Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I can throw no more light than the books currently in circulation describing the coalition talks; I was not privy to them in detail. However, I understand that the Labour Party proposed that it would proceed with AV, as in its manifesto; and it was conceded by the Conservative Party that it would proceed with AV in a referendum to be held at some point in the future, and subsequently it was agreed that it would be held on 5 May. I do not think that that is terribly relevant. The important thing is which system gives most power to the voters. AV gives more power to the voters than first past the post and we should let the voters choose on that basis.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, I will not delay the Committee long because I very much agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has said. I would ask noble Lords to be aware of some of the laws of unintended consequences that come as a result of the different models of AV that exist. I should declare an interest in that until last year I was the British High Commissioner to Australia. I have watched the system in Queensland and the federal system with a great deal of interest. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours set it out very effectively.

One of the unintended consequences of AV is the nature of the deals done by political parties and by individuals. My noble friend talked about tactical voting, but it goes beyond that. Parties—at the national level, the state level and the constituency level—do deals. It is easy to see that a party of the Right and a party of the Left would not necessarily do deals with one another, so they might look for a third party to do a deal with in terms of their preferences. Sometimes that third party is an independent. At Second Reading, I pointed out that in the federal administration the No Pokies party held the balance of power in the Australian Senate. The No Pokies party is a one-man party opposed to one-armed bandits.

There is another way in which these laws of unintended consequences can kick in. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, thinks that we should not be thinking or looking at these issues, but we know that we have parties in this country which operate on the extremes. There is a real danger, which has been seen in Australia with Mrs Pauline Hansen and her party, that the system of preferences can be used to help parties that come from an extreme position.

[Lord Rennard]

Does the noble Baroness accept that, sadly, under the first past the post system we have had a significant number of BNP councillors elected in this country? With an alternative vote system, all the supporters of parties opposed to the BNP could effectively use their votes to keep out extreme members of the British National Party. That would be a much fairer and more democratic solution.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I would refer the noble Lord to what my noble friend Lord Rooker has just said about the gradations of voting and the worth of each vote in relation to voting for extreme parties. My point is that we did not have pre-legislative scrutiny of this legislation. We did not have a consultation process. Yes, politics comes into it, but I believe that on both sides of the Committee there is a genuine desire to see a more effective way of ensuring that our country is adequately represented in the Parliaments of this land. That is why I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has done this Committee a great favour by introducing these amendments. The laws of unintended consequences could radically alter the nature of the political process in this country.

We must not rush into it blindly. There is still the opportunity for the coalition Government to achieve their dream of getting a referendum on the same day as the Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections. We will come to that later. But, please, let us not get into a situation where we take decisions that we will regret for a very long time.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has done the Committee a service by bringing forward this amendment. It demonstrates that there are many views throughout your Lordships’ House about the way in which elections should be conducted and that we need to have a moderated and thoughtful debate before rushing pell-mell into any kind of change to our electoral system.

When I first entered your Lordships’ House, one of the first issues I raised was when the then new Labour Government supported the party list system for European elections. Even though, man and boy, I supported changes to the electoral system, I opposed that change because I was always passionately opposed to the list system, not least for some of the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, has just advanced. It militates in favour of extreme groups. We have seen how they have penetrated through the European elections—the British National Party into the European Parliament—as a consequence of the list system.

I have another reason why I am opposed to it. It is an over-centralised system that places power in the hands of party elites and caucuses who, in smoke-filled rooms, often choose a list of people. My right as a voter—like the rest of your Lordships, this is one election in which we can participate—is then simply to mark my ballot paper not for an individual, but for a party. I believe that that breaches a very important constitutional safeguard. As a former constituency Member of Parliament—and here I share the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Deben—I cherished the relationship between oneself and one’s voters, and the fact that you represented a geographically defined area, somewhere where you could have a relationship with your voters because they lived in a certain area. The representatives would not be simply people from a list that had been determined by a centralised party bureaucracy, and not a system that would militate in favour of extreme groups.

