Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The simple answer is that I do not know and I would not want to confirm something that I do not know.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, says from a sedentary position that it is right. Be that as it may, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not support the compulsory system and preferred the optional preferential system. If we believe that that is a better system than the compulsory system, I think that that is what we should stick with. If it is the case that there is not another national legislature that does it, so be it—we are devising a system for the House of Commons.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
I wish to intervene in this debate following a contribution yesterday by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, when he drew our attention to that fact that large sections of the Representation of the People Act 1983 have been transferred into Schedule 4. That gave me cause to read Schedule 4.
As a preamble to my remarks, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we do not always move amendments to clauses and schedules on Bills until Report, because often it is important to get an explanation of those schedules and clauses prior to tabling amendments. That is precisely what I want to do on this occasion.
To begin with, I shall concentrate my remarks on Section 61 of the 1983 Act, on other voting offences, which is transferred on page 97. I am sorry to refer to a page number, but I am not a lawyer. Section 61, as modified in this proposed legislation, will say that:
“A person shall be guilty of an offence if”,
that person votes,
“knowing that he is subject to a legal incapacity to vote in the referendum”.
That is under new paragraph (a). Under new paragraph (b), it is an offence if he votes,
“knowing that he is or the person to be appointed is subject to a legal incapacity to vote in the referendum”,
and, under new paragraph (c), it is an offence if he votes for a person knowing that they are subject to a legal incapacity to vote. What is interesting about those provisions, which have been transferred from Section 61 of the original Act, is that, when I read through the whole schedule, I realised that parts of it were perhaps not enforced in the original 1983 legislation. Have there actually been prosecutions under these sections in the 1983 Act? Could the Minister establish whether that is the position?
Also on page 97—as I say, I am not a lawyer, so I have to refer to the page—in the wording transferred directly from Section 61, there is another part that is not clear; when I was discussing this with colleagues there was a little ambiguity about what it means. It says:
“A person shall be guilty of an offence if … he votes on his own behalf otherwise than by proxy more than once in the referendum”.
Some people might interpret that as meaning that a person has two votes for themselves. I wondered whether the Minister had considered the possibility of that being the case.
Schedule 5 sets out the position more clearly: it is illegal to vote more than once in the same referendum,
“unless you are appointed as a proxy for another person”.
The wording that is used in the 1983 Act has endured for the past 25 years, but I wonder whether anyone had sought to interpret it in the way that a minority might, which was not the intention of the 1983 Administration when they brought these sections into law.
Section 61 also says:
“A person shall be guilty of an offence if … he votes on his own behalf in person in the referendum when he is entitled to vote by post”.
I was unaware of this. My noble friend says that it cannot be right. If you look at Schedule 5, it is more clearly set out on page 166. The 11th instruction states:
“After receiving this postal vote, you cannot vote in person at a polling station in the referendum[s]* or election[s]*”.
I wonder how many people know that. I wonder how many people receive a postal vote, do not use it and walk into the polling booth to vote, not realising that, according to the provisions of this Act as I interpret them, they are breaking the law. I did not know that.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My noble friend knew but I can tell that there are others in the Chamber who did not.
Lord Maxton
I am not absolutely sure about this but I seem to remember that this happened to me once. I could take the postal vote with me and hand it in at the polling station, rather than be barred from voting, as such.
Lord Campbell-Savours
That may well be the case. There may well be an explanation as to how it can be done. All I am saying is that there will be some people who will have a postal vote, not use it and go into a polling booth to cast their votes. It may well be that Members of this House did so formerly; of course, they cannot vote now.
Baroness Golding
It will be marked by the returning officer on the sheet that they have a postal vote. Therefore, they will not be entitled to have another vote handed to them when they go to the polling station. That has always been the case, as far as I can remember, and it is still the case now.
Lord Campbell-Savours
That may well be the explanation. If so, that element of confusion in my mind is no longer of any relevance. However, I turn to page 102, where there is a particularly interesting section. Section 100 of the 1983 Act, “Illegal canvassing by police officers”, is largely transferred to the Bill. That section reads:
“No member of a police force shall by word, message, writing or in any other manner, endeavour to persuade any person to give, or dissuade any person from giving, his vote, whether as an elector or as proxy”,
but the Bill would delete “as proxy” and substitute “in the referendum”. It does not say “No member of a police force acting as a police officer”; it simply says:
“No member of a police force”.
If we were interpreting that literally, I would suggest that it meant that, as a police officer, you cannot,
“by word, message, writing or in any other manner, endeavour to persuade any person”—
that could be a friend or relative—
“or dissuade any person from giving, his vote, whether as an elector”,
in the referendum. I would have thought that that was unenforceable, so why is it in law? Why does it remain in the 1983 Act in that form when there have probably been no prosecutions—unless I can be corrected—over the 27 years since the legislation was originally introduced?
The transferred Section 111, on page 102 of the Bill, is headed, “Prohibition of paid canvassers”. It states:
“For ‘an election’ substitute ‘the referendum’”.
In other words, the Bill has been made to mimic the provision in the 1983 Act. Section 111 of the 1983 Act states that it would be an offence:
“If a person is, either before, during or after an election”—
“the referendum” is substituted for “an election”—
“engaged or employed for payment or promise of payment as a canvasser for the purpose of promoting or procuring a candidate’s election”;
we are talking about the referendum in this case. However, some people who are campaigning will be paid—I presume this applies in the yes campaign, and perhaps even in the no campaign—to carry out precisely that function. In the 1983 Act this comes under the heading of “Prohibition of paid canvassers”, but what is a canvasser in terms of interpretation of the law? Someone seems to have gone through the 1983 Act, lifted all the sections, deleted the words “election to Parliament” or whatever, inserted “referendum” and perhaps not thought through in great detail where that section is relevant to the campaign on the referendum that is to take place in May this year. That is all I have to say at this stage in the debate.
Lord Howarth of Newport
One can understand that. It is a little difficult in legislation to draw the line between what people do in their public official capacity and what they may do in their personal capacity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether this legislation is well framed to meet the circumstances of today.
My noble friend also drew attention to the prohibition against paid canvassers. I must confess that even after decades of political activity, I was unaware of this prohibition. It seems to me that it is quite commonplace, in all political parties, for people who are paid employees—paid functionaries—of the political parties to engage very actively indeed in canvassing and in the organisation of canvassing. Again, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether he has any concern that this prohibition, which has been long established in election law—at least since 1983—is in fact regularly and routinely ignored and whether it is sensible simply to re-enact it for the purposes of the referendum by transferring it from the 1983 legislation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps it would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that when the law in this whole area is being further revised, the 1983 Act and its provisions might well be subject to reconsideration. We are not tying him down, but there are sections of that law which now look a little dated and it might be worth considering them more widely.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has done the Committee a good service by drawing our attention to the possibility that what we have seen is a cut-and-paste job. We have seen the transference of slabs of the 1983 legislation into this 2011 legislation. It would be helpful to know just how much thought has gone into this and whether the Minister thinks there is any case for reviewing these schedules before the Bill comes back on Report to make sure that he and his officials are entirely happy that in all aspects they make good practical sense.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The thing to say is do not use it, or, if you have used it, do not take the second vote. The important thing is that nobody votes more than once.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My noble friend Lady Golding intervened to correct me. However, it still leaves a question in my mind. If the application for the postal vote has been made immediately prior to the election, how can we be sure that the officers in the polling booth have before them an electoral register that has been updated to include the mark that my noble friend Lady Golding referred to? I do not expect the Minister to reply on that point now, but he might wish to check and let us know the position on Report or in writing.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I will certainly check and advise the noble Lord, and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can answer a few questions on Schedule 5, which refers to combined polls and states:
“The cost of taking the combined polls (excluding any cost solely attributable to the referendum or to a particular relevant election), and any cost attributable to their combination, is to be apportioned equally among them”.
