Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lawson of Blaby
As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that I was going to intervene in this debate, I had better do so; indeed, I had intended to do so. It is the first time that I have intervened in Committee on the Bill and I shall try not to detain noble Lords for too long. I do not need to, because the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made a number of important points with which I agree but, in particular, my noble friend Lord Lamont made all the main points very convincingly.
I just add one or two points to that. First, this is not merely a constitutional matter; it is a constitutional matter of great importance. If there is a low turnout, it may well be that that is because too many people are puzzled by exactly what the implication is of a change from first past the post to the alternative vote, so they do not feel able to cast their vote. For that reason, you might get a very low turnout. In fact, the alternative vote system is generally agreed to be a totally capricious system. Every inquiry that has looked into it, such as the Jenkins commission, found it to be totally capricious. It could produce extraordinary results.
Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his place—I am very glad to do so—I give an example from the constituency of Blaby, which I had the honour of representing for 18 years and five general elections. I mention the noble Lord, Lord Bach, because he was one of my most distinguished constituents. Not only that, if I remember rightly—he will correct me if I am wrong—he was chairman of the constituency Labour Party.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
The noble Lord is a glutton for punishment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will confirm, a characteristic of the constituency of Blaby was that it was always clear that the Conservative candidate—and I was fortunate enough to be the Conservative candidate for all those years—would come first past the post by a huge majority. However, two things were uncertain. The first was whether it would be an overall majority or fall short of an overall majority. In the five elections I fought, I had an overall majority in three of them and failed to get an overall majority in the other two. It was also uncertain as to which candidate would come second—whether it would be Labour second and the Liberal Democrat third, or the Liberal Democrat second and Labour third. In fact, on three occasions the Liberal Democrat came second and Labour third, and on the other two occasions it was the other way round, with Labour second and the Liberal Democrat third.
However, under the alternative vote system, which of the two came second and which of the two came third would have determined the result of the election. If the Liberal Democrat came third, it is a reasonable presumption that the second preferences would have been divided equally between myself and the Labour candidate and therefore they would not have affected the result; I would still have been elected. If, however, Labour came third, it is a reasonable presumption that the Labour voters would have given their second preference to the Liberal Democrat rather than to me—regrettable though that judgment might have been—in which case the Liberal Democrat would have been elected. Therefore the decision as to who was elected depended on who came second and who came third. It is an absurd, totally capricious system.
Furthermore, under the alternative vote system, if I had wished to maximise my chances of being elected, which is a reasonable ambition, I would have privately told all my closest supporters to vote Labour because that would reduce the risk of Labour coming third. I did not do that because we did not have the alternative vote. It is a ludicrous and capricious system which encourages insincere voting.
If we are going to introduce something like that—if we do make that move—there is a risk that when the public tumble to what is happening they will be extremely dissatisfied with it and there will be a serious loss of faith in our democratic system. It is important that that does not happen by inadvertence, as it were, because of a small poll. We will want as many people as possible to have bought into the change to reduce the risk of them becoming disaffected with our democratic system. We have problems of disaffection with our democratic system as it is; we do not want to maximise that. So we must have a threshold. As my noble friend Lord Lamont and others have said, every country has some kind of special supermajority or threshold requirement whenever it is making a constitutional change.
The question then arises of what kind of threshold it should be. Should it be as with the Cunningham amendment—I shall come briefly on to that—of January 1978, I think it was, in the Scotland and Wales Acts where the majority has to be X per cent—in that case the winning side had to get 40 per cent—or should it be a turnout threshold? I confess that I think that the Cunningham amendment was a better system; a threshold on overall turnout is not as satisfactory. However, I take the point of my noble friend Lord Lamont that it is arguable that to have a threshold for the winning score would be in conflict with the coalition agreement, whereas we have established that that is not the case with a threshold for turnout.
