Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 26th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, before I concentrate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, I will make some general comments about the Bill. The Government’s response to the improvements made by your Lordships to the Bill, with large majorities, has been profoundly disappointing. However, my disappointment will pale into insignificance when many Conservative MPs discover in a couple of years’ time just how they have been fooled into thinking that their seats will be unaffected by boundary changes. The most careful independent analysis has demonstrated that the Government’s insistence on sticking to the narrow 5% variance in the electoral quota means that some two-thirds of all seats will be changed—all for no real correction of the perceived imbalance. Those MPs will not merely be disappointed; hundreds of Conservative MPs and their constituents will suffer unnecessary disruption. Even more significantly, there will be many blue-on-blue contests for the more winnable new seats in the mid-term of the Parliament, just when the Government is least popular.

As my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out, Mr Rees-Mogg made no reference to that when, during an inevitably sparsely attended debate, he managed to overturn the improvements passed with large cross-party majorities in your Lordships House. It will be interesting to witness the reaction of his fellow MPs when they realise what he has let them in for. There would be an element of wry amusement for the rest of us if it were not for the avoidable impact on historic, natural and well-established communities. All being well, the political integrity of Cornwall will be protected, but such a desirable outcome will not be guaranteed elsewhere.

This was perhaps the major issue during our debates on the Bill. However, removing some of the other improvements may in due course also be recognised as counterproductive and constitutionally defective. I fear we may live to regret that the House could not endorse the proper concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Beith.

I and my colleagues are especially pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, from the Cross Benches, has tabled his amendment to the Motion on the vital issue of electoral registration. Had this been at a different stage of the Bill, a quartet of senior Members from all parts of the House would have signed it. This is underlined by the strength of supporting speeches on all sides this afternoon. It is particularly appropriate that the noble Lord should lead on this. He has been a powerful champion and campaigner in non-party efforts to get more young people—especially from BAME communities and through Operation Black Vote—to take up their civic responsibilities and rights by registering. He gave evidence on the registration issue to the Select Committee of this House, chaired by our much-missed colleague Lord Shutt of Greetland.

At this point I should say how much I and my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches appreciate the tributes to David from all sides during the Commons debate and again this afternoon in your Lordships’ House. After a lifetime of principled devotion to this cause, his sincerity and clear advocacy of these practical steps towards a more comprehensive democracy shone through during his successful speech on Report.

As the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and others have emphasised, this modest proposal would give practical effect to the aims to which Ministers have committed themselves. Without this kind of simple administrative adjustment, there is a real danger that the missing millions of unregistered young citizens will remain outside the system.

Ministers have reminded us that registering to vote is a civic duty. Unlike voting, which is entirely voluntary in Britain, co-operating with the registration process is a legal obligation unless the eligible citizen has a specific reason to be exempted. As my noble friend Lord Rennard reminded the House, the register is used to select for jury service. That is an important civic responsibility, which is not entirely voluntary. Failure to co-operate can lead to a fine of £1,000.

This proposal is not a form of automatic registration. Despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, it is not on the table for decision today. However, if the Government continue to block sensible ways to maximise registration, it could be argued that they are in a sense condoning law-breaking.

It has been clearly indicated that many of your Lordships on all sides of House wish to support this simple improvement. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, is not able to move his Motion E1 to propose Amendment 8B in lieu, I should be happy to do so and to seek the opinion of the House at the appropriate moment.

I again pay tribute to all who have helped to ensure that your Lordships’ House has fulfilled its proper scrutiny function. This includes the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True. As I have said previously, that is the fundamental right and responsibility of this House, not least when MPs and the governing party may need the corrective of relatively dispassionate, non-partisan and independent scrutiny on electoral law. We do not have the same special interests to declare as they have, which could take them into very unfortunate realm of special pleading, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made apparent.

Finally, I put on record on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, particularly all those who have worked on the Bill, our thanks and admiration for all those who have assisted the House, not least our excellent legislation adviser, Sarah Pughe. I thank the two Ministers and their team, the Public Bill Office and other officials of the House, as well as Members from all sides who value the integrity of the democratic process. I add thanks to those academic experts who gave us all such well-researched, non-partisan advice through all stages of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate on some important amendments, which were agreed by your Lordships’ House but which, in their complete lack of wisdom, the Government chose to overturn in the Commons—and two of which, rightly, have merited special attention today.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, for tabling their counter- propositions. The former made a persuasive and constitutionally important case, to which I will return.

Before doing so, I would like to add my tribute to the late Lord Shutt of Greetland. His contributions on 8 October were, sadly, his last in this Chamber. His untimely death was of course a shock, but it is somehow fitting that that last speech was on expanding voter registration and encouraging people to engage in the democratic process—a cause which, as we have heard, he had championed for years, and one which the Government should take up with more than just warm words. If the future of our democracy is to mean anything, it will be through the full involvement of all our citizens in elections, be they at local, regional or national level.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made reference to “no representation without taxation”. I very gently point out that his party wants to extend representation without taxation by extending the right to vote to people who left this country maybe 40 or 50 years ago and have long since ceased to pay tax. But that is not on the agenda today.

I am saddened, although not surprised, by the Government’s rejection of all five amendments. Far from making the Government’s life difficult, they sought to address genuine concerns in a constructive manner. I particularly regret the lack of a bit of greater tolerance, which would, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, have helped even Conservative MPs—but it would particularly have helped those who are drawing lines round the valleys and mountains of Wales to have seats that had coherence for the Member seeking to represent them.

However, it is clear that there is not a mood for compromise, regardless of the merit of our arguments. To borrow a famous phrase, you can lead the Minister towards a sensible position but, unfortunately, you cannot make him adopt it—or, at least, not now.

One of the major arguments that we had with the coalition Government, which of course included the Liberal Democrats as well as the Minister’s own party, was over the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, despite the population having grown and despite almost the same number being put into your Lordships’ unelected House at the same time. We warned the two parties then and we voted against them, but they were determined. So I am delighted that they have now seen the sense of our arguments. Welcome to our viewpoint—and perhaps in due course they will see the good sense behind Amendments 1, 2 and 7.

In particular, given the cogent arguments, and the concern of this House, we had hoped in all sincerity to see some movement on the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Given that Parliament will no longer have any backstop role over boundaries, the independence of commissions —which will no longer be advisory; they will effectively be law-makers—is even more vital. The noble and learned Lord sought to depoliticise, and therefore legitimise, the appointments process.

The Government’s position is a little concerning. It is true that some might be comforted by the departure of certain personnel from No. 10; nevertheless, the only true guarantee of independence is a transparent process guaranteed in law. Indeed, dealing, as we are, with this issue just at this moment, or, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in the times in which we live, when others such as Peter Riddell and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, have questioned how supposedly independent appointments are actually made, a very clear signal in this Motion that no elected politician would have any say would have been warmly welcomed.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has brought some very important, practical questions to your Lordships’ House this afternoon. I hope the Minister will be able to reply to them. The noble Lord speaks with a great deal of experience and expertise on these issues. It is significant that he has done the research to spot some potential difficulties.

In the meantime, I am full of admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. We have known each other for many years and I have a huge amount of respect for his experience of the way in which ministries, Whitehall generally and the House of Commons and House of Lords operate. He has almost unique experience. It is interesting that so many distinguished former MPs and Ministers have contributed to the development of this amendment at all stages, some of whom spoke again this afternoon. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Young, who must be one of the best experts to tell us about what happens behind the scenes, is wholly confident that the amendments he is now promoting, as he said, put these matters out of reach of political mischief. If they are totally out of reach of political mischief, we will be all be relieved; if he is confident of that, I take his word as very persuasive.

However, I take seriously the issues originally raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and then referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Cormack—quite a trio. They were asking what exactly the exceptional circumstances were that would permit any return to a more lackadaisical approach to the timing of the tabling of these proposals from the Boundary Commissions. If the Boundary Commissions are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, just said, absolutely specific and there is no room for manoeuvre for Ministers or the House of Commons, surely it should be a much smoother operation than is implied here, even in exceptional circumstances. I hope the Minister will explain in his response exactly what he has in mind.

We should pay tribute to the Minister. It is always a mark of a good Minister and a listening Government when there is a move between Committee and Report. There has been a move; the Government have accepted a change here and we should all welcome that. It is a sign of a Government who are prepared to think again, and that must be healthy.