I presume that means among the authorities concerned, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us exactly what it means in these circumstances. If it is a question of apportionment and different sources of money are to pick up bills, I presume that there is an apportionment procedure. Can he explain what that procedure is and could it lead to dispute? If local authorities are contributing to the pot, disputes may well be possible. The 1983 Act may well make provision for that, but I have not been able to find specific reference to apportionment in this context.
In Schedule 5, on page 141, there is reference to ballot boxes under paragraph 18, which states:
“If the counting officer thinks fit, the same ballot box may be used at the polls for the referendum and the relevant elections”.
In other words, we will have a combined ballot box in certain polling stations receiving both referendum votes and other votes. There may well be circumstances in the local authority where some might argue, for whatever reason, that they want that because of its implications for the arrangements in the counting stations.
One would have thought that it is better to have two boxes separated in advance as against placing the responsibility on the counters in the counting stations to divide the ballot papers themselves. Are the Government prepared to issue guidance on whether they would prefer that a particular approach was adopted, as against giving the counting officer responsibility in his or her discretion to decide whether he or she feels that there should be a single box or two boxes to collect the votes?
Finally, on the same page, the title of paragraph 21 states:
“Guidance to be exhibited inside and outside polling stations”.
I raised that issue during our debates last night. The question remains unanswered. Paragraph 21 states:
“A notice in the form set out in Form 5 in Part 3 of this schedule, giving directions for the guidance of voters in voting, must be printed in conspicuous characters and exhibited inside and outside every polling station”.
What I was on about last night, and I repeat my concerns today, is what happens if those who are rather keen on securing a particular result decide to drive a huge 40-footer artic truck with big signs saying, “Vote yes for AV”, or otherwise, and park it right outside the polling station door? In general election campaigns, people plaster candidates’ names on huge hoardings of that nature which are mobile, but I wondered whether on this occasion, because of the highly controversial nature of the question being asked in the referendum, there might be those who decided to conduct their campaign by using those mobile hoardings. Is there not a need to issue some guidance to polling clerks? Clearly, they would have to be subject to the law as to what they should do in such circumstances.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I return briefly to an area that I mentioned last night on which I did not get a response from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I accept that I raised what was probably a unique set of circumstances and I would not expect the Minister to have an answer at his fingertips. I could go through the detail again, but in the spirit of the understanding that we have, I will say only that it is about the definition of the area of control under the authority of the presiding officer. At page 137, the Bill states:
“A relevant officer is … in the case of proceedings at a polling station, the presiding officer”.
My point is similar but not identical to that made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours about the definition of the area of control if activity is taking place, such as voters being approached as they head towards the polling station. At one of the polling stations with which I was involved, the presiding officer and the police had genuine uncertainty and doubt about getting involved in that. If there is activity like that, which is not desirable, although I am not sure about whether it is illegal, or if a complaint is made, does the presiding officer have any authority over it?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I do not quite follow that because if there is a delay because of weather or transport, it will affect both elections. I can recall times past when local elections in Scotland and Scottish parliamentary elections were on the same day. Even when there were separate ballot boxes, it was still necessary to check them both to ensure that a ballot paper had not inadvertently been put in the wrong box. I think that different colours of ballot papers are used so that they are readily identifiable. I would imagine—it would seem to be common sense—that, even where two ballot boxes are used, it would still be important to make sure that ballot papers had not been put in the wrong box. It is important that every vote is counted.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the Minister accept that it is bound to cost more money if there is one box which has to be separated in the counting station? Is there not a responsibility on the Government to try to save money?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do not necessarily think that it is bound to cost more money. But overall it is clear that there are savings to be made. As I have indicated, a note has been provided on this. If there is a relatively small electorate at a polling station, it does not necessarily make sense to have two ballot boxes. With regard to the question about whether there would be enough ballot boxes, the Electoral Commission is asking all counting officers to ensure that they have sufficient equipment to run the poll effectively, which obviously includes ensuring that a sufficient number of ballot boxes are provided to all polling stations in the United Kingdom.
Lord Campbell-Savours
In the spirit of constructive co-operation which we on this side have been practising and advocating over the 17 days in Committee, for the benefit of the Committee I shall not speak further on this matter.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, in his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, took the view that the Electoral Commission should exercise discretion. There was a meeting here two months ago in Committee Room 4, and Members from across the House attended that meeting with representatives from the Electoral Commission. During the course of the meeting it became very clear that they will do everything possible to avoid being involved in the actual debate that takes place. With that in mind, some of us are very worried about whether at some stage the public are going to be given factual information as to what the referendum is all about. That is a genuine worry. I am in favour of the referendum and I am in favour of electoral reform, but I am concerned because the debate will become very heated and, to put it bluntly, lots of lies will be told. Millions of leaflets will be sent out that, on both sides, will not reveal the truth. Someone, somewhere, has to set out the basis on which the referendum is taking place, the truth about the question, and its implications.
There is an additional problem, and that is that not every household in the country will receive yes and no leaflets. There will be large tracts of the United Kingdom where no leaflets at all will be dropped because the organisers of the campaigns will simply not have the resources to do that. In those circumstances—I understand that the Electoral Commission has already agreed that a leaflet will be going out—a leaflet has to be sent. My question is this: what will be in that leaflet?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I thank my noble friend for giving way. Does he not accept that it will not be just one leaflet because there need to be leaflets to explain this in Punjabi, Gujarati, Urdu, Mandarin Chinese and a whole range of languages, and particularly that there will need to be one in Welsh? He will remember that the noble Lord, Elystan-Morgan, said that the translation of the question came out as something like, “Do you believe in God or would you prefer a daffodil?”. Somebody has got to explain it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I understand that my noble friend will be part of the no campaign and I am sure that he will be impressing on his friends the need to send out leaflets in all those languages. But I would not wish to impose that responsibility on the Electoral Commission. However, I am sure that my noble friend and I can debate these matters on Report.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I made a joke at the end of my remarks, but there is a serious point to be made about the leaflet being available in other languages. I was talking the other day to the Member of Parliament for Dewsbury about the large number of people in the constituency he represents who do not speak a word of English but who will have a vote in this referendum. How are they going to understand what they should be doing?
Lord Campbell-Savours
If my noble friend feels that strongly about the matter, he can table an amendment, put the proposition to the House and we can vote on it, if that is the way he wishes to go.
I go further than most Members who have intervened in the debate in terms of the information that I believe should be included in the leaflet. First, it should be set out by the Electoral Commission where it is used. My noble friend Lord Grocott intervened to pose the important question of where AV is used, and the public need to know. Secondly, the public need to be informed that it is not a proportional representation system. There will be a great deal of misrepresentation during the course of the campaign about whether or not this is PR. It is not proportional representation and the Electoral Commission should make that clear. Thirdly, there will be a great deal of misrepresentation over the proportion of the electorate that a candidate is required to have to secure election—in other words, the argument about 50 per cent. Leaflets which refer to the 50 per cent are already being distributed and politicians are going on television stating that there is a 50 per cent requirement. Indeed, Jane Kennedy, a former Member of the other House, has recently written to a number of people in the no campaign drawing attention to inaccurate information which has been put out by the yes campaign. This is only the start; how much more difficult will it get?
There is a need to draw a distinction between the different AV systems because, with the media targeting the debate during the course of the campaign—as they inevitably will—they will draw on the distinctions between the three systems of AV, to which I have referred in previous debates. The Electoral Commission should make it clear exactly which one is being adopted but refer to the other two—one of which is the system used for the election of mayors in the United Kingdom.