I confess within this private space that I do not regard the coalition agreement as holy writ and, although I am not the greatest constitutional expert, I do not believe that it is even protected by the Salisbury convention. Nevertheless it is right that we should have some regard for it on this side of the Committee. For that reason I am prepared to support the idea of an amendment introducing a threshold for turnout. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that 25 per cent is ridiculously small and that it should be somewhere in the order of 40 per cent or 50 per cent.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I shall not repeat my earlier points about whether it should be included in the Bill, which I will take as given. I will briefly address the substance of the argument. I acknowledge that there are quite substantial arguments for compulsory voting, but my view is very much along the lines advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Voting should be regarded as a civic duty. It should not be a statutory obligation. If people do not wish to vote, we should not force them to vote. I am also a bit wary of the argument that is sometimes used in favour of compulsory voting: that there is an increasing disaffection with politics, which is why people are not voting, so there should be compulsory voting.
I do not find particularly attractive the argument that we should say to people, “Look, you are being put off politics, therefore we are going to force you to vote”. That would increase their disaffection rather than ameliorate it. I do not find the argument persuasive, although I accept that there are arguments on the other side. I rather warm to the thinking advanced about incentives to get people to the polling station. That is well worth exploring, but with the obvious proviso of “not in this Bill”.
Lord Bach
My Lords, this is another interesting debate that was started by my noble friend. The amendment does not necessarily say that compulsory voting is a good or a bad thing. It just asks that this might be added to the referendum that the Government intend. At great risk of taking a slight difference of opinion to that of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, this is probably a better question for a referendum than the previous amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth
It strikes me that there is an interesting argument here. If this is put in a referendum, the sort of people who will turn out to vote will probably favour compulsory voting. Of course, those who are against it will not go to the polling station.
Lord Bach
That, of course, is the danger with the referendum in the first place perhaps. The right to vote is obviously very precious, and we should encourage people to use it as much as possible. As a descendent of Mrs Pankhurst, dare I say that the suffragettes who fought—some, of course, died—in that cause would see this debate as important. Of course they were fighting for the right to vote, not for the compulsion to do so, but at some stage in the future the House might want to give rather more time to this interesting debate than it will this afternoon, for obvious reasons.
Let me make one thing clear. While it may not be a brave view—but it is the truth—I can say from the Front Bench that we have no particular opinion either way as to whether compulsory voting is right or wrong, and I daresay that may also be the view of the Government. It is very much a matter of individual judgment. Compulsory voting has a long and distinguished history. I believe it began in ancient Greece where it was every citizen’s duty to participate in decision-making. Those in favour of compulsory votes point to the argument that a Government elected in such circumstances can claim greater legitimacy because it removes the possibility of a party winning an election on 40 per cent of the vote when the turnout stands at just over 60 per cent.
Lord Norton of Louth
I refer back to the earlier point made by the noble Lord. He said that he does not have a view either way. What would he do if there was compulsory voting in this House?
Lord Bach
My Lords, I was careful to say that it was the Front Bench of the Official Opposition that had no official view either way. As it happens I, too, do not have a particularly strong view either way. However, I would say that the Australian experiment in compulsory voting is one that we need to look at quite carefully. It does not seem to be a complete failure, to put it mildly. What is important is that it appears to be understood and accepted by voters in Australia. Obviously compulsory voting boosts turnout and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has already told us, spoiling one’s ballot paper is a distinct option if one is not minded to vote. The voter’s power to choose remains unrestrained, and there is obviously a bit of learning by experience if you have to vote, although there are problems with compulsory voting.
Voting was described as a civic duty by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, but perhaps it is a civic right and one that no one in a free country should be compelled to exercise. Fines imposed for non-voting could be regarded as some kind of restriction on individual freedom, and in this country in particular there would be administrative difficulties, to put it mildly, in making voting compulsory, as well as many other more historic difficulties in actually putting it into effect.
I want to ask the Leader of the House one question, because different views have been expressed from the government Front Bench over the past few months, although not in this debate. As I understand it, it is compulsory in this country to register to vote. In other words, there is a sanction if you do not register. This is not meant to be a trick question. It is quite important for the House to understand whether it is compulsory to register, and what we mean by “compulsory” in this sense. In theory, at least, fines can be imposed on those who do not register, but of course in practice that does not happen. If that is true about registration, it would certainly be true for compulsory voting.