It also indicates that this Bill is being improved in your Lordships’ House. I know there were some Conservative Members who thought it was rather inappropriate for the House of Lords to make any changes to a Bill that dealt specifically with elections to the other place. As a former Member of Parliament, I take exactly the opposite view; after all, there is a degree of self-interest at the other end of the corridor which we hope at this end we are largely able to avoid. We have a greater degree of impartiality in that respect.

As a result of two Divisions and likely support for this amendment, we now have some changes that will undoubtedly have to be considered in the other place. It is very healthy that MPs be asked to think again about these issues. As was mentioned in a previous debate, there is already substantial Conservative Back-Bench rethinking on the important issues of the 7.5% quota tolerance in preference to 5% and on the 10-year review period. I therefore hope that the fact that there is now government support for a government change to their Bill will be taken as an indication that our role in this House is to make sure that this Bill is improved before it goes back to the other place.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not need to detain the House on an amendment where everything has been said and has been said by everyone. I simply applaud the Government, as we have just heard, for seeing sense on this amendment, which answers one of the two fundamental issues which concerned us about moving from a final parliamentary sign-off towards automaticity—that is, the ability of the Executive to delay the implementation of the Boundary Commissions’ plans, despite having handed effective authority to the commissions to put those plans into law. Without this amendment, no one, neither the commissioners nor Parliament, could have forced the Government’s hand had they chosen to delay.

I retain one concern, which is that retained by the guinea pig—not the guinea pig, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who obviously gets his feeds on automaticity even faster than I can. The issue he raised about what might happen should the Government decide to call an election during that four-month period should continue to concern us.

I had assumed that “exceptional circumstances” meant that, but that in itself is quite worrying. As my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have said, we need more explanation about what exceptional circumstances are—putting aside Covid because, as my noble friend said, that would be dealt with in another way. Given that the Government are committed to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which puts the decision back into No. 10, there must remain a worry that a difficult boundary review could somehow be circumvented. The Minister needs to allay these fears which, as he has heard, are from across the House.

The issue of the time cap introduced by this amendment was a major concern to us. It was not the major one for the Constitution Committee—we will come on to that shortly in Amendment 11, about moving to automaticity—but it was certainly one of our two major concerns. The fact that the Government have accepted and even put their name to the amendment means that it would be churlish for me not to say that we support it too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, technically I rise to move Amendment 12, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lennie and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but I must say that I will withdraw it at the end of this group. However, I will move, and shall now speak to, Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friends Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott. It is on that amendment that we will seek to divide the House.

Everything that we heard in Committee made it clear that the change in the 2011 Act—setting such a very low tolerance level within which the boundary commissioners could do their work—will mean that communities, ward boundaries, rivers, lakes, mountains and motorways will have to be crossed to engineer exactly the right mathematical numbers. Those final boundary moves—sometimes mere tweaks—to reach the required numbers make even less sense when set against the number of people not even on the electoral roll.

It is estimated that some 20% of eligible voters are not registered, which is, on average, about 10,000 per constituency; the Government are obsessed with the last 3,000 or 4,000. I remind the Minister that this is a smaller number than when there were to be 600 constituencies under the 2011 Act. The average number per constituency was therefore larger, so the 5% tolerance then gave a larger number of electors for the margin in which the Boundary Commissions work, but the very welcome return to 650 Members reduces the average number per constituency and therefore reduces the 5% either way within which the Boundary Commissions can do their work. Therefore, the last 3,000 or 4,000 the Government are so wedded to is actually very small compared with the about 10,000 per constituency who are not even on the electoral roll. Indeed, perhaps if the Government could spend as much energy on getting those 10,000 on to the register, any talk of democratic equivalence and fair votes would have a little more resonance.

The resulting splitting of communities that 5% requires also flies in the face of the reality—as we heard in the debate on today’s first group of amendments—that MPs represent areas, not just individuals. Of course, areas do not vote, but it means that MPs can best represent those individuals if they understand and have a good relationship with the organisations within those constituencies. Therefore, breaking through, for example, a school’s catchment area—sometimes for small numbers to get the percentage right—means that issues of education could pull in more than just the MP in whose seat the school is located, because the narrowness of the margin does not allow for the catchment area to be included in that seat. That will sometimes happen at the borders of constituencies, but to make it happen for a mathematical formula seems particularly unhelpful.

It can also be argued that it is not good for accountability as it does not help an MP represent the totality of an area. Communities have natural boundaries and sometimes they will have to be cut through, as I say, but we should minimise that by giving the Boundary Commissions a bit more space to allow them to respond to local circumstances.

The very slight change to an extra 2.5% either way would give the commissions an extra bit of leeway to respond to travel patterns, geographical community or the needs of an area without having the knock-on or ripple effects on neighbouring seats so that again, and sometimes for no good reason, a neighbouring community is impacted just because the numbers do not quite fit in the first seat.

This will be of particular help in rural areas or, I have to say again, communities in Wales where the mountains and valleys impose geographical constraints which perhaps are not particularly well understood in SW1, or indeed some other conurbations. Amendment 13 would make the margin 5,500 rather than 3,500 and provide some helpful flexibility—if it is needed; it does not have to be used—so that those who are holding the pencil can draw boundaries that really do represent communities and which allow people to have a community-based relationship with their Member of Parliament. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, our own amendment in this group is Amendment 14 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard, but I will refer also to others in this group which offer slightly different solutions to the fundamental problem with this Bill that all the signatories agree is so apparent. As Members of your Lordships’ House will have observed, we have modified our suggested solution in the spirit of compromise appropriate to Report. We had previously recommended a basic quota variance of 8%, but we took careful note of the developing consensus in Grand Committee, and we now endorse 7.5% as providing the essential and reasonable flexibility that so many Members are seeking and to which the noble Baroness has just referred.

From Second Reading right through our discussions, a clear majority of contributors have expressed concern about the very narrow 5% tolerance currently in the Bill. As has already been indicated, that concern is now echoed across the House of Commons. We must all hope that the Government are also determined to reach a sensible consensus by compromising on this figure. They have nothing to lose by doing so. As the forensic academic analysis by the late Professor Johnston and his colleagues has demonstrated so conclusively, the perceived electoral imbalance between Conservative and Labour constituencies would not be especially adversely affected by this simple and flexible adjustment. What would be changed would be the widespread disruption of so many constituency boundaries. Those newly elected Conservative MPs, especially from seats hitherto not held by the party in the north and the Midlands, may now recognise the attraction of a more measured approach in this forthcoming review. They may also be especially apprehensive about potential “blue on blue” contests. This was the core of the evidence presented to the Commons Bill Committee.

We take very seriously the point just made by the noble Baroness about the number of people who are currently eligible to be on the register but who are not there. We believe that in the months of the process of the review, this may be improved; in which case, of course, there might be quite considerable increases in particular constituencies. It is also true that if the Government eventually pursue their intention of increasing the franchise to those who have moved abroad, that too could mean a considerable difference during the actual process of the review. If, for example, anyone decides to move permanently from the London area to the Ancona area in the east of Italy and they wanted to retain their voting rights after 15 years, that could make a major difference to one of the boroughs in London. That may be true of other areas and for other individuals as well.

Meanwhile there is common ground across your Lordships’ House that the insistence on the 5% variance straitjacket, imposed on the four Boundary Commissions, will result in more changes with 650 constituencies than were proposed with the previously proposed 600 constituencies; then more regular changes for more constituencies at more reviews; and there would be more consequent knock-on changes even to adjoining constituencies which are themselves within the limits. Incumbents who believed themselves to be safe would suddenly find that they are far from it. There would also be more disruption of historic, geographically and socially cohesive communities. Finally, there would be more disconnection between MPs, councillors and the public at more regular intervals than is either necessary or desirable.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, has just said. It is remarkable that the majority of those participating in this debate are former MPs with extensive and distinguished constituency representation behind them. That comes through in the way in which they have approached this issue.