The Electoral Commission should also point in its leaflet to the relevance of the need to use all preferences during the course of the ballot that takes place under AV—again I refer to the distinction between the Australian Queensland system and the conventional system used in Australia in federal elections—and that can be done in fairly simple language.
It also needs to be pointed out—this is far more argumentative—that AV does not necessarily lead to coalitions. Factually, it does not necessarily lead to coalitions, and yet the no campaign is arguing that coalitions are the inevitable consequence of the introduction of the alternative vote. That is not the case. It does lead to coalitions in certain circumstances but not in others. There are many issues which my noble friend Lord Davies would argue indicate an element of bias but which I believe should be factually placed before the electorate to enable them to take a proper decision.
Finally, I return to the timing of the referendum, an issue we debated last night. One of my fears is what will happen to the leaflets during the course of the referendum. If the referendum was held on a separate date, referendum leaflets would go through letter boxes all over the country. As it is, because the referendum is to take place on the same day as elections in various parts of the United Kingdom, referendum leaflets will be mixed with election leaflets and many will go in the bin. I am very sorry, but that is the case. Again I say to the Liberal Democrats that they have chosen the wrong date and, even at this late stage, they should revisit the decisions they have taken on these matters and which they have forced upon the coalition.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I would happily support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which would leave out,
“may take whatever steps they think appropriate to”
and insert “must”, but I am worried about the preparation of the leaflets. As I mentioned in my previous intervention, Amendment 110ZZA would provide that,
“The leaflet shall be distributed, so far as is practicable, to all households in the United Kingdom”.
When I asked, no one had put a price on such a project, although it would be a very costly project indeed. Although I have always taken advice from the noble Lord, Lord Newton—in another place, he was Leader of the House, and a very good Leader at that—I must advise him that those health leaflets did not come through in Scotland, possibly because of the devolved arrangements. I do not know whether such leaflets would have gone out under the auspices of the local health board or of a government department, but I worry about legislating that a specific body—namely, the Electoral Commission—publish leaflets and distribute them to every household in the land. That is a tall order for the Electoral Commission. With great respect, some Members of this House do not know just how big or small the Electoral Commission is. There is a limit to its resources.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, and therefore he and I are in agreement on this. As far as concerns the two campaigns, their material will not be part of the same leaflet pack. The campaigns, too, will get a free post, so that every voter will be left in no doubt about the information. Of course, we expect the media to play a full part in the campaign in the run-up to the referendum.
Lord Campbell-Savours
What about factual inaccuracies, for example the discussion about 50 per cent? Ministers at the Dispatch Box—including the noble Lord himself—have had to correct the record on the 50 per cent question. Does he think that the Electoral Commission might be in a position, in a neutral way, to set the record straight that it is not a requirement for a candidate to secure more than 50 per cent of the votes to be elected under AV?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that is why I hope that the noble Lord will look at the website. If he does, he will find that the Electoral Commission has already made that point in its draft. He will be immensely reassured, as will the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
I will respond to a couple of other issues raised by the amendments in this group. We very much agree with the intention of the noble Lord to ensure that leaflets are written in plain English. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, my noble friend Lord Newton and others can be assured that the Electoral Commission is seeking the advice of language experts and working with the Plain English Campaign to produce its material. Nothing in the Bill prevents this, and the commission is doing it anyway, so I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that part of the amendment is unnecessary.
I am sorry to have dealt with these matters quite fully, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, they are important issues. I hope that I have put the Committee's mind at rest that these matters have been thought about.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, in addressing the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Phillips, I can assure him that he need not be concerned about proposing it.
Amendment 110ZA would impose a duty on the chief counting officer to facilitate co-operation between the officer, the Electoral Commission, the regional counting officers, counting officers and registration officers. In common with other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, the Government agree with the intention of the amendment, which is to ensure that there is a strong relationship and good communication among those involved in running the referendum. However, we do not believe the amendment is necessary because there is nothing in the Bill which would inhibit this kind of activity from taking place.
Paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 states:
“The Chief Counting Officer must take whatever steps the officer thinks appropriate to encourage participation in the referendum”.
That, of course, includes precisely the kind of co-operation suggested in the amendment. Moreover, I can assure my noble friend and the Committee that this kind of co-operation is already happening in practice. The chief counting officer has established a working group, which includes regional counting officers, to co-ordinate activity ahead of the planned polls; and the commission’s plans for public awareness have been shared with this group, as well as with counting officers and electoral registration officers. We are assured that material will be developed by the Electoral Commission for use by electoral administrators to support their public awareness work and to ensure appropriate co-ordination with its own activities.
On a slightly more technical point, the amendment does not sit well with the current wording and spirit of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, where the onus is on the chief counting officer being responsible for deciding what steps she thinks are appropriate to encourage participation. It should be noted that when undertaking this responsibility the chief counting officer can also use her power of direction under paragraph 5(5) of the schedule to require regional counting officers and counting officers to take a particular course of action to encourage participation. In contrast, the amendment would mandate the chief counting officer to undertake specific steps, which is not the intention of this provision.
In addition, one effect of requiring co-operation among certain named bodies is that such a requirement could raise a question about whether it was also permissible for the chief counting officer to consult other bodies that are not mentioned there. That problem does not arise in the original drafting.
I understand the sentiments and the intention underlying my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Will the Minister respond to the question of my noble friend Lord Anderson about the conflict between the requirement on the chief counting officer to encourage participation as he thinks fit and the fact that the Minister may not necessarily reimburse the local authority? If a registration officer believed that it was appropriate to encourage participation by, let us say, running a rapid registration campaign prior to the referendum and got on with it, and then it was decided that because the money was not available he could not proceed, would not that have legal implications for the officer’s failure to act?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking whether, if a person is frustrated in his activities—I take a technical approach to this—the post hoc situation would be reimbursement. I take the point and do not wish to diminish it, but perhaps I could have some time to reflect on what he is saying. It is agreed on all sides of the Committee that there should be encouragement, which we do not wish to have cut off.
Lord Campbell-Savours
A local authority registration officer might write a report to the democratic services committee or a department in the local authority saying, “I wish to proceed on this basis because I believe it is an appropriate way for me to encourage participation”, and the local authority might say, “We are sorry but the money is not available and the Government are not going to reimburse us in the event the expenditure takes place”. Surely that must have legal implications for the position of the officer concerned.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I do not think that is how it would work. Reasonable expenditure will be reimbursed by the Government. If the expenditure was unreasonable and extravagant and went beyond anything that could be considered reasonable, there should not be an obligation on the Government to reimburse. I can reassure the noble Lord that reasonable expenditure for the purposes set out in paragraph 10(1) and 10(2) would be reimbursed. The noble Lord has put forward a serious hypothetical situation, but anyone would accept that running a registration campaign was a reasonable thing to do. If someone went about it in an extravagant way—which I cannot begin to think of at the moment—that would be deemed unreasonable by most sensible people and it would not be reasonable that taxpayers’ money should reimburse it. However, with a straightforward, reasonable campaign, the Government would reimburse.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, the Scottish parliamentary elections will be counted first, ahead of the referendum. The selection of the First Minister does not normally follow the election anyway. I recall that in 2003 we did not get down to negotiations about establishing a coalition until the Monday after the election. Nevertheless, the point remains that the Scottish election count will take precedence over the referendum count.