We had that system for European elections. Others have pointed out that we have different systems in different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, at the local government, devolved and Westminster levels. Surely all this points to the need for a thorough review of the systems already working throughout the UK. Here I am with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I believe that there should have been pre-legislative scrutiny. I said that in the course of the Second Reading debate and in the course of a Question for Short Debate held prior to the general election. I said that we should not be stampeded into any change purely for reasons of electoral calculation. So I would say to my erstwhile friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches that they will come to regret resiling from their long-standing and proper commitment to the single transferable vote system.

I support that system rather than the supplementary vote because it gives the voter the chance to choose between candidates of parties. Inevitably it means that more women and people from ethnic minorities will be elected, and it gives the voter a choice while maintaining a relationship with a defined geographical area. We have used it to great effect in Northern Ireland and Scottish elections. But I do not necessarily expect to convince noble Lords of those arguments today, although if the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, does decide that he needs a second Teller, I would be only too pleased to join him. I say that because if, in the context of talking about multi-choice—an argument that has been advanced throughout these debates—we are going to define in the referendum question a “take it or leave it” issue, either AV or first past the post, we are denying people who have argued for the single transferable vote the opportunity of expressing their belief in that form of proportional representation.

In any event, I do not think that these issues are best decided in a referendum. It would have been far better if there had been legislative scrutiny, and if over the next 12 months we had gone through the due processes. We have been told that we are going to have a fixed-term Parliament of five years, so what is the rush? Surely your Lordships would agree that, in the end, if there is any doubt about the credibility of our voting system, if there is no consensus, and if—after an argument through all the stages of this Bill—it looks as though there is fundamental political disagreement both inside the coalition and between the coalition and the Opposition, how will that place credibility on our voting system, and how will the electorate view that? If people think that this has purely been some piece of cynical political calculation, we will all live to regret it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, I am glad to have another opportunity to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because, as someone who for most her life has had an intense involvement in Scottish politics, I find his arguments rather difficult to follow. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I have a history because in 1979 we were intensely involved in the Scottish Parliament referendum when we were both on the losing side. One of the reasons for that was the complexity of the debate at the time and the fact that there were very few people behind us—in the party that he then supported—who were in favour of what was going on. I suggest that if the noble Lord looks behind him at the moment he will find that the Benches are singularly empty as well.

There is a certain poignancy and irony in the fact that we are having this debate on St Andrew’s Day because the first point I wish to make is that the failure to consult on the date of the referendum did not show the Scottish Government any kind of respect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, knows me well and knows that I hold no brief for the Scottish National Party Administration in the Scottish Parliament, but they still form that Administration and they should have been consulted.

In the midst of the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Browne I had a light bulb moment. I think the Liberal Democrats have been comprehensively conned because holding both the referendum and the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day in Scotland will lead to the referendum being defeated. I say this for two reasons. First, I have many friends who are Liberal Democrats and I believe that they are on a hiding to nothing because the argument that will be used in Scotland—and we are hearing it already—is, “Cut out the middleman. If you want a Tory, just vote Tory”. That will have an impact on the Liberal Democrats. Secondly, I do not believe the Scottish people will respond positively to what looks like a fiddle being worked by putting the referendum and the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day.

My noble friend Lord Browne referred to public holidays. The fact that we will have the massive diversion of a royal wedding in the middle of it all will greatly complicate things. I have a background in newspapers as well as in politics and, frankly, referenda do not sell newspapers; royal weddings do. There is likely to be rather more about who is going to make Miss Middleton’s frock than about the nature of the constitutional debate on how this country should choose its leaders in the future.

I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. He makes a sensible point. I appeal to the Liberal Democrats to think seriously about the hole they are digging themselves into because, frankly, if this referendum is lost, it will be a generation before the issue of proportional representation can be raised again. I see smiles on the Conservative Benches when I say that. This legislation has been cobbled together and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats has it as his special project. It may turn out to be his epitaph.