This is a subject for a much longer and more detailed debate than we can give it this evening. A referendum question might be a way of canvassing public opinion on the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has asked his question about compulsory registration because it is an important one. I well remember that the back of the registration document stated that if you failed to fill in the form, you could be fined £25. As far as I can see, that statement no longer appears on the form.
Lord Rooker
This raises an interesting issue for Part 2 of the Bill. If, as I have always understood, it is legally compulsory to register to vote, surely the other side of the coin is that there ought to be a legal obligation on the Government to ensure that every citizen is registered to vote, especially given that those numbers will be instrumental in determining the size of constituencies and all the other matters that come under Part 2. That opens up the possibility of some interesting amendments to Part 2 on compulsory registration to ensure that both those sides of the coin are dealt with. There must be a clear obligation on the Government to ensure that citizens obey the law, so that the millions of people who are allegedly missed off are not missed off before the constituency boundaries are redrawn.
Lord Bach
I agree with my noble friend that this is an important point. Various answers have been given over the past months that have suggested that registration is not compulsory in this country. I am not pressing the Leader of the House to answer on that today; a Written Answer would be satisfactory. However, the issue is relevant to Part 2, as my noble friend said. However, Amendment 29 is on compulsory voting, on which I look forward to hearing what the Leader of the House has to say.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always fascinating in these debates to discover new information. We were treated to new information—at least it was the first time for me—that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is a descendant of Mrs Pankhurst. I am not quite sure what to do with that information, but it is none the less interesting.
We have had an interesting discussion as part of the wider debate on electoral reform. The debate has been similar to the one that we had a few minutes ago, although this debate has been on the subject of compulsion. Those who argue in favour of compulsory voting believe that the greater turnout that would likely ensue would enhance the legitimacy of the Government elected because the result of the election would be closer to the will of the population as a whole rather than that of those individuals who have voted. Those who are against compulsion say that the argument that greater legitimacy would flow from a higher turnout may be challenged on the grounds that people may be either ill informed or have no wish to support the existing system. Opponents of compulsion may also refute the suggestion that low turnouts compromise the legitimacy of existing elections because not voting may be a valid expression of a voter’s opinion—indicating, for instance, satisfaction with the political establishment.
I assure the House that the Government are committed to engaging the electorate in elections and wider democratic activity. In weighing up the arguments for and against compulsion, however, the Government believe that voting should be a civic responsibility and that the importance of political participation should be reinforced without the introduction of any sanction for non-compliance.
That leads us to the interesting exchange about the compulsion to register. Although it was kind of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to say that I could write to him, I have the answer and I can clean up the mystery now: there is no compulsion to register under statute and, therefore, there is no penalty for failing to do so. I hope that that clarifies that mystery. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Snape, not to continue to press Amendment 29.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, I just want to make one short point. This amendment would sit with the rest of the Bill, because under Clause 11, the rules for distribution of seats take out two constituencies: Orkney and Sheltand. I will not attempt to pronounce the Gaelic name of the Western Isles and the Western Isles Council. They are already there because recognition is being given to the Gaelic language. For that reason, the amendment would be wholly consistent with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. We have heard very powerful arguments for the amendment. We on the Front Bench support the amendment. We do not claim that it is the biggest or most important amendment, but it does have an importance in the Bill. I hope that the Government are big enough to accept a well argued amendment that would improve the Bill. It is about fairness. The Bill already covers Wales in this way; surely it should do the same here. The amendment specifies that the ballot papers would be printed in the two languages only in Scotland. Surely the cost of printing the question in two languages would not be great. Administratively, it would not be difficult to organise; and, practically, such a change could be straightforward.
We have heard from a number of speakers how, in this age of devolution—
Lord Tyler
I know that the noble Lord wants to be brief, but I put a question to him to which I genuinely do not know the answer. Can the noble Lord remind the House whether his Administration included a Gaelic version of the question for the Scottish devolution referendum?
