Anti-Semitism

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, nearly 50 years ago, I was sitting as the most junior member around the board table of a children’s charity. Discussing a problem that had arisen, a more senior member remarked that we should have known better than to employ “a scheming little Jewess”. Pretty shocked, I said that as a Jewish woman I found that remark unacceptable. There was an embarrassed silence and eventually the meeting continued. However, the point of this story is what happened next. At the end of the meeting, the chairman came up to me not to express support but to ask me to apologise to the woman who had spoken. She was an important donor to the charity. He said that I had offended her and that my remarks could harm the organisation. It was my comment, not hers, that was seen as the problem.

I fear that there are parallels half a century later. Those who call out anti-Semitism are themselves accused at best of hypersensitivity, at worst of disloyalty. A dismal absence of principled leadership has unleashed a second wave of abuse against those who challenge anti-Semitism, and Labour MPs who tell it as it is are being punished in their constituencies. As others have said, it is time for the leadership not only to speak out but to act.

However, standing up to racism of whatever variety requires more than action from the top, necessary though that is; it requires individual action and responsibility from each of us, whether the insult is directed against us personally or not. Returning to my story, I would argue that the blame lay not simply with the chairman, pusillanimous though he was, but with every other member of the committee, who said or did nothing. That is why I want to salute the noble Lord, Lord Popat, and every other non-Jewish member of this House who has stood out against anti-Semitism today.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, perhaps I may observe that we are slightly slipping with time. It is important that other contributors have a fair shot and that the Minister has proper time to address the points raised. I invite the co-operation of the remaining speakers to stop when the clock shows “2:00”.

Immigration: Housing

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important issue in relation to asylum seekers and housing and services for them. I have experienced this in going around the country and visiting particular communities. I will write to the noble Lord, if I may, on the particular point about G4S, and again I will ensure that that is copied to the Library.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, given what the Minister has said about the continuing need for migrant labour in this country and the dependence, as recognised by the Government, of our health and social services on that labour, is it not time that noble Lords stopped blaming those who are suffering from the housing shortage and actually focused on the remedies for what has been a long-standing problem in this country?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I am not part of that blame culture: I do not do that and I am very committed to ensuring that we address the existing housing shortage. As she will know, we are committed to building 1 million homes in this Parliament and a recent National Audit Office report indicated that we are on target for that. As she and other noble Lords will know, there remains beyond that a massive problem to address, but we are seeking to do just that.

Assisted Dying

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Monday 13th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I do not believe that changing the law in this area needs to frighten us in the sense of these terrible fears of Nazi Germany and eugenics. My experience on the Select Committee on the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, led me to believe that regulation was indeed possible and desirable in this area. A benefit of the DPP’s guidelines has been increased reporting in this area; increased reporting means that we can have increased supervision and monitoring and give the protection that good regulation brings.

The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, said that many people feared the manner of their dying. These guidelines have given some comfort to people thinking ahead who might be faced with terrible decisions about helping their loved ones. If we had a properly safeguarded approach, as they do in Oregon—it is quite different from the approach in Switzerland; they do not have to have the same approach—we could give many people comfort, security and the confidence to go forward. Many people may not avail themselves of the ability to have help but would feel comforted by knowing that it was there if they needed it.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth]

The noble Lord anticipates what I am coming on to. That is what I want to deal with. That is my whole point about this question. I know that some noble Lords would find it attractive if we undermined the Bill in this respect. However, if we proceed on the basis of what the Bill seeks to achieve, we need to identify any provision that could be exploited by the Government. The amendment that comes closest to being foolproof in this respect is Amendment 20 in that, apart from an early election Motion, the only way to trigger an election is through the House passing a Motion of no confidence in the Government. As the noble Lord touched on, there is no provision for the Government to move a Motion of confidence and then invite their own supporters to vote against it, as has happened in Germany and could, as he says, happen under my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.

