble Baroness like to turn to Amendment 12, which is in this group? As I understand it, she is proposing that this referendum should take place on the same day as the mayoral and London Assembly elections, so she is now arguing against her own amendment. Will she come to that amendment in due course?
I know the noble Baroness has been extremely influential in her party. Does she recall that on a number of occasions her Government decided to have a general election to the House of Commons on the same day as local elections? Were those not the circumstances that she is now criticising?
Baroness McDonagh
I thank the noble Lord. He is right, and I never have a problem saying when I am in the wrong. When I laid the amendment, I did so to give us more time to debate it. I think the noble Lord is quite right, and I am happy to withdraw that amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that the fact that a number of us are tabling different amendments is causing confusion. If the Benches opposite want to join us and support either Amendment 5 or Amendment 6, I would be happy to withdraw all my amendments, and I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
I think it is ironic to have a referendum on democracy on a day when we are having some elections and not others. Not having an election in London will depress the turnout, and there will be a variable result across the country. Therefore, I will support any amendment not to have a referendum on the same day as any other election, and I will appreciate answers to the questions I asked.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Rooker in his amendment and to speak equally briefly to the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady McDonagh. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on his great debating point. I thought he showed enormous courage by making it. Having just been blown out of the water by my noble friend Lord Lipsey, to bounce back so quickly indicates a degree of perhaps reckless courage, but courage nevertheless.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, intervened to tell us what took place about AV in 1911 and subsequently. I have watched the career of the noble Lord with some interest. He has been better at fixing by-elections than at participating in them in his time as chief executive of the Liberal Democrats, but let us bring him bang up to date so far as AV is concerned, and particularly as far as your Lordships' House is concerned. As recently as 1998, AV was denounced as “disturbingly unpredictable” by no less a personage than the late Roy Jenkins. I cannot claim any close association with Roy Jenkins, although I was his Whip in the 1970s, and a pretty tough job that was, but I appreciate that he commanded enormous respect in both Houses of Parliament.
I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I know he is a notable personage in the Conservative Party, but his was the first Back-Bench speech I have heard in favour of this Bill. The Conservative Party normally sits mute during the passage of this legislation because it knows full well what it is about. I do not think I am betraying any secrets in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler and I had a long and friendly parliamentary relationship in the other place. Now that we can both escape from the wrath of our respective activists, I can say that we were paired for some years in the other place. I never knew he was a secret referendum addict during that time—not that it would have made any difference, of course, but I thought that his speech was at least supportive of this Bill.
I do not want to delay the House unduly, or to repeat anything that I said in debates last week. However, on AV and its possible complications, I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who will reply to this debate, owes the House a detailed explanation as to how exactly voters—and particularly the Scots—will be able to differentiate between the various elections and look at AV as well. He shakes his head: as a Scot, I know he would be delighted to tell me.
Actually, I thought this debate would be replied to from the government Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, so I have a proposition to put to him which I hope his noble friend will pass on. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I have one thing in common. He used to represent my hometown of Stockport in the Labour interest in those days, before apostasy became fashionable. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, believes that the alternative vote system is a simple one, and that we are being condescending and patronising to the electorate by saying it deserves a proper and full debate and a date on its own to be voted on, let me issue this challenge. I invite him to walk with me through the streets of Stockport next Saturday morning and ask two questions of anybody we come across. First, are you in favour of the alternative vote system; and, secondly, could you tell me what it is? Perhaps we could ask a third question as well: would you mind accompanying us to watch Stockport County? That is where I will be heading.
I do not want to extend that same invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, because I suspect he is not a round ball man. However, if he would pass the invitation on to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I would be grateful. If he could tell your Lordships’ House—all of us, and particularly the Cross Benchers—how it is possible to make such a fundamental change to our electoral system on the same day as there are numerous other elections taking place, without causing massive confusion from one end of the United Kingdom to the other, I would be even more grateful.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House a practical question? Having sat through the debate on Amendment 5, which has lasted now an hour and 20 minutes, and bearing in mind that there is a great deal more of this Committee stage, is it actually practical for the Government to have 5 May as the date for this referendum?
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, I support the proposition of my noble friend Lord Rooker. When I came into this House a couple of months ago, I was told very quietly that this is a reflective Chamber, and we take our time here and mop up the mistakes made in the House of Commons by looking at Bills in a detailed way. If there ever is an opportunity to caw canny, as they say in Scotland, I think it is this amendment today. My noble friend Lord Rooker said it would not change anything; it would still give the Government freedom to decide when to have the referendum. When I participated as a very keen observer in the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007, in the constituency across the River Clyde from me there were 1,600 discarded and spoiled votes. The majority of our win was less than 100. The SNP then went on to govern Scotland as a result of a shambolic election. I spoke to the returning officers, and they said that it was done too quickly: that too many pressures were piled on them and that situation was the result. As my noble friend Lord McAlvoy has said, the debate here will end on 20 December until next year. All that administrative stuff has to be undertaken after the legislation has been passed. I fear that we could have another shambles as a result.
There is time for us to tell the Government that we can slow down. This is a radical Government in terms of the welfare reforms that they are implementing. A couple of months ago, the Chancellor stood in the House of Commons and pulled £17 billion from the hat. We do not know where those welfare reforms will hit. We know that there is a child benefit threshold for higher rate taxpayers. But last Thursday, the Treasury sneaked out a report stating that another 100,000 people will be taken into the higher rate tax threshold because it has been lowered by £1,400. As a former chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, I say that the problems are piling up for this Government and that they will be answered in perhaps a year or 15 months’ time.
It was the same in the House of Commons when the then Chancellor who went on to be Prime Minister abolished the 10 pence tax rate. I remember saying, “When you do anything in the tax system”, as noble Lords know, “there are always winners and there are always losers. Have you thought about the losers?”. At the time, the Government did not think about the losers. I suggest that there will be losers in the radical legislative proposals that this Government have put forward and that the questions will beg answers in one year or more.
Some problems are being played out at the moment; for example, tuition fees. I am a good friend of the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, but to say that he is standing on his head in terms of tuition fees is an understatement. My former friend Ann Widdecombe has shown us something on “Strictly Come Dancing” that Vince has not done on the tuition fees—simply because the problem has not been thought out.
My noble friend Lord Donoughue was in Downing Street with Jim Callaghan and has written an excellent book. He said that Jim Callaghan as Prime Minister had a “maybe man” in Downing Street. The Government might have had a policy, which they were going to implement, and the “maybe man” said, “Hold on. What are the implications of this?”. This is a “maybe man” moment in this Chamber, so that my noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendment gets the opportunity to be reflected on and the Government do not run headlong into a shambles of their own making.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is the sort of opportunity that the Government should take. My noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendment is modest and sensible. He is saying that it would be possible for the Government to have the referendum on any date between 5 May and 31 October 2011. He is not addressing the combination issue; nor is he addressing how long it would take to have proper debates. He is saying, “Give yourselves some flexibility”.
There are obviously two reasons for flexibility. The first is in relation to the administration of the election. In relation to the administration of the referendum, the Electoral Commission believes that,
“on balance … it should be possible to deliver the different polls proposed for 5 May 2011”.
I am quoting the chairman of the Electoral Commission when giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament. It is to be noted that that conclusion, she says, is expressly contingent upon “the key practical risks” being “properly managed”. The Electoral Commission has several times repeated that,
“the rules on how the referendum will be conducted must be clear from at least six months in advance”.
We are now less than six months in advance from the date of the referendum. It has added that,
“provided the Bill receives Royal Assent in time to allow a referendum period of at least 10 weeks, there will be adequate time for the Commission to register campaigners and designate lead campaigning organisations, and for campaigners to put the arguments to voters”.
Put neutrally, it is pretty obvious that there is a significant risk that the administration will not be ready by 5 May 2011. That should be looked at in the context of the Government not having consulted, before they chose 5 May 2011, either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The Scottish Executive expressed the view that holding the referendum on 5 May 2011,
“shows a lack of respect for the devolved administrations”,
and,
“undermines the integrity of elections to the Scottish Parliament”.
As everybody knows, the Welsh Assembly Government are likewise opposed to holding the referendum on the same day as the Assembly elections.
The Select Committee of this House published its seventh report of the Session 2010-11. It was printed on 10 November 2010 and its cross-party unanimous conclusion was:
“Given that the Bill was introduced in the House only six months before the proposed referendum date, there is a danger that these deadlines will not be met”.
The obvious and sensible conclusion for the Government is to give themselves leeway if they cannot meet the deadlines, either because of organisational issues or issues in relation to scrutiny. A Government who say no to that are a Government in their early days. If they were more sensible, they would say, “Yes, I see the force of the argument and we will agree to that”. If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pushes the matter to a vote, we will support it.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we have had another series of interesting debates, largely on the same issue that we discussed the other night—the question of the date. Noble Lords who were there will have recognised that many of the issues that were raised last week were raised again today. I make no great criticism of that. It is inevitable in the early stages of discussing a Bill. The only surprise is that nobody, in an hour and a half of debate, mentioned a subject that was raised several times last week—that of the royal wedding. So as far as I can see, we have moved a great step forward over the course of the past week.
The debate really divided into three groups of speakers. First, there were those who were against the amendment and in favour of the Government’s proposal. Secondly, there were those like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who sensed that the Government were doing the right thing in offering a referendum but that they have not thought through all the various contingencies and needed some help and support—the word “lifeboat” was used and that sort of language. And thirdly, there were those like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, my noble friend Lord Hamilton, and one or two others, who were opposed to the referendum and opposed to AV, and they also would support the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
There is another group as well. There is a group of us who passionately support a reform of the electoral system.
Lord Strathclyde
Yes, there is a fourth group which supports a reform of the electoral system but not this reform. But this amendment is about the date, and all those who will support the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, if he presses it to a vote, have understood that by accepting this amendment, in practice the referendum cannot take place on 5 May. Amendment 5 does not specify an alternative appropriate day. Setting the date in the Bill, as we have done, gives certainty to those involved in the planning and campaigning. I could not help thinking during the course of the debate that if the Government had published a Bill with no date, noble Lords opposite would be the first to get up and say, “How outrageous this is. How can anybody campaign? This is the Government making it up as they go along”.
We decided on 5 May because it is the best date. It is when 84 per cent of the population will already be going to the polls. Or I should say that 84 per cent of the population will have the opportunity of going to the polls—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is right to admonish me on that. I made the argument last week and I make it again: it will save us a great deal of money—something like £30 million—if we go ahead on the day that we have decided.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that people will be confused. There is a lot of outrage in the House today about this sense of confusion. As my noble friend Lord Tyler said, people have no difficulty in voting in local elections and general elections on the same day. In this House, we are used to making lots of decisions every day, but the poor people outside are not so blessed with our brains and will find it much more difficult. I think not. People are well capable of deciding who should represent them in terms of local government, the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament. They are able to decide on a simple yes or no whether they wish to have AV. I have no truck with these arguments about confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made a point that was echoed by one or two other noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about whether it was negligence or discourtesy that we had not consulted the other parliaments and assemblies in the United Kingdom. The Government wanted to make an announcement on a national basis on a given day to Parliament. Even if it was a lack of respect, should we change the date just because of that lack of respect, if there is no other reason not to continue?
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Granted that the Government had a total conviction that it should be 5 May and nothing else, would it however not have been courteous, chivalrous and statesmanlike to have consulted the Parliament of Scotland and the Assembly of Wales?
Lord Strathclyde
I am sure that it would have been all of those things, but none is a reason not to have the referendum on 5 May. That is the point.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked whether, if we carried on like this, there was any prospect of getting this legislation through not just by the end of January but by the end of January 2020. I have my doubts as well. Of course, that gives the lie to the accusation that we are not debating these issues thoroughly. We could not debate these issues more thoroughly than we have done over the past day and a half in Committee.
Before us is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who offered us the date “before 31 October”. In the same group we are offered 30 June, 15 September, 6 October and 13 October, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, offered us 3 May 2012. It is a smorgasbord of opportunity. I am grateful to noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who have been constructive and helpful by saying that we should save ourselves with this lifeboat of an alternative. However, I am entirely satisfied that, with the evidence from the Electoral Commission and the debates within the Government, we are perfectly capable of holding this referendum on 5 May.
I have one other concern. The real unspoken reason why so many noble Lords opposite are against—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I apologise for interrupting, but the noble Lord appears to be moving on. The heart of the argument expressed by the Select Committee in this House is that there is a significant risk that the date will not be reached. If that is wrong, you can have your referendum on 5 May. Could the noble Lord possibly, out of respect to the committee, answer its point?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if there is a risk, it is minimal. We have had the evidence from the Electoral Commission, which believes it is possible and has given evidence to noble Lords on that basis.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Its words were “on balance”. Minimal was the noble Lord’s word.
Lord Strathclyde
Whether it is “on balance” or “minimal” we think it is perfectly possible to have the referendum on 5 May, which is why I have set out the case during this short debate.
Lord Soley
I am going to invite the noble Lord to answer my question on this—he took a great deal of interest in it when I was asking it. It is a sort of module in his academic progress.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, did indeed ask me a question. He asked—I wrote it down—“What happens if the Electoral Commission declares that the referendum cannot be held to an effective standard because of late changes to legislation?” The Electoral Commission has declared itself satisfied with progress so far. There is no reason why that progress should not continue. The conduct schedules to the Bill are based on tried-and-tested election rules. There is nothing new, nothing revolutionary, everything has been done before. It is on that basis that we do not accept that problems will arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was trying to get in but he has had a change of mind, for which I am very grateful. He does not have to intervene.
Lord Grenfell
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Has there been a change of heart in the Electoral Commission in this case? How recent is the evidence it has now given that in fact it is happy with the progress made on this? What happens if, in the weeks to come, it is no longer happy? Will there then be a case for the Government to change their mind about the date?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, its opinion is rock solid. It has every confidence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Electoral Commission says:
“It is possible to successfully deliver these different polls on 5 May but only if the risks associated with doing so are properly managed”.
Upon that edifice does the non-round ball man, as he is described, rest his whole case.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, asked whether the Electoral Commission was going to change its mind. I said that it is not going to change its mind because it is rock solid. It has made the assessments, done the research and taken a view. We have accepted that. None of the amendments so far would give us cause to change that view. All these issues were debated in the elected House—in another place. We have had substantial votes on the changing of the date and the different structures of different electoral systems.
What concerns me most is that many noble Lords, who are opposed to this Bill, oppose it because it is one of the political ideas that binds this coalition. In opposing this they see a valuable weapon in bringing down the coalition. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his kind offer of a lifeboat; I hope he will take it in the spirit in which it is intended if I cannot accept it and very much hope he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness McDonagh
The noble Lord did not answer my questions about whether there would be any mayoral or local referendums on the same day as this referendum.
Lord Strathclyde
Yes, my Lords, there will be local referendums on this day. There are a number of elections. It might be helpful to noble Lords if I read them out. With the voting systems referendum, there will be elections for the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish Assembly. There will be local elections in England, in 36 metropolitan boroughs and 49 unitary authorities; in some of these, one-third are up for election, and some are all up. Then there are the 194 second-tier districts in England. In other words, 279 local authorities will run elections in England. There will be local elections in Northern Ireland and mayoral elections—that was what the noble Baroness was after—in four local authorities in England: those of Bedford, Middlesbrough, Mansfield and Torbay. Then, of course, there will be parish elections in England.
Baroness McDonagh
That was not my question. My question was whether this May there will be any local referendums on whether an area has a mayoral election and a mayoral system. Twelve were due to take place in May in our largest cities, and the Government considered putting them off for a year. Some of that will be dealt with in the localism Bill, but no one knows when that Bill will enter the other House. The Government seem to be in a lot of confusion and to be having difficulties with their legislation at the moment. Will all or some of the 12 local city referendums take place in May, or will they be put back to 2012?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am glad for that clarification. I did not fully understand the noble Baroness’s question. The answer is yes—it is likely that there will also be some local, mayoral referendums in England on 5 May, which will be run on the same boundaries as the referendum and local authorities. We have included provision to allow for those polls to be combined with the referendum.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The noble Lord very kindly gave us a list of areas where there will be elections, but perhaps he could give us a list of the areas where there will not be elections. Clearly, London is omitted from that list. Is he suggesting that because of the capital’s enthusiasm for one side or another in this argument, Londoners will somehow troop gaily out to the polls when they have no other reason to do so?
Lord Strathclyde
There will be no elections in the areas that I did not mention. The noble Lord may feel that Londoners will be uninterested, but I have complete faith that the campaigns for yes and no will be able to get Londoners out on this important issue.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, without being personal in any way, can I say that I am really looking forward to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, answering one of these debates? His name is on the Bill, but he has not really played much of a part as the leading member of the coalition here.
Lord Strathclyde
It is a long Bill, and an awful lot of noble Lords on the other side want to ask us questions. My noble friend and I, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have divided up the Bill and will speak at later stages.
Lord Rooker
I really appreciate the fact that the Leader of the House is taking a detailed role in the passage of the Bill. That being so, he has more clout than the others and therefore could have asked for better briefing. Where is the list of risks? Do not tell me that there is no group of Ministers or civil servants assessing the risks of this measure. If there is not, there will be one hell of a row, because every other public body has a risk assessment of things that can go wrong. It is implicit that in the conduct of public administration there should be an assessment of the risks, but there is no mention of that. There is a fixation on certainty instead. I do not mind that; I am just offering the Government a degree of flexibility on the practicalities. I deliberately did not refer to any of the other amendments on the dates. I do not want to get involved in this debate about the combination of referendums, elections and other dates. I would settle for 5 May, no problem, but is it practical?
In paragraph 24 of the Constitution Committee report, to which my noble friend referred briefly, the Electoral Commission said:
“Provided the Bill receives Royal Assent in time to allow a referendum period of at least 10 weeks, there will be adequate time for the Commission to register campaigners and designate”,
lead campaigners.
My point is that until Royal Assent, not a lot of money can be spent, in the education process, to cover the problems that the public might have. That recent poll was not undertaken 100 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard said; it was undertaken by YouGov for the Constitution Society in only August/September this year. The issue is that 10 weeks before 5 May takes us to 24 February, and this House is in recess on that day. We rise on 16 February and are not back until 28 February, so we have lost even more. We are back after Christmas for fewer than six weeks until 16 February.
All I am saying is that we should consider the risk of uncertainties. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned foot-and-mouth disease, and I was involved in some of the meetings at which there were big debates about what to do about the general election. Everyone knew that local elections and general elections were supposed to happen but there were hot discussions in the Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about them. We had a degree of flexibility, but the fact is that no one had planned for foot and mouth. We did not plan for the one in 2007, which was completely self-inflicted. We could have a problem and all I am saying is that, leaving aside some of the issues raised by colleagues, we ought to build in flexibility.
I shall not go through all the debates, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. It is not a sneaky amendment; it is seductive, if you like—I prefer seductive. If she wants sneaky, there is one much further on in the Bill; it came out of last week’s debate and I fully accept that it could be classed as sneaky. I am trying to give the Government the opportunity to have flexibility. All Governments want it; local government wants it. It was in my mind that 31 October had been referred to somewhere. I had forgotten that it was in the Constitutional Reform Bill. The previous Government introduced a Bill without a date—they said that it should be before 31 October.
I have not talked to anyone in the Electoral Commission, although I went to a meeting the other week at which it could not answer some of the questions put by noble Lords. However, this amendment could not possibly cause the Electoral Commission one iota of concern. The date of 5 May is still a runner. That is the Government’s intention, Parliament’s assumption and the assumption that we want everyone outside to make. There is a degree of certainty. No one will say that it is deliberate, but things can happen outside the control of local government, the private sector and central government. It does not really matter; one can think these things up, which is why I am sad to say that we have not had the list from the risk committee that has been discussed in government. I cannot believe that this has not been dealt with somewhere.
We have not had a good response. I have no intention of pushing this, as there are other issues that I want to talk about, but on this amendment I will test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, before putting Amendment 5, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to, or indeed if Amendment 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 7 to 12 inclusive due to pre-emption.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“( ) The date of the referendum shall not coincide with any poll or polls for any parliamentary assembly or regularly held local government elections.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, Amendment 15, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bach, concerns the combination issue, which has been debated on a number of occasions.