There is a link between this amendment and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, which relates to the role of the chief counting officer and the powers available to her. Sentiments have been expressed in the debate, as on other occasions, that democratic people were profoundly perturbed by the scenes they saw on the night of the last general election when people were not allowed to exercise their democratic rights. Paragraph 10(1) of the schedule states:
“The Chief Counting Officer must take whatever steps the officer considers appropriate to encourage participation in the referendum”.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, would provide that:
“These steps shall include measures to ensure that all those wishing to vote and arriving at the polling station within the appointed hours are able to do so”.
Clearly, the amendment is intended to address the scenes and situations we experienced in May last year.
I can assure the Committee that we take very seriously the problems that arose at certain polling stations. The Government have been considering the Electoral Commission’s report on the issue and, in particular, the recommendation that the law be changed to allow people who have not been issued with a ballot paper but are in the queues at 10 pm to vote. We are not convinced or satisfied that the amendment would enable the chief counting officer to direct that ballot papers are issued after 10 pm—if, indeed, that is the intention of the amendment. As the noble Lord indicated in his speech when he spoke to the amendment, the Electoral Commission report noted that that was not possible because it would not comply with the law. Clearly, the chief counting officer cannot issue a direction that contravenes the existing law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicated, that is possibly not something that could be done in the context of this legislation for a referendum alone.
I will try to deal with the other point in a bit more detail. It is important to note that in most cases where the problems occurred in May last year, the Electoral Commission has found that the common factor was inadequate planning processes and contingency arrangements—or, more to the point, that such arrangements were not in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, quoted my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He quoted him accurately, but perhaps I should just quote a little more of what he said. At Question Time in the other place on 10 November, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“I happen to think that, in this instance, simply passing a law will not deal with the problem, which was a lack of resources and poor organisation by the returning officer, who acknowledged as much”
—he was specifically talking about Sheffield, where his own constituency is—
“… That is what we need to address; we should not always simply reach for the statute book”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/10; col. 285.]
Officials have met the Electoral Commission, and indeed electoral administrators, to discuss the issue of managing queues at polling stations. It is clear that there are divergent views on the effectiveness of any legislative change, and a significant number of administrators are not in favour of it. Again, that is a reflection of the fact that the problems in that particular case in May last year were because of planning failures and the lack of effective contingency planning.
Given the divergence of views that exist on the specific recommendation of the Electoral Commission and given that there is the general consensus that the problems largely arose from poor planning, we believe there is a need for significant additional discussion before any change to legislation should be proposed, if indeed that is eventually deemed appropriate. There needs to be buy-in from all those who would be involved in administering elections.
Under the Bill, we consider that the chief counting officer already has the necessary powers to provide appropriate guidance, training and support to the regional counting officers, as well as to counting officers themselves, to help address the issues that arose in May 2010. I am aware that some of the contingency arrangements have already changed the ratio of polling clerks to the number of voters at each polling place. We think there is certainly a need for more discussion as to all the potential consequences of any legislative amendment before a change to the principles underlying the existing electoral rules is considered. In these circumstances there is some benefit to having the certainty of the present rules, admittedly with the back-up role that the chief counting officer has the authority to play in giving the necessary guidance, training and support.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is an important point, one which I wish to reflect on. I think it is satisfactory as it stands, but I understand what the noble Lord is saying: that there may be circumstances where, in the absence of any reference, someone may not appreciate that fact. Without making any commitment, I will look at that and see whether there is a way. As I have indicated, as the amendment stands there is a problem, too. In fact on interest alone, regardless of anything else, it would qualify and I am sure that is not what the noble Lord intended.
I think I am right in saying that the debate on whether the schedule be agreed is also a part of this, but perhaps I can reply later to that debate as part of this group.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I want to go back to my earlier intervention. As I understood the noble and learned Lord’s reply, under paragraph 10(5), the Minister may reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by a registration officer for a local authority. Now, if the Government are in a position to reimburse such reasonable expenditure prior to the referendum, should that information not be communicated to local authorities? It might well be that some local authorities want to run a blitz campaign prior to the referendum, to increase registration. The Government appear, in the answer that the noble and learned Lord gave me, to be to some extent offering them the resources as long as the expenditure is reasonable. Perhaps the Minister might write to me on this point, because I am sure that local authorities will have picked up on his responses to my earlier interventions.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am certainly more than happy to write to the noble Lord on that point. I do not think that I need to elaborate on what I said to him before. I want to indicate briefly that Schedule 1 makes provision about the key aspects of the conduct of the referendum and the regulation of the referendum campaign. The approach of the Government in doing this has really been to replicate the provisions that are made for parliamentary elections, where they are appropriate. However, there are some areas where we need to make specific provision to tailor-make the provisions for this referendum. On the campaign spending and funding framework already in place for referendums, what there is under the PPERA will generally apply. I commend this schedule to the Committee inasmuch as it tries to replicate, wherever appropriate, the rules which are now well tried and tested.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, one rarely sees an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker that does not have a huge amount of common sense within it. We all remember what happened at the general election, where people were queueing at polling stations because the flow of people simply could not be accommodated, and we can all agree that at this referendum election there is certainly going to be more confusion than there is at a normal parliamentary election, where everyone understands what is required of them. It is the simplest possible thing to have to do—put a cross by their favoured candidate—and we all accept the result; at least, the vast majority of us accept the result.
What the noble Lord proposes here would be desirable in any event, if we were just going through the same system as we did at the last general election, but given that we are going to have polling stations where there is more than one decision being made and where electors will confront, for the first time, the option of the alternative vote and have to understand what is involved, there is bound to be confusion. I predict with complete certainty that, should we go down the road to AV, there will be far more spoiled ballot papers than there normally are—that has been the case with every move away from first past the post. Staying with the referendum, there will be people who will seek the advice of polling clerks. I do not know what the law is if they seek that advice. Are the polling clerks expected to explain what the choice is, or are they supposed to keep quiet about absolutely everything if a potential elector is confused?
I hope that the Committee will accept my proposition that this is going to be more complicated than a general election. I hope that the Committee will accept the evidence of their own television sets that, at the last general election there were polling stations that simply could not cope with the number of electors coming at a particular time. It must therefore follow, surely, that we need to make special provisions for this very unusual election where there is bound to be more confusion. I cannot be confident that there will be large numbers of people voting, but we need to allow for that and we clearly were not allowing for that effectively at the last general election. Amendment 115 is presented with characteristic simplicity and common sense in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker and I strongly support it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I want, very briefly, to remind civil servants, when they are drawing up the wording as currently set out in the Bill, of what happened with the ballot paper in the first mayoral elections in London. We had made recommendations as to what should be on the ballot paper; the civil servants basically took over the agenda and wrote the question; I objected very strongly, but of course as usual, I was overruled on the detail; and the result was that a lot of ballot papers in the first mayoral elections in London were wasted because of the framing of the question.
Wording is crucial and I think it has to be politicians who decide on that wording, because it is only we who understand how electorates respond to certain language. Therefore, I hope that a debate takes place within the department about whether the current wording in these areas of instruction is right and whether the wording that my noble friend wishes to introduce for the benefit of people voting in the referendum might be better. The Minister should take this as a very serious amendment: it might not be the final wording, but let there be a further debate, because if it does not take place, the danger is that the events of the first mayoral elections in London may well be repeated.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for tabling these amendments; he indicated to me that he had to leave and that they would be spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. They raise important issues which it is very helpful for the Committee to have the opportunity to address. Amendment 115 obliges by law that counting officers should not allocate more than 1,050 electors to any polling station within their voting areas. This is a very worthy and laudable attempt to address the problems, referred to by the noble and learned Lord in moving this amendment, which arose at some polling stations in the May 2010 election, when a number of electors were unable to cast their votes due to queues forming at certain polling stations. Although these incidents were isolated, they are certainly not taken lightly—I emphasise that again.