A Government could also trigger an election under Amendment 22ZB by the Prime Minister declaring any Motion one of confidence and ensuring that government MPs voted against it or stayed away to ensure that it was defeated. However, Amendment 20 is not completely foolproof. There is no restriction on who can table a Motion of no confidence. It could be tabled by a government Back-Bencher, possibly at the behest of the Prime Minister, thus enabling the Government to engineer their own defeat. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Cormack provides that a Motion of no confidence may be moved only by the Leader of the Opposition. That may be deemed unduly restrictive, but it prevents the provision being used by the Government for their own benefit—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned.

However, although my noble friend’s amendment deals with what some may see as a loophole, it introduces a loophole of its own. Under subsection (1)(b), a Prime Minister could simply resign, and, if the Opposition take over, move a vote of no confidence—the outgoing Prime Minister presumably assuming the mantle of Leader of the Opposition—or deny them the opportunity to govern by voting down whatever they bring forward.

In short, each amendment has its merits, though none is ideal in terms of the criteria that I have adumbrated. That is more or less bound to be the case given that the criteria are not necessarily compatible. We are moving away from seeking to retain the existing conventions in favour of greater certainty.

My amendment seeks to provide for all, or at least more, eventualities than that covered by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and to enable the Government to seek the confidence of the House. As I say, I appreciate that may be open to abuse by a Prime Minister, but the risk has to be offset against the value of retaining the existing practice.

I commend my amendment to the House but do so in the recognition that the ideal may not be one of these amendments but one drawn from what is before us. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, to which my noble and learned friend the Minister has added his name, is certainly a massive improvement on what is in the Bill. We may be able to tweak it further, but our deliberations on the clause show what can be achieved through debate and constructive discourse. If we are not quite there, we are very close.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

My Lords, it may assist the House if I clarify the procedural position once more as I think that a little confusion may have arisen. I make it clear that although we are having a debate on all the potential alternative new clauses, some of them with and some without amendment, they are alternatives and no issue of pre-emption arises. Therefore, it is possible for the House to take a series of decisions about individual amendments as they arise in the schedule. Some noble Lords may not have been certain about their alternatives after a decision had been taken on the first proposed new clause. I hope that might be of some assistance.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I cannot commit a future Labour Government, but people should form their own view about whether fifth years have been good years. We should look at this in a non-partisan way. Do Mr Major or other Labour Prime Ministers in the past who have gone a fifth year fit the rubric of Professor Hazell; namely, people hanging on to the last moment and ending up in a situation where there is a pretty awful year? Four years is good, because it means that you are accountable to the electorate much more regularly. It would probably have meant three or four more general elections since 1945. Let us remember what the much revered Deputy Prime Minister told the Select Committees. He said that the reason for which these provisions were being introduced was to make politicians more accountable to the electorate. It is quite hard to see how you make politicians more accountable to the electorate by reducing the number of general elections. In those circumstances, we will vote for four years for this Parliament, for four years for the future and for the Boothroyd/Butler/Armstrong/Pannick amendment. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the House that if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 2 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I support four years rather than five years for the reasons which I spelt out in Committee and to which I had intended to return when we reached Amendment 3, but maybe I should address that a little earlier in view of certain observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, with which I agree.

I put my name to Amendment 3 last week because it followed very largely the amendment which was debated at length in Committee. I was therefore surprised to receive an e-mail over the weekend informing me that the noble and learned Lord was seeking to withdraw Amendment 3 and to substitute Amendments 1 and 2, which we now have, and asking me whether I would support them instead. I say at once that I cannot support Amendment 1.

At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord accepted that it is open to any Government at any stage to indicate the date of the next election. That can be done within existing constitutional arrangements, as I believe everybody accepts. It did not require an Act of Parliament to establish May 2015 as the date for the next general election, but that is the course that the Government have chosen to take. There is nothing as such that is wrong with that course; it is the date that they have chosen and have put in the Bill.

If, therefore, May 2015 was to be challenged by the Opposition, surely it should have been challenged in Committee and not left to the 59th minute of the 11th hour before Report. Far from challenging that date, the amendment in Committee built on Clause 1(2). It assumed May 2015 and then substituted in Clause 1(3) “fourth” for “fifth”, and that is the amendment which I supported and still support.