The speed with which the Bill has been put together has been justly criticised. One consequence of the haste has been a lack of consultation on the date of the proposed referendum. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were not consulted about the date, and during the debate on the previous amendment I read to noble Lords the view that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly took on that matter.
The poll, as proposed, will be on 5 May next year. On that date, elections are already scheduled for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, 279 local authorities in England and 26 local councils in Northern Ireland, as well as some mayoral elections. Thanks to the questions asked by my noble friend Lady McDonagh, who sadly is not in her place, we have learnt that, although the legislation has not yet been passed, there will in addition in certain places be a number of referendums on whether there should be mayors. Therefore, 5 May will be a busy electoral day for the vast majority of the British public, even without a referendum vote, and it will be made all the more busy if the poll on changing the electoral system goes ahead on 5 May as well.
We are not suggesting for one moment that voters will be unable to vote in more than one poll at once, but the potential for confusion and administrative complexity must be acknowledged. In its assessment of a combination of referendums and elections, the Electoral Commission pointed to risks arising from different regulatory regimes running concurrently. These regulations can refer to spending limits and also to the make-up of the electoral register. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes informed us in Committee last Monday, overseas voters, for example, are on the parliamentary franchise but not on the local government franchise, whereas citizens of European countries living in the United Kingdom are on the local government franchise but not on the parliamentary one.
Campaigning for the multitude of votes on 5 May 2011 will also cause a muddle. The election campaigns for the local and devolved assemblies will be held on a party basis but the campaign for the referendum will be cross-party. I may be of the same opinion as many noble Lords opposite when it comes to deciding whether we should adopt the alternative vote system for elections to the House of Commons but, should I meet the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the streets of London, I do not believe that we will be arguing for the same party candidate to be returned. On reflection, no party candidates will be returned in London because there will be no voting in London, so I shall be very confused if I am there.
The Gould report on the 2007 elections in Scotland identified the combination of polls as one of the most controversial aspects of the votes that took place on 3 May 2007. Gould concluded in his report:
“If local issues and the visibility of local government candidates are viewed as a primary objective, then separating the Scottish parliamentary from the local government elections is necessary in order to avoid the dominance of campaigns conducted for the Scottish parliamentary contests. In addition, separating the two elections would result in minimising the potential for voter confusion”.
The issues surrounding the local and devolved elections already scheduled deserve the space to be debated and aired without the distraction of totally different matters relating to the referendum. Similarly, if the arguments surrounding the merits or demerits of changing the voting system for the House of Commons are to be fully discussed and understood, they need their own time and space as well. Changing the voting system is a major and significant constitutional reform. It should not get lost among campaigns and arguments.
We believe that our argument for no combination of polls is strengthened given the circumstances in which the date of the referendum vote came about—five days of coalition negotiation and we are told that there is to be a vote on 5 May 2011. It is the sort of thing where it would be useful to consult more widely and then come to a sensible conclusion about the date. Despite knowing that the devolved Assemblies would be voting on this day, neither Scotland, Wales, as I have said, nor Northern Ireland has been consulted on the referendum date. Alex Salmond wrote to the Prime Minister in the following terms:
“I believe that your proposals to hold a referendum on the same day undermines the integrity of the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These elections are of profound importance to our citizens and I believe they have the right to make their electoral choices for the respective devolved chambers without the distraction of a parallel referendum campaign on the UK voting system”.
The Welsh Assembly Government have been similarly scathing. The fear of distraction from other polls to be held on 5 May was the motivation behind the Welsh Assembly’s decision not to hold its own referendum on extending powers to the Assembly on the same day as Assembly elections.
The cross-party Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has noted opposition to the combination of polls. It has quoted the matters I have identified from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and agrees with that sentiment.
There is a critical issue which all of those issues are but an expression of. Our Constitution Committee said that if you have an election on the same day as other elections, even assuming that you can get through the issue of confusion, there is evidence showing that the reform issue will be swamped by the issue of who you want to have as your elected representative, whether it be in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the local authority. That is what the evidence shows.
I understand why those negotiating the coalition agreement five days after the election were unaware of that evidence. However, now that we know that the experts are saying that this is the position, and in view of the fact that we are dealing with an issue as important as a change in the electoral system, it is very difficult to see what damage, beyond the money that the extra poll would cost, would be caused by having it on a different date. I cannot believe that the Government honestly think that if we had to have them on different days we could not afford to have them. I cannot believe that they honestly think they could not get enough voters out to make it plausible. If they do think that then we should not have this referendum at all.
I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to focus on the issue. He wants a plausible referendum which people have confidence in. Listen to the evidence, and have it on a separate day from all of those other polls. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for introducing his amendment. As he laid out, it seeks to prevent the referendum from being combined with any other poll. I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed regarding combining polls next May: we had some of them in the previous debate, and last week. However, as I said earlier, 84 per cent of the electorate will already have a reason to go to the polls on 5 May 2011, and combining this with other polls on that day will save in the region of £30 million across all polls.
Combined polls are not unusual and I have every confidence that voters will be able to distinguish between the different polls taking place—in fact, it is increasingly strange to suggest otherwise. What does the Electoral Commission say? It advised that it is possible to successfully deliver these different polls on 5 May. The commission also issued briefings throughout the Bill’s passage through the Commons and has concluded that the Bill contains,
“the necessary provisions for the combination of the referendum poll with the scheduled elections. We are satisfied that the technical issues we have identified with these provisions to date have been addressed by the Government.”.
The commission went on to say:
“The Government has tabled a series of amendments … to reflect relevant changes to the election conduct rules made by the revised conduct Orders for the May 2011 elections to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly and local councils in Northern Ireland, which have been laid before Parliament. We welcome these amendments which seek to ensure that the combination provisions are accurate and workable”.
The noble and learned Lord quoted the Gould report. I, too, have read what he said, and we can all quote selectively from it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Before the noble Lord quotes from the Gould report, could he identify for the House the occasions on which a referendum and an election have been combined on the same day in Britain?
Lord Strathclyde
I cannot quote a combined national referendum and national election but that does not mean that you cannot have one now. In respect of the comparison with 2007, Ron Gould said:
“I do not believe that holding both on the same day would create the same degree of confusion and resultant rejected ballots especially if sufficient advance public information and guidance was provided to the voters”.
The rigorous testing carried out by the Electoral Commission should also reassure those worried about voter confusion. The new draft clearly enables the electorate to understand the choice they are being asked to make and to express their views. The Bill also gives the Electoral Commission a role in providing information about the referendum and how to vote in it, which will help to minimise confusion. For those reasons, I hope the noble and learned Lord will feel that we have covered all the questions that he posed.
The only election which comes to mind when there was a combined referendum was the one which the noble and learned Lord will remember so well in London in 1998.
Lord Rowlands
Does the noble Lord think that he knows better than all the Members of the National Assembly and the First Minister of the National Assembly, that this would not be a major distraction to the elections in Wales?
Lord Strathclyde
I understand the views in Scotland and in Wales, and possibly in Northern Ireland as well. However, we have asked the Electoral Commission to give us its considered view. It has done so, and we back it.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Following that question from the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, perhaps I can ask who decided that there should be no consultation with the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I accept that there was no obligation whatever on the Government to change their mind on the matter of 5 May but, nevertheless, the decision not to consult was deeply insulting not just to the Parliament and the Assembly concerned but to the nations concerned.
Lord Strathclyde
I accept the noble Lord’s point; he has made it before. Perhaps if we were doing it differently, it would be done in a different way. For reasons of confidentiality and of making a statement, and rather than allowing the rumour mill to flow, it was right to make the decision we did.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Can I tempt the Leader of the House to apologise on behalf of the Government to Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, as I think there has been discourtesy towards them? He was good enough to say just now that possibly, if the Government were doing this again, they would do it differently. Will he go a step further and make a handsome apology? They have been treated with discourtesy and disrespect.
Lord Strathclyde
I do not believe in apologising when I am not fully aware of the facts.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Will my noble friend comment on the fact that there are many other legislatures where elections, referendums and plebiscites are held simultaneously and the people of those countries do not seem to be incorrigibly undermined in their decisions as a result? Secondly, will he comment on the fact that paragraphs 9 and 10 of the first schedule to the Bill set out a very stringent duty on the Electoral Commission and the various election officers to inform the public? As I understand it, the Electoral Commission intends to circulate to every household in the land a plain English guide to the issues about which the referendum is to be held.
Lord Strathclyde
It is as much a mystery to me as it is to my noble friend why the Labour Party and the noble and learned Lord believe that it will be impossible for people to vote in one election and in a referendum.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Let me help. What happens is that people concentrate on the election of individuals and they do not focus on the change. As I am on my feet, perhaps I may also say that I was struck by the reference to confidentiality. Has the noble Lord been trying to keep secret from Scotland and Wales the fact that this referendum was going on?
Lord Strathclyde
My point was that there was an aspect of confidentiality before the decision was announced; of course there was.
Lord Soley
Will the Leader of the House make clear whether this confidentiality relates to shared Cabinet responsibility, or is it entirely separate from that? Is it something that civil servants recommended, or is it a political recommendation?
Lord Snape
The noble Lord brusquely spurned my offer of a meeting in Stockport this weekend, but perhaps I can further tempt him to put some flesh on the bones of this. Can he confirm that there will be no real problem about adding the alternative vote to all the other matters that will be taking place if the Government get their way and we all have to troop out to vote for various things on the same day? How many people has he come across who have actually advocated the AV system? In his experience, aside from the rather peculiar friends that we all keep in politics, who, among ordinary people, knows exactly how AV works or, in fact, does not work?
Lord Strathclyde
I cannot possibly answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Soley. If I am able to find out, I will drop him a line. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, introduces an interesting argument: if, as he believes, people do not understand some aspect of this, they should never be asked whether or not they agree with it. Apart from the fact that that shows a surprising degree of arrogance and is patronising to his former constituents, even if they do not understand it now, they will have plenty of opportunity to do so before the referendum takes place.
Lord Snape
I hope I have shown no arrogance, nor have I patronised them. They are not my former constituents, in fact. I am talking about the fellow citizens of my home town—the town that the noble and, alas, absent noble Lord, Lord McNally, represented in the Labour interest in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, the noble Lord cannot get away with that; it is not a plausible response. The fact is that for people who do not take a deep interest in politics, the letters AV make their eyes glaze over. All that we on these Benches are saying is that before such a momentous and dramatic change is put to the British people in a binding referendum, some explanation ought to be put before them as to why this particular system—denounced as it was for many years by the Conservatives’ new-found allies in the Liberal Democrats—is the one and only choice to be available to them on the ballot paper. As for the other point, about being patronising, the noble Lord will notice that I have an amendment down for debate later which gives people genuine choice between first past the post, which I support, and the AV system, which, as far as I am aware, has no great supporters other than those hoping to save their necks among his new-found allies.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
How much will the mailing to every elector cost, compared with the £15 million extra for a separate referendum? I would also like to ask the noble Lord—I hope the Cross-Benchers will perhaps excuse me for a moment—a particularly party-organisational question. Those of us who have been involved for many years in elections know that an important part of canvassing and knocking-up—I am sorry about the expression, but it is the one that we use—is that last hour or two of getting known voters out. Earlier today I raised the impact of the proposals on campaigning. My difficulty, which I am sure will be shared with noble Lords opposite who have been involved in this, is knowing who to knock up on the night. You want them to vote for your own political party, but if you know they will not be voting the same way on the AV referendum, you might get a bit choosy. It will be quite difficult to get our normal political activity involved late at night. I am sorry for the Cross-Benchers—this is a party issue. However, it is undoubtedly one that, as we vote in the local government elections, will be uppermost in the minds of all our local organisers.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
I add my voice to concerns about the lack of consultation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. These bodies have been set up for over 10 years and the present Secretary of State makes a huge play of her wish to work with the Welsh Assembly in Wales. If this is a precursor of how the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are to be treated in future; if this is the result of hurried legislation; if the Leader of the House sees that he has no duty to apologise, not personally but on behalf of the Government, it augurs pretty badly for the relationship in the future.
Lord Rooker
Perhaps I can add to that. I was not going to intervene in this debate but I was struck by the Leader of the House’s use of the word confidentiality. I have the privilege outside this House of chairing the board of a non-ministerial department—I give a new flavour to the coalition, in some ways, on a UK-wide body. We are responsible and accountable to the four separate Governments. The issue of confidentiality, lack of trust and not being able to be frank and open with Ministers—who are themselves very widely in coalition in the UK—has, in my experience, never arisen. The devolved Administrations are not the enemy. I am not certain but I have a feeling that some Ministers in Whitehall, or the infrastructure in Whitehall, are new to dealing with devolved Administrations who have genuine power—it was new to all of us—and they look on them as the enemy. But they are not.
Lord Strathclyde
I certainly do not think that they are the enemy either. The point I was making was that the correct announcement was to make a single national statement, which is precisely what we did. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, says that nobody understands what AV is. That, of course, will be up to the campaigns and the Electoral Commission to explain. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her issues about knocking-up, again, this is a campaigning issue and it will be up to the campaigns to decide how best to get people to vote yes or no during the course of the campaign.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
This debate followed the pattern of the last debate: the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was incredibly attractive on the periphery of the debate but refused to answer the central issue—the swamping argument. Instead, he said that we were saying it was impossible to have the debate, which was very disappointing. He was arrogant in treating the request of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament for an apology. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon made it absolutely clear that he was expecting not a personal apology but an indication from the Government that this is a serious matter, and an apology—or token of acceptance—that this is not something to be laughed at. Perhaps one reason why the debate was quite frustrating was the dismal performance of Ministers in dealing with the heart of the issue. The only way that it is possible to make the Leader of the House concentrate on the issues is to keep putting them. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House on the combination issue.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar)
Before I call Amendment 16, I have to say that, if Amendment 16 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 18 to 30 inclusive, because of pre-emption.
Amendment 16
Lord Skidelsky
“(3) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—
At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. It is proposed that the system should be changed. Please rank the following options in order of preference.
Should the UK use:
(a) the first past the post system;(b) the alternative vote system;(c) a proportional vote system?(4) In Wales, a Welsh version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers.
(5) Each voter will be asked to mark the ballot paper with—
(a) the number 1 next to the option that is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only option for which the voter wishes to vote);(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 next to the option that is the voter’s second preference, and so on.(6) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of options) as the voter wishes.
(7) Votes shall be allocated to options in accordance with voters’ first preferences and, if one option has more votes than the other options put together, that option shall be deemed to have been selected.
(8) If not, the option with the fewest votes will be eliminated and that option’s votes shall be dealt with as follows—
(a) each vote cast by a voter who also ranked one or more of the remaining options shall be reallocated to that remaining option or (as the case may be) to the one that the voter ranked the highest.(b) any votes not reallocated shall play no further part in the counting.(9) After the reallocation of votes and recounting, the option with the most votes shall be deemed to have been selected.”
Lord Skidelsky
My Lords, it will not have escaped the notice of the House that I am not the noble Lord, Lord Owen. My noble friend had a minor operation last week, and has had to return to hospital, from which he is being discharged today. He asked me to move this amendment in his name, which I am very pleased to do.
This amendment is not about the date of the referendum, but about its substance. In Clause 1 of the Bill, line 7 on page 1 gives the voter the choice between retaining the first past the post system to elect MPs, and the alternative vote system. This amendment is designed to give voters, in addition, an opportunity to express a preference for proportional representation. By allowing voters to rank their preferences, this amendment is sure to result in a majority expressing their preference for one or other of the three nominated options. It is a very simple demonstration of the power of the alternative vote under certain conditions.
Originally, those who tabled the amendment had intended to put all the varieties of proportional representation—AV plus, the additional member system, STV and maybe others—on the ballot paper, but, after consulting, it was decided to add just one general extra option: general proportional representation. This would leave the House of Commons to decide which version to adopt should PR get a majority. That seems sensible. The advantage of putting all the PR options to the electorate is quite compelling in terms of democracy, but, against that, it would overcomplicate the question being asked, and a referendum should be about broad principles and not about details. That is our main argument against the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and the group of amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I hope that on reflection they will feel willing to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Owen.
This amendment expresses our disappointment that the alternative vote is the only alternative to the status quo which the Government are willing to offer. Whereas party-political deals are an essential part of political life—we all know that—I doubt whether such a flagrant party-political deal should be the subject of a referendum. We know why it has happened—no one denies it: it was the price of the coalition. The Liberal Democrats wanted electoral reform without a referendum; the Conservatives, who favour retaining the first past the post system, would not concede that, and a referendum on AV was the compromise position.
We also know from many sources, but most recently from Anthony Seldon’s fascinating book, Brown at Ten, that, after the general election, Gordon Brown—who was still Prime Minister—offered the Liberal Democrats a multi-question referendum identical to the amendment I am now moving. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will probably know more about this than I do, but anyway, that was the revelation. The former Prime Minister offered the Liberal Democrats a multi-question referendum identical to the amendment I am now moving.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I wonder if the noble Lord could say whether he believes everything he reads in that book.
Lord Skidelsky
I believe everything I read that Anthony Seldon writes.
There was also an offer to make it a vote of confidence to guarantee its passage through Parliament. That was the offer. I am not questioning the judgment of the Liberal Democrat negotiators in turning down that offer in favour of a much inferior alternative, from their point of view. As they say, there were other considerations, but it might be helpful for noble Lords on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches to be reminded of this little history—and I think it is authentic—in making up their mind about the value of this amendment.
In our view, narrowing the choice to only two alternatives represents an abuse of the referendum mechanism. Referenda are not part of our political tradition. We use them sparingly to decide on questions of great constitutional consequence. I do not agree with those noble Lords who said that AV represents a radical change in our constitutional system. It retains most of the features of the first past the post system. By providing for reallocation of votes according to preference rankings, it ensures that no constituency Member is returned with less than 50 per cent of the vote. That is a change—it is a majority rather than a plurality—but it does not ensure representation of the minority any more than the first past the post system.
Nor would the alternative vote make much difference in practice. It has been calculated, for example, that the 2010 general election held under the alternative vote system would have returned 281 Conservative, 262 Labour and 79 Liberal Democrat MPs, as opposed to 307 Conservative, 258 Labour and 57 Liberal Democrat MPs. With impending boundary changes, one would expect that gap to shrink even further as time went on.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Plant commission did not turn down AV. It said that it was a perfectly acceptable system, but that it just preferred another. That system was within the AV family of systems; namely, the supplementary vote. I know that the noble Lord has had to pick up the brief from others who unfortunately are not able to attend, but I am having difficulty in understanding why he does not accept the supplementary vote in his amendment. He alluded to it previously, but it was not clear to me exactly what he meant in his explanation. Will he tell us that before he sits down?
Lord Skidelsky
I think that those who tabled the amendment did not want to overcomplicate the choices being put to voters. When people get into the nitty-gritty of constitutional change, first, they can get obsessive about having their own preferred system and, secondly, it can become very complicated. In our view, it is simply a device to delay any changes. We thought that it would be a better idea to have three broad choices, one of which was proportional representation, leaving it to the House of Commons to decide, if that was the preferred option—that is, if more than 50 per cent of people support it—on which particular variety they would legislate. That was the logic behind it.
I urge this amendment on the Government and ask them to consider it seriously. Not to take advantage of the chance opened up by a promised referendum in order to offer the electorate a major choice about the future of the electoral system would be to miss a major opportunity to test their appetite for political reform. I beg to move.
Amendment 16A (to Amendment 16)
Lord Campbell-Savours
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 16A and 17, which are in this group. I wish to follow up on something to which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred. He referred to “a proportional vote system”, which would be inserted under proposed subsection (3)(c) to be inserted into Clause 1 under Amendment 16. In other words, this referendum would not deal with only clear alternatives set out in the referendum question; it would pose the question, “Do you want a proportional vote system?”, which at this stage is not to be identified in the referendum question. By implication, there inevitably would have to be an inquiry arising out of a referendum which might choose new subsection (3)(c) as the option.