It is the responsibility of electoral administrators to provide for the smooth running of the voting process in elections, and that includes contingency plans to cater for events such as when there is a higher than expected turnout at one or more polling stations for which they are responsible for allocating voters and for staffing. The chief counting officer for the referendum is, of course, the chair of the Electoral Commission and she has the power to direct all other counting officers across the United Kingdom who administer the referendum. The Electoral Commission has indicated that the chief counting officer intends to issue directions to counting officers as to the maximum number of electors to be allocated to any polling station and the associated minimum number of staff to be present at each polling station. As I indicated in response to an amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, the Electoral Commission has already started to issue guidance to counting officers on the number of polling staff who will be required.
I am therefore concerned that the amendment would remove any discretion, both of the chief counting officer and of all other counting officers, to decide how many electors should be allocated to each polling station and the number of staff who should be present at each polling station. To give an example, it does not seem sensible to require that a village of, say, 1,200 electors should have two polling stations when there is no suggestion that previous arrangements for that village have proved inadequate. Indeed, it might even mean that fewer staff were available at each polling station to assist voters. It is that kind of flexibility which we would not like to remove from the chief counting officer.
We know that queues arose in the elections of May last year primarily because of planning failures and the lack of effective contingency planning. However, we believe that at the polls being held in May this year, better guidance, better staff training and support and better planning procedures in the run-up to the polls would be more appropriate and more effective in addressing the issues that have been raised, as opposed to placing statutory limits on the number of voters who can be allocated. I hope that the chief counting officer’s stated intention to issue directions to counting officers on this issue will reassure noble Lords and that the House will recognise that the amendment would reduce flexibility, and that that in turn could increase risks and not necessarily prove good value for money.
On the second amendment, which would oblige all counting officers to print 100 per cent of ballot papers, I must say that until last year I always thought that that was the case anyway. The purpose is that they should print the same number of ballot papers as there are voters on the electoral register in their area of responsibility. Currently, they must print only the number of ballot papers that they feel is necessary.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, this amendment takes us back to the debates two years ago on the Political Parties and Elections Bill, for which we took Committee stage in the Moses Room. There were long debates on the whole issue of fraud in elections. From the discussions that everyone had been having with the Electoral Commission and with Ministers during the course of the debate, it was clear that the Electoral Commission was bending over backwards to find ways of sorting out the problem of individual registration. I tabled a number of amendments dealing with individual registration but none in this particular area because it had not dawned on me at the time that, in the very different world in which we now live, there might be those who, in certain conditions, might be prepared to abuse the system.
No major change is being asked in this amendment. This minor change would check that the first elector was the first elector, so that people would know whether there were ballot papers already in the ballot box, to put it bluntly. Even though fraud at this point in the process might not be prevalent, the proposed change would help reassure the wider public that everything possible is being done to ensure that the electoral system in this country has integrity.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 122. I think that it is a small but important step; in fact, I would like to see us go further. It is absolutely critical that we take every action within reasonable grasp to protect and enhance the integrity of the voting system, which has been brought into disrepute in recent years.
I think particularly of the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, about ballots that she believed had been in contravention of correct process. I acknowledge that at times it is difficult to tell whether the noble Baroness is speaking on behalf of the Government, the coalition, the Conservative Party or a faction within the Conservative Party. For example, I think of her comments immediately after the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election about the right wing of the Conservative Party. I also think of her comments the previous night on BBC2’s “Newsnight” programme in connection with the Royal Bank of Scotland—I regret I was unable to be in the House this afternoon when this matter was handled in Questions—when the noble Baroness said that the Government were renegotiating contracts with executives of RBS. Since then, the Treasury has been very keen to suggest that it is not doing anything of the sort. However, the comments made by the noble Baroness on electoral issues were ones that we should take careful note of when considering this amendment.
I would actually prefer a change in the design of the ballot box. I would like to see ballot boxes that are transparent, so that it is possible for people to see their vote going into the box. The amendment deals with the authenticity and the integrity of the ballot process only at the time when the first decision is made on a vote, but I think that my proposal would bring huge confidence.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It would be even stronger. It is not just a question of whether they do not want to; they may not be eligible because, as I pointed out on a number of occasions, some may be eligible to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections; others will be able to vote in the referendum only; most of us—including, at last, Peers—will be able to vote in all three. That creates some confusion as to who the first elector will be.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is not the answer to the Rennard question, on which my noble friend commented, to find out when we can expect further legislation in these areas? We know that a Bill is coming in on the funding of political parties. If the Long Title of that Bill was sufficiently wide, we might introduce a whole series of amendments governing elections and political parties. That might well be the peg, and we should be prevailing on the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, to push his luck with Ministers to secure an early introduction of legislation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Before I speak on Schedule 2, I shall comment on the arrangements for the dinner hour to place on record that I object. I understand that there may have been agreement, but I am speaking as an individual Member. If we are a civilised House and we are to debate matters in a civilised way, we are entitled to proper mealtimes, and I think an hour should be made available for dinner. I say to the Patronage Secretary to the Government, the Government Chief Whip, that in future it would be very helpful if she could adopt a more civilised approach to our dining arrangements in the evening.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I hear, of course, what the noble Lord says. This was an agreement with usual channels with his own Opposition Whips’ Office this morning. No representation was made to the contrary. It was an agreement made and, therefore, we stuck to our side of that agreement.
The House does wish to hear views on the Schedule 2 stand part debate. I am sure that the whole House wishes to make progress on this matter.
Lord Campbell-Savours
All I am saying is that, as an individual Member of the House, I object. Whether it was agreed by the usual channels or not is of no particular interest to me. All I am saying is that I think it is fair and more civilised that we can dine for a full hour.
I would like now to move to Schedule 2. A particular part of the schedule that is of interest to me is the question of the provision of polling stations, which is a matter of considerable controversy in constituencies throughout the country. Rule 13(1) in Schedule 2 states:
“The counting officer must provide a sufficient number of polling stations and, subject to the following provisions of this rule, must allot the electors to the polling stations in whatever manner the officer thinks most convenient”.
Rule 13(2) states:
“One or more polling stations may be provided in the same room”
Rule 13(3) states:
“In England, the polling station allotted to electors from any parliamentary polling district wholly or partly within a particular voting area must, in the absence of special circumstances, be in the parliamentary polling place for that district unless the parliamentary polling place is outside the voting area”.
Rule 9 refers to the use of schools and public rooms:
“The counting officer may use, free of charge, for the purpose of taking the poll—
(a) a room in a school within paragraph (3)”.
Paragraph (3) of rule 9 then goes on to make provision for schools in England and Wales, and in Scotland.
Now, the location of polling stations in individual constituencies—not only in elections, but particularly in this referendum—has a major effect on turnout. We cannot rely on a postal vote system, which some of us have great reservations about anyhow although it was part of the package introduced by the previous Government. Of course, the Government themselves obviously had reservations about what they were doing on postal voting, but it was felt that those changes would bring greater integrity into the electoral system. The question is, if turnout is affected by polling station location, to what extent can the public indicate where they believe polling stations should be situated?
We know that parish authorities very often make representations to local authorities to secure the location. Also, other organisations within individual communities —schools, church groups, women’s institutes and all kinds of voluntary organisations—sometimes make representations. I have found over the years that very often there is indifference within local authorities to the protests of people who object to the location of polling stations, particularly to where they are inconvenient. I remember that, in my then constituency in the county of Cumbria, on occasions I would go to the local authority and say, “Look, provision here isn’t satisfactory”. Very often the local authority was very sensitive, and changes would be made.
