Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am tempted to comment but, mustering all the neutrality that I can command as a Cross-Bencher, it would probably be better for me to remain silent. I invite noble Lords to consider the issue of determining that the number of Members of the House of Commons should be reduced from 650 to 600. I mention in passing that the effect on Wales would be utterly disproportionate. It would lose about a quarter of its Members of Parliament; the number would be cut from 40 to 30. The case that I put to the House with humility and sincerity is this. I can imagine that if one had a body of the wisest and most appropriate people to examine this question, one might find considerable support for the proposition that the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced from 650 to a lower figure. The argument in favour of that might have something to do with devolution, although we were told many months ago by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the reduction from 650 to 600 had nothing to do with devolution and that any reduction would be simply on account of the determination in general that the number should be reduced.

I can also imagine that that body would come to a totally different conclusion and state that, if one looks at all the duties that have been added to the working life of an ordinary Member of Parliament over the past 50 years, there is a strong case for having a number of MPs greater than 650. I can also imagine that a body, having looked at the matter conscientiously and competently, would come to the conclusion that while on the whole there was a case for an increase, there were good psychological and social reasons for leaving the number at 650. In other words, each of those conclusions can easily be imagined in the case of a body charged with that particular duty; yet the Government are deciding this matter in a wholly arbitrary and rushed way, without any evidence to support them.

In relation to the question of the size of constituencies, many of us in the House commented at Second Reading that the idea of equality based on a mathematical commonality is utterly chimerical, artificial and misleading. On the one hand it might seem attractive to say, “Let every constituency be more or less the same size—76,000 give or take a small percentage”. That does not give equality at all. If you live in an urban constituency which you can cycle across in 15 minutes, you can have access to your Member of Parliament’s office in a matter of minutes. Just imagine doing that in a vast rural constituency, such as Brecon and Radnorshire in Wales, or Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross in Scotland. The idea of equality turns on many different factors. Mathematical uniformity is only one and probably the most misleading and artificial, yet the coalition Government have worshipped at that altar on this matter.

My only criticism of the proposed new clause is that it should have preceded Clause 1. Everything I have said applies to Part 1 of the Bill. I ask the House to bear in mind conscientiously and sincerely that as a Parliament we may well be rushing into decisions that we will greatly regret in years to come.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, as he made a powerful speech from a point of view that I share, in that he referred to the amendment as a breath of fresh air. I would go as far as to say that my noble friend, in tabling the amendment, has offered a lifeline to the coalition. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in his place. He is someone for whom I have the greatest respect, and he must be uncomfortable with the process that brought this legislation to the House. There has been no consultation or prelegislative scrutiny and there is a rumour going round, which I hope is not true, that on the coalition Benches a timetable is being kept on how long Members on this side of the House take to speak. Frankly, I regard that as bullying. Anyone who attempts to bully me usually comes slightly unstuck. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, agrees with me. The fact that we have this amendment gives us an opportunity to get the Bill back on to a proper track.

One of the areas that I found most difficult on Second Reading was the figure of 600. I am not absolutely wedded to the idea that there must be 650 Members of the other place; changes come about and we should be prepared to look in detail at the construction of areas. In my former constituency, one village, Chapelhall, went from being a sleepy village to an agglomeration of a number of very attractive housing estates. The very place from which I take my title, Coatdyke, has been linked with one town or another on about half a dozen different occasions. I do not feel too strongly about that, but I should like to know where the mandate is behind the figure of 600. One coalition party in its manifesto wanted 500; another coalition party wanted 575. I did not go to a very posh school—my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan and I went to the same school—but normally, when we worked out a compromise, it came in the middle. How do you go from 500 to 575 and come away with 600?

I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is in his place. Perhaps he and his noble and learned friend Lord Wallace could collude and come up with an answer as to why that figure is 600. I heard another rumour that some work has been done proving that the figure of 600 disadvantages the Labour Party more than any other party. I am with my noble friend Lord Foulkes in that I do not care what gerrymandering goes on with the constituency boundaries. It is the arguments that will sway people and we have seen that in other parts of the country.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am not sure whether it is to the convenience of the Committee, but I rise to speak to Amendments 44A and 45A. They have been degrouped, but I do not think that that will make any practical difference to tonight’s discussions. I have listened with great interest to the most eloquent contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Williamson, and I find myself very much in sympathy with everything that they have said.

However, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, eventually determines this matter, he will again manage to achieve—as I am sure he had at one time—an open mind before coming to a conclusion. He is a person for whom I have immense regard and I believe that he is a great enough man to be prepared to reconsider the matter in the light of solid evidence.