I am very interested in inquiries because last week we spent several hours arguing the case for an inquiry. What interested me about this amendment, and why I sought in my Amendment 17 to include the supplementary vote, is that that is precisely what I want to see. I want to see an alternative vote referendum based on the need for an inquiry in exactly the same way as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in their amendment.
In private conversation, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whether he might be prepared to accept this amendment. There may well be conditions in which some of us would like to divide the House on this. It raises very important issues. He gave me the same explanation; namely, that it is too complicated. But the reality is that, of all the electoral systems that confront the British electorate at the moment, apart from first past the post, the supplementary vote is the simplest system. It is used nationally in the mayoral elections. It has been supported by many millions of voters. Next year, when the mayoral elections finally take place in the new mayoralties—I think that there was reference to 12—I presume that they will also be fought on the supplementary vote. I cannot quite understand why introducing the simplest possible system should be regarded as a complication of the question.
In winding up, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, might offer to take back to those who have their names to this amendment the suggestion that before Report they might be prepared to include, if they were to retable their amendment, reference to the supplementary vote.
The content of Amendment 16A is the substance of an amendment that I shall move later and, again, it is about the principle of an inquiry. The referendum question at the moment refers specifically to “the” alternative vote—a specific system that has been identified, which I and many of my colleagues reject for different reasons. My amendment, which I would have slotted in as paragraph (d) of subsection (3) as proposed under Amendment 16, would enable the public to vote on a question which asked whether they were in favour of “an” alternative vote system. That would then beg the question of an inquiry to take place and a decision to be taken by Parliament or whoever wanted to make representations. Finally, a decision to be taken by government could be put to the House. I ask the noble Lord to take this back to his noble friends, because I regard the amendment that he has moved as one of the most important to be considered on this Bill.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has made an attractive speech which was full of interesting references, although I think that this is a somewhat curious amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made a powerful point, but it leads me rather in the opposite direction to the noble Lord and to think that one could not support this amendment.
It will not surprise anyone that I speak as someone who has been over time a strong supporter of our existing system. In the 1970s, I even wrote a pamphlet defending our system, called Electoral Reform No Reform. At least I stand by the title because it has always seemed to me that the advantages and disadvantages of electoral systems are more evenly balanced than people acknowledge. The word “reform” is tendentious and “change” would be a better word. I have to confess on reading my pamphlet written 40 years ago that not all the arguments have stood the test of time brilliantly. I accept that there is more of a case than it appeared then for something like the German mixed system.
Some of the criticisms, however, that are made of our system, including one made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, are fallacious. The noble Lord referred to the first past the post system as one that depends on making the winner someone with a plurality rather than a majority of votes. The criticism is commonly made about our system producing over 50 per cent of the seats with people who have perhaps only 40 per cent of the votes and this is not a majority. The point is made that the Government do not reflect majority opinion under our electoral system. The fallacy in this argument is that there naturally exists in public opinion such a thing as a majority. It is true that if you take any single issue—like whether people are for or against the euro, whether they are for or against privatisation, whether they prefer public expenditure to lower taxes—you can get a majority for any single proposition. But elections are not fought on one proposition; they are fought on four or five issues. Opinion polls show that it is much more difficult to get a majority for four or five issues at once than it is for one issue. So it is a wrong argument to say that you have an electoral system that produces a majority when there is not in fact an underlying real majority.
What is the magic of a majority anyway? In a democracy, power, even by a majority, must be exercised with restraint and with respect towards one’s opponents. All electoral systems create a majority in an artificial way. The first past the post system does it by converting around 40 per cent of the votes into 50 per cent of the seats. The alternative vote system creates a majority artificially by taking the second preferences of the bottom candidate and allowing those to determine the outcome. But the second preferences of the second candidate do not count. The second preferences are given undue weight, which is why I was able to quote in Second Reading what Winston Churchill said about the system when he called it the least scientific in which the most worthless votes for the most worthless candidate determined the outcome. That is the artificiality of the AV system in creating a majority. With PR, equally, majorities are created rather artificially because people take two or three parties that may have fought the elections on completely different programmes, as we well know, and add them together and call it a majority, although nobody actually voted for the programme of the Government. So the artificiality of a majority is something that has to be recognised before one pours all this criticism on first past the post.
Lord Skidelsky
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I will simply point out that the movers of this amendment are not advocating any particular electoral system. It is neutral between the three choices. It is simply advocating a referendum in which those choices are given. That is all. Your points may be completely valid but they are not the point of the amendment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
If I digressed, I apologise to the House and stand rebuked. Specifically on the amendment, its Achilles heel is the one the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, alighted on—namely, that it gives as an alternative this broad category of a proportional system. Proportional systems vary enormously. Some of them, like the German mixed system, are not so different from our system. They are different but they are not very different. And there is a world of difference between PR on a national list system, as it used to be at one time in Italy and as it is in Israel, and the German system. It is a huge variation, so much so that it would make the question, if it was put in this form in a referendum, completely nonsensical. I do not think one can follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and say, “We will have a referendum in which two or three of the outcomes may be definite but if a rather vague outcome is voted for, then we will have another inquiry”. This seems to be a slightly unbalanced and rather strange way of proceeding.
The second objection that I have, which is the reason I called it a rather strange amendment, is this device of using AV in order to determine which electoral system we have. It would be extraordinary on something as important as our choice of electoral system, which could have profound effects on the way we run politics in this country, to say that again the result should be determined by the second preferences of the system that people least wanted. The arguments that I put forward against AV seem to apply equally strongly to a referendum. To revert to the point I made earlier, I do not think one could leave PR as a choice just defined as PR. If one tried to answer that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was suggesting, by putting the supplementary vote system, or STV, or any of the many different systems of PR, that would make the whole referendum meaningless. So I am afraid that, although the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a very interesting speech, I think this is a completely unworkable amendment and should be rejected.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I am tempted by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, not only because I always find him an exceptionally persuasive and erudite man but for two other reasons. One is that it uses AV to choose the winner of the contest. No electoral theoretician would think this was a good way of choosing between these preferences. You would need some sort of Condorcet system which ran off options to find the one that emerged as having the most support rather than a system that simply eliminates a better choice. It does not work terribly well for this kind of referendum. AV has the great advantage of simplicity, which is also the reason I, for one, favour it as our national electoral system.
The other reason I am quite tempted by this amendment is that I have no doubt that the result of the referendum, whether it was AV or first past the post, would certainly knock out PR for ever. The power of the arguments that would be placed against a PR system for Britain would be so enormous that nobody would be tempted. As a political observer I add this point. The only people who would be speaking up for PR in such a referendum would be the Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrat advocacy of anything at the moment is a certainty for its unpopularity. This is the party that has lost more than half the votes that were cast for it at the General Election. The thought of these poor lambs bleating round the country for STV, or whichever system they choose, would make it a certain feature of the result of the referendum that it went down the plughole. So for those reasons, I am tempted by the noble Lord’s proposal, though not perhaps for the reasons that he put forward.
I go back to where I started on electoral reform, about which I did not know a huge amount at the time, which was with the Jenkins committee. That committee’s terms of reference were written, in many ways wisely, by the party of which I am a member. The terms of reference did not say, “Put forward a whole lot of possible options and discuss their merits as the electoral system for Britain”. Nor did they say, “Recommend an electoral system and we will have it”. They said, “Recommend the best possible alternative to first past the post to be put before the British people in a referendum”. I regret deeply that it was not put before the British people in a referendum at the time.
In the same way as the coalition is wise to put forward an alternative for the referendum, in writing the terms of reference widely in that way the Government were right about what a referendum can seriously manage to do. I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, correctly. He said that this was an abuse of a referendum. It is not. Let us face it: referendums have their strengths and limitations. They are quite good at resolving a simple question on which the political class is divided. The supreme example in my lifetime was Europe. The referendum of 1975 settled things, rightly or wrongly, for many years to come. There was no other way within our political system that it could have been settled because of the state of the Labour Party at the time and later the Conservative Party, which nearly blew itself apart over Europe. The voice of the British people came down clearly on a single alternative, which was to stay in, rightly or wrongly. That defused a bomb at the heart of the political system.
This is no disrespect to the British people, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect them to come to grips with the degree of complexity of choice such as is implied by this referendum, still less the choice that exists in real life. Imagine the kind of atmosphere that goes on during an election with claims and counter claims being made. Every time someone says, “This is more proportional”, the AV lot will say, “Ours isn’t more proportional”. You would have a cacophony, which even those who have been studying this subject for half their lives, such as me, would have difficulty disentangling. At least the option that we have before us would give the British people a clear choice to make and the arguments between AV and first past the post are not that complicated.
Moreover, as I said in an earlier debate on the Bill, in a number of years’ time people may think, “Well this has worked quite well. We would like to go further to a proportional system”. Or, they may say, “That was a big mistake. Let’s go back to first past the post”. They may say, like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, “Never go back”, but that may show the inadequacy of the system that I thought he favoured. It is not a once-and-for-all choice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that there are other choices that could be made about our electoral system. They do not all have to be made in one jump at one time.
I now move on to the case made rather well by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. The idea that there is something called a proportional system that has a unique set of features is completely without foundation. The differences between STV, the single transferable vote, between national list systems and between the additional member system as used in Germany and recommended in part by the Jenkins commission, are enormous. This calls for a proportional system but there is virtually no proportional system in the world. The only exception is Israel. I have talked to many people about electoral systems but I have yet to find a single person who thinks that the Israeli electoral system is ever other than a complete disaster. It allows for the representation of parties with only tiny members of votes who can then hold the polity to ransom in favour of their peculiar religious objectives. Israel is a disaster among democracies for that reason and, arguably, the current state of the Middle East is a result of that political system.
Other than the Israeli system, there is huge variety among more proportional systems as to how much proportionality. You can have a national list with thresholds, for example. It is a perfectly good system as long as you do not mind all MPs being chosen by their parties, the end of the constituency representative tradition in our country and the complete dominance of the party Whips over our politics forever more. You can have a national list system. STV is not designed to bring about proportionality at all, although it is a more proportional system. STV came out of the 19th century tradition where they wanted a greater emphasis on the character of individual Members of Parliament rather than on the party that they represented. If you look at the Irish STV system, what happens there is that the contest is not between parties but between individual members of those parties about who is the best representative of the people. You can make a case for that but it is not essentially the case for proportional representation, although it produces proportional outcomes. Additional member systems have a completely different set of characteristics again.
At this stage, one can hear the people crying, “Mercy, please. We pay you to sort some of these things out. Some of us think we pay you too much”.
Lord Skidelsky
Is the noble Lord not descending but ascending into discussing the strengths and weaknesses of different electoral systems? That is not the point of the amendment. The referendum will happen. The amendment is about adding another choice to the two being offered.
Lord Lipsey
I see that that is what the amendment would do. However, it adds not one choice, but a plethora of choices without defining what they are, all with completely different characteristics one from the other and having very little in common except that they can, just about sometimes, be squeezed into the rubric of proportionality. That is why this is not a suggestion that should carry faith.
When the referendum campaign comes, I guess that what will happen in the last few weeks is that those who are against any change will say something like, “If you don't know, vote no”. They will try to capitalise on people’s ignorance. Even those in this Chamber—and there are many sitting around me—who favour first past the post would probably rather it was not decided on that basis. They would probably rather the people took a clear view of the virtues of the electoral system that we have and the virtues of the alternatives and made their verdict on that, which we would all accept as the way forward. This is a recipe for an extremely blurred choice of ill-defined alternatives which is hard to explain and unfair to ask people to grapple with. It is made even worse because unless the referendum date is moved as a result of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which we passed earlier, they will be grappling with this choice at a time when they are dealing with local elections, new mayors and, in Scotland and Wales, with the all-important question of what their national governments should be. This is a seductive amendment, but it is profoundly misguided and I hope therefore that the House will not countenance it tonight.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. In the Committee debates that we have had so far, one thing has been left out to a large extent: the perspective of the public. The referendum should be about fairness and trust: being fair to the public and trusting the public. I support the amendment in the broad spirit in which I interpret it, which is that the public should be given a proper choice and not the restricted one that would currently be imposed on them.
I have heard people say quite a lot recently that the public are not very interested in voting systems. As an example, they are more interested in how the cuts will affect them today, tomorrow and the next day. Yes of course; most people are not going to be that exercised at present about something that is still fairly abstract and we are not even quite sure will actually happen, but when the public has confirmation of the date and the terms of the referendum, they will, with help from newspapers, TV and the internet, rapidly become experts in different voting systems.
However, there will be qualified interested only if the choice is between first past the post and AV: and no wonder, since a win for first past the post cannot possibly be interpreted as a ringing endorsement if AV is the only other option on the ballot paper. Likewise if AV wins, that too cannot possibly be seen as the system the public would most prefer if they have been denied other key voting systems.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I wish to oppose the inclusion of Amendment 16 in the Bill and to do so as a strong supporter of electoral reform. I actually joined the Electoral Reform Society some 35 years ago at the age of 15. Unlike some supporters of the alternative vote, I remain strongly committed to the principles of proportional representation, and to the merits of the single transferable vote system in particular. However, I share the opposition to closed lists of noble Lords who propose this amendment, whether they be lists of 10 people or just one, as in the current first past the post system. Above all, I am committed to making progress that will allow the voters themselves to have a say in how their representatives are chosen.
I am sure we wish the noble Lord, Lord Owen, well in his recovery. I note from his recent correspondence with the Electoral Reform Society that he has been referring to the alliance commission in the early 1980s, which, on behalf of the Liberal Party and the SDP, looked at electoral systems. He notes that that commission found in favour of STV rather than the alternative vote system, but I ask him when he looks at his Hansard to consider that report again in some detail because it also said that in parts of the country where perhaps it was appropriate to have only a single member—such as in the far-flung rural parts of the country—it was appropriate to use the alternative vote system.
I also draw his attention, and that of some of his noble friends, to the system that operated for choosing single candidates within the SDP—of which he was a member between 1981 and 1988—and in the party that he led between 1988 and 1990. The system chosen for choosing a single person, be it a leader, a president or a candidate, was in fact the alternative vote system.
Lord Rennard
It was the system that is proposed in this Bill and which was proposed by the then Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill put forward earlier this year and voted for overwhelmingly by Members in another place. I ask those in your Lordships’ House who are members of the major parties, and who are considering tonight and on many other days the merits or otherwise of the alternative vote system, to consider how it is that within their own parties—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, and for that matter the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru or the Greens—when it comes to electing a single person, be it a leader, a president or a candidate, it is the alternative vote system, as generally known, that is always used.
In 1996-97, I was the joint secretary of the committee between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats that looked at proposals for constitutional reform in the event that the Conservative Party lost the 1997 general election. I served under the late Robin Cook and my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart. We had very high hopes then because it was agreed between the then main opposition parties that as and when there was a general election in 1997, and if the Conservative Party was defeated, there would be a referendum on an alternative proportional voting system. Over the 13 years in which that Government lasted, no such referendum was ever held.
Shortly after the general election of 1997, the late Lord Jenkins chaired the commission that looked at the alternatives; the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was a member of it. I have noted how some of those in support of this amendment are quoting the fact that the Jenkins commission, as it became known in 1998, did not find in favour of AV but in favour of a system known as AV+. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has confirmed in earlier debates, when it came to actually looking at this issue, the great—and I think very wise—Lord Jenkins, actually decided that the best system, in his opinion, was for AV for single-member constituencies in rural areas and for STV in the bigger city areas with multi-Member constituencies.
I note the words of my noble—he called me a little while ago his erstwhile—friend Lord Alton of Liverpool. He said that Lord Jenkins had in the end rejected the AV system. To all those who hold the memory of the late Lord Jenkins in some esteem—I hope there are many in this House—I would say that I know that it was to his great, great regret, in a very long and very distinguished career, that at that period in the late 1990s, when there was the opportunity to implement the AV system, he did not help to seize that opportunity. I believe that we must not let the opportunity of some form of electoral reform go away again.
The Electoral Reform Society, which was formerly known as the Proportional Representation Society, campaigned for PR for more than 100 years. It is urging rejection of these amendments in order to get some progress and to give voters some say on the issue as opposed to none at all. The alternative vote system may not be perfect, but it gives more power to the voter. It would mean, for example, that MPs who considered themselves unfairly deselected by their party could stand again without fear of splitting their party vote, thus giving more power to the voter. It would have meant, for example, that supporters of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, could have stood against the party that became the Liberal Democrats and avoided the split in votes that damaged his cause and split the vote of what had been the alliance in the 1980s. For these reasons, I would say that AV is at least a much more attractive proposition than first past the post, to say nothing of the greater power that it gives to the voter.
Lord McAvoy
I have listened very carefully to the lucid contributions of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I totally accept the sincerity of their points of view on their particular systems, but having heard the various explanations and all the rest of it I started to get a headache. Will the noble Lord care to comment on the fact that I served for 28 years as an elected representative and I do not recall a single occasion, at a public meeting or a surgery, on which the issue of so-called electoral reform, proportional representation or whatever name anyone cares to give it was raised? Surely, we are supposed to reflect the public. Where is the public demand for this?
Lord Rennard
There are many places in this country with very safe seats, where issues of electoral reform are rarely debated. I accept that people are far more interested in outcomes than they are in processes, but I believe the process by which MPs are chosen is rather important in determining the outcomes. In your Lordships’ House, reference has constantly been made during these debates to the words of the Deputy Prime Minister considering the alternative vote system. Shall we just deal with those words for a moment? The first point is that the alternative vote system that he is now advocating is a compromise. Yes, it is a compromise. If no one party wins a general election, there is a need for compromise. I believe that many people in this country think that compromising is sometimes a good principle, not a bad one.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Compromises have to be settled, and the actual words of the Deputy Prime Minister were:
“I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party”.
But he did settle on that very compromise.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I thought that we had a very good compromise in 1997 agreed with the party of the noble Lord opposite but, after 13 years, that compromise was never delivered. I was quoting the Deputy Prime Minister rather more fully; I was going to talk about the word “little”, which he used. I believe that it is a little change, which preserves the single-Member constituencies, which Members in other parties hold very dearly. I happen not to. But since it preserves the single-Member constituency principle, I believe that it is a little change that will bring greater benefit.
There is also, of course, the word “miserable”. The only thing that would make me really miserable—and I say this in all sincerity to noble Lords who supported Amendment 16—would be if we failed to give people their say and made progress on a form of voting system that was effectively designed for the political circumstances in 1872, when Gladstone brought in the Secret Ballot Act.
Lord Grocott
Will the noble Lord clear up one crucial issue for me, at least, and I hope for the House, about the Liberal Democrats’ approach to this referendum? They constantly refer to it as a compromise—and whether it is miserable or not is for others to decide—while several are on record as saying that it is a step in the right direction. If there is a referendum next May and the result is in favour of the alternative vote, although I hope it is not, for how long do the Liberal Democrats consider that decision to be binding?
Lord Rennard
My own view is that since Gladstone introduced the current system in 1872 in the Secret Ballot Act, for 138 years noble Lords and Members in another place decided that that system was perfectly good without revision and without letting people have their say. It is a good precedent to let people have their say, and we will wait to see when there is public demand again to have any further say. But for 138 years we have kept the same system. One hundred years ago, a Royal Commission recommended the adoption of the alternative vote, and 93 years ago, a Speakers Conference recommended the use of preference voting. Seventy-nine years ago, the other place voted for the adoption of the alternative vote, which was blocked on five occasions by your Lordships’ House. It is 36 years since a minority Conservative Government offered another Speakers Conference on electoral reform and it is 13 years since a Labour Government with a large majority had a manifesto promise and were elected on the basis that there would be a referendum on the issue of proportional representation. So it is a significant achievement for all those committed to electoral reform that twice this year in the House of Commons, with different Governments in place, there have been substantial majorities for a referendum to be held on the alternative vote. I want to see progress on this issue and hope that we will not give Members in another place a further opportunity to deny the voters their say on this issue and leave us back where we were in 1872.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Why does not the noble Lord be more honest—although I am not accusing him of being dishonest, he could be more honest—about where we stand who are in favour of electoral reform? Is not the reality that this is simply the first building block and that, once we have changed the system to a single-Member constituency arrangement, it will then go on to the next stage and ask for more? Is not that what is actually being said? I openly admit it; that is why I am arguing about the building block. I am saying that the preferential system being selected by the Government is the wrong building block on which to build the later stages. I wish noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches would be more open and honest about that.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I think that I have been remarkably open and honest all the time I have been in this House speaking on these issues. The noble Lord’s argument suggests that perhaps until the 25th century we should keep the political system exactly as it is and ignore centuries of progress. I do not think that that would be fair or democratic. Perhaps we should say that, given that 2,000 years ago in Athens people all turned up to vote on issues, we should have that sort of system now. I am not arguing that my system or my preference should be imposed on the British people. I am simply arguing that the British people themselves should have the democratic right to say for themselves how their representatives should be chosen. I do not understand how people who consider themselves democrats can resist that fundamental democratic principle.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
Does the noble Lord view the referendum as an event or a process?