I now live in Maidenhead and when I voted on the last occasion I had to drive a tremendous distance, even within the town, to go and vote. When I got there, I found the polling station split into various sections, all of which received electors coming in from various parts of Maidenhead. I believe that is wrong. The question is: what chance does an individual elector have to influence decisions on the location of polling stations?
My view is that there should be some mechanism that is much more substantial than current arrangements for allowing individual electors and organisations to influence the location of these stations, particularly as their location affects turnout, which is now one of the major issues in Britain’s elections. We are seeing progressive reductions in turnout in both general and council elections, so we must find ways of addressing that problem. One way is to increase the number of polling stations. I hope that, in replying to this debate, the noble Lord might comment on this problem which I think arises in many communities.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I shall be brief, but I want to raise an issue that has troubled me in the past.
The noble Lord will see that the form for a postal vote—form 2—is prescribed on pages 60 and 61 of the Bill. I should say that he might need some advice from his civil servants because I have never had a clear answer to this question. The form requires the person who wants to use a postal vote to fill in the boxes set out in the form. After the individual has filled in their date of birth in one place, a box is provided for the voter’s signature. Next to that box, it says:
“(voter’s signature) IMPORTANT—Keep signature within border”.
That has always troubled me because many people who vote by post are actually old and infirm, and I have never been quite sure what happens if their signature goes outside the box.
In a sense this is not a minor point because I wonder whether that means that the vote may not be counted, which is what happens if you make other mistakes or put wrong entries on the form, or whether it simply means that the signature may not be able to be read by electronic means. I have always assumed that the reason for keeping the signature within the box is so that it can be read electronically. That might not be right, so if it is not, I am not sure why it is so important for the signature to be kept within the border.
I emphasise the point because I am thinking of the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Low. I know that you can get a dispensation for this and you do not have to vote this way, but for elderly and infirm people, or for those whose vision is not as good as it was, there is a real problem about staying within the box—indeed, I have been known to stray outside the box once or twice in my career, but not too often.
Again, I know that the Minister may have to take advice on this, but what happens if a voter filling in a form for a postal vote does not keep the signature within the parameters of the box? Is the problem simply that the signature cannot be read electronically but the vote will still be counted because someone will read it manually, or does it mean that the vote will not be counted? Obviously this question does not just apply to this form, but to others as well.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, there is one problem with this schedule, which I want to refer to briefly. I am sure that it will make us wonder, in the light of us looking at it in some detail, whether there perhaps should have been one or two amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, I think wrongly, that there had been no discussions on this schedule at all.
The real problem with this schedule is that we can sense in it that the parliamentary draftsmen—whom I do not blame, as it is a very difficult job—think that it is about the procedure relating to any election. The whole point is that this is not any election. It is fundamentally different, so far as the voter going into the polling booth is concerned, from all the elections that he or she is familiar with, where they know that there will be names there and have, obviously, put their cross by the favoured candidate. However, this is about asking a question and it will not do, for a number of reasons, simply to lift huge chunks that are clearly from existing legislation—I do not blame the draftsmen, as I have said—about the conduct of elections, thinking, “Well, we can just lift this and stick it in and this will be okay for a referendum to change the constitution”.
I shall give one example. I do not know the answer to it but it is quite significant. A relatively small part of this schedule has the totally innocuous information about the,
“appointment of presiding officers and clerks”.
We all know the job of a clerk in a polling station, but I submit to the Committee that in a referendum on changing the voting system, that clerk is likely to be presented with difficulties that clerks in polling stations simply do not face. The elector will go in, thinking that he or she is voting principally for a local government candidate. Certainly, in the areas that I am familiar with, it is on who should be their local councillor. They will then be presented with a second ballot paper which will ask the question:
“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?”.
I put it to the Committee that many people will be going into a polling station for the first time. I am not patronising people or saying the electorate do not understand these systems, I am simply making the straightforward point that the change in the electoral system to the alternative vote system is not high on people’s radar, as we all know from our own experience. I would be very surprised indeed if no more than one elector then left the cubicle where they were about to vote and asked the clerk who distributed the ballot papers what they were being asked to vote on. That is perfectly plausible and indeed an almost inevitable consequence of what is happening.
I asked the question—I do not know the answer—whether it is within the law for the clerk to give advice to the would-be voter about what the alternative vote system is. I assume it probably cannot be because presumably I could be a clerk if I applied to be one and I know what I would tell them about the alternative vote system. So presumably it would be completely out of order for clerks to give advice in that way. If that is the case and a confused elector goes to the clerk on desk and says, “I am puzzled about this second ballot paper, I understand the first one”, at the very least I would suggest that in the appointment of clerks and counting officers on page 33 a script should be offered to them out of courtesy. They would need to know what to say to someone who came to them with that question.
I doubt whether the Leader of the House when he sums up will have given any thought to this as it is only a small part of the Bill but it illustrates the point that you simply cannot lift the rules that apply to every other kind of election and apply them to this most fundamentally important election of changing the way we vote and thereby changing our constitution. So please can we be told whether there is any law relating to what clerks can do when faced with this question? If there is not, should there be or, at the very least, should there be guidance as to what should happen in the polling station when this kind of eventuality arises?
Lord Campbell-Savours
As my noble friend was speaking, something dawned on me which has not been referred to in any of our previous debates, and I cannot see it marked under Schedule 2 in the list of referendum rules under Part 1.
What happens in the circumstances where in the referendum campaign the “no” vote and the “yes” vote decide to put huge hoardings up outside polling booths, saying vote “yes” or vote “no” or whatever? It might well be that some rather keen, over-eager young turks who think that they can push their case might erect rather aggressive advertising material outside polling stations in the referendum to push their case. One would have thought that under Schedule 2 there would be some restriction on the kind of material that could be used in the vicinity of a polling booth.
On advice from the clerks, I wonder if the Minister might care to comment on what the position is and, in the event that it is not covered, perhaps he could say so and perhaps on Report we could return to that matter. There are circumstances in which precisely that could happen. There are some very strange people out there who do very strange things and they may well turn up during the referendum campaign.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The answer I gave was not intended to be specific to the issue of public hearings, but rather was meant to be illustrative of where there obviously will be changes from what is set out in the Bill at the moment as a result of amendments to be brought forward at the Report stage in response to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about counter-representations. That is why I wanted to make the point that we cannot really expect the Boundary Commissions to produce draft guidance when they do not know what they are actually going to be asked to deliver. Clearly, we will have to examine what the issues of public hearings and counterproposals mean in terms of timing in the coming weeks. However, as I just indicated, it has been the practice in the past that, as the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England confirmed for the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place, the commissions again intend to issue guidance. The point I sought to make was that I did not think that they had issued draft guidance in the past, and I certainly would not anticipate any draft guidance before next week or whenever we debate the Bill on Report.
I am also advised that the Boundary Commission for England published its recommendations on a county basis, which coincides with what the noble and learned Lord said. It is certainly a matter for the Boundary Commission itself to determine how it will report. It could use regions, and I understand that it would be consistent with the powers in the Bill for it to do so. But I envisage that this matter will become much clearer when the Boundary Commissions get the Act of Parliament, as we hope, and they can respond. I have no doubt whatever that we will hear what the respective Boundary Commissions propose in terms of bringing forward reports.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The target size is 76,000, with the 5 per cent leeway making a ceiling of something like 79,500 per constituency. What will happen when a ripple effect is caused by the five-yearly review of constituencies which are all on the maximum and there is no slack in the system to take up? Surely the Boundary Commission will have to report on huge areas because of the ripple effect on each constituency which has already met the 76,000 plus 5 per cent limit. Will the Government take into account this ripple effect on Boundary Commission decisions when finally they make their statement on the commission?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. Whether it would work out like that is a matter of conjecture. However, it underlines the fact that these matters are probably better left to the Boundary Commissions. They should determine how they issue their reports and deal with these points, rather than Ministers or the legislation being prescriptive in that sense. It should be permissive rather than prescriptive.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to come back on a question I asked earlier, but it is quite important. May I give the Minister a scenario with which many constituency organisations across the country may well be confronted? Imagine six Conservative seats in a county all on the margin of 79,800. In other words, they have taken up the 5 per cent slack above 76,000, making a total of 79,800. When the review takes place, they will all have to change. The date when that information is made public is very important because the constituencies in the county next door will want to know exactly what is happening on the boundaries for those six constituencies. Whatever decision is taken with regard to those six will affect the adjacent county where there equally might be Members of Parliament of the same party who are arguing over seats.