[Lord McAvoy]

I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. I wish to spend a couple of minutes on one of my favourite subjects—the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats. I can see one noble Lord covering his face in horror, but the best is yet to come.

In setting the background, I shall begin with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, my good friend who expressed such affection for me last week. I am beginning to think that I would rather it was an affection that did not speak its name. The gist of the noble Lord’s contribution was, “If you do not let us put this Bill through, we will do this and that to you”, and he portrays our principled opposition to the Bill as being destructive. He portrays it as being aimed at nothing other than destroying the Bill, with nothing positive in it.

That was followed in even worse terms by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whose contribution was designed to intimidate and bully anyone who opposes the Bill. Those who oppose the Bill would be portrayed as obstructing the House of Lords and ruining its conventions. In my short time here, I have seen more destruction of the conventions of the House coming from the Conservative Government, and yet they accuse us of destroying them. Both the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Strathclyde, have put forward a deliberate strategy that is designed to convince our colleagues on the Cross Benches that we are entirely negative about this. I see a Conservative Peer nodding in agreement. There has been not a word about principled opposition or the excellent points that have been made by my colleagues. They are far better points than I will make, but they have not been listened to. Their strategy is to portray us as obstructive and to destroy our democratic right to revise the legislation and to ask the Government to think again.

I do not look to defeat the elected House of Commons—I never have; at the end of the day, it must have its way. However, I recall that time and again the Conservatives and Liberals defeated the Labour Government on the basis that they asked them to think again. This House normally performs its traditional, conventional duty of revising legislation, suggesting improvements and asking the Government of the day to think again, but that is not happening here. We are not out to defeat the Government—I certainly am not and I do not think anyone else is—but we are asking them to think again, as we have a democratic right so to do. We should not be portrayed as destroying the conventions of the House.

My final comment concerns the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. He waxed lyrical—or not so lyrical—about how explicit the Labour Party was in promising a referendum on AV. If we are going to have a league table, or an exposé, on those who make explicit pledges and promises and then deny them, I do not think we could have a better example than Mr Clegg and every Liberal MP who was elected on a pledge to vote against tuition fees. We should have a bit less of that attitude.

Throughout the debate on the Bill, the perils of legislation such as this, especially on a constitutional matter, being railroaded through without any pre-legislative scrutiny of any kind, have been clear. It should not happen on constitutional matters, but what we have here is the fanatics of proportional representation selling their soul to the Conservatives for the sake of a referendum on AV. I am not personally any great lover of referendums. I seem to be the only one here tonight, among my noble friends, who regarded the referendum result in 1979 as a victory. I think that that was a victory in 1979, but I seem to stand alone on these Benches—there we are; nothing new in that.

My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton indicated the number of votes that were spoiled and quite rightly blamed the systems. I stood at gates throughout the constituency and time after time the staff were not able to do their work. It was a brand-new system to them, they found it confusing, they could not give the right advice or they gave the wrong advice, and people did not know what to do—not all our political activists were au fait with the system and able to give definitive advice and it ended up a mess.

That was compounded in the constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West when we had a by-election in the Cambusland East ward, due to the tragic death of the sitting SNP councillor, who had great respect in the ward. We all turned up for the count that night, stood around for two or three hours, things went wrong and we were told to go home and come back the following morning. We came back the following morning, nobody oversaw the count, the political parties did not oversee the count and we were just told by the chief executive of the council what the result was. That is what happens when change is rushed and people do not have any experience of it.

To have this referendum on the same day—and, as was the case with the Scottish Parliament elections, without consultation of any kind—is quite insulting. To go back to the failure that my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, mentioned, I do not see any sign—and I am honestly willing to listen—of any education or training taking place to take account of and to deal with the mistakes and faults in that system come May and referendum day. I have not heard a single thing and if anyone, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, can come up with specific details of extra training schemes to take account of those lessons, that would be welcome.