It is true that, in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on 21 March at col. 508, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that it had always been the Opposition’s intention to challenge the date in Clause 1(2), but that was not what they did. It is true also that at the end of the debate in Committee, it was argued that if four years was to be the norm for future Governments, it should be the norm for this Government. I do not agree. The Select Committee pointed out in paragraph 17 of its report the crucial,

“distinction between ‘the immediate concern of the Government’”—

this Government—

“‘that it should continue for five years’ and ‘the long-term issue’”,

of what should be the norm for future Governments. Those are distinct issues and it is the long-term issue to which all the evidence given in the Select Committee was directed.

It is the same as the distinction that was drawn very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He accepted May 2015 as the date for this Government because that is the date that any Government could have fixed. He thought that it was unnecessary to include it in an Act of Parliament, but there it is. Nevertheless, he favoured four years thereafter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I do not think that the House has any appetite for long debates on any of these next votes, but they are alternatives to the vote that we have just had. This next vote, which is on Amendment 2, involves the following: instead of this first Parliament being fixed for five years, the position should be left as it is. In effect, if the Government want to go on for five years, they can do so and the arrangements should be left as they are, and a fixed-term Parliament can be introduced for the future. I detect some support for the view that, this first time around, the Government should be able to last for five years if they want. If that is the Government’s position, they do not need to amend the law to do that; they can just do it by agreement and all that is required is trust.

I do not intend to go through the arguments about four years or five because the basis of this proposition is that we end up in a situation where we do not change the law for this Parliament but leave it as it is, which would allow the Government to go for five years if they wanted to, but then I will be arguing that it should be four years for the future when we come to those votes. I therefore invite the House to reach a compromise position of no change for the first Parliament and four years for the subsequent ones.

[The Lord Speaker]

I have to inform the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 3 to 7 inclusive by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, in the spirit in which the amendment was moved, I do not wish to detain the House. We have had a full debate about the arguments about four years and five, but I shall simply talk about how the Government would prefer the position to be determined with regard to this Parliament. I think that I indicated in my reply to the previous debate that if we are going to have fixed-term Parliaments, it makes sense if we oblige this Parliament to move into the same rules as those governing what will happen in future Parliaments. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that he thought there was some merit in that consistency.

While I have no doubt that this Government will carry on in our measured fashion up to an election in May 2015, if something is not fixed at that date it is inevitable, as one knows only too well, that speculation can start running rife, and the measure not being in place would perhaps give more grounds for speculation. That would actually hinder the productivity of this Parliament in its latter years when there might be more focus on opinion polls than on the legislative programme, something that the Bill is intended to avoid. We would be far better knowing definitely when the next election would be—namely, the first Thursday in May 2015. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, the final amendment in this sequence is the only combination left, and although it proposes five years for this Parliament—I have been cruelly rebuffed in my two attempts to avoid that—it proposes four years for the future and will, I think, unite the House on my side, apart from a very few noble Lords who I regard as outliers. There is no point in debating the amendment again, because we have done so for the past two hours. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker]

If this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 4 to 7, by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this is what the noble and learned Lord, in earlier discussions, described as the “five-four-four” amendment. The Government are opposed to it for reasons that have been advanced and I do not propose to repeat. I am sure that it will be to the noble and learned Lord’s great disappointment that we cannot accept the amendment. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, I should make it clear that we believe there should be consistency and that there should be a term of five years for this Parliament and for ensuing Parliaments.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am afraid it was all too transparent and not satisfactory by any manner of means. My noble friend always brings his international perspective to bear most valuably on our debates. Clause 2(2)(b), as it is drafted, provides no remedy for the deficiencies that the Deputy Prime Minister so eloquently described.

Why 14 days in particular? What is the rationale for that figure? It would be helpful if the Government explained why they think that 14 days is the right amount of time to allow these processes to continue. It is inconsistent with what Parliament has provided for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, where the equivalent provisions allow for 28 days. Of course, they have different electoral systems that make it unlikely that any single party will have an overall majority. It might be argued that more time is needed, but in all events I would like to know why 14 days are thought sufficient for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, whereas 28 days are provided for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

Beyond that, we also ought to ask: why legislate at all? Convention and practice are to allow an attempt to negotiate a coalition or a pact—a confidence and supply agreement or whatever—over an unspecified period of time. Precedent has shown that it need not take very long. There were three days of such discussions between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party in March 1974, and five days in May 2010. Why is it necessary to legislate to allow up to 14 days for this kind of haggling and negotiation?