Lord Rennard
All electoral processes and all elections are constant processes. However, if we kept things as simple as they were in 1872, it would be quite inappropriate. We no longer have a two-party system, as we had then, and which perhaps we had in 1950 or 1951. We are talking in these debates about respect for Scotland and Wales, and the same noble Lords who say that we should respect those countries, where there are four-party systems, at least, in operation, are still trying to perpetuate a voting system only appropriate to two parties. That does not respect people who support other options and, in particular, the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Howarth of Newport
This amendment is a helpful and important one. It certainly needs more work, and I do not think that it should be passed as it is at present drafted, but it points in the right direction. The political parties have been right to come to the view, and have somehow stumbled in the past 12 months or so into agreement on the notion, that it is now timely to offer the opportunity to the people of this country to revisit their electoral system and consider whether they want change.
It is too melodramatic to talk in terms of a crisis in our political culture, but it is realistic to acknowledge that there is a malaise and a widespread disaffection from our politics, and a widespread view that elections are determined by small numbers of voters in small numbers of constituencies, and therefore that large numbers of votes are wasted. That is wrong in principle and unsatisfactory in practice. It may be that the malaise would be dispelled were we to be blessed with good government. If we were to enjoy a period of government under which the people of this country came to the view that they were being wisely and benignly governed in the interests of all the people and that they could look forward to unlimited peace and prosperity, no doubt the demand for constitutional change, such as it is—it is not very well articulated, but I think that it is there—would abate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Would my noble friend care to come with me to Scotland, where we have had a change in the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament for the past 10 years, and where he will certainly find that that malaise has not been dispelled? He is living in a fool’s paradise.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I absolutely recognise the force of what my noble friend says and would be happy to visit Scotland with him at any time. However, I disagree with my noble friends Lord McAvoy and Lord Grocott, who contend that there is simply no public interest in this question. While I accept that it is something of a preoccupation of the chattering classes and the professional political class, those of us in politics who believe that there is significant dissatisfaction in our political culture and that it has something important to do with the electoral system simply seek to understand the public mood and to see what ways there might be to improve on it.
It is right that we have a referendum on the future electoral system to be used in this country for elections to the House of Commons, but if we are going to do it we should do it properly. It seems quite absurd to have a great national debate and to go through all this palaver, expense and effort to resolve a timid and incomplete choice between first past the post and the alternative vote. If we are to have a referendum on the future electoral system of this country, a rare and very important event, then let us allow the people to have the choice between the range of plausible and significant systems. I support my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours in his view that the supplementary vote should be among the choices offered at a referendum. That means, if we are going to do it properly, we would have to take time over it and the debate would have to be much more extended.
It makes no sense at all to try to rush a debate of this complexity and importance through in the brief period between whatever date this Bill gains Royal Assent and 5 May. Let us have a sustained exercise of political education and debate, following which a decision shall be made. How that decision should be arrived at—the technicalities of the choice to be offered in the referendum—certainly needs more careful examination. I am worried that offering a choice between four major options —but that choice to be determined by AV, which is among the choices to be offered—might somehow bias the outcome. I do not know; I think these things need careful thought. But we should not fluff this opportunity. We should enable all the important choices to be fully considered. That must surely be right. From a personal point of view, I suspect that I would end up voting for first past the post. But it is right that everybody should have the freedom to decide between the major serious options. This amendment is not the occasion to rehearse the virtues or defects of any particular electoral system. The question is whether the full choice should be offered to the people, or the limited choice that it has suited the political parties to offer so far. I hope that it will be the wider choice.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I would not go into the Lobby and support the noble Lord if he were to push this to a vote tonight, but I welcome proposed new subsection (4) which states:
“In Wales, a Welsh version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers”.
I remind noble Lords that Wales is the only part of the Union where a substantial number of people speak two languages. Indeed, 20 per cent of people in Wales speak English and Welsh, so it is important that any ballot paper should contain information in both languages. Indeed, there are five parliamentary constituencies in Wales—Ynys Mon, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Ceredigion, and Carmarthen East and Dinefor where the majority of people speak Welsh as their first language. We will come to that when we come to the part of the Bill on boundaries. I hope that we will have support around the House when we try to ensure that those Welsh-speaking areas will not have their representation in the House of Commons diminished.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend may have overlooked an amendment that I have tabled suggesting that, if the referendum goes ahead, the question should be put in Gaelic in Scotland. We have constituencies in Scotland where Gaelic is the predominant language and I hope that that will be remembered.
Lord Touhig
The same argument applies to my noble friend’s point.
I have one point to leave with the Minister. As I said, there are five parliamentary constituencies in Wales where Welsh would be the first language. It is not spoken across Wales in any uniform pattern. In my former constituency, perhaps 2 to 4 per cent of people are bilingual. Therefore, it is important for the Government to consider that whatever goes on a ballot paper in a referendum, in those areas identified as being where a majority of people speak Welsh as their first language, the question should appear in Welsh first on the ballot paper. In areas where the majority of people do not speak Welsh as their first language, the question should be in English first. I am not suggesting in any way that people will be unable to understand all the ramifications of the vote, but having two languages on the ballot paper will be confusing for people who are not familiar with Welsh as their first language if the question is written first in Welsh. I ask the Minister to consider that when the Government decide what will be on the ballot paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, talked about compromise on this whole issue—compromise between his party and the Conservatives. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber last week when his noble friend Lord McNally said that he had switched over to see a rerun of the film on the battle of Waterloo. I saw it as well and saw that bit at the end when Napoleon sent a message to Paris saying, “The battle is won—no, no the war is won”. Then the Prussians appeared and we all know the outcome of the battle. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that if the Conservatives are the Prussians they may not turn up on this occasion.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, first, let me say a word about the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. It was powerful and he argued his case very well. He said that he had been arguing it since he was 15. I must say that I did rather more interesting things when I was 15.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I will come to that later.
What the noble Lord supports and has been arguing for—and he argues so powerfully—is a system that is favourable to the Liberal Democrat Party. He is looking after his own party’s interests.
Lord Rennard
Will the noble Lord accept that perhaps his support of first past the post might be based on the fact that it helps the Labour Party?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am coming to that in a moment. I am perfectly honest about it and I want the noble Lord to be honest about it. He is pushing that system because manifestly it helps his party. He accepts the alternative vote as a compromise but he really wants the single transferrable vote. He is moving towards that and sees this referendum and this system as the thin end of the wedge.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
May I ask the noble Lord whether a party getting 23 per cent of the votes deserves 23 per cent of the representation?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I was coming to that in half an hour or so.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that in every case in Scotland—I shall argue a strong Scottish case—where he has won the argument and persuaded the Labour Party to move towards a system of PR, such as in the election for the Scottish Parliament and subsequently for the election to local government, it has been a manifest disaster—absolutely disastrous. I shall make that point at some length, I hope.
I shall start with a plea to noble Lords, in the way in which Robert Burns when he was in trouble used to make a sincere and urgent plea to the presbytery of Ayr. This is a plea on behalf of we Scots, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde and myself—though probably more appropriately on behalf of Lady Strathclyde and my dear wife, as they are allowed to vote in the elections for the House for Commons, which the noble Lord and I currently cannot do, sadly. I hope that some change may happen there.
Those of you who live in English constituencies are lucky people. Apart from the awful system for the European elections, which we all suffer, and which was introduced by my own Government—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
There you are. A confession—good for the soul. It is an awful system, but those of you who live in England have first past the post for elections to the House of Commons and first past the post for local government. You know where you are and you know the system. People understand it. It is tried, tested and trusted.
We in Scotland suffer a wild plethora of electoral systems. We have an electoral system, that we share, for the European elections—the list system where there is no choice whatever. It is a great pity that we accepted that. Try to name your MEP. We were talking about going down the streets of Stockport earlier when my noble friend Lord Snape was speaking. Go down the street and ask people who is their MEP. They do not know who they are as they do not relate to local people or have the same kind of contact, accountability or responsibility of other elected Members.
Let us turn to the Scottish Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont—I am pronouncing his name properly for a change—said that he liked the German system. The system for the Scottish Parliament elections is akin to the German electoral system. I warned him and others against the alternative member system. When he comes back up to Scotland, as I know he does from time to time, he will see a bastard of a system, if noble Lords will excuse the phrase.
We have 73 constituencies elected by first past the post in Scotland. We used to have 72 constituencies. Why are there 73? It is because Orkney and Shetland have a constituency each—another concession to the Liberals that was a dreadful mistake. The good bit is that 73 are elected by first past the post. However, on the basis of the regional vote, 56 members—seven members in each of eight constituencies—are added members according to the vote of each party in each constituency, which produces the most unexpected results. In 2007, in Lothian, I was unexpectedly elected by that very strange system. It produces coalitions, the first of which we had with the Liberal Democrats, in which we conceded—I think foolishly—single transferrable votes.
Lord Rooker
I want to make it clear that my noble friend is speaking for Scotland. I am an English person, who, by the way, would like the Scottish system. The only reason why he was elected for Lothian in the top-up system is because there were tens of thousands of Labour voters in that region without a constituency representative. That is the point. That is why he was elected. That this system did not leave hundreds of square miles with Labour voters without any direct representation is a bonus. It is a plus that my noble friend was elected to the Scottish Parliament, not a minus.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful for that endorsement and argument. My noble friend is a very powerful debater. He has made a good point. It is not all negative, but let me tell you some of the negative points. When we had a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, we were forced to concede STV for local government—I will come to that in a moment. Now we suffer from a minority SNP Government who have only one more seat than the Labour Party. They are so paralysed that they are unable to put any of their legislation through Parliament. That is why I said to my noble friend Lord Howarth that he should come up and see the stalemate that exists when we are not getting legislation properly dealt with.
I raised once before the system of Members retiring in the Scottish Parliament. If I were to retire tomorrow—and some people might like me to—the person who was second in the list would take over automatically without any election at all, with the people having no say whatever. Since my noble friend Lord McConnell represents a constituency—Motherwell and Wishaw—if he were to retire tomorrow, there would be a by-election and the people would have a say. However, if Margo MacDonald—who stood as an independent—were to retire tomorrow, there would be no filling of the vacancy whatever. I say to my noble friend Lord Rooker—a good friend—that this is just one of the many anomalies of the system that we have in the Scottish Parliament.
We ended up with STV. We had the European election system, the Scottish Parliament AMS system and the single transferrable vote in local government. Chaos has led to no overall control in so many authorities.
Lord McAvoy
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has expressed concern about this list member system as well?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who was one of the architects of the system, has said that, if he had his time again, he would not support the system. I think that a lot of people who were involved would feel the same. So we have those three systems.
We should recognise that, if the coalition policy gets pushed through this House, we will have elections for the second Chamber—with another system of elections and another structure—as well as a change for the Commons. That is why I argue the case against having this referendum—indeed, against any changes for first past the post. I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, did not agree with what he wrote 40 years ago because I am sure that it was right then and I am sure that it is right now.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I did not say that I completely withdrew what I said. I said that not all the arguments had stood up so well. As regards the German system, I did not say that I preferred it; I said that I thought it was the best of the alternatives.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful for that clarification and I apologise if I have misrepresented the noble Lord. I hope he will then agree with this practical argument. We should look towards first past the post continuing for the House of Commons. If we have elections to the House of Lords, that is where we should have some proportional system. If the Commons continues, as it will, to form the Government—in other words, once the Commons is elected that is where the Government come from—stability is important. Apart from the current aberration of the coalition, first past the post normally produces stability. It produces one party in power for a period of time—five, 10 or 15 years. That gives some stability, which, in government, is important.
Lord Liddle
Is it the case that under that arrangement what you would have in practice would be more instability? What you would have is a Lords with full democratic legitimacy, elected on proportional representation, which would feel able to overturn the decisions of the House of Commons. Therefore, you would not get stability by that system.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I remind the noble Lord of a speech he gave to the parliamentary Labour Party about four years ago, where he made precisely the point that is now being made. He said that in the event that we were elected here by proportional representation and they by first past the post we would claim legitimacy where they could not.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I remember it well. On that occasion, I said that, if senators were elected for Scotland, for example, or for Wales, Northern Ireland or England, to a second Chamber, which was a Senate, they would certainly claim some legitimacy or might even claim a greater legitimacy. However, if the Lords continues as a revising Chamber, I would argue the case for proportional representation for that revising Chamber.
Lord Skidelsky
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. As mover of this amendment, I point out that we are not discussing reform of the House of Lords at this point, we are discussing the amendment that has been tabled.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I had realised that and I will come to it in just a moment.
Baroness McDonagh
Is it not the case that, when we are debating this referendum, we also need to think ahead of other changes that may happen and whether they may work with this system? That is the point that my noble friend is alluding to.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to my noble friend for rushing to my defence in a distinguished and helpful way—I was going to say gallant, but that is the wrong way round. What I was arguing, as my noble friend said, is that we need to take account of these things when we are looking at this amendment and any changes in the election to the House Commons, the first Chamber. If the Lords is the revising Chamber and is not forming the Government, there is an argument for it being elected by first past the post because then you have a different system balancing what the House of Commons and what the Government are putting to Parliament.
As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—or perhaps it was my noble friend—rightly said, this would mean that you would have to carefully define the powers of both the Commons and the Lords. That is why I believe that we are moving towards needing some kind of written constitution with devolved parliamentary assemblies and parliaments, with a separate Supreme Court and with the possibility and the proposal to elect the second Chamber. Everything needs to be much more clearly defined. That is why it would be madness—and this is where I come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, which was moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Owen—to rush into this kind of referendum, or any kind of referendum, to change the system for the House of Commons. There are enough other changes taking place with the proposed reform of the House of Lords; we should learn from the changes that have taken place in Scotland, although it has not been a happy experience. We should not rush into something that has unexpected consequences just because the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, apparently puts a convincing case. Just because the noble Lord has spent 35 years arguing the case for proportional representation, we should not move in that direction. What is best for the Labour Party and the country is to stick to first past the post, which has provided election to the House of Commons with some degree of stability over a long period.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I will make some practical points in saying why I am in favour of neither this amendment nor the one to be spoken to later by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which is not dissimilar. Frankly, if one were dealing in the theory of referenda and the reform of electoral systems at this time, I would find a great deal to favour particularly in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I will be frank—I have fought and lost five parliamentary elections. The first was for Labour in 1970. At that time, I confess, I did not think twice about electoral systems. I knew, as all Labour and Tory Members know, that the first past the post system was deeply in their favour. One of the problems of discussing reform here or in the other place is that we are all parti pris. We are all conflicted. Nobody can look at this complex but profound issue without party affiliation coming into play.
However, it is also fair to say—the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, expressed it very well—that, before and above that, we are concerned about Parliament: its respect in the country, its effectiveness and its health. I do not think anybody sitting here tonight believes that our Parliament, in 2010, is in good fettle. I do not for one second suggest that the lack of democratic adherence to it is, by any means, solely down to the electoral system. However, I maintain that it is one of the principal reasons why so many of our fellow countrymen do not even bother to vote—to use the precious vote that our forefathers fought so hard for. Four out of 10 do not vote and—I heard this statistic the other night—of those aged under 30, only around two out of six voted in the last election. One principal reason is that unless you are a Tory or Labour supporter your vote is apt to count for nothing. I think as much of the Greens and, indeed, UKIP as I do of the Liberal Democrat Party.
The other thing I know, which deeply affects my feeling about this amendment, is that we have been going round and round this mulberry bush my entire political life. There is always not just one but 10 reasons why we should not have reform now, and why we should wait until we have decided whether there is to be election to the House of Lords, and so on. There are always several reasons. My noble friend Lord Rennard gave, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, kindly admitted, an extremely clear and persuasive history of electoral reform—or rather the failure to have electoral reform—in this country. It is perfectly clear that many organisations and all the parties in this House use AV now. It has no deep defect. What is absolutely unavoidable is that the consequences of bringing in AV at this juncture will profoundly affect all parties in this country.
I come to my last point, which is to admit that the Liberal Democrats are plainly the party that is keenest on AV for electoral purposes. It is in our self-interest—of course it is. However, we also believe—I hope noble Lords will accept my sincerity—that it is also in the public interest, for the reasons I have briefly touched on, to give many more people a stake in government and a useful vote. Incidentally, if any non-Lib Dem was to go around with a Lib Dem on the doorsteps, my goodness, they would hear about electoral reform then. I am not surprised that you do not hear about it if you are a Conservative or Labour supporter.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If it could be shown that by changing the electoral system in favour of STV or AV, turnout did not rise, would that in any way influence how the noble Lord thinks about the proposition on the table?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Yes, of course it would, but the noble Lord cannot demonstrate that until we have tried it. It is no good telling us about Ireland or Iceland.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If it could be shown that in Scotland turnout did not rise, would that influence the noble Lord?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
It would influence me to some extent but I would want to know a great deal more about it before I admitted anything more than that here and now.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I hope the noble Lord is able to attend our future debates on this issue.
Baroness McDonagh
Taking Wales as an example, why does the noble Lord believe that more people turn out to vote in first past the post elections than under other systems there?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Noble Lords are now asking me a series of questions at large that need very detailed consideration to be commented on sensibly. All I will say is that I am convinced that, because in many constituencies a Liberal vote, a Green vote or a vote for anything but the prevailing party is a waste of time, common sense says that people will not be engaged with the election in that constituency in the way that they would if they had a vote that counted.
Baroness McDonagh
I am sorry but the noble Lord is saying that if we have a different form of voting system, more people will vote. That clearly has not happened in Scotland and Wales. Will he now change his opinion?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I certainly will not. I can speak of this country, where I have fought five parliamentary elections. I know how people in this country—those who are not of the dominant party in the constituency concerned—think about the voting system. It seems blazingly obvious that if you are not of the prevailing party, the tendency not to vote is very strong and has led to the present facts. Please take note of the declining turnout among young voters. They are increasingly disenchanted with the hegemony of our system.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Will noble Lords allow me quickly to conclude my speech? The noble Baroness has intervened twice already.
For us on these Benches, it is now or never. It is AV or nothing. We believe AV to be an improvement, and an improvement in the public interest. For those reasons I will not, I am afraid, be tempted to vote for either the amendment we are discussing or those that bear upon it.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I was going to intervene briefly in any case, but the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has given me so much material that I cannot guarantee that it will be as brief as I thought. His whole contribution was as though absolutely nothing had happened in the way of electoral reform during the last 15 years. A host of different electoral systems have been introduced. I have not as yet written my memoirs about the period of the Labour Government, but I can reveal to the House this little bit of information. Every time the word went round that we were suggesting there should be a change in the electoral system for Europe, local government, Scotland, Wales or wherever, I always did my best within government to try and prevent that happening. There is a chapter in my memoirs that I shall call “I told you so”. Before the European proportional representation system was introduced, people like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, although I cannot speak for the noble Lord, and my noble friend Lord Rooker—for on this matter we have not always agreed—predicted with absolute confidence: “Look at all the wasted Labour votes in Surrey and Sussex. Look at all the wasted Conservative votes in the north-east. They will start flocking to the polls as soon as we have a proportional system and their votes won’t be wasted any longer”. It has not happened. That is not me in a seminar saying that. It has not happened.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful for the noble Lord for giving way. We are talking about Westminster elections—not a proportional Euro-election, but Westminster elections.