Even more significant, perhaps, is the experience of the former Ministers. If they are sceptical about what exactly will happen behind the scenes if there is the sort of delay that could happen and has happened in the past, we should take that very seriously. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem said, “reasonably practicable” is a subjective judgment and could therefore be challenged at judicial review. The fact that these former Ministers are sceptical, perhaps even slightly cynical, about what could happen behind the scenes is extremely significant.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, whom I have known for a number of years, has had extraordinary ministerial experience; he must be one of the longest-serving Ministers in the whole of our Parliament. I venture to suggest that he probably has had more experience at close hand of ministerial or even Civil Service foot-dragging than anybody who was giving him advice in the meeting to which he referred. I therefore take far more seriously what he says about the potential dangers of unlimited delay than those who sought to persuade him against his proposed amendment.

When the noble Lord spoke at Second Reading, I thought that there was a general mood on all sides of the House, not least because of that experience, that he was on to something extremely important and that this provision was one of the few serious weaknesses in terms of potential ministerial and partisan interference. I therefore take what he says today very seriously indeed.

There is only one way in which I perhaps take a slightly different view. Despite the fact that the Minister at Second Reading was reading his brief religiously—and loyally to those who brief him in the Cabinet Office—I thought that his body language was rather more sympathetic to the points being made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the rest of us. Therefore, I am more hopeful and optimistic that the Government’s eventual conclusion will be that they cannot possibly combine automaticity with sticking to this bit of no automaticity in terms of the speed with which Ministers have to bring the order to the House.

I also believe that there is a strong argument, which the noble Lord, Lord Young, enunciated and has been repeated elsewhere, about what exactly would happen if there is a long delay. What exactly would people do in whatever department would think about these matters? What would they be up to? After all, if the Bill goes through in its current form, all they would be looking at are the firm, strong recommendations of the four Boundary Commissions. How could they spend months on that? Incidentally, that is my only concern about the difference between the six weeks recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the 12 or so weeks recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others. I am not sure what Ministers might do in those second six weeks. There may be a strong argument for sticking firmly to the shorter period if, as has been suggested by people with a great deal more experience than me, there really is not that much to do.

I strongly recommend the well-briefed academic evidence given by the late Professor Ron Johnston—we are still missing him from this debate and these discussions—and his fellow academics. He pointed out just how simple in practice the process becomes at that stage; that was endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, with his expertise and experience.

There is a simple solution to the problem of potential mistakes in the modification arrangements. Again, I take very seriously the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, from the DPRR, on which I used to serve under his excellent chairmanship. Again, we are looking at an area where the Executive cannot be expected to take a long period to consider recommendations from the Boundary Commissions that will be so firm, detailed and complete.

There is an open-and-shut case for a firm limit on the period during which a delay could be permitted at the hands of bureaucrats or Ministers. In the words that have already echoed around the Grand Committee today, automaticity must lead to one or other of these sets of amendments. I hope that the Government will accept them.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as I made clear in the debate on the first group of amendments, we do not support the automaticity of Boundary Commission recommendations becoming law with no parliamentary intervention. In an ideal world, Clause 2 would not be in the Bill. Nevertheless, we share in the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other speakers, and the worry that some decision is still left with the Executive while none is with Parliament. If this clause is to be in the Bill, clearly, these amendments are very welcome.

This is important not simply for parliamentarians but for Boundary Commissioners. In knowing that they rather than Parliament are making law, it will be important for them to be confident as they assume this new responsibility that the Government will not play games with any delay—should, for example, an early election be on the cards, given that we hear that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is to be removed, thus leaving the calling of an election back in the hands of the Prime Minister. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord McNicol is, like me, not a former MP, but along with others, we have been involved from a party position. As he said, if we can remove Parliament’s ability to discuss, we should remove the Executive’s ability to delay.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that we need to curb the ultimate power of the Executive. Hear, hear to that. Six weeks sounds better to me. If it is going to be automatic, then automatic it should be. Furthermore, if the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, says that it is doable within a time limit, my judgment is that it is doable within a time limit. He knows whereof he speaks, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, my noble friend Lord McNicol, and other former Chief and Deputy Chief Whips.

I confess that my eyebrows rose just a little at the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as to the pristine, impeccable holiness of the Conservative Party. Maybe he needs reminding about Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster. I will go no further, but I think he overegged that particular pudding. If we are to have automaticity, clearly this delay must not be in the hands of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, a key part of the last boundaries Act—parts of which this Bill seeks to amend—was to make the numerical size of constituencies more equal. It was based on an exact number of electors rather than, for example, residents, where the old method allowed some flexibility. As we heard from my noble friends Lord Grocott, Lord Foulkes and Lord Blunkett, it is potentially residents who cannot be in surgeries rather than those on the electoral roll. The focus in the current boundaries Act takes the numerical equality, if you like, of voters as central to the new constituency boundaries.

Even if one agrees with that focus on numbers—and I have my doubts about this overarching focus on it—it could be undermined either by population moves or, in the instance of this amendment, by an extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. That is a policy change which we would obviously like to see but, should it happen, it is possible that it could undermine the concentration on arithmetic equality, given the unequal distribution of age groups across the country. As we know, we have certain constituencies with an older age profile, which would therefore be overrepresented if there was a switch in the franchise.

I recognise that we have yet to persuade the Government to alter the franchise, but it would be useful to see the impact of any such change on constituency boundaries. This simple and short amendment simply asks the Boundary Commission to look at extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds and at what impact, if any, it would have on the distribution of seats. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this amendment. I am one of its signatories and it is a cross-party amendment. We have to start to think in firm terms about providing for the eventual, inevitable extension of the vote for parliamentary elections to 16 and 17 year-olds throughout the United Kingdom. The Grand Committee should think in terms of what is likely to happen over the next few years by looking back at what has been happening in recent years on this issue.

I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have long campaigned for this reform, convinced as we are that this age group have shown themselves to be quite mature, and responsible enough to undertake this civic duty. It would be only sensible, right and responsible for us to start to take into account this potential change because, of course, the general election is not likely to take place until 2024, for the reasons admirably advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in a previous debate. It would be sensible for us to take that into account now, together with the greater flexibility that will undoubtedly be required to improve what is said on that matter in the Bill.

We were delighted when our Ministers in the coalition Government persuaded the Conservatives to permit this group to vote in the Scottish referendum in 2014. We were even more delighted when that group took the issues of that campaign so seriously, registered and voted in substantial numbers and, as far as could be ascertained after the poll, demonstrated their maturity by the way they voted. It seems that they were rather more responsible on all counts than some much older cohorts.

When it came to the 2015 debates in your Lordships’ House on the arrangements for the EU referendum, Members on all sides were able to refer to this successful experiment. We were no longer advocating on the basis of theory, however principled; we had practical evidence to support our case. As with Scotland, the argument that the referendum could create huge change which would have vast consequences for many generations to come and which, unlike an election, might not be easily reversed was recognised as persuasive. Prime Minister Cameron appeared to accept that argument. Younger citizens could expect to have to live with those consequences for much longer than many here in your Lordships’ House.

To my embarrassment, or perhaps even horror, Hansard apparently records that I made no fewer than 28 contributions to those debates in support of the proposition. However, I have checked and some of them were very brief. But I found that I was a signatory to the successful amendment on 18 November 2015 which sought to extend the franchise to this group. It was passed by your Lordships’ House by 293 votes to 211, with 91 Liberal Democrat Peers and 155 Labour Peers in support.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Thursday 16th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

In moving Amendment 46 I will speak to the other amendments in the group, which essentially have the same effect. Under the Bill there will be no extra sifting procedure of the sort that we established in the 2018 Act, which was able to act as a further check on the Brexit statutory instruments that were laid using the negative procedure. Quite a large number of instruments were recommended for upgrade to the affirmative procedure, and the process helped to identify a variety of drafting errors that could otherwise have left the statute book inoperable in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Our thoughtful and highly experienced Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended a sifting mechanism for this Bill along the lines of the 2018 Act. It would be able to recommend an upgrade from the negative to the affirmative procedure where the regulations were seen to be significant. That recommendation has been endorsed by our Constitution Committee, given the importance and potential breadth of powers in the Bill. It has also recommended that the sifting mechanism should be added as part of parliamentary scrutiny. In particular, the committee concurs with the recommendation of the DPRRC that the powers in Part 1, which are not accompanied by a sunset provision and are thus particularly important, should be subject to a sifting mechanism, as well as those in Part 3 and for the Clause 18 powers.