I do not think that what is provided in the Bill would produce any improvement. It could make things worse in our politics and our constitution. What I do know is that, during that period of 14 days, there would be no effective government and the country would be uncertain as to whether there was to be a general election. The reputation of Parliament or of politics would not be enhanced by this kind of process. Accountability would be weakened. Is it not better to stick to the understanding that we have: that if a Government are defeated on a vote of no confidence they call it a day and resign or go to the country? That would better fulfil the Deputy Prime Minister’s pledge to improve accountability. It is better that the electors, and not the political parties, decide who will form a Government. Governments are of course accountable both to Parliament and to the people, but accountability to the people should prevail. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 36 or 37 by reason of pre-emption.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I want to group Amendment 37, which stands in my name, with Amendment 34. The officials have been advised. The Minister has also had a little notification of that.

Amendment 37 would replace 14 days with five days. The Constitution Committee accepted 14 days as reasonable. However, would the country accept it? A 14-day limbo seems excessive, not least to the bankers and to what we used to call the gnomes of Zurich—now the genomes of the internet or something. As everyone else discusses whether an election will take place, it could be a long wet fortnight. As David Laws acknowledges in his most helpful book on the five days, there has to be early reassurance of the market. In his wise words:

“neither the British media nor the financial markets nor the public would tolerate a prolonged period of uncertainty”,

as a,

“failure to form a stable government could have a real impact on the UK bond market and on the UK interest rates, as well as on confidence in the pound”.

He well describes how:

“The British press and the British people are used to seamless and swift transfers of power”.

He admits that, anyway, more time would not guarantee a better coalition agreement.

All this, of course, is without thinking about the implications of Ministers from a defeated Government going off to negotiate for Britain in key EU, G20 or IMF meetings over that period of 14 days. In her evidence to the Constitution Committee, Professor Oliver said that she thought that it was against the public interest for there to be no effective government of the country, and even the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mr Mark Harper, admitted that,

“it would become clear pretty quickly that the government could not put together an alternative government”.

Similarly, David Laws—I am sorry to quote him again, but he is very helpful—testified that David Cameron himself wanted negotiations to be over in days, not weeks, and preferably before the markets got jumpy. Nick Clegg believed at the time that the deal could be done in two to three days.

Therefore, I have to ask why the coalition, which was put together in just five days, thinks it needed longer for that task. Was it too pressed in May 2010 to take sensible decisions? Some of us would say, of course, that the evidence of the coalition agreement supports the idea that it is right in that assumption. Perhaps the chaos caused by the raft of unco-ordinated constitutional changes, of which I believe the present Bill is just one, is evidence of a rather over-hurried deal. Perhaps coalitions anyway should be about domestic and economic policy, not about the country’s constitution, which is far too precious for late-night bargaining.

Certainly, while the price for the Lib-Lab pact was electoral reform—the Lib-Conservative pact; I am sorry, I am too old, although they did not get quite so much out of us, I have to say—it is clear from David Laws that the issue of fixed-term Parliaments was not an end in itself as a real democratic need but was, to use his words,

“to avoid a second election”.

So is it uncertainty about their relationship that leads to this Bill and its 14 days? The coalition expressly does not want to rule out the possibility of a House changing its mind within 14 days. “Changing its mind”, of course, is a euphemism. I shall quote the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, at Second Reading, as it is so good:

“As for introducing a 14-day cooling off period, the mind boggles ... imagine the cornucopia”—

a wonderful word—

“of inducements, together with the bullying, which a future Government might carry out during those 14 days. We might even get a few more Dukes in this House”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1030.]

My noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, a former Chief Whip, said:

“Are we to have 14 days so that Government Ministers can offer jobs to rebels or inducements or threats”,

or is 14 days,

“simply designed as a mechanism for one partner in a coalition to try to persuade a different partner to enter a new coalition and form an entirely different kind of majority in the Commons without an election”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1035.]