Lord Bach
My Lords, I cannot remind the House because I do not know the answer. However, I think that there is someone who does: the noble Lord who will speak after me. Even if we did not, we were not always right. It is a terrible admission to make, and not one that the present Government are prepared to make at this stage. Perhaps later on they will.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I think my noble friend will also remember that the question for the Welsh referendum was not put in Welsh.
Lord Bach
Again, I am afraid that I cannot remember, but no doubt the Leader of the House will be able to help us.
We have moved on since those times. Devolution is a much more significant factor now in British politics than it was. A number of noble Lords have made that clear. My noble friend Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, who comes from the relevant area of Scotland, expressed the view that the Gaelic language is more widely used and appreciated now than it was in times past. In October 2009, a new agreement was made that allows Scottish Gaelic to be used formally between Scottish Ministers and European Union officials. Of course, this does not give Scottish Gaelic official status in the European Union, but it does make it a means of formal communication with EU institutions, and politicians on different sides welcomed the step. This amendment does not ask for much. We ask the Government to be big and to accept it.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
That is very wise. I bet that he comes out of his course sensible on Lords reform.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Bach
Well, I am sorry if it has not been an interesting debate for the coalition, but I think it was a debate in the best traditions of this House, where we are discussing a matter of some importance. It may be that a number of noble Lords are offended by the fact that dinner has been delayed, or the fact that some of the speeches got up their noses, but these are important matters and we should make no apology, as Members of this House, for debating them.
We, on this Front Bench, are sympathetic to the two amendments, Amendment 4 which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, and Amendment 13, which has been spoken to, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I am going to speak to Amendment 6, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. One of the more remarkable aspects of what is, by any stretch, a remarkable Bill is the insistence, the imperative, that the referendum on the alternative vote system must be held on Thursday 5 May 2011. The obvious question to ask the Leader of the House, who I think is responding, rather like the question of why 600 Members of Parliament—we will come to that, perhaps not later tonight, but some time in the future—is why that date? Why has that date been chosen?
One can think of the political-necessity argument for that date, think of discussions that took place—no doubt, quite rightly, behind closed doors—that led to the coalition agreement, the toing and froing and bargaining that took place, and the Conservative majority saying to themselves, well, we will settle for 5 May and the Liberal Democrats being satisfied with that. I can see that being a good reason for having 5 May. Frankly, we cannot see any other good reason as to why the alternative vote referendum has to be so soon.
This is a constitutional Bill of some importance; not perhaps of the most significance since 1832, as has been alleged, but still pretty important. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made that point from the Cross Benches earlier today and other noble Lords have made it too. On a change from first past the post to the alternative vote, we in this country are normally fairly cautious about constitutional change and with good reason, because a change, if it is wrong, while it may not be for ever, is for a long, long time. So we need to think pretty carefully about what we are doing. That attitude, of course, will be music to the ears of the noble Lord the Leader of the House because of what he used to tell us when we were in government. Sometimes we may have fallen into sin slightly, but he does not want to fall into the same sins that he accuses us of. As a constitutional conservative, he will want to be careful indeed about constitutional change.
We on this side believe that the proposed referendum on changing the voting system for elections to the House of Commons should not take place on 5 May 2011. The Committee knows that we are not opposed in principle to holding the referendum; it should take place but, we say, not on the same day as another poll—that is patently ridiculous—and, especially, not as early as 5 May.
As the Deputy Prime Minister has reminded us, there are a large number of people who are eligible to vote on 5 May next year, but it is not 100 per cent and not around the country. Perhaps 80 per cent are able to vote. One of the fears about having the vote on that day is that no one will be voting in London, unless there is the odd by-election or two. If the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is right; the differential in turnout that there may be between the areas where there are elections and London where there is none will be interesting to see, but it will not do much for the legitimacy of the result.
In a recent report on referendums, the cross-party Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House argued that there should be a presumption against holding referendums on the same day as ordinary elections. We on this side agree with that presumption; does the Minister who is speaking for the Government tonight? Until recently, as we have heard, that was the stated position of the Electoral Commission as well. We acknowledge that the commission has changed its mind in favour of judging each case on its merits, but the level of discontent over the timing of this proposed referendum makes this a case where there should not be elections on the same day. I also point out that there has been no consultation on the date and, in particular, no consultation with the devolved Assemblies.