Rather than duplicate unnecessarily the provisions laid out in the 2018 Act, the amendments tabled in my name seek to make clear that the relevant delegated powers would be subject to these provisions. Given that we are in Committee, I hope that the Minister will understand that any issues in the drafting are the result of not having gone through all detail before, and that he will focus instead on the principle that the wide-ranging powers allowed for under the current Bill should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny. That, as I say, is not only for the sake of Parliament but to protect the Government from any errors.

I know that there may be some noble Lords who will probably disagree, having spent many a long afternoon in the Moses Room, but actually the sifting mechanism in the 2018 Act did work really well, and I think that that was the view of Ministers as well as those doing the scrutiny. Given that, it is slightly hard to see why the Government have not thought to repeat that process in this Bill, particularly given that it has been recommended by the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, and in addition to those I will speak to Amendment 66A, which is on a more specific question. I endorse entirely what the noble Baroness said. I find it extremely difficult to understand what change of circumstance has made it necessary to depart from the very effective system that we produced in 2018 for sifting. At that stage I was a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and we were strongly in favour of the process because it did a good job.

I noticed just now that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, who sadly is not in his place, when responding I think to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to “a change of regime” between the Administration of Mrs May and Mr Johnson. Regime change has a certain curious association in our minds, but if that is the real reason why there has been a change between 2018 and 2019 in the treatment of these matters, then of course that has wider significance because it is well known that the new Government take what I should perhaps call a more cavalier attitude to the role of Parliament, not least because they have a large majority in the other place.

I was contemplating just now the final part of Clause 38, with which my noble friend Lord Wallace was dealing. I did not intervene in the debate because it was so erudite that it went way above my head, but I thought that the final sentence—

“nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”—

was a bit optimistic. Frankly, there are all sorts of relatively small items that refer to the role of Parliament, which is why the sifting issue comes in. It is rather like arriving at the pearly gates and thinking that it would somehow ease one’s passage to say to St Peter, “Look, I know I’ve committed all sorts of sins, but they’re all relatively minor, and in any case I went on record just before I arrived here and swore that I was actually very much against sin.” I notice we have two representatives of my church here so I hope that they will endorse that. It is really what this clause is saying: “Take no notice of the fact that throughout the Bill there are all sorts of examples where the Government are not really giving Parliament its proper role. Do not worry about it because we say that we are against that.” I find that not very consoling. The sifting mechanism is well tried. It has worked and we find it very difficult to understand why it has been ruled out in these circumstances.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I think we have got here earlier than some other noble Lords anticipated, which is why I may be speaking a bit slowly. They still have not arrived, so I give in—no, it is all right. Help is arriving at this moment. Amendment 12 stands in my name as well as those of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I shall also speak to Amendment 15, which is also in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

Clause 21 is, as one of our committees describes it, a major clause adding significant new provision for Ministers to make regulations to implement the withdrawal agreement’s Irish/Northern Irish protocol, including

“any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament,”

including modifying the 2018 Act. Unsurprisingly, our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report of 9 January, therefore describes this provision as,

“a most potent form of Henry VIII clause, allowing regulations to modify their parent Act in addition to creating a new legal regime that would otherwise require,”

an Act of Parliament. Amendment 12 would remove the ability in the current Bill to amend the 2018 EU withdrawal Act by statutory instrument in connection with the protocol. Amendment 15 would place a series of limitations on the regulation-making powers allowed for in this clause.

First, Amendment 12 would, as I say, remove the ability to amend the 2018 Act. It is both unusual and unexplained as to why the Government want to give themselves a power, with only the most cursory scrutiny, to amend primary legislation. I know certain newspapers took umbrage this morning at my warnings to the Government yesterday against ramming through legislation even if it contains deficiencies, and of them being unwilling to listen to reason. But here we appear to have a provision almost certainly written as a failsafe; I think the Government know that they will almost certainly have got things wrong. This is not a way to make good law. We do not like it and it should come out.

Amendment 15 is needed as, for unexplained reasons, there are no restrictions on the scope of the Henry VIII powers in respect of implementing the Northern Ireland protocol. That is in contrast to all the other Henry VIII powers in the 2018 Act and elsewhere in this very Bill—for example, in Clause 18. Amendment 15 would add the same restrictions as are in the 2018 Act, and indeed elsewhere in the Bill, on making relevant new criminal offences, setting up public bodies or imposing fees and taxation by secondary legislation. Given what is elsewhere in the Bill and in the earlier Act, I hope that the Government will accept these changes.

Crucially, Amendment 15 would also ensure that neither the Human Rights Act nor the devolution Acts could be amended or repealed by secondary legislation. It is probably the view of the whole House that changes to fundamental rights should be made only by Parliament through primary legislation, not by Ministers through secondary legislation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, whom I am glad to see in his place, said yesterday, it would be,

“ a terrible precedent … if we altered the devolution legislation other than by primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 532.]

Unsurprisingly, the Welsh Government particularly support proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 15, with its restriction to prevent UK Ministers using such powers as are allowed in this clause to amend the statutes that embed the devolution settlements. There is already a perfectly viable way of amending the Welsh statutes without primary legislation, where the National Assembly itself agrees to the change: through a Section 109 Order in Council.

Why have the Government written themselves these powers in Clause 21? Should the Government refuse to accept Amendment 15, particularly its proposed new paragraph (f), they will by that refusal feed the suspicion that they want this power to make changes to devolution settlements even where the National Assembly and the Welsh Government are opposed to such changes. I therefore trust that the Minister will accept this amendment and, today, rule out any chance of the Government using these powers to amend the Government of Wales Act without the consent of the National Assembly. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 12, to which my name is attached. This is quite different from most of the other amendments which have come before the Committee. It is in no sense political; it is a matter of process, not politics. Its significance lies only in the clause’s defiance of our normal parliamentary processes and the danger of establishing a very unfortunate precedent. There are two consequences: first, this modest improvement cannot be characterised as holding the Bill up; and, secondly, it cannot be said to be a wrecking amendment because it is nothing of the sort.

I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is no longer in his place—he was there just a few moments ago—because I listened carefully to his speech yesterday and I was struck by a point he made which then seemed to be followed by a number of noble Lords, albeit a small minority. I refer to the point he made about the Salisbury-Addison convention, which was agreed between the leader of a small group of Labour Government Peers and a large group of hereditary Conservative Opposition Peers after the 1945 election. The name is significant because it was a deal made between two individuals appropriate to those precise circumstances. It has limited relevance now, as was so comprehensively analysed by the 2006 Joint Committee on Conventions, on which I served.

That committee reiterated:

“In the House of Lords: A manifesto Bill is accorded a Second Reading; A manifesto Bill is not subject to ‘wrecking amendments’ which change the Government’s manifesto intention as proposed in the bill; and A manifesto Bill is passed and sent (or returned) to the House of Commons, so that they have the opportunity, in reasonable time, to consider the Bill or any amendments the Lords may wish to propose.”


In passing, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the then Leader of the Opposition, was on record as stating that the doctrine needed to be re-examined:

“Election promises can be vague and easily manipulated by governments, who reserve the right to jettison manifesto promises if things change. If governments can have the right, why cannot Parliaments too have a say on circumstances as they change?”—[Official Report, 24/1/01; col. 294.]


Similarly, the Joint Committee took a great deal of evidence on the issue of secondary legislation. It was told by all parties that the Salisbury-Addison agreement did not apply. In relation to this clause and this protocol, we therefore have to conclude that Salisbury-Addison is totally irrelevant.

This is not a wrecking amendment. The provision was not spelt out in the manifesto, and in any case secondary legislation was specifically excluded from the convention—and that was just a bilateral agreement excluding other parties and the Cross-Benchers and was overtaken by events precisely as Lord Strathclyde pointed out.

I emphasise these points for two reasons. First, yesterday a few noble Lords seemed to be dangerously near to suggesting that your Lordships’ House should forgo its proper constitutional role in scrutinising this Bill, not least in relation to its significance in terms of the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. Indeed, one or two noble Lords seemed to be on the verge of bullying us with threats of reform to this House. As a very long-term advocate of reform, I say, “Bring it on”. The 2012 reform Bill, with which I was much involved, received a massive majority of 338 in the Commons with all parties giving it majority support—so it is over to you, Mr Cummings. Indeed, I would repeat Mr Clint Eastwood’s remark: “Go ahead, punk, make my day.”