An academic rather than a practitioner of the dark arts, my noble friend Lord Plant contemplated,

“a series of coalitions arising during a fixed-term Parliament, without a straightforward appeal to the electorate, that would be club politics of the worst possible kind”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1033.]

Is that what the coalition favours: a sequence of groupings, anything to keep in power? Is it knowing that five days will not suffice next time round? Only a coalition with parties bent on staying in office could have dreamt up the notion of two weeks of haggling to cling to power. The Conservative and Liberal Democrats commenced and consummated their relationship in just five days. They seem very happy, so are they repenting at leisure or do they feel that they needed more time for that coalition agreement? Perhaps they are beginning to worry about the commitment to early legislation to recall an MP, as Mr Clegg is somewhat unpopular in Sheffield. Is it because the commitment to the binding resolution in the other place that an election would be held in May 2015 has already fallen apart, and that has made them realise that they need more time? Is it perhaps the commitment to PR for the House of Lords, given that they have yet to even get a yes for AV in the Commons, and that they are now wondering whether they did that right? Or is it that they wanted time to include in the coalition agreement, “We will cause chaos in the health service and totally upset the BMA, patients and the public by unnecessary reorganisation”? Instead, of course, the agreement says that the Liberal Democrat and Conservative ideas are stronger when combined, such as on the NHS. The agreement states:

“Conservative thinking on markets, choice and competition and add to it the Liberal Democrat belief in advancing democracy at a much more local level, and you have a united vision for the NHS”.

I am not sure that the good noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has read that.

Those are just some comments on the present coalition agreement. My worry is the essence of the 14 days, because democracy is about more than just numbers; it is about being able to vote out a Government. This measure seeks to entrench one. For that reason, it should be avoided.

I have two questions for the Minister. Why, when this coalition was put together in five days, does he now think that it would take 14 days to repeat the exercise? How does he think that markets and our allies, or indeed our foes, would respond to 14 days of dithering, bargaining and negotiation?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords—

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

My Lords, we are at Third Reading and the noble and learned Lord has sought to test the opinion of the House. He has taken one interruption, but I fear that if we have multiple interruptions we will prolong the debate. With the greatest respect, I suggest that we should now continue to a Division.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend perhaps articulated the point that I was hinting at.

The government amendments complete the task of putting the public at the heart of the process, and of delivering effective public engagement with a clear but proportionate role for political parties. The complementary amendment on a counter-representations stage, suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will allow for the effective scrutiny of the arguments and proposals of others. People who, with the best will in the world, may not be able to attend a public hearing will still be able to make counterproposals in writing.

Also, importantly, this will be achieved on a timescale that will allow for up-to-date boundaries to be in place by the 2015 general election, and during each Parliament thereafter. This will give effect to a key principle underpinning the Bill: fair and equally weighted votes throughout the UK. The amendments respond to the spirit that has been expressed in many of our debates about the public having the opportunity to have their say, without adopting an unduly legalistic view that can exclude the public. I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 27H to 27K inclusive for reason of pre-emption.

Amendment 27GA (to Amendment 27G)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, this amendment would change the Bill so that the date of the next boundary review would be set by the Boundary Commission, rather than the Government,

“once the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”.

The amendment stems from a deep concern that has been expressed not just by Members on these Benches but by many noble Peers, and which is shared by the Government, about the incomplete nature of the current voter register. It makes it a flawed basis on which to redraw the electoral map in the way that the Bill proposes. The Bill states in rule 10(5) in Clause 11 that the basis of the next boundary review will be the electoral register as it stands two years and 10 months before the submission date of 2013. In plain English that means that the Boundary Commissions must use the 2010 electoral register in carrying out their redrawing.

We now know, and the Government have acknowledged during these debates, that this register is likely to be missing upwards of 3.5 million eligible voters. We also know, and the Government have also acknowledged, that the problem of under-registration is most acute among particular social groups in particular areas. As the Electoral Commission has reported,

“underregistration is concentrated among specific social groups, with registration rates being especially low among young people, private renters and those who have recently moved home … The highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation”.