What we have with the Bill is rushed legislation driven by the future National Liberal contingent in this Parliament—because they will be exposed as they were in the 1920s and 1930s and we will end up with National Liberals. Look at the Conservative Benches, by far the bigger part of that coalition team. Where are they? They are not here. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is the sole representative. We have a mess here. It is being railroaded through. I am strongly opposed to that and I will continue to oppose it on the basis of revising, improving and asking the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this whole process will involve negotiation, discussion and a debate which is taking place between the Electoral Commission and the various polling authorities right across the country to ensure that people can vote, have time to vote and understand the different elections in which they are voting. We do not believe—we stand by this fact—that there will be any confusion on this at all. Setting the date in legislation gives certainty to those involved in the planning and the campaigning. Moreover, if this amendment were carried, the Bill would say that there is going to be a referendum on a matter of—

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

This is a very simple point amid the complex issues that we have been discussing. Given that there is this complexity, why did the Government not consult the Scottish Government before coming to that conclusion?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, a decision was made on a national poll and to announce that to the House of Commons. That is what happened. Therefore, there was no time to have a great consultation with the Scottish Government. Mutual respect is a great idea and is something that we should always carry out, but if there was no reason not to have the referendum on 5 May, it was entirely right for the Government to make that decision and to make that announcement.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

The noble Lord is being extremely generous and I am very grateful for that, but the conclusion to which I come from the answer that he has given is that he does not trust the Scottish Government. Is that the case?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have no idea where the noble Baroness found that; of course, it is not true. I very much respect the House of Commons and think that it was entirely right and appropriate for that announcement to be made first in the House of Commons.

Other amendments are grouped with this one, including that spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which proposes that this process should be spread between six and 18 months. However, I have to tell him and noble Lords opposite that holding this referendum is a government priority as it is time to give the people their say on how they should elect their parliamentary representatives. That goes to the heart of the Bill and to the heart of the decision to hold this poll on 5 May. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, I do not think that I have ever agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, but I certainly agree with him that it is absurd to suggest that our politics is broken. It is manifestly not broken, but we are naive if we do not accept that the craft of politics has seldom been held in lower regard. I regard this legislation as a wasted opportunity. Had the constitutional conventions been adhered to, had we had proper consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, and had we had time to go through the Bill in its entirety, there would have been the opportunity for cross-party agreement on the issues that are raised in the Bill. That would have been for the good not only of the country but, especially, of this House and the other place. Instead, we are left with a shoddy piece of legislation that has been cobbled together at short notice. The only thing on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is his comment that his party did not win the general election. My party lost the election. No party won the election. In such circumstances, I should think that it is important to show humility rather than arrogance; this is an arrogant piece of legislation.

It is very notable that in the other place there were very few Liberal Democrat or Conservative Back Benchers who supported the legislation. It has also been extremely interesting tonight to look at the Benches opposite—the wasteland on the other side of the Chamber. Where are the supporters? Among those who have spoken tonight I have counted three who support the legislation. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who is not in his place, supports the Bill or whether he just supports AV.

I support the idea of a referendum on AV, but I also have to say that, after four and a half years in Australia watching AV in operation, I have become extremely sceptical about it for one simple reason. Deals have to be struck for AV to work. Some of those deals are done openly and transparently, but some of them are done behind closed doors and you get very bizarre results as a consequence. The balance of power in the Australian Senate is held by the No Pokies party. “Pokies” to people of my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s generation and mine usually means ice cream cones, but in this case it means one-armed bandits. Because of the operation of the system of preferences, No Pokies, which is a one-man party, can hold the Australian Government to ransom. That is one of the consequences of AV.

