Regulation of Political Opinion Polling Bill [HL]
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on securing this debate. A lot has been said about the bet I made, so let me start by offering the noble Lord a cup of coffee, or something stronger, paid for by my bet, and we can toast the pollsters together.
When I first read of this Bill, my initial reaction was that it might possibly be a case of sour grapes that the noble Lord’s party did not win the general election, but then I realised I was being extremely unkind to the noble Lord. He has been talking about this for many years—I think it goes back to the 1980s—and, more to the point, he has a history of wanting to regulate and perhaps even ban things, starting with Space Invaders in the 1980s, so this is part of that.
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said about the Bill. It provokes an interesting debate, and we had a very interesting debate yesterday. I shall start by asking your Lordships a question: is this Bill good for democracy? My answer is, firmly, no. As a number of noble Lords said, the Bill is built on an assumption that the electorate should not be told what they themselves are thinking during a general election campaign, or at least during parts of it. Call me old fashioned, but I trust the people. I believe in giving them the information, however painful it might be for one party or another—and believe me, having worked in Downing Street in the 1990s, I know how painful it can be.
Let us consider the Scottish referendum. The noble Lord said that the YouGov poll set the campaign alight, and indeed it did. He called it a rogue poll. I respectfully point out that it was the first of three polls in quick succession showing that yes and no were neck and neck. The following day, TNS reported 50:50 and on 12 September, ICM reported 49:51—so three companies, all of which had reported big no leads weeks earlier, showed 50:50, plus or minus 1. Putting that key point aside, is the noble Lord saying that the public cannot be trusted with this information and that they cannot be told something that helps them weigh up how to vote in the critical weeks running up to the day they cast their vote?
Let me now ask your Lordships another question. Is the polling industry badly regulated at the moment? My answer is no. Pollsters know that the fortunes of their business rely on the credibility of their research. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the leading companies in the sector observe and abide by the code of practice that the twin regulators, the MRS and the BPC, have set out. I believe that we should leave them to regulate the sector, but I am sure the regulators will heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who speaks with such authority and experience in this sector, and the fact that we are having this debate today, and will look at their regulations.
The need to abide by these regulations explains why the industry is so concerned about its failure to forecast the result of the election in May. The terms of reference of this inquiry, which holds its first evidence meeting this afternoon, are broad and far reaching. It is,
“empowered … to make recommendations about the future practice of polling”,
and to investigate,
“whether the findings and conduct of the polls were adequately communicated to the general public”.
That relates to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made about reporting.
Let me turn to the opinion polling during the last general election. The noble Lord’s argument seems to be that thanks to the polls the Labour Party lost the election. So he wants to shoot the messenger. We do not know that this is the case; that is the point of the inquiry. Was there a sudden switch? Were people not being straight with the pollsters when asked for whom they would vote? Were the sample sizes wrong? Was the methodology at all to blame, and for how long were the pollsters getting it wrong—might this problem have distorted their findings for months? We do not know the answers to these questions, and that is the purpose of the inquiry. However, let me summarise what we do know.
In 1992 the pollsters also got it wrong, predicting a Labour majority. They changed their ways, and as my noble friend Lord Cooper and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, outlined, their methodology has changed. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, it can always be improved. It seemed that it had been improved, because, as we saw in the 2005 general election, the polls were the most accurate predictions ever made of the outcome of a general election. This was without a regulator being set up after 1992, which demonstrates that it is possible to improve without regulation of that kind. In 2010, all but one of the nine pollsters came within 2% of the Conservative share, and five were within 1%. If opinion polls have become the sat-nav of the British constitution, it is quite clear that in May the sat-nav went squiffy, predicting that the British would turn leftish. Instead, the electorate ignored that and turned right.