Secondly, we must distinguish between on the one hand this amendment and the few others which seek to instil proper parliamentary process, avoiding precedents which future Governments could exploit, with more substantial political changes to the Bill on the other.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Committee: 8th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the issue of fees, it was fairly clear earlier that the House probably would not accept that fees could be charged without primary legislation: we do not accept that the power to do that should be by secondary legislation. Assuming that we win on that, which I think we might, when we come to Report, I think it unlikely that the House will want to accept the idea that those fees could then be hiked by a Minister without coming through the affirmative procedure. Given that the Minister said that she would look at this in the broader context that this is a new power to set up fees for new functions being brought over, raising them without an affirmative procedure is perhaps a step too far.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

Further to that point, am I not right in thinking that the reference back under the amendment to Part 1 of Schedule 4 means that we are talking about public authorities, not just Ministers? Will the Minister comment on the number of organisations that may fall into this category? I recall a previous discussion where it was clear that literally hundreds of organisations might be making such modifications to taxes or charges. So this is not, in her words, a small, technical matter; it could apply to a large number of organisations which could impose considerable increases in taxes and charges.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I think this is a sensible compromise. I, too, supported the view that the excessive period was unnecessary. Once we had in place the flexibility on places for signing to take account of geography and demography in areas such as the one I know and the one the noble Baroness knows, it was a very sensible thing to move. I do not accept that a further, more drastic reduction to three or four weeks would really have been very practical. After all, this is not going to be an anticipated event in the same way that a general election is. There will be an extension of postal involvement in the process, and therefore six weeks is a reasonable period. A further reduction would be wrong. This is a good compromise, and I am grateful to my noble friend.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I add my thanks to the Minister for tabling this amendment, to which we have added our names. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, who argued persuasively both on Report and today. Given the move from four to 10 signing places, we really did not need the lengthy period of eight weeks. I hope that, for costs and other reasons, there will now be less need for people to apply for postal votes, and it will be easier for people to arrange to meet one of the signing places. While we would not want to rush the petition, we think that both the MP and the constituents deserve to have as swift a result as possible so that the MP is not taken away from their normal parliamentary duties for an inordinate period, as has been outlined by my noble friend Lord Howarth. We see six weeks as being an improvement on eight and look forward to this amendment passing shortly.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

I dare to make a brief comment after what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. I have sympathy with the proposed new clause. It is clearly outwith the current arrangements but it is very relevant for the reasons that the noble Lord gave because it says that the final arbiter in these circumstances should be the electorate rather than a judge. I do not want to repeat what was said earlier but wish to explore whether proposed new subsection (1) of the amendment is relevant to the circumstances that I faced in October 1974. I am afraid that all of us have travelled down memory lane today. I was defending a very small majority in my former constituency. A newspaper was delivered to a large number of households by a pro-apartheid group which alleged that the then Young Liberals leader, Mr Peter Hain, and all those who worked with him or were associated with him in the Liberal Party, including myself as a sitting Liberal MP, were effectively guilty by association of murdering babies in South Africa. That campaign may or may not have been effective.

As I did not have the resources, and because I did not think that it would be fair on my then successful Conservative opponent, I decided not to go to an election court and say that he must be responsible for the relevant leaflet. It had an imprint on it but it was not clear that it had been published by his agent, although it was published by an organisation which was run by a former Conservative MP. However, I thought then, and I think now, that there should have been some way in which those circumstances could be investigated short of effectively seeking to unseat my opponent. I think that some way could be found. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would agree, but I think that this might fall within his first category. In that case, it would be right that, in the end, the final arbiter might be the electorate rather than a judge in an election court. There is therefore some important relevance in what the noble Lord has laid before the Committee, and I hope that it will be further considered.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Dubs has, as usual, set out eloquently why he has sought to bring the outcome of election court proceedings and the new ones in the Bill more into line. His arguments were echoed by my noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Grocott, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. It might indeed seem very odd to a member of the public if an MP imprisoned for a serious drink-drive offence faced only a recall petition and a possible by-election, which he could then contest, whereas a different court—an election court—has the ability to exclude an MP from Parliament altogether, and even to ban that MP from contesting the seat at a by-election.

We therefore welcome this as a probing amendment, partly to give the Government the opportunity to spell out what consideration they have already given to such issues, what discussions they have had with the electoral court, and whether they are satisfied that these two mechanisms have a degree of consistency that is easily explicable both to Members of the other House and to the public. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s views.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester said, with typical modesty, that she had only a tiny knowledge, but she has more knowledge than most of us present in the House put together on the subject of Henry VIII clauses. I entirely endorse what she said. In fact, I do not think this is a Henry VIII clause because of its very limited impact. I think it is more, in terms of longevity, like an Edward VI clause, as Henry VIII ruled for quite a long time whereas Edward VI ruled for a relatively short time. It is more likely that that is the more appropriate historical analogy. As my noble friend just said, the power is only about consequential provisions; it includes the affirmative procedure; it is effectively sun-setted, because it is limited to the general election; and it is well precedented.

My noble friend Lord Cormack said just now that these were his final words on the Bill. He presumably assumes that the other place tomorrow will accept all our amendments or produce amendments in lieu that are so acceptable all over your Lordships’ House that we do not return to the Bill again. Let me be as optimistic as he is, just for a minute, and assume that that is the case. I therefore want to place on record my gratitude and congratulations to noble friends all around the House who have done some hugely important work on what I think is now a much better Bill and a necessary Bill. I am not sure that everybody in the House agrees with that, but I certainly said at Second Reading that I thought it was necessary and it certainly has improved.

I really think that we owe a very considerable debt to the Wallace duet. Ministers in the other place should perhaps take lessons from the way in which they have responded to very important proposed improvements to this Bill, which leaves this place in a much better state than when it arrived and that is very much to their credit. I am grateful to them for the way in which they consulted many Members of your Lordships’ House.

I think the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, would agree that the engagement of a large number of other people outwith the Westminster bubble—outside Parliament—in this process was actually a plus for your Lordships’ House. We must recognise that they were stirred by concerns and anxieties that were very real. I wish it would happen on many other occasions with many other legislative proposals. We may need to build on that in future. Perhaps it may be that those organisations will take more notice in future of the way in which your Lordships’ House scrutinises legislation, and that must be to the good reputation of Parliament as a whole.

I am glad that I have had the opportunity to contribute at all stages of this Bill and I welcome the way it is now leaving this House. That is due not only to the assiduous way in which many Members of the House contributed to these debates but to the engagement of a large number of others outside the House. That is a good result.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we have some concerns about this power, but if we are given the reassurance that the Electoral Commission will be consulted and involved, that will reduce those concerns. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has also added her imprimatur to that. I am sure that the Government will listen to the sage advice that they get from the Electoral Commission, should this be necessary.

I am much more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, so I think this will be our last outing on this Bill. I am sure that the good offices of the noble Lords opposite will be able to ensure that all is accepted down the other end tomorrow and they will not send it back as ping-pong. That is my assumption. Having already learnt, from the noble Lord, Lord Horam, on Report, the words “harrying” and being “harried”—referring to the noble and right reverend Lord—I am not sure what being “wallaced” is, but I think it must mean being heard with sympathetic ears. In this case, of course, it was four sympathetic ears and not just two.

We have complained about the timing of this and the shortage of time. Our complaints are of nothing compared to what it must mean to the Bill team. We are about to finish with this, but they are now going to have to scuttle down and do the whole thing again. Therefore, not only for their efforts but for the time constraints we put on them, we should give them a big thank you.

I thank my colleagues, some of whom are here. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris and my noble friends Lady Lister, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Mallalieu are just some of those who have contributed. I also make a small thank you to a newish member of our own team, Byron Orme. This was the first Bill which he saw through this House so perhaps we can also thank everyone who, by their umpteen amendments, have helped him learn how to do that. He has been superb for us.