Australia has compulsory voting. If we had had the opportunity properly to scrutinise this Bill, perhaps we could have discussed issues such as compulsory voting, which would provide a long-term, rather than short-term, benefit to society. In Australia, the fine for not voting is peanuts—something like 20 or 30 Australian dollars—but people are so used to going out to vote that they do so automatically. You do not have to vote for a political party; you can spoil your paper. If we had had the opportunity to discuss these matters, we would have had a real opportunity to advance the progress of the legislation.

I also find it bizarre that the Prime Minister, immediately after the election, went up to Edinburgh and spoke about respect for the Scottish Parliament. What respect was shown when it was told, not even consulted, that the referendum would be on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections? A Motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament opposing that, and we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Touhig about the situation in Wales. That lack of consultation does not show respect, nor does it show a proper understanding of, and respect for, the constitution.

I want to address the issue of 600 seats. I am pretty agnostic about the size of constituencies, but I find it bizarre that in the coalition discussions the Conservatives, who have a history of arguing for 585 seats, and the Liberal Democrats, who have a history of arguing for 500 seats, reached a compromise of 600 seats. How did that work out? It is incumbent on the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he replies to this debate, to explain to us why we are to end up with more seats than were in the manifestos of the two parties that are now in coalition. It is bizarre. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, could not keep his face straight—as well he might—when he had to answer questions on these matters. We need an answer on these matters.

I do not want to delay the House too long as the hour is late, but I want to look at the parliamentary boundary commissions and public inquiries. In the other place, I was privileged to represent the town of Airdrie, which is even older than the Church of England. The first references to Airdrie were in 576, but it was at the peak of its national significance between 1160 and the middle of the 19th century. Airdrie was a base for the Covenanters. In 1832, the town hall became a hospital for the victims of cholera, which is very much in our minds at the moment. The reason that I make those points is that Airdrie is an historic town. In the early 1990s, a proposal was made to split Airdrie right down the main street. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, pooh-poohed the idea of local communities being interested in such matters, but I have to say to the noble Lord, who is not in his place, that he needs to get out more because, where I come from, people are passionately interested in the history of their communities—perhaps that is because my constituency included 19 mining villages, as we know that miners are passionately interested in history. In that public inquiry, there was great unanimity of support for retaining Airdrie as one town and a very convincing case was put for retaining Airdrie’s historic links with the towns and villages known as the Fortissat villages—a reference to the 40 who sat with the Covenanters in those villages. That case was made by John Smith, who died 36 hours later. As a consequence of the hugely persuasive argument that he put on behalf of his community, the constituency of Airdrie and Shotts was preserved and I went on to represent it.

I make that point about local inquiries because, if you come from where I come from—I take my title from the village of Coatdyke, in which I was born and brought up, which lies between Airdrie and Coatbridge and has been alternately contained in a constituency, split and quartered in all sorts of different shapes such that it should probably be renamed “Hokey Cokey”—everyone in the communities of Airdrie and Coatbridge has a real view about the importance of their community. Years on—and, like Miss Jean Brodie, I am in my prime—I am still referred to in Coatdyke as Bessie Lawrie’s daughter, regardless of the fact that I am now a noble Baroness, because communities have histories and those histories are very important indeed. For this House and this Government to demean that sense of community and involvement is to show contempt for society. As we heard earlier, the hypocrisy of a Government who promote the big society to argue against people’s faith in society and love and admiration for the society that has forged them, is indeed a travesty.

My mother used to say, “Marry in haste; repent at leisure”. Here, we are legislating at haste, and the country will repent at leisure. I hope that, in the best traditions of this House, we can be a genuine, revising Chamber to save the coalition from what it has achieved with this legislation. There are many Members of the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House and in the other place whom I count as friends. They have been let down by this legislation. AV is not PR but a miserable little compromise, which has been cobbled together only to save skins for the future. However, the electorate are not daft and will see through it. That is why, in the days and weeks that lie ahead, we must do our utmost to amend this legislation to make it at least in some way fit for purpose. As of now, the Bill is not fit for purpose.