Our Constitution Committee puts it like this at paragraph 20 of its recent report:
“The Scottish Executive have expressed the view that holding the referendum on 5 May 2011 ‘shows a lack of respect for the devolved administrations’, and that it ‘undermines the integrity of elections to the Scottish Parliament’. The Welsh Assembly Government is likewise opposed to holding the referendum on the same day as the Assembly elections”.
What does our respected Constitution Committee conclude? At paragraph 23 it says:
“We note the Government’s arguments in favour of combining the two polls. However, we regard it as regrettable that the Government should have failed to consult appropriately with the devolved institutions on the timing of the referendum”.
Does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree with the committee’s conclusion?
Today we have heard graphically described by two distinguished ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland the problems that there have been in the past, one in the more distant past and one more recent, by linking elections together in Scotland. Indeed, that seems to have been appreciated to some extent by the Government: I understood that the Deputy Prime Minister had made it clear that the date of the elections to come after the ones in May in Scotland and Wales for their Parliament and Assembly will now not take place on the proposed date of the next general election, but that those elections will be moved forward by a number of months. Why, if it is so perfect to have all these elections on one day, has that decision been taken?
We argue in our amendment, and I will do this as briefly as I can, for a referendum within 18 months of Royal Assent. We believe that that allows adequate time to prepare for the vote but does not unduly delay the holding of the poll. This is not some attempt to ensure that there is no referendum that can be taken into account before the next general election. We think that there should be a referendum so that its results can be taken into account in that way. We think that up to 18 months—that does not necessarily mean a full 18 months—is not too long a period to wait to hold the poll. There is plenty of time for the next election to be held, if that is the wish of the electorate, on AV.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
Is the Labour manifesto for the last election not explicit that the AV referendum should be before October 2011?
Lord Bach
Indeed, that is what the manifesto said and—to quote my noble friend Lord Grocott—“We lost”. Yes, it was October—the noble Lord is right. It was not May though and it was not 5 May. It was October and we said six months; our amendment says between six months and 18 months, so October might well be the date but we think it is better to give more time because it provides a sensible window for an information campaign to be executed. I remind the Committee that when New Zealand changed its voting system in the early 1990s, there was a year-long information campaign. Surely it would be better to have a proper information campaign about the alternatives—the choices that are to be made—which lasts for some time and actually gets through to people, rather than to rush it through in May.
Consultation by the Electoral Commission on the referendum question revealed the extent of people’s limited knowledge of the two voting systems and how they work. That is not disparaging of the electorate. Of course it is not. As has been said in this debate, most people’s knowledge of politics is voting once a year, or less than that. If the Government are serious in their claim to seek to hand power back to people, surely it is correct that we enable the people to make informed choices. We have also to give officials and interested participants adequate time to provide this information. Our worry is that the timetable proposed by the Bill does not allow for this to happen.
I turn now to a further argument. Whether this referendum on AV is a referendum on a miserable little compromise or whether it is—as the more optimistic noble Lord, Lord McNally, insists—a battle between two great armies that will be lined up at either side of this fundamental debate, what my noble friend Lady Liddell said just now is well worth listening to. There will be public holidays and a royal wedding just on the eve of this referendum. It will be difficult enough to get people involved in the referendum even if there were no public holidays, or no royal wedding. Is it seriously thought that there will be the necessary and proper publicity before the referendum, if it is held on 5 May, with all the media interest and natural excitement about the royal wedding? It seems to us that that is further argument—though not enough on its own—to ask the Government just to think again. If they cannot give an explanation, which they have not up to now, as to why it has to be as soon as 5 May 2011 they should just reconsider. No one would criticise them if they reconsider, perhaps take a more sensible view and say that this referendum should take place after a longer period has elapsed.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for the way that he moved his amendment. In fact, if he had stopped after about a minute he would have made some very compelling points because he said it was elegant and clear, and his amendment was. We then had a debate for nearly an hour and a half and we lost a lot of that initial clarity. He was my MP. He never bothered to canvass me, perhaps because he realised that I did not have a vote. If he and I, perhaps joined by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, were to walk down Loudoun Street in Mauchline and perhaps slip into Poosie Nansie’s—three lairds together—those who were there would be extremely suspicious and they would smell a rat if they thought that we were all on the same side, although of course we are on many things.