The case can be put in six words: it is an insurance against disaster. When you insure something, you insure it not because you think that there is the certainty, nor indeed the likelihood, of destruction or damage. Nor do you insure it because you think that there is a fairly minor percentage possibility. However, because there exists a possibility, the prudent person insures. It is on that basis that I ask the Minister to consider this argument, which I put forward with great sincerity, believing as I do that it would greatly improve the Bill.

I accept that we are dealing with a situation of the utmost constitutional significance. This is only the second time that a referendum on a whole-UK basis has been held. The first and only one until now was in 1975 in respect of the United Kingdom’s membership of the Common Market. We are having a referendum for the second time in 35 years. I have no doubt that Mr Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, was quite correct in saying that this is the most significant constitutional change since the Great Reform Act of 1832. Putting those matters together, therefore, I have not the slightest doubt that the Government were absolutely right to make this issue the subject of a referendum. One can hardly think of a matter that is more pertinent and more epoch-making.

I agree that referenda, in the main, are a diversion from the ordinary processes of Parliament. It is received wisdom that, in the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and the Bill of Rights, there was a huge transfer of power from monarchy to the people. That is not quite true. The transfer of power was from monarchy to Parliament. Parliament has exercised that sovereign authority as a trustee for the people ever since. In one sense, it would be a craven and irresponsible act on the part of Parliament to seek to delegate that authority back to the people—subject, of course, to the decision of the people at election time. However, there are exceptions and this, I think, is clearly one of them. It is delegating to the people that direct democratic authority that at one time was exercised, as the Committee will remember, in Greek city states and in the Roman republic thereafter—something utterly exceptional as far as our own system is concerned.

Nevertheless, that system is fraught with peril. It is possible, although very unlikely, that one could have a result brought about by only a minuscule proportion of the electorate. That is what we should insure against. We should be cognisant of the possible dangers. If it were the consequence of Parliament’s position having so fallen into desuetude that general apathy and contempt kept people away from the voting booth, there would be very little that we could do about it. However, it could stem from wholly accidental sources. It is not impossible to have rainfall of a number of inches over a period of a few hours, as we have seen in the past two or three years, bringing about a wholly disastrous situation due to a vicissitude of nature. Another vicissitude of nature could well be foot and mouth disease, paralysing all mobility in the rural areas. We have seen that happen twice in the past 43 years. It could happen again. Let us hope that it never will happen again, but it could. Nobody can stand up in this House and say, “You are talking nonsense. These are possibilities that simply cannot happen”. I would say that they are very unlikely to happen, and I hope and pray that they never will happen, but I think that we would be extremely foolish not to insure against them.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I am very interested in the point that the noble Lord is making. He may recall that the 1979 referendum on the Scotland and Wales Acts was held on 1 March, St David’s Day. I well remember that we got up in the morning on 1 March and snow was falling. I remember the late Donald Dewar saying that if he had a dog he would kick it. Thankfully it was not my dog, and it was not foot and mouth disease or something as dramatic as that. However, there was an awareness that the weather conditions were going to be quite negative on that day.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I hear what the noble Baroness says and I am sure that she is correct. I had the unfortunate experience of being chairman of the yes campaign in Wales and we lost heavily. However, there is no defence that I can raise in respect of weather, unfortunately.

Coming back to the question, I think that a threshold is certainly called for. The point has been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that nearly all other democracies, particularly those that have a written constitution, have a provision for a threshold, so we would not be doing something out of line with democratic process and experience in many other countries. As noble Lords know, there are two types of threshold. One is the threshold relating to the minimum number in the turnout; the other threshold is the majority threshold. In 1978, there was the Cunningham amendment. The result of that amendment was that, for the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales to be carried, there had to be at least 40 per cent in favour of the proposition.

The very distinguished constitutional commentator, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, has analysed that situation. You could achieve a 40 per cent majority in Scotland on an 80 per cent turnout if 50 per cent voted in favour. If the turnout went down to 70 per cent, you could still achieve it on 57 per cent of the vote. If it went down to 60 per cent, it would be 67 per cent—of course, a very high level unlikely to be achieved. Whether wrecking the referendum was the purpose or the desire, I know not. It may not have been, but that was certainly the result in Scotland. I make that point because many people have come up to me in the past few days saying, “I’m not really for your proposition. This 40 per cent business was gone into in the Cunningham amendment many years ago”. However, this is quite different, as it relates simply to the question of turnout.