The Electoral Commission’s study was underpinned by Ipsos MORI research, which found that only 69 per cent of black and minority ethnic voters are registered, and only 44 per cent of 20 to 24 year-olds are registered, as opposed to 97 per cent of 60 to 64 year-olds. Therefore, the December 2010 register is clearly a flawed basis for the boundary review, but the Bill insists that this is the register that must be used.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, explained in Committee that it was,

“the wish of the Government that constituency sizes should be of an equal size”.—[Official Report, 10/1/11; col. 1278.]

That is a reasonable objective. We support the principle of more equal seats, but you cannot have equal seats on the basis of an unequal register. That goes against basic democratic principles. That is why our amendment stipulates that before the next boundary review—which will be very significant and widely disruptive—the electoral register should be brought to as complete a state as is reasonably possible. We suggest that this can be done by requiring the Electoral Commission to check that local authorities have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that this has happened. This does not seem an unreasonable or impossible demand. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, pointed out in Committee:

“electoral registration officers are under a statutory duty to compile and maintain comprehensive and accurate electoral registers. It is not as if it is a voluntary activity; there is an obligation on local authorities to compile as best they can comprehensive and accurate electoral registers”.—[Official Report, 10/1/11; col. 1280.]

If that is the legal obligation, what is wrong with holding those registration officers to account?

At the moment, there are self-reported performance standards, but they are not doing the trick. We know that because of the markedly different registration rates across different parts of the UK, which the Electoral Commission has itself uncovered. It seems perfectly possible and reasonable to ask the Electoral Commission to take a more proactive approach to the registration of electors. The central aim of the commission is to ensure,

“integrity and public confidence in the democratic process”.

That should be our aim, too. We will fail to achieve it if we do not place some safeguard in the Bill that takes into account the problem of under-registration among particular social groups in particular places. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the House that if either Amendment 16J or Amendment 16K is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 16L to 17 inclusive by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I will not speak to Amendment 26. However, I have a question to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The boundaries are being set on the basis of the December 2010 register. Why cannot the date be January, February or March 2011, particularly since local authorities are right now registering people all over the country? Why cannot those additional signatories—registered persons—be taken into account?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

This is the first amendment I have moved on this Bill this year, for those who keep count of our proceedings. I kept clear of amendments relating to Part 2 of the Bill. I will not be long in speaking to this amendment. Neither the Electoral Commission nor anyone else, for that matter, has ever carried out an exercise across the United Kingdom to explain officially the mechanics of voting systems, whatever they may be. In this case, they are the alternative vote as proposed in the Bill and first past the post.

The Electoral Commission might decide to explain about the alternative vote and might need to indicate that there are at least three alternative vote systems, none of which is proportional. It might decide that it has to counteract the media referring to the alternative vote inaccurately—as, indeed, we in this House have agreed that the Deputy Prime Minister did when referring to it as a system guaranteeing that MPs would be elected by 50 per cent of the electorate, which of course is not what will happen under AV in the Bill. That simply cannot happen in every case.

It is true that I tabled this amendment a long time ago and that a lot of water has gone under the bridge. My noble friend Lord Lipsey has two amendments of substance in this group. My simple view is that it should not be left to the complete discretion of the Electoral Commission as to whether or what information it puts into the public domain. There should be some kind of constraint in the Bill, hence the modesty of my amendment and, indeed, the amendments of substance which my noble friend has tabled. He will go into those in much greater detail than I intend to do. I intend to be brief.

As I have said, I wanted to raise the issue about the discretion of the Electoral Commission over this enterprise which, I repeat, no official body has ever undertaken in the United Kingdom. It is fraught with some difficulty and, in some ways, excitement, as the project has never been undertaken. However, it is one where we in Parliament should say that the Bill should have a little more detail, rather than simply leaving it to whatever steps the commission might think are appropriate or inappropriate. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 109 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110ZZA and 110ZZB, which are grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the purposes of this debate. Quite recently, although it actually feels like months ago, these matters came up at a reasonably early stage of the Committee, when the Minister jumped to his feet and said that they fell much more naturally to being discussed under Schedule 1 to the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister—he is not with us this afternoon—hoped then that by the time we got around to Schedule 1, we would have forgotten all about them and let them go. As the Committee knows, on this Bill we are, quite rightly, grinding extremely fine so here they are again.