Lord Grocott
But why on earth, if the noble Lord’s argument does not apply in Europe—and empirically I can show him that it does not apply—why would it suddenly start applying in Westminster elections? I just cannot understand the point.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
Maybe this will help the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Since devolution took place in Scotland, in 1998, the turnout for Westminster elections under first past the post has been the greatest of all; followed by the Scottish Parliament with proportional representation, which has been less; followed by the European elections, which has been even less. Can the noble Lord tell us why that is?
Lord Grocott
I will even try and trump my noble friend on my knowledge of Scottish elections. I agree entirely with what he said and the implication of what he said. However, is it not also true to say that in what was described as the laboratory of a Scottish election for the Scottish Parliament—where people have two votes, one for PR and one for first past the post; and that is as near a laboratory as you will ever get in an electoral system—in election after election, more people turn out for the first past the post option than they do for the PR option. With this kind of debate, the whole of the discussion takes place as if nothing has happened, A lot has happened. A lot of electoral systems have been tried. Those who were suggesting, insisting on, demanding reform—for there was a huge public demand for a change in the electoral system—have been proved conclusively and unarguably wrong in terms of the benefits they told us would accrue if their proposals were accepted.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am very reluctant to join in the almost filibustering tactics of the Opposition and incur the wrath of my colleagues, but would the noble Lord not reject the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that a vote for someone who loses an election is a wasted vote? In a presidential election people lose, but that does not mean that their vote has been wasted. In case the Opposition have not noted it, people will lose under the alternative vote if they vote with their first preference for a losing candidate. Will that be a wasted vote as well? This whole idea of a wasted vote is complete bunkum.
Lord Grocott
I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I speak as someone who has lost nearly as many elections as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—four, as a matter of fact, all for the Labour party. If anyone should be opposed to first past the post and want to change to any other electoral system, it probably ought to be me. I should add that I have also lost three county council elections and one or two parish elections as well. So it is a pretty abysmal electoral record. However, I have no doubt whatever that as far as local electors in local constituencies are concerned, first past the post is the fairest, best and most understood electoral system. But that is not what we are here to debate. I am not going to filibuster—I can assure the House of that. I am going to stick rigorously and briefly to the amendment that we are debating and try and say why I am opposed to it.
The amendment would give us a choice between first past the post, the alternative vote system and a proportional vote system. People like me used to be at a huge disadvantage—like the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I have not changed my mind on this over decades—but I support, and always have done, first past the post. Historically, however, we were always at a huge disadvantage. We were asking people whenever we were in debate, “Judge the first past the post system, which you know and with which you are familiar, against these various alternative theoretical systems”, which were unspecified—and particularly, I say without undue criticism of the amendment, unspecified in the choices being put to the electorate here. As for the first past the post system, it is precise and exact. That is what we know. That is what we have lived through. It has its strengths and it has its weaknesses, and we are very familiar with its weaknesses.
As for the alternative vote system, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has already conclusively argued, it is actually a series of possible options in itself. As for a proportional vote system, there are very nearly as many of those as one can imagine. Whenever I was in a debate with someone about first past the post versus proportional representation, they would always say to me, “Ah, but you’re arguing against that form of proportional representation, not the form of proportional representation that I am in favour of”. When you are choosing between what is known and what is unknown, a referendum of this sort is always difficult. But I am not therefore arguing that you can never put anything to the electorate because, taking that to its logical conclusion, you never could put anything to the electorate as you would always know what is familiar best. I am saying, in relation to this amendment, that if we are to have a referendum—I would prefer that we did not, but if we do—it needs to be as specific as it can be.
I find myself in a strange position. Probably for the first time in my life, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I do not think that this amendment is helpful. It does not have the precision of the proposal currently on the table: it is first past the post versus the alternative vote system. That at least has the merit of clarity, although I would much prefer that we did not have either.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, helped the House—at least it was helpful to my line of argument—when he conceded, and he can correct me if I am wrong, that for him, and I would assume that it would apply to whatever referendum question went to the public, this would only be a short-term solution. This is a referendum about work in progress. I must say that that alarms me.
I think that I can probably help the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his summing up. His Liberal Democrat colleagues rightly have been asked: “How long? Should this referendum result in a yes, for how long would it stand?”. The Liberal Democrats have already given us their answer, which is basically: “As short a period as possible. We want to move on rapidly to full PR or whatever”. I can guess what the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would be if he were asked: how soon after a yes or no vote should the matter be put to the public again in a referendum? I would guess that his answer would be, “We wouldn’t want to touch that with a barge pole”. I think that that would at least be a straightforward and honest response. But as far as this proposed amendment is concerned, it is not one that should be attractive to the House.
Lord Snape
It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Grocott. So far in this debate it has been the other way round. He will not be surprised to learn—I do not know how gratified he will be—that I agreed with every word that he has said, too. Like him, I am a fan of the first past the post system. Unlike him—purely coincidentally, I am sure—I have had a bit more success, which is probably the best argument against first past the post that either side of your Lordships’ House has come up with. Certainly I do not find much favour with the amendment due to the various alternatives that it provides. No one listening to this debate could doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, although I found some of his conclusions somewhat confusing, to say the least. We talk about young people and politics. There will be lots of young people interested in politics demonstrating outside this building this week, largely because politicians who make promises and then immediately break them do not greatly enamour themselves to those young people.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the only party that has consistently supported and campaigned for AV is the Labour Party. We are the only ones to have done so. Am I being helpful?
Lord Snape
My noble friend is indeed being helpful and I am grateful. The fact is that we got it wrong. At least that is certainly the opinion that many of us hold, and we will continue to get it wrong if we continue to support it. I accept the sincerity of my noble friend and my noble friend Lord Rooker. I remember a conversation that I had with him in 1987 after the then—from the party’s point of view—unsuccessful election. I asked him why he was in favour of PR. I cannot imagine why we were discussing PR—we must have been stuck on a very long train journey. I hope that I am not betraying any confidences when I say that my noble friend was brutally honest and said, “Because we can’t win under the present system”. However, we did eventually win under that system. The Liberal Democrats argue that they cannot win under the present system because their votes are diffused throughout the United Kingdom. I understand why they campaign in favour of proportional representation and I would understand them supporting some parts of the amendment before your Lordships tonight. However, I wish that they would be a little more honest, as was the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in their declared support for AV. It is totally in their interests, although it is against everything for which they have campaigned for over 100 years.
Lord Baker of Dorking
I feel that I almost have to ask permission of the Labour Party to participate in this debate. For the past hour and three-quarters, we on this side of the Committee have been privileged to attend a Labour Party seminar on electoral reform. It has been a fascinating experience and the advocacy from the other side for every possible system of voting has been heard in this Committee. I feel almost sympathy and sorrow for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—not a sentiment that I often feel—because he is supposed to be representing Labour Party Front-Bench opinion. I do not know what threads he is going to draw out of what he has heard this evening. Do I see a conversion to first past the post for a Front-Bench speaker? That is not consistent with what his leader is saying. The leader of the Labour Party is totally opposed to most of the views that have been expressed on the Benches opposite. I do not want to intrude any further into private grief.
Lord Snape
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Has he taken a look at his own Front Bench lately?
Lord Baker of Dorking
My Front Bench are wonderfully consistent. Their consistency consists of retaining power for as long as possible, and I look upon that as an essential political talent. Over the past hour and three-quarters we have seen the Labour Party approach constitutional reform with a spirit of confusion, illogicality, incoherence and low cunning. That is entirely consistent with the attitude that they showed in government, and it indicates why they should never be trusted with reform of the constitution of our country.
Lord Liddle
I was very tempted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, because I should like to see a wide-ranging debate about all forms of electoral reform in this country. I am very tempted indeed by the amendments of my noble friend Lord Rooker, which go for a two-party arrangement, first seeking the people’s opinion on whether in principle they want change and then asking them what system in particular they want. That is an amendment that deserves the support of many people on our side of the Chamber.
So far as concerns the general question of why we need a debate on this issue, I think that we should set aside questions of party advantage. I know that people will laugh at that but I think that we should do so and ask ourselves whether the present system has legitimacy. The first general election in which I canvassed and campaigned was the 1964 general election, when the Labour Party and the Conservative Party got more than 85 per cent of the votes cast. The two parties were overwhelmingly dominant in our politics. But when you look at the result of the last two general elections—2010 and 2005—you see that the two major parties won only about two-thirds, 65 per cent, of the votes cast. This is not legitimate. You cannot have a system, which is an alleged two-party system, in which the voice of 35 per cent of the electorate is not being effectively heard. That is why we have to have a big debate in our country about electoral reform.
There are many arguments made against electoral reform, such as that it will result in weak government because there have to be coalitions. However, although I do not agree with the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, I do not believe that it is a weak Government. I think it is quite a decisive Government who are getting on with doing a lot of things I do not particularly like. It blows a hole, however, in one of the arguments against proportional representation, which is that it would result in a coalition politics that would mean that nothing would ever get done.
There is a strong argument to be made for the sake of the country. The late Lord Jenkins, of whom I was a great admirer, attached a lot of importance to the belief, based on his experience in the 1980s, that it was a very bad situation indeed when there were no Conservatives in the county of Durham and no Labour people in the county of Surrey. What you got was a polarisation of the country when in fact what you want is a system of representation where there are Conservatives who have to represent the deprived areas of the north of England and there are Labour MPs who represent the more affluent districts. That would be good for the country and would produce a more legitimate system. That is why I support electoral reform; why I am tempted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, but am not going to support it; why I would definitely support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; and why I very much support the principle of a referendum on some change.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, in a previous existence I used to teach something called social science research methods, which was basically reduced in large part to constructing questionnaires and getting undergraduates to go out and ask people in various ways which way they would vote if there was a general election tomorrow. There never was a general election tomorrow, so the results were always slightly erroneous and had no predictive basis whatsoever.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, says:
“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons”.
Then we get this wonderful sentence:
“It is proposed that the system should be changed”.
Let us note the two words “proposed” and “changed”. You are actually sensitising the respondent to the desired response, because everyone accepts on that basis that it is proposed, so it is a good thing: and “change”, as we know, is a very powerful word—think of Barack Obama. It is a false question in terms of equal balance because you are making clear the direction of the desired response just by using those two words: “proposed” and “changed”.
We then get on to the more substantive issue of linking the first past the post system, which is actually undefined, with the alternative vote system. The one thing that we have learnt during the debates and discussions on this is that we do not know whether there is “the” alternative vote system. Very different types of systems claim to be the alternative vote system, but there is not one “the” alternative vote system.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, that was a fantastically revealing debate. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, delivered an extremely good speech that was rational, reasonable and sensible. It basically said that, if we are going to have a debate about constitutional reform, let everyone have a reasonable choice. Unfortunately—this is no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—he has absolutely no understanding of what is going on in relation to the proposal for constitutional reform that is being advanced.
For the past 13, maybe 20, years, our approach to constitutional reform as a nation has been that this House has the role at least of producing as good a constitutional reform as we can. The work of the Cook-Maclennan report, which had lots of years behind it, was to produce the best constitutional reform. Extraordinarily, this constitutional reform, unlike any other constitutional reform I can remember, is being conducted without Parliament having a view on it. Individual parliamentarians like the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who delivered an excellent speech, have a view on constitutional reform, but neither Parliament, nor indeed the Government, has a view on this reform. They had a view on devolution in 1997, and Parliament had a view on the Common Market in 1975, but this is a process, not support for constitutional reform.
The perfectly reasonable amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, therefore meets a car crash. The first part of the car crash is the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who, with eyes popping with sincerity, tells us that he is strongly in favour of AV, having never supported AV before. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, then gets up and says that he has been talking about constitutional reform since he was 15—I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when he says “poor Lord Rennard”, whom we greatly admire in this House—and he says that he supports the alternative vote system. This lot on the Liberal Democrat Benches are therefore standing on their heads. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has the nerve to say that they are doing this to restore the people’s trust in our parliamentary representatives by adopting a system that the Liberal Democrats have opposed for so long and which, as has often been said, is described by Mr Nicholas Clegg as “a miserable little compromise”. The public think that they are doing this to get more seats, not because they are sincere, so they are eroding public support. Sensibly, the party opposite has remained completely silent throughout this debate in relation to whether there should be a change to the electoral system. Members opposite looked patronisingly on the Liberal Democrats for being so easily gulled into behaving in a way that brings the whole system into contempt.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, in an embittered little speech, had the nerve to say, “I have been privileged to listen to a seminar on electoral reform from the Labour Party”. Yes he has, and he is lucky to have done so because no one else in the whole country appears to be debating what the right system is. Surely the least the public could expect is Parliament debating what the best system is, because no other debate is going on. In answer to the noble Lord’s question about how to bring all the strands together, I have great sympathy for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. There are problems with it. It is pretty eccentric to choose an electoral system on AV when you are asking the public to determine whether they like AV best. I understand why that is being done—it is a rational way of doing it—but I am afraid he is wasting his time because this constitutional reform is motivated not by what the best constitutional reform is but by a grubby deal that was done that had no reference to what was best for the public.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble and learned Lord has made a rather passionate attack on my position. I am not standing on my head and I have not argued anything other than that I believe that this referendum should be held on an AV system, and I have explained why.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I was under the impression—obviously wrongly—that on previous occasions the noble Lord had supported AV+, as suggested by Lord Jenkins. Indeed, his party supported that, but I was obviously wrong.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his kind references to the agreements arrived at between Robin Cook and me. He will also remember in the context of his suggestions that this is just a stitch-up: that the Labour Party in Government did not implement the Cook-Maclennan proposals on electoral reform, despite a manifesto commitment to give the public the opportunity. In those days the Labour Party was not in favour of PR; yet it committed itself to giving the public a choice. Where is the difference now?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord is right. We did not implement Lord Jenkins’ proposals. We said that if we were going to implement a change, there would be a referendum. I fail to see how that justifies implementing a system of election which Lord Jenkins said would sometimes lead to greater disproportionality than the present system. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has said, that leads to the second party’s second preference votes having no say in the answer. Although he is absolutely right to condemn us for that, I do not think that it allows the public to have sicked upon it a system that absolutely no one wants. My position on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is that I admire his logic in proposing it, but I would not support it because of the technical changes. In a sense, I think he is wasting his time.
Lord Strathclyde
If noble Lord, Lord Owen, had been here—like others I wish him well—I am sure that he would have been immensely proud of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, moved his amendment. I expect he would also have been reminded of the reasons why he left the Labour Party in the first place.
The purpose of the amendment is to give people the choice of a proportional system along with the choice of first past the post and the alternative vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, explained, they had previously tabled an amendment giving a choice of AV+, AMS or STV but had subsequently changed their amendment, so it was not about specifically wanting to pose AV+, AMS or STV as options in their own right but to pose the principle of PR as an option.
We believe that on an issue as fundamental as voting reform, the public need to be given a clear choice that will produce an equally clear result. The key point is about the impact that this sort of approach will have on the result. I understand that the noble Lord wished to see a multiple choice of voting options, including some form of PR. However, for the sake of simplicity—this is the crucial point—it is better to present people with a simple yes/no alternative, exactly as set out in the Bill. Multiple choice questions go against the recommendations of the Lords Constitution Committee report on referendums, which concluded that the presumption should be in favour of questions posing only two options for voters. That is one of a number of many points on which we agree.
A referendum on AV replacing the existing system will give a clear choice to the electorate, with the ability for them to express a clear view. Offering more than one choice could lead to an indecisive result and confusion over the interpretation of the result. The watchwords that we need to stand by when holding any referendum are simplicity, clarity and decisiveness. We would risk disregarding each of those if we went down the road suggested by these amendments.
The question in the Bill as it currently stands reflects the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, which tested the question through focus groups and interviews with members of the public as well as through input from language experts. This amendment risks going against that independent advice from the Electoral Commission, which recommended that, unlike a question requiring a yes/no answer, this style of question has never been used in a UK-wide referendum, and, as such, fuller testing would need to be undertaken before recommending this style of question ahead of a more traditional yes/no question.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If during the referendum campaign the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is in a television studio and is asked why the public cannot decide on the system that they want—first past the post, a variant on the alternative vote system or a proportional system—how would he reply?
Lord Strathclyde
I would reply that this is the system passed by Parliament: that, in particular, the House of Commons agreed on the system, as we did—if that is what has happened—and that is why we have the choice of AV. As to why we have AV above the other systems, no doubt we will get to that in other debates. Of course, AV is the one that preserves best the link between elected Member and constituency.
Another issue is that the wording in the amendment could influence voters, as it says:
“It is proposed that the system should be changed”.
The Government are neutral on which voting system should be used, and that statement could be misleading.
In these amendments there is not even an indication of the kind of proportional voting system that the public would get if they voted for this option or of how this type of system would work. One attraction of the approach taken in the Bill is that for all the arguments there might be about how AV works, the Bill sets that out in Clause 9 and in Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works can be resolved by looking at the Bill, which would not be the case with these amendments. The results might be a lack of clarity and voter confusion.
Lord Sewel
For the sake of completeness and comprehensiveness, would the noble Lord agree, given the weaknesses of the definitions under proposed new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), that for the sake of completeness there ought to be mention of the additional Member system that has at least been tried and used in parts of the United Kingdom?
Lord Strathclyde
That is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and not for me. I hope that he will not press his amendment. I know that he wanted a short debate about these matters—he may have got more than he bargained for—and I hope that he will reflect carefully about what I and others have said. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skidelsky
I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate, particularly to the two Front-Bench spokesmen for the cogent and gracious way in which they summed up the issues that the amendment raised. I have four concise points to make. First, I very much appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. He made a very powerful case against the alternative vote—he might even have persuaded me of its demerits—but I emphasise that the amendment was not about the merits and demerits of particular voting systems; it was designed to give people a choice.
Secondly, it was said that voting reform is not a subject of interest to the mass of the people; it is of interest only to the chattering classes. I think there are quite a large number of chattering classes in this country, and if you call them professional classes they may even constitute a majority. They are interested in subjects such as this, so that is simply wrong.
I am not convinced that ordinary people are incapable of understanding the principle of proportionality. I think that it is a very reasonable question to put and that people will know what you mean and how it differs from first past the post and the alternative vote.
Finally, no one addressed the issue I raised in my speech of whether a simple choice, of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, supported, is worth a referendum. Referenda ought to be preserved for grand issues of constitutional import, and a measure of this kind, which would make a marginal change in the voting system, is not worth a referendum. No one really addressed that.
Having said all that, I am very grateful. I do not propose to test the opinion of the House on this amendment, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I give notice that I may return to it on Report. Thank you very much.
Arctic Ice Cap
(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jay of Ewelme
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the economic and security implications of the melting of the Arctic ice cap.
Lord Jay of Ewelme
My Lords, my interest in the Arctic stems from my interest in climate change. It seems to me to be entirely appropriate that we should be discussing this aspect of climate change, the Arctic, when climate change negotiations are taking place in Cancun. I very much hope, though not with every expectation, that the negotiations in Cancun have a greater chance of success than those that took place in Copenhagen a year ago. By focusing on the Arctic, I do not do so at the expense of the focus that needs to be continued on those who suffer most from climate change, particularly in the poorest countries of the world.
The issue this evening is not whether climate change is happening or who or what caused it. The issue is that change, dramatic change, is occurring in the Arctic with potentially profound implications, including for British interests. The question is whether we are doing enough now to protect and promote our interests in the future. The subject might be less immediate than many discussed in your Lordships’ House, but other nations are reacting to the changes they see or foresee. Our interests are affected too and my concern is that, if we do not take them seriously now, we may well regret that later.