I thank the third sector, which I do not think went over the top. I saw an enormous amount of practicality—certainly when we from this side of the House said, “Look, that amendment just isn’t on”, they would say, “All right”, and come back with some different words, which showed practicality and an involvement in the political process at its best. I also put my thanks to them for the briefing which they gave to us all, whether we agreed with it or not.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, this will be my shortest contribution through the whole length of this Bill, as I hope the night shift will appreciate. I want to make just one point: I am not sure whether the solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is right; I am absolutely convinced that there is a problem. I instance that by saying that, as somebody who has been involved in this area for years, I have never had advice or guidance on the problems that we have heard about so often in recent weeks from anybody in the Charity Commission. The first time that I ever heard from the Charity Commission was at 6.30 last night. There is a clear need for comprehensive, careful and co-ordinated advice from the two organisations. It has not been there in the past. They have not fulfilled their responsibilities to Parliament, to which they are responsible, over many years, and it is about time that they did. Throughout today’s discussion, it has been apparent that this lack of co-ordinated information from the two organisations has been one of the major problems that many organisations have had to face, as well as parliamentarians.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made that point about the Charity Commission, because no matter how good the commitment, we want to see this co-ordinated guidance. Having this requirement in the Bill would mean that it was not just a promise but an actuality.

In addition to making sure that it happens, the provision would be a signal to the charities, given that they will be caught by new restrictions under the Bill that they have not dealt with before, that the House has taken seriously the need for them to be absolutely clear and for there to be co-ordinated guidance on that. There is no downside to having it in the Bill, so I hope that the noble and learned Lord has one yes that he can pull out of his bag at this stage.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

We have a clause stand part debate and the point is to argue that this increase in scope does not belong in the Bill. That is the purpose of this, and the clause stand part debate is in our name. It is absolutely because we do not accept the enormous expansion that this clause brings in. We had expected, at this stage, because of the pause, that the Government would give an indication, even if not through amendments, of their response to the dissatisfaction at Second Reading. Our surprise is that we meet today, five weeks later, and there is not a single indication that the worries raised either by the two reports from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, or at Second Reading, find themselves in any way reflected, given that no government amendments have been tabled for today.

[Lord Tyler]

Is the noble Baroness’s position that she wishes to leave PPERA 2000 just as it is, unamended? That is not the position of the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, or indeed of any of the organisations that I have met. It therefore seems extraordinary that she is prepared to leave that status quo in place.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I do not think that any one clause quite does that, but it is interesting if that is the noble Lord’s interpretation. Assuming that we take the Government’s intention as genuine—we can perhaps agree that this should just be about transparency—our view is that the extension of the scope has the unintended consequence of extending it from purely publications to an enormous range of other activities and things such as staff costs, transport and hire of halls. That fundamentally alters the position, which is what we are questioning. Is the effect of the Bill the same as the intent—transparency—or is the effect the chilling one that every charity and community group is telling us about? It feels like watching the Army march, with one young soldier out of line and his mother saying, “My son is marching properly but everyone else is out of step”. It seems that everyone who is commenting on the Bill has worries about the effect—except, of course, the Minister.

It was interesting and very noticeable that Lib Dem Members stood up when I used the words Sheffield Hallam. Can the Minister confirm my interpretation—it would also be interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—on whether, had the Bill been an Act in 2010, so looking backwards rather than forwards, the NUS-Lib Dem antics over tuition fees would have been permissible? My reading is that they would not have been, that the NUS would have been caught had it spent too much. I have the feeling—and the NUS shares the figures on this—that, including events, press campaign tools, photographs, travel and related staff costs, the photos of those various Lib Dem candidates pledging not to increase tuition fees would have been caught by these rules, therefore requiring the NUS to register and account for all its costs. The interesting question is whether that would be the case.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, it is late at night to have to introduce a new element into the debate, but the natural conclusion is that the Charity Commission should withdraw completely from this role of policing what should and should not happen in terms of public policy and elections. But CC9 is there and the Charity Commission is now developing more advice on this point. Either we trust the commission to do the job or we do not. I fear that what my noble friend Lord Hodgson has just said does not increase my trust.

In those circumstances, we are still faced with a genuine dilemma. As the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, said, as things stand at the moment many charities, large and small, feel that they are going to be subjected to two quite separate sets of regulations in this regard and they feel that is unfair. That seems to be a very critical issue, and I hope that in due course this House will be able to address it.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Low. It was not that he was slow on his feet; I was just a bit too fast on mine.

I return to the work of Beatrice Webb as she battled against the causes and impact of poverty. She was not running a charity, so she would have been caught by the myriad new requirements that this Bill sets out. She could then have set up a charity. I have set up a large number myself. It is not very difficult. Then she could have campaigned in the same way with no restrictions on the amount of money spent, on the market research done, on meetings, on press work or on the number of staff employed. She could even have concentrated her arguments in a number of key constituencies so long as she did not talk about voting this way or that way.

We have to think about whether we want the Stop the War coalition, pro-HS2, anti-HS2, pro-fracking, anti-fracking, pro-runways, anti-runways, pro-free schools, anti-free schools and other hard-working, well motivated groups to feel the need to register as charities so that they can campaign freely—free not just from double-regulation but from any regulation, because they would be caught only by existing electoral and charity law and not by the new restrictions imposed by this Bill.

I can see the advantages of that. Alcohol Concern, which I established 30 years ago, is a charity which campaigns against the current Government’s policies—not against the governing party—because the Government will not bring in minimum unit pricing or reduce drink-drive levels. This is completely within our charitable objectives. We could even campaign as a charity and put all our money in certain constituencies. As long as we do not say that this means voting this way or that way, it would be completely in line with our charitable objectives.

The Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, which is not a charity, would be very worried about the effect of lower drink-drive limits on its trade, but it would not be able to campaign against changing the drink-drive limit without being caught by the necessities of the Bill. That is similar to the discussion we heard earlier about hunting and the Countryside Alliance and the League Against Cruel Sports. While both are campaigning on a policy issue, one would be subject to all the regulations and the other would not because it is a charity—as long as it keeps to charity law.

The Electoral Commission has pointed out that exempting charities from the PPERA would mean there would be no restrictions on what they could spend in the run-up to the election, provided that they act within their charitable objectives, but that all organisations would be subject to the new Bill and the tighter restrictions on campaigning. The Electoral Commission thinks this could undermine confidence in PPERA while creating an incentive for campaigners to campaign via charitable channels.

In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, I can think of a number of organisations that I have been involved with which use the most appropriate vehicle, shall we say, at different times. That is the reason, as we know, that the Electoral Commission does not support exempting charities. Interestingly, we have not heard from the Charity Commission.

The supporters of the amendment say that charities should not need dual regulation. I have received only two letters from charities even vaguely in favour of this amendment—one has already been referred to: the Directory of Social Change—not because they want special treatment but because they are against duplicated regulation. They were not against being covered by the Bill but felt that they should not be regulated by a separate organisation. In other words, regulation could be by the Charity Commission; the argument is not for special treatment but against duplicate registration.

That is one of the arguments put forward in favour of the amendment, but there would be still other organisations covered by it. We heard earlier from a noble Baroness, who is not in her place, who is very involved with the BMA. It is regulated as a trade union, so it would be dual-regulated because it would continue to be regulated by the certification officer and also by the Electoral Commission. If it is simply about having dual regulation, surely we must deal with the plethora of people who would be doubly regulated.

The Directory of Social Change, despite not wanting to have two regulators, supports this amendment and also shares the concerns about the negative effects on broader civic engagement and the right to campaign. If I have read its letter correctly, I think its call would be for other parts of the Bill to be amended. The only other charity that has written specifically on this is the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which would support Amendment 160, but only as a fallback, because it is seriously concerned about the implications for wider civil society beyond charities. It supports the NCVO and others who want the Bill amended, as we do.

Charities are not calling for this, although they are undoubtedly calling for change. We will clearly be interested in what the Minister says on this. In the mean time, I shall ask Peers on the Liberal Democrat Benches whose amendment this is why they appear so little concerned with the other groups. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that there is no evidence that charities did anything wrong in the previous election, and there is no evidence of these other groups being a problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is not in her place at the moment, made it very clear that she does not like a whole chunk, if not most, of Part 2. If other noble Lords on those Benches really dislike like this Bill and all its bureaucracy so much, would it not be better for them to use their considerable muscle and voting strength in this House to amend the Bill for all civil society groups, rather than leaving just some of them exposed to the nasty bits of red tape, bureaucracy, demoralisation and complications that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips? Their voting strength in this House would be able to get rid of them for all groups. If this part of the Bill is bad for charities, it is bad for similar groups that do not happen to be charities, and we should see them all as one.

Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) Regulations 2013

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I have only a very small contribution to make, but with one practical improvement, which I hope the Minister will take back to those responsible, my contribution might be even more succinct and brief.

I am a member of the informal cross-party group of parliamentarians which advises the Electoral Commission and therefore very aware of the concerns the commission has had during this process. The Minister may know that both here, in Grand Committee, and in the Chamber I have been living with IER even longer than he has and it is beginning to wear me down. I hope that we are not going to have too many more of these splendidly erudite occasions.

My problem is the way in which consultation is undertaken. The Minister referred to the consultation with the Electoral Commission and this is referred to in the explanatory notes on the statutory instrument referring to disclosure of electoral registers in paragraph 8(1), where it reads:

“The Commission has recommended that it should be under an express duty to evaluate the confirmation trials, with a power to require those concerned to provide relevant information. The Cabinet Office and the Commission have discussed this point and have subsequently agreed that the general power to require a report, set out in primary legislation, is sufficient”.

Neither the explanatory note nor the document to which I am about to refer from the commission itself is dated; we do not know which comes before which. If that was the conclusion of the consultation with the Electoral Commission, it is therefore surprising that in the last few days those of us who are interested in these matters received directly from the Electoral Commission a document saying the following:

“We have asked the Government to confirm that it will request the Electoral Commission to evaluate the confirmation trials … in the debate on this Order in the House of Commons on 11 March, the Government did not give such assurances. The Commission cannot undertake the necessary evaluation without a direction from the Government. The Government should confirm that it intends to require the Commission to prepare a report under Section 53(6) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 on the operation of the confirmation process trials under these Regulations”.

My noble friend has laid great stress on the importance of these confirmation trials; I entirely agree with him and endorse everything he said. Who though will judge the validity of those trials if it is not the commission? As I understand it, from this brief from the commission, which as I say is not dated either, I do not know which comes before which. Was there a happy and successful conclusion to the discussions between my noble friend’s colleagues and the commission or was there not?

I am afraid the same problem arises under the other draft statutory instrument that we have before us, although perhaps on a more minor point. This is the very important question of what flexibility is given to the EROs to decide the gap between making their canvass in the autumn of 2013 and the new register in February 2014. The undated Explanatory Memorandum from my noble friend’s department says:

“The Commission recommended … the Order should be amended to specify that canvass activity should not begin before 1^st November 2013, so reducing the period between the start of the canvass and the July 2014 confirmation exercise while still allowing meaningful canvass activity to start before Christmas 2013”.

That is at variance, again, with the advice given in the undated advice from the Electoral Commission in the last few days, where it still sticks to the point that it thinks the gap may well be too long and that giving flexibility to the ERO may actually cause the eventual result statistically to be less accurate and less effective.

My speech could have been cut into a quarter if these two documents had been properly dated. We are always asking for documents put before your Lordships’ House to be properly dated. It would seem to be the most basic and simple administrative convenience for Members of your Lordships’ House to know which document comes before which. I make that plea again and I hope that my noble friend, who is amazingly effective in getting civil servants to do what we expect of them—to be as efficient and effective as they usually are—will be more successful on this occasion than previously.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I have to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has really been worn down by all these debates on IER, he is showing no sign of it whatever.

I thank the Minister for introducing these measures. I turn first to the disclosure regulations. The Committee will recall that we welcomed all the efforts made to locate and contact eligible voters absent from the register, and to confirm those already on the household list. We therefore fully support this dry run, which will assist EROs to compare their data against datasets kept by DWP and to test the confirmation exercises.

Noble Lords will not be surprised that I have a number of questions. I had hoped that if the exercise had revealed the names and addresses of people not on the current list, the ERO would then be able to write and invite them to register. The Minister said that there would be no contact, but I do not know whether that means that even if an ERO finds from DWP material someone who is not on the register, the ERO will be unable to approach that person. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

We know that the Minister in another place confirmed the Government’s confidence that everything, including the resources, is sufficiently in place for this work to happen within the required timescale. Perhaps he can repeat that assurance for the benefit of the Committee, together with any comfort that he has received from the Electoral Commission.

The other issue that I had intended to raise was that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—to ask Minister to confirm that the Electoral Commission will be required to evaluate these pilots and therefore to report back to the House.

Will the Minister also confirm that the regulations will give the necessary authority for all the relevant parties to release the data necessary for this work? Perhaps he can also assure the Committee that all the relevant parties involved will be clear about their duties and responsibilities under the Data Protection Act before any data-sharing begins. Perhaps he can set out what safeguards are in place to protect individuals’ data security. We noted in previous discussions on individual registration that some people, including those in your Lordships’ House, tend to register their vote at one address but use another address for correspondence. That will clearly be a major issue when using the DWP material. Perhaps the Minister can outline how this is to be dealt with in the pilots.

I turn to the second measure, on the postponement of the 2013 household canvass, which is now to be published in England in February 2014, and in March in Scotland and Wales. The Minister will recall my sadly unsuccessful attempt to remove from the then ERA Bill the ability of the Secretary of State to abolish the canvass. That is an indication of how important we see this tool in seeking out and registering all citizens with an entitlement to vote. Clearly, this will be even more important in the move to IER, which will fully replace the household register only in 2016. I ask the Minister to confirm that he is confident that the Government’s plans will ensure that by 2016 we will have a better register than we have at present, and that the Government remain clear that there will be no dropping of the household register before 2016.

We are very content that the Government push ahead with locating non-registered but eligible electors, so that by 2016 we have the maximum possible number of individually registered electors by a variety of means and no one is inadvertently denied their vote in 2016. But we seek assurance that any such work is not with the idea of bringing forward sole reliance on the individual rather than household-registered electorate. In the mean time, however, while we remain with household lists, as the Minister has said that registers decline in accuracy by about 1% a month, we are content with the canvass taking place slightly later—provided that the information is then made available to political parties as soon as possible thereafter, so that their work on the lists can begin, as he mentioned. This is key. The Committee knows that much of the business of alerting voters to the fact that they are or are not on the electoral roll is done by political parties, as the voting cards tend to go out only a short time before an election. It will be more and more important, with the gradual shift to IER, for parties to have early and easy access to the new registers so that they can undertake their canvass work and so that anyone left off can be identified in time to rectify that absence. We also need, as early as possible after the delayed canvass, publication, perhaps monthly, of a rolling register, showing IER flags.

We know that the ERA allows for transfer to IER to be completed by the end of December 2016, which is a sensible date. The Committee will understand that we remain a little nervous. The Act retains a power to hurry it through earlier than that, but we hope that the Government are not trying to do that, given the risk of losing eligible voters. We would also query—and this was another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—whether there is a satisfactory way in which to judge whether the 2016 date is appropriate to complete the transition. We would like to know what criteria would be applied and what would be the role of the Electoral Commission in such a process. Under the Labour Government’s legislation on IER, the Electoral Commission had a pivotal role in deciding whether progress had been sufficient to create safe conditions for the final move to be made. This Government removed that role, but surely the commission must have a duty to press the “Go” button, if that decision is to clearly non-political and based on solid data.

Perhaps I could use this opportunity to ask the Minister two questions.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Monday 29th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

The noble Lord has been generous enough to say that he does not in any way question the integrity or approach of my noble friend or me. I do the same for him. I very much appreciate and endorse what he said. In the fast-moving world that we are talking about, these are proper concerns. The whole issue of who would operate the identity cards to which he and his Administration were committed raised precisely those questions, too. I think he would now accept that.

All we are saying here—I look forward to what the noble Baroness will say—is that, having already committed to the use of the DWP data, it is only reasonable to examine other databases that may be balanced in a different way demographically and politically. Maybe the terms in which our amendment is written need to be more carefully considered. That is fine; it is what a Committee stage in your Lordships’ House is all about. I entirely understand the concerns that the noble Lord expressed but we have to be very careful. If we went right down the road of being risk-averse on these issues, we would do no data matching or mining at all and the register would become even more inadequate than it is already. That is a very serious proposition.