Therefore, I humbly suggest that we leave it to the experts to find out what has gone wrong with the systems, but the noble Lord appears to disagree. He already knows enough to tell us to legislate. I humbly argue that this would be a good case of legislating in haste, and we have seen this kind of thing happen before. I, for one, do not want to see a Dangerous Pollsters Act—and the pitfalls of entering into this terrain are highlighted by the Bill itself, which has, if your Lordships will forgive me, a strange whiff of George Orwell mixed with Inspector Clouseau about it.
First: Orwell. The opinion police—for that is what these regulators would be—would have unlimited powers; the Bill simply lists those presumably deemed important. It would specify “approved sampling methods”. Consider online polling, now conducted by many pollsters. Back in the 2008 London mayoral elections, all the telephone polls showed Ken Livingstone was ahead. After YouGov published two online polls showing that he was trailing Boris Johnson, Mr Livingstone attacked the polling methodology. His office said:
“YouGov’s polls are misleading the public and we have therefore decided to make a formal complaint”.
Had the noble Lord’s idea of approved methods been applied by the opinion police, would they have permitted any online polls, or would they have banned them in favour of traditional polls, which got the outcome of that mayoral race so wrong? Here the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, shows the immense debate around methodology. What evidence is there that such a debate could be resolved satisfactorily by a regulator?
Next, the Bill would provide guidance on the wording of questions—no doubt emanating from Room 101. The noble Lord raised that in an intervention. However, as my noble friend Lord Cooper said, trying to seek such agreement on wording is like chasing a will-o’-the-wisp. On the wording of questions, where is freedom of speech and debate if an unelected body is guiding pollsters on what they can and cannot ask the public? On top of that, the opinion police will have the power to ban the publication of polls “in such a period” as they consider “appropriate” before an election or referendum. What is appropriate? Might that be a week, a month, or several months before an election, and how and when is this decision to be made?
So much for Orwell. What of Clouseau? The inspector of the opinion police would have his work cut out. Consider what happened in his own country of France. As many of your Lordships may know, there had long been a ban on the reporting of opinion polls in the week before French elections. In the 1997 legislative elections some newspapers broke this regulation. One got round the ban by putting the findings of an opinion poll on its website, which was linked to a Swiss newspaper. The result: the French ban has been reduced to 24 hours. So, we can hear the hapless inspector crying, “Zut alors!”, as he realises that this law, which he is meant to enforce, was designed for an analogue age.
The Bill before us stipulates that “a person” who breaks the rules may be fined. In the digital age, what if that person, sitting in some far-flung country, sets up an online poll? What is to stop a foreign newspaper conducting a poll and publishing its results online? What is to stop a website with its servers based in another country publishing a poll? Will Inspector Clouseau chase after them? Then there is the definition of opinion polling. It is,
“intentions with regard to voting”—
that is, intentions as to how people would vote. In the jargon, this is the “top line”—the raw percentage that each party might secure.
It would appear that, even if these polls were restricted, it would be perfectly possible to publish polls related to a party’s or a politician’s competence, credibility, affability, whether they are in touch or out of touch—the list is endless. A poll giving rise to the headline “Labour not trusted to run the economy” would presumably be allowed. So, too, for that matter might be “Public alarmed by SNP/Labour pact”. All this would be permitted by the opinion police—a loophole so large that even Clouseau might be able to get through it.
That brings me to my third question: whom would the Bill benefit? Not the British public, that’s for sure. Instead, it would benefit two groups: first, private companies, especially in finance, which have deep pockets and want to get the inside track on what the public are thinking so that they can take positions on currencies and stocks before an election; and, secondly, the polling companies themselves, which would be able to charge a fortune for these private polls. Therefore, if this House wishes to give the banks and the hedge funds insider information on the democratic process, this Bill would certainly do the trick—and make pollsters rich in the process. However, something makes me think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not in the hedge fund fan club.
To conclude, the noble Lord has done us a great service by highlighting the enormous pitfalls of going down the route of regulation. The Bill is unnecessary. Its measures would not work, and it would dent our democracy and curb our freedom of speech. We should be free to express our opinions and to know what others think. Unsurprisingly, therefore, this Government have strong reservations about the Bill.