The Arctic is the fastest warming region on Earth. By 2007, it had lost half the ice that existed in 1950—over one million square miles of ice, roughly equivalent to one quarter of the United States. The result is that the Arctic is becoming more accessible. In 2007 and 2008, the north-west passage was opened for two weeks. In August last year, two German commercial ships, unaccompanied by icebreakers, traversed the North Sea route from Vladivostok to the Netherlands. These routes are substantially shorter than the traditional sea routes from east to west and vice versa. They are, of course, only navigable for short periods and there is always the risk of ice and of atrocious weather in hostile, not-well-charted waters. My father was captain of a naval escort ship which escorted Arctic convoys during the Second World War and his description of conditions in the Arctic were not for the faint-hearted.
These seas, the Arctic Ocean, are not going to become the new great sea route for the world in the next decade, but, in 20 years or so—by which time scientists expect ice-free summers—they might. When they do—and I believe that it is a “when” and not an “if”—will there not be opportunities for maritime nations such as ours? Might there not be scope for developing again some of the great ports of northern England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to service the new shipping lanes? Are there not huge opportunities, too, for our insurance companies and our insurance markets? I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Meanwhile, there is already great interest in the prospect of mineral extraction from the Arctic. Here too, there are risks and opportunities. The risks, of course, are the environmental catastrophes that can follow mineral and especially oil extraction, as we have seen already in Alaska and, more recently, in the Gulf of Mexico. There is at present uncertainty over the likely timescale for exploiting the Arctic; much will depend, as always, on demand, on price and on technology. However, present estimates—and they can only be estimates—are that 13 per cent of so-far-undiscovered supplies of oil in the world, 30 per cent of natural gas and 20 per cent of natural liquid gas, could lie in the Arctic. The Arctic already currently produces about 10 per cent of the world’s oil and 25 per cent of its gas, and those figures seem bound to increase. Here again, the opportunities for Britain companies that are used to operating in some of the world’s most inhospitable zones are great, so what is being done now to maximise their chances of success? What scope will there be for fisheries in our increasingly ice-free Arctic? My understanding is that Iceland, Norway and Russia are already interested in investing in large fishing fleets with an eye to Arctic bounty. What is Britain doing? Is there scope for replacing some of the declining traditional fisheries with fisheries in the Arctic? Will we allow others to gain the advantage here, or will we take it ourselves?
There is significant change under way in the Arctic, with important implications for Britain. It is therefore equally important that we should remain fully involved in international negotiations and discussions about the future of the region. There are many British academic and non-governmental organisations with great experience and expertise and with much to offer others. The British Antarctic Survey, which has an important Arctic dimension and a deservedly high reputation, is one, but intergovernmental co-operation is crucial. The key forum is the Arctic Council, consisting of the Arctic states: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States. The UK is an observer and, indeed, an active observer, and rightly so, but there is a move among Arctic states members to limit the role of observer states, including the United Kingdom. Can the Minister give an assurance that we will continue to be closely involved in the work of the Arctic Council, given its importance and our experience and interests in the region?
However, the Arctic Council covers only some Arctic issues, essentially protecting the environment, which is, of course, crucial. Other international organisations have a key role too, for example, the International Maritime Organization, for shipping issues, or the UN law of the sea conference, but other issues, including, crucially, security, are less obviously covered by existing institutions. Sovereignty is not always clear. We all remember, I suspect, the Russian flag planted on the Arctic sea bed a couple of years ago to stake a sovereignty claim. How are territorial disputes linking, for example, to oil fields, to be resolved as the Arctic becomes more widely navigable and exploited?
I do not know how often Arctic affairs have been discussed in your Lordships’ House, but I would guess that they will be discussed pretty regularly in the future, as the significance of the melting of the ice cap becomes more apparent, and with it the important implications for British interests. I look forward to Minister's response.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, we are deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I am sure that he is right in saying that this is just the first of the debates we shall have on the Arctic. He mentioned the pace of the melting of the ice. This is nothing new. When Nansen’s “Fram” drifted across the Arctic Ocean, it took three years to get from the Bering Strait to clear water off Greenland. When the French boat “Tara” did it in 2006, it took just two years. Indeed, the Arctic flow is twice as strong as it was 100 years ago, and that is a pretty dramatic change. In 2007, the summer ice shrank to half the level that it was in the 1950s and 1960s, as the noble Lord said. I would like to draw to the attention of the House another phenomenon, which scientists call the Albedo effect. The sunlight shining down on ice or snow is almost all reflected and only about 15 per cent goes to warm the seas underneath. If there is clear water, 95 per cent of the sunlight warms the water. Therefore, as the amount of clear water in the summer increases, so the Albedo effect has an accelerating impact on the melting of the ice. This is the reason why the Arctic is growing warmer faster than anywhere else in the world.
The noble Lord raised a number of questions, but there is no doubt about it: this has greatly encouraged the huge search for minerals. There is a difference. Off Alaska, the American environmentalist movement has now made it extremely difficult for international oil companies to prospect for oil with any prospect of being allowed to do so. Shell, one of the big companies there—a British company— is at the moment marking time on this. If one looks across to Siberia, however, the Russian experience is very different. There are, as I have heard described, staggering quantities of gas as well as oil. During the Soviet era, there were enormous and immensely damaging changes to the environment. That is now being corrected by the new Russian administration. The Russians have at least three very major projects offshore of the Siberian coast. Much the biggest is the Shtokman gas field, which is—noble Lords may be surprised to learn— the second largest gas field in the world, though in immensely challenging, hugely deep water.
The noble Lord referred to the ice cap; but of course, there is no land under the North Pole—it is all ice. It is immensely deep water, sometimes four or five miles deep. There are huge icebergs, but in Alun Anderson’s book After the Ice, which first attracted me to this—and I really recommend anybody who is interested in this subject to read it; it is a fascinating compendium of facts, history and forecasts—the author described the Shtokman field as,
“the hottest groundbreaking project in the entire Arctic, and Russia is driving it forward”.
That is something of which we really need to take account. If one looks at the deeper water further north, it is even more difficult. The combination of accelerating warming and this advancing technology poses, as the noble Lord has said, huge challenges for us all, and I, too, look forward to my noble friend’s reply from the Front Bench as to what we are doing about it.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am absolutely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is right that we will be discussing this topic on many occasions in future. I find it one of the most interesting topics because views on the Arctic are some of the most diverse that there are. If one reads the press cuttings and look at the news, whether it is the two Mir exploratory submarines of the Russian Federation or whatever, the Arctic is going to be, or already is, the second Cold War, with all the military threats that there are, including the resource wars—all of that is a real threat to global security. On the other side, I was at a meeting not that long ago of heads of parliamentary foreign affairs committees in Prague. I was speaking to my Danish colleague—Denmark being, because of Greenland, one of the Arctic Council nations—and I mentioned all these issues about the north-west passage, international waters and resources, and she looked at me completely calmly and said, “No, the Arctic Council has all of these under control. We are discussing them all and we are doing that within international law and everything will be resolved. Robin, don’t worry about it. Worry about everything else, but that one, as Arctic nations, we’ve got sorted”. That is a paraphrase.
The Arctic is of great interest to us. First, the Arctic is the leading indicator of global warming. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, an important factor is the reflective effect of the polar ice cap, which will lead to the increase in methane in that area that we already see elsewhere in our planet’s atmosphere. We have international shipping; we have the strong Canadian view that not all of these waters are international waters, and that it has national control over many of these areas, and so there is potentially a dispute with the United States, among others, and those other nations that might want to use them. There are commodities there, including 100 billion tonnes of hydrocarbons—25 per cent of global reserves. All of that is there to be fought over; I refer to territorial claims and the 1,200 mile-long Lomonosov Ridge—and I am not sure whether I have got that pronunciation exactly right— Ridge that extends across much of that area.
From my humble position, I see that there are things that need to be done, and I would be interested in the Minister’s reply. First, in terms of world security, global warming is the one thing that needs to be sorted out in this area, but that is not just an Arctic issue. In terms of territorial disputes, it is most important that we persuade and cajole the United States to finally become a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, through which these disputes and boundaries can be resolved amicably.
As regards drilling and the way in which these resources will inevitably be exploited, this year, the Gulf of Mexico has shown that we need very stringent terms and conditions in terms of the way in which those minerals are exploited and in terms of the emergency facilities when that does not work. As to international seaways, we need to look to Canada to talk very closely and carefully with the international community to resolve international waters conversations and disputes in a way that everyone is able to respect. We also need to increase hugely our communications ability in respect of emergencies and the seaway. But, most of all, I ask that we encourage—the EU and the United Kingdom should participate in the Arctic Council—the use of these methods to come to a peaceful, long-lasting and legal framework for resolution of these issues.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, the Arctic has a magical attraction posing special physical challenges—remoteness, ice and extreme temperatures, with long periods of darkness. But as the region warms in the decades to come, the ice cap will gradually melt and its ecosystems change. Technology will improve and commercial opportunities will present shorter shipping routes, fishing grounds, new destinations for commercial tourism, and new oil and gas development opportunities. The United States Geological Survey 2008, for example, has estimated the potential magnitude of the resources in the Arctic as containing, as we have already heard, 90 billion barrels of oil, 1,700 TCF of gas and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, all equating to some 10 years of current global oil and gas demand.
A framework for the staged implementation of performance-based standards is required therefore to govern Arctic offshore oil and gas exploration, development, production and transportation, which must take into consideration the special challenges of the Arctic environment, and so enable compliance integrated with regulatory arrangements. Therefore, co-operation between industry, regulators and other stakeholders is a fundamental.
The central question that comes to my mind is, “How is a global treasure to be developed in a manner which provides, yet preserves?”. International and national interest in mitigating and adapting to future changes to make responsible development happen has led to calls from Arctic and non-Arctic nations to anticipate and assess the new levels of activity to the region. Effective governance through Arctic-specific international standards, and adapted national regulations and standards, is critical in managing and mitigating risks and securing safe, reliable and environmentally responsible development. Many commentators choose to view the changes in the Arctic in terms of security; namely, energy security, environmental security and human security.
If the Arctic is to be developed, and there is no possibility of this not happening, it is essential that international co-operation on science, planning, inclusive engagement, standards of operation and safety is ensured. Have we got to the stage that world players, Governments and private sector alike have the experience and technology to develop in a manner that causes no future long-term regret? Have we learnt from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, including what went wrong and what will be done to prevent a similar occurrence? A constant concern is whether sufficient emphasis will be placed on addressing the wishes and needs of the Arctic’s 4 million inhabitants. The Arctic is not about taking short-cuts and the residents of the region should be brought on board at an early stage of planning.
In 2009, the Aspen Commission on Arctic Climate Change of the Aspen Institute identified initial principles of Arctic governance as forming the foundation and the standards by which future governance and sustainable management of human activities in the Arctic marine environment should be measured. Building on those principles, the Aspen commission is in the throes of publishing its final report, which is expected to report its recommendations in January 2011.
I expect a number of points to emerge, the most important of which is to ensure the strengthening of the Arctic Council to allow it to follow through on all recommendations, including those of the Aspen Institute. Other points I expect include, first, that marine spatial planning should be the innovative tool to implement and measure success over time of ecosystem-based management across sectors and large marine ecosystems. It should be noted, however, that the starting point of such a process should be the formulation of clear development objectives. Secondly, a new Arctic marine conservation sustainable development plan should be called for and should recognise that the region’s challenges are not limited to national concerns. Launching such an effort would require high-level ministerial engagement, if not that of the heads of state of Arctic Governments. And thirdly, an Arctic science programme should be implemented and integrated as part of an Arctic marine conservation sustainable development plan, using an open-source information network. The Arctic high seas, for example, should be designated as a science reserve to signal a new level and scope of international co-operation and collaboration. A specific plan should be developed to gather the scientific information urgently needed to make informed decisions about the region’s future.
A real opportunity exists for a new era of international co-operation in the Arctic, allowing for objective and balanced debate to defuse and pave the way for the development of this global treasure. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, has played his part by raising the critical need for debate at this early stage. He should be thanked.
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, the principal driver of the temperature of the earth is the sun and fluctuations have occurred for as long as measurements have been recorded. The Arctic is among the most sensitive to temperature fluctuations and consequent changes in the ice cap. Notwithstanding the downsides of the melting of the ice cap, one of the upsides, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is the increased accessibility of the north-west passage. This opens up considerable economic and environmental benefits, providing scope to obviate existing security threats in the Gulf of Aden and introducing alternative routes to the Suez and Panama canals.
Nor should we ignore Greenland, an autonomous country within the kingdom of Denmark, located within the Arctic Circle. It is the world’s largest island and owes its name to the agricultural opportunities that settlers were keen to exploit—a green land that as a private pilot I have landed on a number of times. Populated for around 5,000 years, the Norse Vikings established farmland settlements around the year 1000 AD, something which would have been impossible in 1900. However, even at the time of the Vikings’ presence on the island, almost the entirety of the land mass would have been covered by at least a 1 kilometre sheet of ice, yet the climate along the coast was conducive to supporting an agricultural community, attractive in its similarity to the lifestyle of the Scandinavian farmer of that period, based on arable and livestock farming.
Approximately 85 per cent of the island is covered by ice and Greenland benefits, as we have heard, from valuable fish stocks, an issue which ended its brief membership of the European Community in the 1980s. Its natural resources include coal, iron ore, lead, zinc, molybdenum, diamonds, gold, platinum, niobium, tantalite, uranium, fish, seals, whales and hydropower—quite a lot. Additionally, there are significant potential oil and gas fields, especially in the northern and north-eastern parts of the island. The current economy remains critically dependent on increased catches and exports of shrimp, Greenland halibut and, most recently, crabs. These represent around 82 per cent of the country’s total exports.
Opportunities for fishing in Greenland may be widened further but the scope to broaden its economic position in respect of other natural resources should not be discounted. For example, the increased interest in hydrocarbon exploration off Greenland’s western coast represents a significant opportunity to deliver both economic and environmental benefits. The potential abundance of hydropower generation could also become a considerable source of power. Similarly, there has been an increase in tourism in Greenland. Cruise liners now operate in the western and southern waters during the peak summer tourist seasons. Although debates on topics of this kind tend to be characterised by the threat of impending doom, we should not forget that opportunities will emerge. We should be alert to them and include them in our considerations.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, to whom we are indebted for achieving this debate, started his speech by asking whether your Lordships’ House had paid much attention to the Arctic in the past. Perhaps one of the notable references was that of Lord Dufferin, who, as a young man in his 20s, took a wooden sailing boat and sailed the whole way to Spitsbergen. This was before he went on to be ambassador at St Petersburg and Paris, Viceroy of India and Governor General of Canada, where he is still favourably remembered.
In those days, the voyage was not much followed up because although Lord Dufferin wrote letters to his wife which were published in Letters From High Latitudes, it was a cold and difficult place. There were much better places to go for resources, such as in the scramble for Africa, the struggle over South America and North America and of course in the Far East. Indeed, every century seems to have seen a scramble or race for somewhere. In the latter part of the past century, it was probably the struggle for space.
One characteristic of every one of those struggles was not just that it opened up new lands in order that there would be more resources available, but that it ended up with military struggle—the struggle for power and control. While we think of the situation in the Arctic and the melting of the waters in environmental terms—I understand that today it is expected in Ottawa that the Minister may well declare a scientific park just off the north of Baffin Island—and although there has been much said about the economic consequences, we must think about the security consequences. Those are the questions that I would like to add to those that have already been raised by other noble Lords when my noble friend comes to reply.
My old friend Bill Graham, when he was defence Minister in Canada, remarked on the fact that the melting of the Arctic ice opened up great opportunities but also real threats. Canada has sent military equipment and men into the region in order to identify its own interests and show that it has the capacity to defend them should the time come. In 2009, the president of the United States in a presidential directive indicated potential security concerns in the region, and Russia has for quite a substantial time had a major military presence on the surface and more particularly under the surface in the region.
We have always to some extent—although this was not entirely true during the Second World War when a threat did indeed emerge from the north—felt that there was some degree of protection. That is not the same if it is possible to traverse the areas easily. Not least at a time when austerity has forced us to cut back on our military naval fleet, it is important that part of our strategic defence thinking over the next number of years should include not just the opportunities, which are marvellous and the requirement to protect our world, but the potential threats to our own security and that of the European Union.
This is not solely a matter for ourselves of course. It is clearly a northward shift of emphasis for NATO. If one looks at the map not from a normal perspective of Britain being right at the centre but looks down at the world from an Arctic projection, one sees a northern equivalent of the Pacific rim, where there is a major confrontation between Russia, which has half of all the coastline, Canada and the United States and, as has been mentioned, Denmark in the form of Greenland, as well as Norway. I am keen to hear from my noble friend what our security advisers are telling us about the need to protect ourselves and our national interests, and what is being discussed at NATO in this regard where there is a much greater and more obvious responsibility.
Lord Greenway
My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, when he says that he does not think we will see a great new northern sea route coming into play within the next 10 years. I suggest it will be quite a few years beyond that. Most of the voyages that have been made round the north-east passage rather than the north-west passage, which is over the top of Russia, have been experimental. We can go back to 1997 when a Finnish tanker made the voyage. More recently, as the noble Lord said, two German freighters made the voyage but not, as he said, from Vladivostok to Holland; in fact, they came from South Korea and went over the top to Rotterdam. They stopped off on the way at Novyy in Yamburg province which meant they had icebreaker escort and had to take Russian ice pilots.
This year, a Danish bulk carrier “Nordic Barents” carried 41,000 tonnes of iron ore from Kirkenes on the Norwegian-Russian border to Qingdao in China. The Russian shipping company Sovcomflot sent a relatively large tanker—117,000 tonnes deadweight—the “SCF Baltica”, loaded with 70,000 tonnes of gas condensate from Vitino and Murmansk to Ningbo in China in 22 days. She was also escorted by three icebreakers.
Sovcomflot is preparing to send an even bigger tanker—162,000 tonnes—on a trial voyage next year. However, here we come up against draft restrictions. At the moment the Sankov and Sannikar Straits are restricted to 12.5 metres and 13 metres respectively and larger ships, drawing more than 15 metres, will be forced to go further offshore into higher latitudes, where the risk from floating icebergs is greater.
Companies which have sent ships around the north have said that they are very satisfied—it cuts 4,000 miles off the voyage, it saves them paying Suez Canal dues and saves the piracy problems. If a much larger amount of shipping was to go round the north of Russia, and if one was to believe from WikiLeaks’ revelations that Russia is a mafia state, I can see various Russians becoming very interested in what was going around their shores and there is nobody there to help ships, unlike going through the Gulf of Aden.
One possible drawback to the northern sea route is attracting the attention from the green and climate change lobbies. One report suggests that the release of CO2 and engine particles—that is, black carbon or soot as we know it—from diesel engines in a sensitive area as regards climate change could lead to an increase in global warming.
Other reports suggest that up to 2 per cent of global shipping traffic could be using northern sea routes by 2030, rising to 5 per cent by 2050. To put that in context, today 4 per cent of world shipping uses the Suez Canal—that is an enormous amount of shipping. To be quite honest, I cannot see it happening for a very long time.
The other thing to take into account, which has not been mentioned, is that at the moment, with global warming, we have a two-month window in effect for shipping but the winter is still frozen over. Shipping is not going to suddenly take to using these Arctic routes. I think the likelihood is that it will be reserved for bulk cargoes, both wet and dry, mainly exports from Russia. The main container trades, I would suggest, are very unlikely to start using these northern routes. I want to give an example of the mileages—Hamburg to Yokohama going by the northern sea route saves about 4,000 miles; to Hong Kong you save about 1,000 miles and to Singapore the distances are exactly the same.
Container shipping is a very complex web these days and ships pick up cargo all over the place. Let’s face it—they are not going to get any cargo in northern Russia, so I think they are going to stick to their proven routes for some time to come.
Lord Brett
My Lords, when I left home this morning, I trudged through the snow to the car. My wife, who was kindly driving me to the station, asked what we were discussing this evening. I said the melting of the Arctic ice cap. She pointed out that the temperature was minus 11 degrees. I was going to offer some scepticism, but I decided that as I needed the lift I would not seek to educate her on the issue at that time. But she will be educated, I am sure, if I can persuade her to read Hansard and the excellent debate we have had. I am very grateful, as others are, to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for setting it out so clearly. I would like to begin by looking at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, of security. There are a couple of very interesting RUSI documents: one by Clive Murgatroyd published last year called Defence and the Arctic—Go with the Floe?; and another by Paul Berkman. They raised the question whether there is any choice other than having a zone of peace or an enhanced military presence, with all the danger that that brings. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
A number of noble Lords have set out the opportunities provided by the melting of the Arctic ice cap and have rightly described some of the repercussions. Sometimes our media and our own enthusiasm will not give true weight to some of those issues. I have rarely seen the albedo effect, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, argued other than in the most scientific and technical journals.