I do not know if the noble Lord was in the House earlier, but we had to identify that the status quo now is totally unacceptable. We have dropped back to the low 80s in terms of the completeness of the register. We are not where we were 10 years ago. I think it is agreed on all sides of the House that we have to look at every possible way to improve the integrity of the register both in completeness and accuracy. That is the purpose of our amendments.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for the little education he gave me in an earlier group about the precise wording of Amendment 24. I am very grateful for that. I also thank him for moving this amendment. I speak to very similar ones tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and me. All these amendments seek to achieve essentially one thing: that those who hold, for quite proper and official reasons, the names and addresses of our citizens should make them available to election officers who then must write to those citizens, encouraging them to register.

I say to my noble friend Lord Reid and the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, that we are in a position where the Government want to move very fast from one system of registration to another. I hope they will both remain for the next group of amendments, which are about another device to ensure a full register—an annual canvass. That is a different group of amendments. Without these sorts of activities, we risk after the general election of 2015 suddenly moving on to a half register. Unless we take these sorts of steps, we will not have contacted a large swathe of people who absolutely have the right to vote and, I would argue, therefore have the right to be told that they have the right to vote and what they should do about it. Whether it is, as suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler, the Student Loans Company, DVLA and tenancy deposits schemes, or, as we suggest, pension benefits agencies, the Passport Office, education establishments and landlords, they should all provide quite willingly information to the relevant election officers, who would then be under an obligation to write to those not on the register encouraging them to sign up.

One of the reasons for this is that we know from research—I think done by the Electoral Commission—that many of those not on the register believe that they are. That may even be the Minister’s own research. Forgive me for not getting the source quite right. We know that a large number—I think it is 45%—of people not on the register think that they are. There will be many of us who have done the political work on polling day of taking people round only to find that they are not on the list. There may be a number of reasons for that. One is the assumption that it just happens. Maybe they have lots of other dealings with the state: they may have applied for and been issued with a passport or driving licence, get a pension or a benefit, pay their council tax or visit their local hospital or GP. That gives them the feeling that they are part of society and a community, and are a citizen. A number of them probably assume that, as part and parcel of that, they are also on lists held by the Government so do not need to separately sign up to register to vote. We are coming in with a new system—in quite a hurry—so it is important to make clear that these other lists also held by the Government or government-authorised agencies do not of themselves give them the right to vote.

It is also important that the Bill should require EROs to let all people know of the other important uses made of the register. The Minister mentioned credit checks earlier in Committee and there is certainly also mortgage eligibility. When those of us of a certain age want our freedom passes, the first thing our local authority will do is see whether we are on the electoral register. There are many advantages to being on it.

Until my noble friend Lord Reid and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke, I thought that it would seem obvious to most people that EROs would look to the sources of data that exist elsewhere to find those missing from the existing registers—or the new ones as individual registration comes up—and write to them. It seems that we should not just leave it to EROs to take that initiative, but write in the Bill that such data should be shared, and shared in a timely manner so that those of our fellow citizens not already on the register will receive a personalised invitation to register for what is their right—the ability to vote.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

I apologise to the noble Lord because I do not understand what he is saying. All I am saying is that I think we should all accept in all parts of the House that both those representing rural constituencies and those representing urban constituencies can have an enormous workload. The way in which they respond to that workload is not something that I want to pursue.

I want to make another general point about this whole group. I am not a lawyer, but I am uneasy about too many special exemptions in any legislation. I think it is much better if you can design legislation so that you incorporate sufficient flexibility so that you do not have to have, in the words of this Bill, too many preserved constituencies. I understand the arguments—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Surely that is exactly the point about Boundary Commission hearings. You do not have to write it in the Bill because that will be allowed to come on later. I put down the amendment for the City of London because I would have expected that consultation with the Lord Mayor of London and others would allow that. That seems a much better way. Will the noble Lord accept that we are making special cases only because we know that Boundary Commission public inquiries will go so we will not be able to make them there?

[Lord Tyler]

The case for the City of London is not what I am referring to. I am referring to those constituencies in particular parts of the country where it is being argued that they should be preserved constituencies in their present entirety. I shall make a general point because I think it is right to do so within the context of a group of amendments. I accept that it is not easy, particularly when we have such a wide range of different circumstances, but I think it is better legislation so to craft the Bill that there is general flexibility that accommodates more special circumstances within the general range of the Bill rather than a longer and longer list of preserved constituencies. I think there is general agreement across the House on that. If we can work towards that, that is preferable and leads to better legislation. Therefore, I have listened with great interest to the special cases that have been advanced within this group, but I hope that we will find a better way of dealing with them.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I accept that the amendment is exceptionally modest. My fear is that, without even this as a backstop, we could risk having an even lower turnout and then be faced with what we do at that stage. Because this is an automatic trigger, it is not a referendum to advise the Government or Parliament about what they should do, but would automatically lead to that change. It is essential for there to be a threshold. Otherwise, we could be facing a low turnout and having to decide what to do about it. I am someone well used to dealing with risk management.

[Lord Tyler]

Does the noble Baroness recognise that the problem with thresholds for turnout is that not voting is turned into a no vote? Has she had the opportunity of examining carefully the persuasive argument of Mr Christopher Bryant, to whom reference was made earlier at some length, on 2 November, when he not only argued conclusively on behalf of the Labour Party against thresholds of this sort but was also most effective in securing a massive vote against them: 549 against 31. Has the noble Baroness had the opportunity of examining the arguments of Mr Christopher Bryant and, indeed, those of her colleagues who all went into the Lobby to vote against such thresholds?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Tyler

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has been rather unfair on his noble friend Lord Lipsey, who gave an excellent and much briefer speech in support of Clause 1. I will follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, by being brief and to the point. I will concentrate for a few minutes on the issue of turnout, which has been a constant concern of all of us across the House this evening—and rightly so, because we are all anxious to look again at the involvement of our fellow citizens in the way in which we vote.

There have been one or two trips down memory lane this evening, and I hope your Lordships will indulge me for a couple of minutes. On the last wintry day of February 1974, in a very scattered rural constituency in Cornwall, 83 per cent of those who were registered to vote turned out. In those days, there were many fewer postal votes, so most voters went to the polls. Why? Because those very wise Cornish men and women knew that the result would be very close. It had been relatively close at the previous election. They were right: I had a majority of nine, which, even in those days, was thought to make mine a rather unsafe seat. In subsequent elections I did better. I confess to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that I cannot remember whether I constantly got more than 50 per cent of the vote, but I certainly did on one or two occasions, and I built a majority of 9,000. What happened?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that the importance of that day—which I, too, remember well—was that it was a verdict on the Government rather than on his good self. Perhaps he could also remind us of the outcome of that election.

[Lord Tyler]

That is not true, because in other parts of the country the turnout was not 83 per cent. It was 83 per cent in my constituency because the contest was seen to be very close. When I had a majority of 9,000 plus, down it went. Because it was not so interesting and the votes were not going to be so important, it dropped to 63 per cent. There is a direct correlation between safer seats and turnout. Nobody can deny that. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is agreeing with me. Where constituents feel that there is not a real chance of change—whether they fear it or hope for it is immaterial—they do not register on the same level and they do not turn out. For example, in May 2010 the lowest turnout—well under 50 per cent in Birmingham Ladywood, Manchester Central and Leeds Central—was in seats where the electors knew there was very little chance of change, whether they wanted it or not. On the other hand, in Westmorland and Lonsdale and in Richmond Park, where there was clearly going to be a very close result, up went the turnout to 77 per cent. People vote and register to vote when they think that their votes are going to be important in terms of the outcome. That is surely the most important lesson we should all learn.

Short of compulsion, which we discussed earlier, the most effective incentive for people to vote is because they think their vote will make a difference and that is the case for AV. I have never pretended—I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves—that somehow this is the magic solution and everybody is going to turn out and will inevitably go for a first preference. It does not necessarily mean that everybody will have a majority. But look at the alternatives; look at first past the post. It is a staggering fact that there is not a single Member of the other place who can put their hand on their heart after the May 2010 election and say, “I am supported by more than half the people who could vote in my constituency”. Not one can say they have more than 50 per cent of those registered to vote in their constituency. Not one. If we are saying that AV is not perfect, first past the post is much less perfect.