We have had a series of amendments. I totally accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about degrouping his amendments—that is within the rules. He may find that my answers are not dramatically different but we shall come to his amendments in due course.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, at this late hour I shall avoid the temptation to repeat many of the arguments that we have already heard, but I should perhaps declare one interest. When I was in the other place it was as Member of Parliament for Stirling, having been elected in 1983. Leaving aside the birth of my children, my marriage and other personal events, arriving at the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament was my proudest day. I think that I did so with about 35 per cent of the vote when we had four parties fighting that election, so getting 50 per cent of the vote would have been quite an achievement.
At subsequent elections, without the split in the Labour Party and the SDP, it became harder for me to hang on and my majority dropped to around 700 and then to 500. By then, I was Secretary of State and I had to sign the order produced by the Boundary Commission to take Bridge of Allan out of my constituency and put it into another; that was probably about 4,000 Conservative votes. I did so without any concern at all, other than for me, because it was a fair process with a proper adjudication and inquiry. By the way, it was not just the political parties which put forward their views: views were expressed by the local community and, in the end, the right decision was taken. The result was that I got kicked out of Parliament —there were one or two other factors in that as well—and I found myself in this place.
This place has a very important role to play. It is the backstop; that is our whole purpose. A Question was asked in the House the other day of my noble friend Lord McNally as to the purpose of the House of Lords. If nothing else, it is to protect the constitution. I feel that the Bill is not Parliament’s finest hour. There has always been an understanding and a convention that on constitutional matters we should try to proceed with consensus and by agreement and, if we cannot do that, we should go through a process where matters are properly discussed and evaluated, whether by a Speaker’s Conference or something of that kind.
I understand, of course, the deal that was done after the election but I wonder at the reasons being given for this Bill and for some other Bills which are yet to come before us that are being put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister in his new role. One of the things being said is that it is about restoring trust in Parliament. In my opinion, a number of the best speeches tonight have been made by former Members of the other place. I say “best”, because they convey that sense of relationship which Members of Parliament have with their constituents, whether they voted for them or not, and which they have with the area that they represent. Even when you have been out of Parliament for a long time—I live in my old constituency —you still go around and remember that that was the place where there was this or that problem, and you have that feeling of identity. You come to Parliament as the champion of your constituents. Yes, you are there as Labour, Conservative or whatever, but you are also there as the man or woman for your area.
That is a real and powerful identity, so if you depart from that principle and if Members of Parliament start to be seen as the representative of the party for this block of population in this part of the country, something disastrous will have gone wrong. Thinking back to 1983, one thing that was very sad was that I was a Tory; a third of my constituency had never had a Tory since the Twenties; a third had never had a Tory since before that; and a third had never had anything else. There were bits of my constituency where Tories, particularly with the miners’ strike and so on, were not very popular. Yet you were respected as the Member of Parliament; you had standing and status. The expenses scandal and other things have damaged that, and I find the extraordinary notion that we can repair that damage and restore the status of Members of Parliament with this kind of Bill and this kind of reform a little unnerving.
My experience, going around canvassing during the election, was that people said, “You’re all the same. You’re in it for yourselves. We only see you at the election. You say one thing at the election and then do another”. If we want to counter that kind of cynicism and distrust, one of the things that we might do is keep the promises that we put in our manifestos. The Bill fails miserably on that count. The manifestos made promises about the voting system and the size of Parliament. The Conservatives campaigned for first past the post and against AV. The Liberals campaigned against AV. The Labour Party campaigned in favour of AV. Now we have a Bill that puts forward AV, produced by the Conservatives and the Liberals in coalition, being opposed by the Labour Party, which campaigned on having AV.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Sorry, they campaigned on having a referendum on AV. To be fair, it was a post-legislative referendum.