Access to oil and gas will be an issue, not only because of the unpredictable seas but because of the thawing permafrost. There is also the very real question of oil spills, which could be a major problem under ice, because it could spill for many hundreds of thousands of miles. That points, as all these questions do, to international co-operation, licensing and safety regimes. Then there are the fisheries. It is perhaps not so much a question of the ice cap melting that is the issue with fisheries, but as a result of that fish stocks will migrate to other areas. Sustainable fisheries management is the key. Again, that talks of the need for international co-operation, if we are not to see some of the problems that we have seen in the past decade or two repeat themselves.
We have the question of commercial shipping. Yes, there are insurance opportunities, but someone’s opportunity for enhanced insurance premiums is someone else’s penalty in having to pay them. More importantly, whatever shipping is used in those new routes, emergency cover is probably more difficult to provide than where we are at the moment. I join with others in asking what action the Government have in mind to meet these challenges in the IMO, with NATO, the EU and other international forums, by way of enhanced regulatory frameworks and increased collaboration. Specifically, what are the prospects of the United States signing up to the UN law of the sea convention? We have heard words from Washington to suggest that that is an intention, but is it a realistic intention, particularly in the light of shifts of power within Congress?
I finish with an important point from a domestic point of view—the impact of rising seas on the coastlines of Britain. We have seen various estimates of how the seas could rise as a result of melting ice caps, including one of 2 metres by the end of this century, which has been pooh-poohed or debunked, not least by the Met Office and others. But there will certainly be substantial increases. The last Administration made urgent legislation to protect homes and businesses, and the Environment Agency says that more than 5 million properties are at risk in England and Wales. We have yet to hear from the Government what flood defence schemes will be abandoned in the new austerity era and what will go ahead. Will the Minister share his thinking with us—and, if that is not possible in his oral response, can I have a response to that in writing?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, this has been a short but expert debate, with a lot of extremely well informed contributions to what is a fascinating and probably rather undiscussed phenomenon of our times. It is a very fast-developing situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out, with rapidly melting ice packs and ice floes in the Arctic region. The House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for letting us focus briefly on this; it may be the sort of issue that we will come back to in much greater detail in future.
The phenomenon is all the more striking because of the possibilities that it raises. Greenland is becoming greener, or so we are told. Indeed, there is evidence of areas becoming habitable again in Greenland, which have not been available for five or six centuries. There is a certain irony in the whole situation that, as the ice melts, the hydrocarbons are becoming more accessible. While we want to combat global warming, which is widely believed to be closely associated with excess use of fossil fuels, we have a situation which is making access to fossil fuels all the easier, although perhaps easier is too strong a word. It is certainly less difficult and more possible than it has been in history.
There is the hydrocarbon situation and the fascinating prospect of opening the north-west passage, which my noble friend Lord Rotherwick referred to, and the possibility of solar routes. I want to come to both of those in a moment, but let me begin by answering the central question: what are our key aims in the Arctic and what are we in the UK doing to meet these challenges? Let me sum up the answers to those questions briefly before coming to more detail about hydrocarbons and many other aspects of the Arctic phenomenon.
Our aims are to promote peace and good governance in the region, increase UK influence by maintaining good bilateral and multilateral relationships with the Arctic states, and to support the work of the Arctic Council and other international and regional bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked about our status in relation to the Arctic Council We are an observer and we have presented a very strong case for our continued observer status. Frankly, we would like to see this whole issue raised by the Arctic powers of who should be observers and how that should work in the future. We want that to be as settled as possible and believe that we can make a powerful contribution to the continued work of the Arctic Council.
Our second aim is to protect crucial UK energy supplies from the region and promote UK business interests. Thirdly, we want to ensure access to fisheries and transport routes in the region, including the ones that may open up in the future—not just in summer but in winter. Fourthly, we want to promote wider UK Government objectives with regard to sustainable development, environmental protection and climate change.
Let me move from the general to the particular. I have noted already the irony that the melting of the ice means that all sorts of possibilities open up for access to the huge hydrocarbon resources in the region. We need to remember that this is not virgin territory. We have the Stockman field, to which my noble friend referred, Snohvit, the Norwegian development, Prudhoe Bay and the vast Alaska resources operated by BP, so oil and gas—particularly gas—is being extracted from the area in substantial quantities already. They are small compared with what is estimated to lie in the region, and all kinds of vast figures are thrown around. The US authorities estimated some years ago that 30 per cent of the world’s gas reserves and 13 per cent of the world’s oil reserves lay under the Arctic ice, or in the Arctic region. One has to be careful with these figures because they are assessments of what has not been discovered, so they have a guessing element to them. But there is no doubt that colossal reserves are there and the question arises as to how they can be got out economically and in line with all the other restraints that the world wants, including respect for the environment.
There are then the shipping aspects, which are potentially very interesting, to which my noble friend Lord Rotherwick referred. In a way, although one may be eliding the timescales a little, many would say that today travelling through the Gulf of Aden has become considerably more hazardous with the unfortunate growing piracy elements. Insurance premiums have gone up enormously for taking the traditional routes between the West and the East, and the north-west passage is many thousands of kilometres—and miles—shorter. If the passage became available in the summer, and at least parts of the winter, the gain would be enormous and of great interest to the great shipping and transport companies of the world. Those are the possibilities. They are undoubtedly exciting and real because the melting is taking place. Scientists argue about the precise nature and speed of the causes and whether we are talking about a cyclical, historical or permanent trend. That is a debate that we do not want to enter into this evening. However, the melting is a fact.
Against that, it has to be accepted that extracting oil and gas in the area could lead to oil spills and environmental hazards. The conditions are very difficult and, even with the melting of the ice, we are dealing with appallingly cold conditions. Deep-sea drilling, as we know from the tragedies in the Gulf of Mexico, is full of hazards. The world is watching closely to see that these things are controlled very carefully. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was concerned about the guidelines for the extraction of hydrocarbons. We fully support the Arctic Council guidelines. They must be adhered to rigidly.
Secondly, there is the question of straightforward economics. At what price a barrel of crude does it begin to look realistic to develop the technologies to extract from under the ice and to develop the kind of offshore sub-sea stations that can draw oil and gas horizontally on to land-based refining and receiving stations? The costs are very high. All sorts of estimates fly around. There is no doubt that if the price of crude was as low as it dipped two years ago—or as low as it dipped back in the 1980s—the attractions of any kind of extraction in this area would be very small. There are major environmental issues and major fisheries interests to be safeguarded. There are the interests of the indigenous peoples to be looked after.
Against that, the politics of the whole region has begun to be not as dismaying and deterring as perhaps it seemed in the past. The littoral five—Russia, Norway, Denmark, Canada and the USA—and the other three members of the Arctic Council—Iceland, Finland and Sweden—are now co-operating more closely than they have in the past. The long debate between Russia and Norway about demarcation lines looks like being settled. It is yet to be completely signed but the spirit is one of co-operation and is constructive. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, brought us a hint of the good news from his interlocutor. The major political problems and quarrels that might have tarnished the whole scene as it unfolds look like they are being tempered by a degree of co-operation, which is very good news.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked about security. There are concerns that various countries have sent patrol vessels to the area. Everyone became very excited when the Russian authorities decided to place a sub-sea titanium flag on the North Pole. Again, one hopes that the spirit of co-operation that is evident in the Arctic Council will prevail.
That is the scene. We are involved with it and watch it very closely. The possibilities are undeniable and there are also dangers. I hope that noble Lords will feel that Her Majesty’s Government are alert to this new development. We are not closing our eyes to something of great importance. We are not an Arctic power but we tend to be close to it. The possible implications for our coastline, if the climate developments continue in the way some fear, and certainly for our energy security, are real.
I hope that this debate has helped the noble Lord, Lord Brett, warm up a little from his cold start this morning. I have not answered in detail about the flooding matters., but I will write to him about them. They are part of a more general concern that we all have about flood protection. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, very warmly for initiating such a fascinating, interesting and important debate.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
My Lords, when I first tabled this little group of amendments, I included one that was along the lines of a side-title to it: “the people’s choice”. That is what this group is about. At the moment, nobody has asked the people. Nobody has asked anybody whether they want to change the voting system. This group of amendments splits the question into two parts. It is fairly self-explanatory, although it is not as easy to see when they are split up on the Marshalled List. The first question is in Amendment 21 and would ask people:
“Do you wish to change the voting system?”.
People are not being asked this. It was implied by Amendment 16. People were not asked whether they wanted change; it said that it had been agreed to change the voting system. I want to ask people whether they want to do so.
The second part, if there are yes and no answers to that first question, is in Amendment 27:
“If a majority vote for a change in the voting system, which of the alternatives”—
I call them families—
“would you prefer?”.
There are four there; it is a little package. I will not labour the point. I did not invent this. It is a replica, although not exactly, of what happened in New Zealand nearly 20 years ago. New Zealand had first past the post, a very modern democracy and votes for women 30 years before this country did, so we should not lecture anyone there about democracy and parliamentary systems. It had first past the post and there was pressure for change. I shall not deploy all the documentation and so on but a referendum was held in New Zealand in two parts. The people were asked, first, “Do you wish to change the system? Yes or no?”, and then below that on the paper was the second question, “If the yes vote wins, which one of the following do you want?”. The options given were in families—I use that term because of the debates that we have had—rather than in detail. Parliament took it away, worked on it to make it a practical reality and then a year later, in 1993, there was a second binding referendum between first past the post and the alternative, which won the vote and was turned into a practical system. It worked. I do not know how many times it has been used—probably at least four or five—but in New Zealand the people were asked before a change was made.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend what the turnout was in the referendum. Is there anything that we can learn from that level of turnout?
Lord Rooker
I regret to say that I have not brought my New Zealand file with me. I could not get away from the Chamber and my file is across the road, so I do not know. It was a hot issue and I have copies of the information that at the time was distributed to people by the equivalent of the Electoral Commission to explain the systems and what was going on, together with copies of the ballot papers.
I am not going to spend this debate deploying the whys and wherefores of the system. The principle is clear: first, we should ask the people, “Do you want to change the system?”. I can make the case for that but the change, when it occurs, has to be cemented, and that is my anxiety about what is being proposed. This is not intended to be a cemented change, because it is clear that, assuming it is carried, the Liberal Democrats will come back later for a move to PR. Were I in favour of PR, I would go straight to PR, but that is not the point that I am making here.
Lord Sewel
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. As I understand his argument, he wants to have an initial decision on whether to change from first past the post. If there is a majority in favour of change, that becomes a trigger for a list of alternatives, which, according to the first decision, excludes the retention of first past the post. Would it not be possible to have, say, 45 per cent of the people voting for first past the post and then, when you come to the alternatives, to have any one of the alternatives securing less than 45 per cent of the support of the electorate? What would happen then?
Lord Rooker
Amendment 30 takes care of that. I know that I shall be criticised for Amendment 30 but, if you are going to have multi-choice answers, you have to be able to rank them so that there is a clear winner. What I have here are two questions that are intended to be on one ballot paper: “Do you want to change the system? Yes or no?”. If the yes vote wins, which will not be known until the papers are counted, then the second question comes in: “Which family would you choose?”. In New Zealand, there was a year’s gap between the two referendums. The first referendum was not binding but the second one was. It was do or die between one system or another. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, the second referendum required a yes or no answer and so was absolutely clear.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Can my noble friend confirm that first past the post was not an option in the second referendum?
Lord Rooker
Yes it was. First past the post was mentioned in both referendums even though when people were asked in the first referendum, “Do you want to change from first past the post? Yes or no?”, the yes vote won. They then chose what I call, in shorthand, the additional member system as the preferred option from the family. A year later, there was a run-off between a detailed additional member system and the status quo, the first past the post. You could not complain if you were a first past the poster that you did not get a fair crack of the whip in New Zealand, because there were two opportunities. That is what cemented the change, because on two occasions first past the post lost. It lost on the indicative referendum to start with, when the choice came; and then it lost on the binding referendum. So, on the second referendum, first past the post was back. It was incredibly sophisticated, modern and democratic, and this was 1992-93. The system worked, and it is one on which I wanted to model this kind of operation.
They did it and it works, so there is somewhere in the world that we can point to—somewhere that is English-speaking, first past the post, democratic. We are scratching around because no one can find a place where the type of alternative vote proposed in the Bill actually works in reality. I was going to use Canada as an example, but it was not a national election when they used it there, when it all went dramatically wrong for lots of people. It was always in the provinces. If you google Canada and the alternative vote you will come up with a textbook of how to smash the alternative vote. It was not a national election, however, so I am not going to use it.
It was a two-stage question and a two-stage referendum, but my amendments do not cover the second stage. I just wanted to deploy the case and give at least a positive push—or a nudge, in the language—to the effect that it can work, because it did work and there is a classic example for it.
There are a couple of points I did not speak on in the last debate—I showed enormous restraint, as I said to the Leader of the House—because I have got nothing new to add to what I am not going to say now. One of the reasons that I never joined the Electoral Reform Society after I became a convert just over 20 years ago was this issue about STV. That is why I never joined. I have worked very happily with lots of people on joint platforms and would be happy to do so again, but I will never join because it has this thing whereby if you join, people will say, “Oh, he is in favour of STV”. It is the one system I do not like because it forces party people to fight against each other. I do not think that is a clever system. It was also dissected by the Plant commission, which I will come to in a moment, which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant back in the 1990s.
On AV, you have to ask yourself what you are trying to do. Are you trying to elect the most popular person for a constituency and then as a by-product get a popular Government, because it is slightly more proportionate? The question that should be asked on this referendum is: do you want a majoritarian system or a proportional system? That is the question to ask. First past the post and AV are both majoritarian systems; there is no argument about that. They are not remotely proportional, so they are in the majoritarian family. But if you want to elect the most popular person, AV will not do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised an issue which I have covered later in Amendment 52, so I will not go into it in detail now, about what you do with those preferences for the bottom candidates. It is unfair; there is no question about that. The sixth candidate gets chucked out. That second preference is worth exactly the same as the first vote for the first candidate or the second preference for the second candidate. It is very unfair that someone’s vote should have that value. Amendment 52 gets us round that. But there is not a system that will deliver the most popular candidate.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave us a seminar on the last election. I want to read a bit from page 66 of the Plant report, which was a long time ago, about how to get the most popular person elected. You certainly cannot do it by ranking and kicking people out; that does not work. For example, as I tried to explain in a previous debate, the supporters of the first three candidates in a list might all hate each other equally, but each of the supporters of the first three would vote for the fourth. That is what is known as the Condorcet winner—which is defined as the option that beats every other in an exhaustive series of pair-wise contests.
I raised this with some academics upstairs and they gave me a good example of someone who would have been a Condorcet winner, although it did not happen because of the system that was used. Noble Lords will remember the French election when Chirac ran up against Le Pen and Jospin came third. Jospin was the Condorcet winner because, in a run-off with Chirac, he would have beaten Chirac and in a run off with Le Pen, he would have beaten Le Pen, but because he was third he got knocked out. He would have been the Condorcet winner in that case, but he was not because of the way the system worked with the two-round ballot, so the most popular person did not win. That is a good example from recent history and we all know what happened in the French election.
The alternative vote system will not give you the most popular candidate. I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, earlier—that would be far beyond my pay grade—but he repeated the canard about the winner securing 50 per cent plus of the votes. It is not true; it cannot happen under the system in this Bill. In order for it to happen every voter would have to use every single preference on the ballot paper and that will not happen because of what I said last week. I can guarantee that some Liberal Democrat candidates will go around the country saying to their supporters, “Don’t vote and use your second preference because they will work out what might happen if that second preference all goes wrong”. People will not be encouraged to use all their preferences.
There are some problems with the system. I digress because I wanted to point out that every system has its defects; nothing is perfect. You can make an electoral system do exactly what you want it to do. You can put constraints on turnout; you can put constraints on the additional Member system; and you could say to a party, “You cannot have a top-up candidate unless you have won at least one constituency”. I was accused of being antidemocratic when I said that. You do not need a percentage turnout. If you cannot win a constituency, you are not entitled to a top-up. They said, “All that is bad for the Greens”. I said, “Let them go and win a seat”, and they have done that now, so they would qualify. You can do all those things; it is all techie.
I refuse to let my eyes glaze over, but when I am faced with the situation presented in this Bill, it makes me so angry because, at the end of the day, I will have to vote for first past the post, which really sticks in my throat. I am being forced to vote for first past the post because of what is in the Bill: the preference system, the turnout and all the issues which we discussed last week on which we can go into detail when we come to other amendments. Those matters make the situation more perverse and worse than the present system. That is a change I am not prepared to vote for. I am not prepared to vote for something on the basis of, “Vote for this and if we get it right at the next election, we will come back and get a bit of PR, AV+”. Give me AV+ and I will vote for it.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, would vote for AV+ but he cannot get the person sitting next to him in the Cabinet to support him. That is a bit like the Labour Cabinet. We were presented with exactly the same in the Bill that came to the House in March. People were not asked if they wanted to change. It was put together by a Cabinet, most of whose members did not want change at any price; they just stuffed AV in and thought they could get away with it because it is so close to first past the post. There were the same problems and I made the same speech when sitting on the Bench opposite.
I am annoyed because, at the end of the day, unless there is a major change to the Bill, I will have to vote for first past the post, which I do not think is very good. Also I think people will be misled during the referendum. Perhaps I can give an example: somewhere in the world it worked in a mature democracy and I think it could work here if we asked the people. I wish we were brave enough to do that.
I realise this was all cobbled together in a rush in the six days after the election. I understand that the pressures to get a deal were enormous. I will support the fixed-term Parliament, although I think four years is better than five but I will settle for five years. I accept that the only deal in town was the deal I am looking at now, but that means we should be mature enough to say, “Look, if there is something intrinsically wrong with the system, let us put the case to the people and ask them if they want a change”.
Think of the mandate you would have from that Front Bench, if you could persuade people that, yes, there is demand for a change. The first-past-the-posters would be run out of town and we could get to work on getting a change that people would accept and it might last for the 132 years that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, keeps saying that first past the post has lasted for.
I freely admit that you can all go home because I do not intend to push any of this to a vote, but I wanted to put it on the record that there is an alternative way of doing this. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to come in.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I was sitting here confidently waiting for either the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, or the redoubtable noble Lord, Lord Rennard, the bravest of the Liberal Democrats, to get up and intervene, but since no one has, I shall say just a few words.
We are now down to the anoraks, the loyalists and the payroll vote. I am two out of three, by the way. I always hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Rooker, because, just as he said that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, fills him with awe, my noble friend fills many of us here with awe. He was one of the most effective Labour Ministers and he is an even more effective Back-Bencher and debater, so it is always with some hesitation that we get up to disagree. But I come from a fundamentally different point of view, in that I think that first past the post is, as I argued earlier, the best system, for a range of reasons.
I wonder, though, whether he is right in using the New Zealand example as a precedent for us, for two and maybe three reasons. First, New Zealand has a unicameral Parliament, so there is only one Chamber and only one election takes place. They do not have, as we do, two Chambers and—as I said in relation to the previous amendment—the possibility of having two different systems, one of which produces the Government and the other which produces the balancing force, or balancing Chamber. That is very important.
Also, as far as I remember—and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Rooker will get up and correct me if I am wrong—the example that he suggested was introduced by the Labour Government in New Zealand. They thought that it was right to change the electoral system. I visited New Zealand a few years later and spoke to a number of Labour Party members who were very strongly of the view that they had made a mistake in introducing it. I know that my noble friend Lady McDonagh was General Secretary of the Labour Party and has contacts with the New Zealand Labour Party. I was there on a CPA visit and met them and they were very regretful that they had moved in that direction. Despite his deep knowledge and the detail that my noble friend gave us from the Plant report and the system in New Zealand, he was not able to answer my noble friend’s question about the turnout, about how many people actually turned out to make these great changes in the two referenda that took place, and whether or not that could be justified.