The amendments concern the steps that the Electoral Commission must take to get the electorate informed. Perhaps I might recap on a debate that we were having last night. The background to this is the very wide lack of understanding of the alternatives to be put before the British people in the referendum, whenever that may come. I illustrate this from a poll with a large sample taken by YouGov in September. It asked people whether they had heard of AV and, if so, whether they knew what it meant. To summarise, one-third said that they had heard of AV and had some idea of what it meant. They did not define what “some idea” meant and, if they were examined further, we might find that that was a rather optimistic interpretation of their true state of knowledge. One-third had heard of AV but had no idea of what it meant. One-third had not heard of AV; they also had no idea of what it meant, which is perhaps not surprising since they had never heard of it. That is a long way from where we would want to be when we get around to the referendum.

I am not using this to make a speech for AV or against it. My position is perfectly well known. I simply make the point that the better informed those participating in this referendum are, when it comes about, the more the result will have legitimacy and stability, because we will be able to have confidence that the people really have reached the verdict they wish to reach, on reflection, and that chance factors have not simply swayed it. This is not the job of the Electoral Commission only; it is the job of the campaign organisations on both sides, of our national media—I thought I might get a laugh for that—of politicians and of those who are not political in the party sense but who are interested in politics.

These are great issues for our future as a democracy and all those have a role to play, but the Electoral Commission has a role. It has been created to play a role and it is right that Parliament should give it some specific guidance on the minimum activity which we expect it to undertake in playing that role. If the referendum were to go ahead on 5 May—and I know there are those in this Committee and the government Front Benches who support that—there will be only some 10 weeks between the passage of the legislation and the day when the people deliver their verdict.

My two amendments are straightforward. First, they ask that the Electoral Commission prepares a leaflet that summarises the meaning of the question before people and what its implications would be. It summarises, in an impartial way—because the Electoral Commission owes its whole role to its impartiality—the arguments for and against AV and for and against first past the post, so that any elector wishing to study the matter can see a short summary of the arguments. That is then distributed to every household in the country so that everybody gets their chance to read it. A fairly straightforward proposition, you would think.

The second amendment is slightly tongue in cheek and says that the leaflet should be examined by the Plain English Campaign. Actually, from my own experience as a journalist on the Economist, I think that an Economist journalist would be an alternative because these are both groups of people who are very used to making sure that the language in which complicated ideas are expressed in order to communicate is clear. It is a serious purpose behind a tongue-in-cheek amendment because the number of people who have a natural grasp of voting systems is quite small, as I have shown. The number of people who understand the issues involved on voting reform is also quite small. To produce language which is generally comprehensible is quite complicated.

I know the Electoral Commission tries hard to get its language right. Indeed, it is contemplating producing a consultative document on a public information booklet—not exactly a leaflet but a booklet on the referendum. I have not studied it in detail but it is the kind of thing which could be done with an examination not just for the content but for the clarity of the language in which it is expressed.

It is perfectly true that there is this draft booklet; it is true that the Electoral Commission is of course planning information activities, and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. But we, as parliamentarians, have a right to expect certain things of the Electoral Commission and to lay down in the Bill that it must perform certain functions. This is all going to be done in a terrific rush, and the commission may get into some sort of difficulty, as its resources are not very great for the task ahead of it, so something has to be dumped. If it is in the Bill, the thing that is dumped cannot be the exercise it mounts to make sure that the public are properly informed. In other words, it is right that the intention of the commission be underlined by Parliament and by provisions of the kind that I propose in this amendment, which is a companion amendment to the wider amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I do not think that it would. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with the figures in relation to that. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 64 to 66C inclusive, by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

My Lords, in this new atmosphere of sweetness and light created by the shade of Matthew Arnold, perhaps I may congratulate both the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on their contributions. Let no one accuse the noble and learned Lord of hypocrisy. Let us remember that a degree of humbug and hypocrisy is what has made us a great nation—a degree at any rate.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, to desist from paying me compliments, because they do me no good. If he continues, I shall apply to appear on “Strictly Come Dancing” and make Anne Widdecombe look like a ballerina—beware. I thank the noble Lord anyhow for his kindness.