Is there a timetable which will be made available to deal with what would happen in those circumstances where all constituencies are on the 5 per cent-plus margin, at 79,800, and where automatically they have to start crossing boundaries to sort out the new quota?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I understood that question following on from the previous intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we are now looking to the second review which we are looking towards publishing in October 2018. The answer does not vary, inasmuch as it will be a matter for the Boundary Commission to take into account the likelihood of any ramifications of its decisions at that point and the extent to which it publishes, either county by county or region by region. This is not a matter which, with the best will in the world, we could stipulate in legislation. We must leave that to the good sense and discretion of the Boundary Commissions.
Baroness McDonagh
This amendment is not a criticism of the Government but an opportunity to right a wrong created by my own party. I suppose that successive Governments who did so much good would also occasionally get things wrong, and this is one of them. I shall just explain the current situation for registration both now and historically. We have household registration, which means that a form goes to each household, be it a flat, a house or a bungalow, and one person in the household fills out the form on behalf of all others living there. That person is normally mum, who fills out the form for her children who are aged over 16, and her husband or partner. If we think of our own situations, whatever type of family relationships we have or the people we have shared our homes with in the past, there is always one person in the household who takes responsibility for things such as voter registration, paying bills and so on. The result is that we have a fairly accurate register that is one of the cheapest in the world to administer.
As part of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, the previous Government included a section that will change that system so that each individual will be responsible for registering themselves. We need to look no further than Northern Ireland to know what will happen if this change is implemented. In 2002, when the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act was passed, under which individual registration was introduced and each person had to register themselves, 10 per cent of the public were lost overnight from the register, which went from 96 per cent to 85 per cent of the population.
When an investigation was held into the loss from the register, it was found that it consisted mainly of three groups of people. The first group consisted of young people, first-time voters and 18-25 year olds, the second group consisted of people in areas of high social deprivation, and the third group consisted of people with mental health disabilities. Mencap has produced a useful report in Northern Ireland should anyone wish to look at it.
Before implementing such provisions across the rest of the United Kingdom, we should consider the fact that there are sections of the population here that are not similar to that in Northern Ireland. For example, Northern Ireland does not have a very mobile population. There is no high provision of privately rented, insecure tenancies of a year or under; there is very little multiple occupancy; and it has a stable population—people do not move far from their parents and grandparents. The rest of the United Kingdom has a large population of ethnic minorities; a recently arrived, large population of inward migrants; a huge private rented sector of tenancies of a year and under; and many multi-occupancy properties. Many people also move for jobs. We know that something like 20 per cent of the population of Great Britain moves every year.
At the last general election, just over 45 million people were registered. If what happened in Northern Ireland were to happen in the rest of the UK, we would lose 4.5 million people from the register in addition to the 3.5 million that are already missing. This would amount to 8 million. Academics suggest that we would lose another 10 per cent because of the reasons that I have outlined, which would remove another 4 million people from the register. This would mean that almost 12 million people in this country would not have a stake in the democratic election of our Government.
In Northern Ireland in 2005, some 160,000 voters who did not complete registration forms were reinstated on the register. I therefore do not understand why the Government, when looking at their databases to increase registration in this country, could not do something similar to what has been done in Northern Ireland. As I said, there were 160,000 more voters at the 2005 elections.
We have an opportunity to change this situation now because we have not yet moved to individual registration, which was initially envisaged to happen post the 2015 election. I am now confused because I believe the Government might soon introduce these provisions. Perhaps the Leader of the House will come back to me on that if it is envisaged that the new system will be in place by the 2015 elections.
If we retain this as it currently is, it will allow us to have a very cheap form of registration, and it will avoid the dip in registration that was seen in Northern Ireland. Household registration is also a recognition of the big society; it represents the understanding, responsibility and role of adults in the household, and also the importance of the family as a unit.
My own party was misguided in introducing these provisions in the 2009 Act, and this is a fantastic opportunity for this Government to change these provisions.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is the real danger of individual registration that when it comes to the second boundary review—in so far as there will be a reduction in the number of people who have registered under individual registration—there will be even more distorted constituencies?
Baroness McDonagh
That is absolutely right, and that is why I hope the Government will consider this. I also hope that the Government will consider bringing in an average number to each constituency, rather than a simple limit on 600. If this number of people falls off the register—and we all know the areas that will fall off the register—when you combine the current under-registration and the fall-off in the new register, in certain parts of the country some of these constituencies will have something like 150,000 eligible electors, not registered electors. That is not good for our society, in which we have so many people who do not have a stake in the democratic election of our Government. That creates weak communities and ends up creating bad government. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
At the risk of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, giving his automatic counter another click so that he can update his blog tomorrow, I just want briefly to support the excellent amendment of my noble friend Lady McDonagh. As always, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, finds the nit-picking objections and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler agrees. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, of course, is the constitutional spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. I do not know what that makes the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or indeed Nick Clegg, but the Liberal Democrats obviously need lots and lots of constitutional spokespersons.
My noble friend Lady McDonagh is absolutely right; this is a mistake that the former Labour Government made. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is not here today to hear this because he was the principal architect of it, but it worries me. My noble friend has great experience of running the Labour Party and understands these things intricately, and I give all credit to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He opposed this individual registration on every opportunity in this House—again and again—vigorously and consistently, and no one paid any attention to him.
This kind of legislation reminds me that a lot of the thinking in some of our legislation comes from middle-class, middle-aged people sitting in drawing rooms in the south-east of England. I do not know whether they have sectarian discussions around their dinner table, but they have certainly come up with some of the craziest legislation.
No account is taken of the fact that some elderly people are confused and find it difficult to deal with that kind of form. Many years ago, I was the chairman of the Scottish adult literacy agency. A large number of people cannot read and write and are unable to fill in this form; they need someone to fill it in. I can go through category after category of people who would need help as they would be reluctant and unable to fill in that form. It is very difficult for students away from home and for people overseas. My son is working out in Bolivia at the moment, but he is still going to come back and will be entitled to vote. We can think of all sorts of examples of how this will make it difficult to vote.
My noble friend Lady McDonagh is absolutely right; it is about time that people in both Houses started to think of ordinary people and of the lives that they live. They do not all sit round the dinner table every night discussing these kinds of things. They lead a hard, difficult life. They might have difficulties with poverty or literacy, or they might be confused, in many cases, and need that kind of help. I hope that more people will come and support this.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I will intervene only briefly and do not really want to go down all the roads that I went down some years ago during the Labour Government’s two attempts—the second was successful, in my view quite mistakenly—to reintroduce individual registration. I have never been able to understand why the Liberal Democrats supported that. I understand that the Electoral Commission, in its various reports, kept on promoting the principle. However, the Liberal Democrats must have been aware of the dangers that would arise, even in some of their own seats such as the one that includes Bermondsey. Bermondsey is in a seat that could be gravely damaged through the introduction of individual registration, and I simply cannot understand why they seemingly allowed it all to happen.