That brings me to two final points. Someone suggested earlier that there was filibustering going on. There was actually a very good debate, which seems to me to be the purpose of these kinds of Chambers. I was pleased that quite a few Conservatives got involved in the debate.
The Liberal Democrats and some Labour people keep arguing that democracy is all about an arithmetical correlation between the number of votes and the number of seats, as exact a correlation as possible. That is democracy, they say—to get the nearest you can to the number of seats relating to the percentage of votes cast. I think there is another, perhaps even more important, aspect of democracy, which is accountability: that is the ability, first, of your party in the constituency and, secondly, of the electorate in the constituency to hold you to account. In my view, that can be done properly only by the first past the post system.
Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a very strong argument about wasted votes. One aspect of that was dealt with by one of my noble friends. The argument was that there are safe seats that never change. Come up to Scotland and go to Edinburgh South, which was held by the Tories for generations and is now a Labour seat, or go to East Renfrewshire, which was held by the Tories for generations and is now a Labour seat. We used to think our votes were wasted, but we worked hard, we convinced people, we got people on to our side, they voted for us and we got a majority. Surely that is what democracy is about. It is about convincing people and changing people’s minds. It is Gilbertian to think that because someone was born a Tory, they will always be a Tory or because they were born a Labour person, they will always be a Labour person. You can change people, you can convince people. If you will excuse me saying so, I was talking to my noble friend Lord Maclennan—I still call him my noble friend—earlier on. He won the seat through his campaigning, his personality and the Labour Party in Caithness. We had never held it before. We can win these seats and can convince people to change their minds. Surely that is what democracy is about.
Although my noble friend Lord Rooker has very powerfully argued the case for his amendments, I do not find it totally convincing. I say to the Tories that I wish that more of them in this place would have the courage of what I know to be their convictions and would stand up as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, did earlier today and say what they really believe: that first past the post is the best way of electing people to the House of Commons.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I join my noble friend in calling upon the Conservative Benches to take a view because I do not know whether they really understand the danger that would arise in the event that an AV referendum was successful. It has huge implications for the Conservative Party. They sit there and say very little, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and it leaves me quite bewildered.
I can now answer the question that I asked my noble friend about what happened in New Zealand because it is in Review of Voting Systems: the experience of new voting systems in the United Kingdom since 1997. On page 136, it sets out precisely what happened and it is very interesting, so I shall put it on the record:
“New Zealand provides a particularly interesting example because it has changed its electoral system from FPTP to the MMP”—
mixed member proportional—
“system (similar to AMS in the UK) in recent times. The first election to be held under MMP was in 1996, following referendums”—
which my noble friend referred to—
“in 1992 and 1993 which first rejected FPTP and then selected MMP from four proportional options. The 1993 referendum, which was binding, took place at the same time as the 1993 election where 84.5 per cent of voters favoured replacing FPTP and 70.3 per cent chose MMP”.
That shows that, when you ask the electorate what have been deemed in these debates to be complicated questions over the detail of various proportional systems, they actually understand what they are being asked and they are prepared to go out and vote and state a preference. The evidence is there in English-speaking New Zealand. It did it, and it shows the way forward. It is interesting to note, in the following pages in this section, that the turnout in New Zealand elections following the change in the electoral system in 1990 has consistently remained around the 80 per cent mark. That is almost as high as in my former constituency in one election, but it is vastly higher than the average within the United Kingdom. Again, we may have something to learn from New Zealand.
It is also worth noting what the review says is the impact of the system that New Zealand chose in this well-supported referendum.
“Since 1996, New Zealand has been governed by coalitions, usually with a minority of the seats in Parliament. Obviously this makes it more difficult for the leading party to achieve all of its policy aims but, arguably, policy decisions reflect the views of a wider coalition of voters. Tina Day, a Director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust interviewed 21 MPs in the 2002-05 Parliament for her research. She argues in her 2005 paper Increasing the representativeness of parliament … that there has been a shift of power from the Executive to Parliament, with select committees (whose composition reflects the multi-party Parliament) assuming a very powerful role”.
That reservation, expressed during the course of that consultation, might well be the one to which my noble friend refers.
The review continues:
“There is also a greater representation of women (around 30 per cent of members), Maori and the Asian population in Parliament. She argues that this has increased the legitimacy and standing of Parliament (notwithstanding the early unpopularity of coalition government). It also means that divisions in opinion within the country are played out in Parliament to a greater extent”.
The point I am making is that if you trust the people and give them the information in a form that they can understand, and put realistic options on the paper, they may well surprise us and actually choose a system that—
Lord Sewel
I am grateful to my noble friend, my near neighbour, for giving way. Could he resolve this dilemma? He mentioned that there was the early unpopularity of coalition Governments at the same time as there was popularity for a change to a more proportional system. A more proportional system will more than likely—I put it no stronger than that—lead to coalition Governments. How does he square the circle of the popularity of the voting system with the unpopularity of the product it produces?
Lord Campbell-Savours
It is because it was only in the early days prior to coalition that public prejudice on the issue of coalitions led to this general view that coalitions cannot work; whereas following the referendum decision and the creation of the coalition, and a recognition by the public that the system did work, the coalition then gained in popularity. All I am saying to my noble friends is that I find this particular amendment very appealing because it offers the public the opportunity that many of us believe they should be given during the referendum.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That raises a fundamental point which my noble friend Lord Rooker puts very well; you have to be able to explain why AV has been chosen and the public are not being given a choice on anything else. I have to say again, rather distressingly, that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not deal with that at all in relation to the last amendment. He said that clarity was important. That is an answer, but it does not deal with why AV has been chosen. There is a profound sense in this House that there are a range of options. My noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, have pretty well destroyed the idea that AV is an effective choice.
If at all possible, I should like the coalition to explain why it has chosen AV as the only alternative proposition that it is putting to the electorate. If the answer is—I think that the Deputy Chief Whip is trying to tell me this—“Well, that is all we could agree with the Liberal Democrats”, that is fine, and I hope the electorate will treat that with the contempt that it deserves. Then the position is that we are not suggesting that it is the best alternative; we are saying that it is the only one on which we could reach agreement. I very much hope that the coalition is straightforward about that, because this is a serious debate about the constitution. Unless no answer is forthcoming, there is no other option but for this House to debate which are the better options. I know that that wearies the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, but if you cannot explain or debate the best alternative to first past the post, the position is that the merits of each of them have to be debated.
Lord Tyler
Perhaps it would help the House if the noble and learned Lord was able to explain why this was the only alternative to the first past the post system that his Government twice put before Parliament and the nation. The first time was in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, when this was very specifically the only alternative that was going to be put before Parliament and the people, as he well knows. The next was at the general election. It would help the House to have his explanation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That was the step that the then Government proposed in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. That step was then proposed in the referendum, but it was rejected by the public because we lost the election. This is the team who won the election. Unless you are saying to us, “We adopt the position that the Labour Party adopted”, I am unable to understand why it is. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, saying “Come on” from a sedentary position. If the reason is that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have adopted the miserable little compromise that they proposed because we adopted it, let them say so. The deafening silence, the lack of argument and the black hole at the centre of the argument—
Lord Tyler
This is absurd. Presumably, the noble and learned Lord and his very distinguished colleagues in the previous Administration had a thought process that brought them to the conclusion that it was the right choice to put before Parliament and subsequently at the general election to put before the public. They were not just jumping ahead and wondering what a putative coalition might attempt in the future. At the time, he was a distinguished member of that Government. Surely he had an input into that thought process. Can he not share that thinking with us?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am afraid that I was not a distinguished member of the Government at the time, but let me speculate as to what might have been in the mind of the Government.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, delves into the bowels of history, is it not the case that today the leader of the Labour Party has said that he intends to vote for AV in a referendum?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
He has and that is fine. He is not saying necessarily that that is what everyone else has got to do, but the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is absolutely right in relation to that. What is the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler? I do not know, but perhaps it was that this would be enough to get the Liberal Democrats on side. Sure enough, it has proved to be the case as far as the Conservatives are concerned. But, ultimately, the problem which the Liberal Democrats say this is to try to resolve is a lack of trust on the part of the electorate in politicians.
Lord Rennard
One should consistently want to trust the electorate and give them that decision. I do not think the noble and learned Lord answered very well the points made by my noble friend Lord Tyler. We have heard some persuasive arguments this evening from noble Lords opposite in favour of a multi-option referendum on electoral reform. I just wish we had heard them over the past 13 years when noble Lords were in a position to do something about it. The logical position on these Benches is simply that we would rather trust the people with having some say on the issue than give them no say.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am rather confused by this. This is another volte-face. My understanding is that the Liberal Democrats in the negotiations pressed for AV without a referendum, so I am not quite clear why the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is saying, “Trust the electorate”. I imagine the Liberal Democrats were pressing the Conservatives to agree to no referendum on the basis that they could not trust the electorate to go with what they thought was the right answer.
Lord Rennard
Perhaps while the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is present, he might confirm that the Labour Party pressed on us the idea that it might well legislate for AV without a referendum because it is such a good system.
Lord Adonis
That is absolutely not the case. There was no proposition from the Labour Party. It was always made clear that any change to the electoral system would require a referendum for the obvious reason that this is a fundamental change to the constitution of the country.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Adonis. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was not in a position to deny the assertion that they were seeking AV without a referendum. So the Liberal Democrats trust the electorate but only on the basis that they give them the answer that they want.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is there not a distinction between how this House would have handled the matter then as against now? Earlier in the year if every Member of the House had been voting for what they wanted, that would not have gone through. It is a distinct possibility that the Labour Government would have been defeated on the issue of AV in this House. Now it is going through on the basis of people being prepared to vote for something they do not believe in. Which is the most honourable and honest House in those conditions?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The head-turning going on is easily identified. The public, however, are interested in the merits of the argument. What I cannot understand at the moment, because no argument has been advanced, is why AV is the only alternative that has been given. That is the question posed by the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Rooker. There must be an argument beyond simply saying, “We reached an agreement over the weekend and that seemed a sensible thing to do”.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would have the referendum pose not one but two questions and present the option of four different voting systems to the public—alternative vote, additional member system, single transferable vote and supplementary vote—rather than the simple choice between the current system and the alternative vote. We believe that on an issue as fundamental as voting reform, the public need to be given a clear choice which will produce an equally clear result, and there are a number of ways in which these amendments would stand in the way of that.
The noble and learned Lord asked why we are not giving another choice. That is the answer: to give clarity. He then asked why we chose AV. We might have assumed, given that the Labour Party had it in its manifesto, that it would support it. That is the first reason. How about this for a second reason? AV is the only system that allows a single constituency member to continue, which was an issue. AV+ includes additional members who do not represent constituencies. So AV maintains that link. And thirdly—
Lord Strathclyde
Let me explain the third reason. Noble Lords asked for a reason. I am not giving way to the noble and learned Lord until I have given all three reasons. Thirdly, out of all the systems that they voted on in the House of Commons, AV was the one they united on.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord was saying that AV+ did not have a single member constituency. Have I misunderstood him?
Lord Strathclyde
In what respect? I said that AV was the one that only had single member constituencies. AV+ has single member constituencies and top-up members on lists. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord knew that.
Lord Touhig
If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he said that AV was put forward because there might have been a presumption that the Labour Party, which had supported it in the past, would support it now. But his Prime Minister does not support it.
Lord Strathclyde
The question was this. Why did we propose a referendum on AV? It was not whether we supported AV or not, but whether we supported a referendum or not. The difference is that on this side of the House we can agree to disagree on whether we are in favour of AV, but what unites us is that we believe it should be the people's choice. The Labour Party denies that.
There are a number of ways in which the amendments proposed would get in the way of that clarity. Splitting the question in this way would risk making it unclear to people what they are really being asked to vote on. If someone was to vote no to the first question for example, why would they wish to answer the second question? Would their votes to the second question still count if they had said no to the first? As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, pointed out, there is another disadvantage. The amendment allows for the possibility that people might vote yes to the first question but then not want any of the options presented in the second question, which would lead to uncertainty in interpreting the results as to what the voters really wanted.
Another drafting issue with the amendment is that it does not make it clear that it is a voting system for the UK parliamentary elections to the House of Commons. There is also no indication in these amendments about how any of the other voting systems would work. As I said earlier on, one attraction of the approach taken in our Bill is that, for all the arguments that might take place about how AV works, our Bill sets that out in Clause 9 and Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works can be resolved by looking at the Bill.
In its report on the referendum question, the Electoral Commission noted that there was a great deal of uncertainty among the public about what the different voting systems were. The Electoral Commission will publish information on the different systems to address that. It is realistic to think that the commission will be able to address this sort of issue where there are two voting systems at stake. But in the context of the commission’s observations, it is not realistic to think the same where five proposed systems are referred to in the question.
A referendum on AV replacing the existing system will give a clear choice to the electorate with the ability for people to express a clear view. Offering more than one choice could lead to an indecisive result and confusion over the interpretation of the results. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rooker
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. I freely admit that this amendment comes from the anorak side of me. This was the most difficult part when I went through the Bill. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, when I read the Bill looking for what I wanted to do, this was the one clause I had most difficulty with. I wanted to raise the issue, but I could not do that in a way that was clear and precise in terms of deploying the argument for a second referendum and how the people had a choice. I could not do that. For 11 years, all my amendments have been drafted for me and I admit to being slightly rusty, but I am learning fast. I then left it alone. All the rest of the stuff in my name is like the other two amendments—very precise and clear so that everybody knows exactly what the issue is. I hope that they were clear tonight. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness McDonagh
“Which electoral system would you prefer to use for electing your MP to the House of Commons? Either—
(a) the first past the post system; or(b) the alternative vote system?”
Baroness McDonagh
My Lords, my amendment would change the wording in the Bill, which asks:
“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?”,
to:
“Which electoral system would you prefer to use for electing your MP to the House of Commons? Either—
(a) the first past the post system; or (b) the alternative vote system?”.
The reason for this, as any psychologist will tell you, is that yes/no is not neutral. Yes/no has values: yes being good, no being bad. It can also cause confusion depending on whether you ask the question in a positive or a negative way.
A second unintended consequence of the wording is that it gets the voter to fixate on one system which, in the way the sentence is constructed, forces them to focus on the alternative vote system. I believe we are not asking them to choose for or against the alternative vote. In the Bill and in the referendum, we are asking them to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the first past the post system as against the alternative vote system and then make a choice. For these reasons I think it is much more straightforward if we pose the question in the way it is in the amendment and get people to actually choose the system they would prefer. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments 21 to 27 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. I understand exactly the point she is trying to make—aiming to ensure that the best possible referendum question is posed to the public. I hope to reassure her that an options form of the question was considered and tested by the Electoral Commission when it carried out its assessment of the original question on the Bill. The commission’s report concluded that there are potential drawbacks to using the options style in this particular case. It went on to discuss it and concluded that, in the circumstances, it could not recommend the use of an options question in place of the more traditional yes/no question that meets our criteria for assessing a referendum question.
The commission’s report also noted that an options form of the question could quite significantly affect the nature of referendum campaigning as campaigns will not be straightforward yes and no campaigns but in favour of either option. The question in the Bill as it stands therefore reflects the recommendations of the Electoral Commission which tested the question through focus groups and interviews with members of the public, as well as input from language experts.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Did the Electoral Commission test the question with the first past the post system first and the alternative vote system second or the other way round?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it simply tested the options system as opposed to a yes/no. It concluded that yes/no was a better way than the options. It produced evidence to support that view. Therefore, to change the question in the way the noble Baroness has suggested risks going against the advice of the commission.
Lord Strathclyde
The evidence it had was that first it was alien to referendums that we have had in this country and therefore would need new, comprehensive testing. Additionally, proper assessment of such a question would need to take account of further feedback from interested parties, including political parties and other groups and for those reasons, it took the view that the options style was not as good as the yes/no style.
Baroness McDonagh
Thank you. I think the noble Lord was giving way to me earlier. Can I ask you to go back a little bit to the issue of the campaigns that you touched on? It would seem to me that the way I am proposing it would be much better for campaigns—all the subjects would get aired rather than what is going to happen. You mentioned in your remarks that it will be the case for and against AV that will be concentrated on, not the strengths of the individual systems. Can you go back to this point and expand on it?
Lord Strathclyde
I am sure that the noble Baroness believes that the option system is better, but the commission’s report noted that an options form of the question could quite significantly affect the nature of the referendum campaign, as campaigns will not be straightforward yes and no campaigns but in favour of either option. The commission believes that for the sake of clarity it is better to campaign on a yes or no basis.
Lord Sewel
It is not a matter of asking yes or no; it is a matter of asking what the substance is behind yes or no, which is either first past the post or the alternative vote system. That is the difficulty. If you are presenting content in the question that is being put, options are clearly the way of presenting that to the public. In other referendums, the question has been put more simply as do you want something or do you not want something. It is not a matter of wanting one or the other. That is what we are presenting to the people at this time.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I find the argument given by my noble friend Lady McDonagh much more convincing. With respect, she has been involved in a number of elections and referendums, as have a lot of us in this House. With no disrespect to the Electoral Commission, until recently it did not have anyone on it who had either been elected to anything or been involved actively in elections or referendums. It is only very recently, with a change in the law, that we have had people on the Electoral Commission who know what they are talking about in relation to elections and referendums. Surely the argument given by my noble friend is right. Yes is a positive argument and no is a negative argument. Therefore, yes is seen to be something far more attractive than no. If you are putting the option, you have to explain the option; you do not just go around sloganising. You have to explain in more detail what first past the post or the alternative vote is about. That is a much more sensible suggestion to put forward. I urge the Leader of the House to think carefully about that and not just to accept something because the Electoral Commission has said it. There is a tendency in both Houses for some people just accepting things because the commission says it. Now we have changed the commission’s composition and added to it some people who know what they are talking about with regard to elections and referendums. Its suggestions in future will be better informed. But will the Leader of the House listen to my noble friend on this?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we have decided to support the findings of the Electoral Commission.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I just want some clarity. The way in which the noble Lord put it when asked the question appeared to state an analytical conclusion by the Electoral Commission—that it thinks that the options route is alien to how it has been done in the past and would lead to a different sort of campaign. That all sounds like analysis. Did I understand the noble Lord to say that there had been focus groups and testing by the Electoral Commission? If there were such focus groups and testing, are the results of that published? If so, where can we find it—and if it is not, could he publish it?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if it is available to be published, I shall certainly see to it that it is done.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Is the noble Lord saying that it is focus groups and testing?
Lord Strathclyde
Yes, my Lords, I said in my original answer that the question posed was tested with focus groups and interviews with members of the public as well as input from language experts.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord says, “If it is available”, but there must be a record of it.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, obviously I cannot commit myself to publishing something if it is unavailable. I said that if it was available, I would make sure that it was published.
Baroness McDonagh
I thank the noble Lord. I intend to withdraw my amendment at this stage. I agree that the referendum should be held, and I think that it is right to have this debate, but I shall think about his comments. If we are not careful, we will have a very one-sided debate in the referendum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
We have had no agreement to go beyond 10 o’clock this evening. It is now 10 o’clock, and it is the tradition of this House that we cease proceedings at 10 pm unless there is an agreement. I am more than happy to discuss these matters through the usual channels. I see two previous Chief Whips and am sure they would observe that that is the case.
Lord Strathclyde
I agree, but if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wishes to continue, I shall be happy to carry on. It will not take long.
Lord Campbell-Savours
To put it bluntly, I would prefer to go to bed. I do not know whether that suits noble Lords.
Lord Strathclyde
If noble Lords opposite have had enough, I am happy with that and we can resume the House. But if the noble Lord wants to move his amendment, we would be happy to carry on.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am prepared to be helpful. If the House wishes to adjourn now we could regroup the next two amendments, which would help the House as two debates could be combined. I am perfectly happy with that.