My own view was very simple; there was a problem to be resolved, and that was fraud within the electoral system. That, I suspect, was the driving force behind those who argued for it. They chose an extremely expensive way of resolving the problem, whereby the whole of the United Kingdom would be subject to individual registration, against the parts of it in which there was a particular problem. Without going into detail, most Members of the Committee will understand precisely what I mean. There is a problem in certain parts of the United Kingdom, which had to be dealt with.
On two occasions under two separate Bills, I came up with a recommendation that would have sorted out that problem by giving local authorities the right to opt for a particular status whereby they would be given additional resources to sort out the problems in their areas, but the Labour Government unfortunately turned it down. Indeed, I lobbied almost every member of the Labour Cabinet about it to try to get them to understand the importance of avoiding individual registration, which will do immeasurable harm to our party in the longer term. Now we have it in place at a time when local authorities’ budgets in this area are not ring-fenced and when local authorities will not place the money that is necessary to ensure a high level of individual registration.
I welcome my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope only that the Government will accept it. They will not, of course, because they too have been convinced by this rubbish recommendation from the Electoral Commission, which should have known better.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I, too, stand convicted of being convinced by the rubbish recommendation of the Electoral Commission. I believe that the principle of moving to individual registration is right. Apart from anything else, the concept of modern citizenship is that the task of registering to vote should no longer be the preserve of the head of the household. However, if the principle of individual registration is correct, the practicality involved in the best way to get there is more complicated. As the experience of introducing individual registration in Northern Ireland has shown, the consequences can be catastrophic if you get the process wrong. The very swift introduction of individual registration in that part of the United Kingdom in 2002 led to a collapse in the number on the electoral register, with a fall of around 119,000.
Learning the lessons of that experience, the Labour Government legislated to introduce individual voter registration according to a clearly phased timetable based on the twin principles of ensuring the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the electoral register. That process gave the Electoral Commission a central role in determining whether the final move from household to individual registration was safe to proceed with, and the transition was based on a two-stage process—a voluntary phase and a compulsory phase. The legislation made it clear that the voluntary phase would not finish before 2014. In 2014, the Electoral Commission would then be required to assess, based on trends in voter registration, whether the collection of identifying information should be made obligatory. Assuming that a positive recommendation was agreed by Parliament, compulsory individual registration would follow in 2015.
The timetable received explicit backing from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers in the other place. It is a matter of deep concern that the Government have now abandoned those pledges and that they intend to tear up our carefully formulated and agreed timetable and to accelerate the introduction of individual registration without the safeguards that we put in place.
As I have already noted, the rush to the production of individual registration in Northern Ireland produced a dramatic fall in registered numbers. The Electoral Commission subsequently reported that the new registration process disproportionately impacted on young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally and those living in areas of high deprivation. We must not repeat that outcome when the system is introduced in Great Britain. That is especially important in view of the Electoral Commission’s report of March 2010, which identified who was least represented on the electoral register.
The phased implementation of full individual registration by autumn 2015 was intended to minimise as far as possible the risk of worsening under-registration. The Government already intend to cut seats and redraw boundaries on the basis of an electoral register from which 3.5 million eligible voters are missing. The premature rollout of individual registration would increase that number and, over time, would distort the planned boundary revisions even more. I do not support the policy of reversing the move to individual registration. However, I do support making sure that it is done properly.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, towards the end of a long speakers list in a debate in this House, someone stands up and says, “Everything there is to be said on this topic has been said, but not everyone has yet said it”. That usually raises a laugh, as it has today; good jokes, like wine, improve with age. Here I have invented a variant on the old saw for Committee stage: “Everything possible has been said on this amendment but it has not been said everywhere. The matter can be raised on the Bill”. That is what a harsh critic would say.
I want to say why my amendment is different from earlier amendments which laid down that the referendum should not take place on 5 May. In our earlier debates, the arguments that we concentrated on for not having it on 5 May were that it clashed with the Welsh Assembly elections, the Scottish Parliament elections and the local authority elections, that this would lead to a lot of political noise—particularly as Liberal Democrat and Labour candidates fought each other—and that that would not be an atmosphere in which there could be sensible consideration of this issue. Those arguments are all valid. My amendment is compatible, I admit, with 5 May as a referendum date. It is three months after Royal Assent. We have only to give the Bill Royal Assent on Thursday night. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be delighted if we achieve that timetable. Stranger things have happened in these Houses of Parliament, so it would be possible to have it on those days. All that the amendment lays down is that there must be three months between Royal Assent and the referendum to consider the matter. That is three months for information, persuasion and contemplation before decision.
Let us consider the present state of public opinion. I am taking a large poll done by YouGov in September last year. It asked first whether people had heard of AV and knew what it was. Roughly one-third said yes, they had heard of it and knew a bit about what it was. Of that one-third, I bet that half were lying—they did not know what it was, though they may have heard of it. One-third said that they had heard of it but they did not have a clue what it meant, and one-third had neither heard of it nor had a clue what it meant. That is the information backlog that we face as we run up to the referendum on this issue. There is a huge job of basic education to be done before we even get to the arguments for and against. Those arguments, which anyone studying the House’s proceedings on Part 1 of the Bill will have heard quite often, are difficult and balanced and need the most careful consideration. The electorate must think very hard about what they are doing.
The suggestion that this can be done in less than three months is not right. Yes, in that time a referendum can be held—the Electoral Commission can do its work, the ballot papers can be printed and so on—but we will not get a properly valid answer. I say that whether it is the answer that I want, a yes, or the one that many noble Lords want, a no. It will not be properly valid because the people will not have had long enough to contemplate the proposition put before them.
If the verdict seems invalid, that will have consequences for legitimacy. The side that loses will be able to stand up almost immediately and say, “It was fixed. It was cooked. This referendum is not the considered view of the British people. It’s a referendum held at a time to suit a political timetable”. Why on earth the Liberal Democrats want the referendum on 5 May continues to escape me, but they clearly do. That would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the verdict.
It is also true, of course, that had the House made faster progress on the Bill—I do not attribute blame on all this; I am delighted that we are now belatedly making progress—the Bill might by now have been law and the campaigning able to be started, so there would have been time to inform the public. However, the passage of time has meant that the time available for contemplating the actual issue in the referendum has been squeezed. My amendment says that it must be squeezed no further. There should be a three-month period between Royal Assent and the referendum. I hope that this is a common-sense proposition in a common-sense amendment and that therefore it will become a consensual amendment around the House. That just shows that I am a very hopeful sort of a chap. However, it should be understood that the argument is as I have set it out. If the Government reject it, it will be for reasons quite other, and arguably less reputable, than the House and the country have reason to deserve.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I intervene briefly and again address my remarks to the Liberal Democrats. They know from previous debates that I support the referendum and am in favour of electoral reform and a version of AV. Therefore, what happens in the polling booth is of great interest to me, as indeed it should be to them. The question is, in what circumstances is it more likely that the AV referendum will be won? I put to them two distinctly different scenarios: one where a person walks into a polling station, having heard a campaign, and votes for it deliberately, in circumstances where it is highly likely that those who are opposed to it will not bother going to the polls. The advantage of having a referendum day on its own is that it would concentrate the minds of those who were in favour of change to go and vote, whereas those who were against change would, more likely than not, simply stay away. The danger of holding a referendum on the same day as an election is that everybody will go to the polling booth and they will all vote. Those who are opposed, who otherwise would not turn up at the polling booth, will then go and vote against electoral reform. The Liberal Democrats will regret what they have done during the course of this Bill. The referendum will be lost for the reason I have given and they will bear the responsibility for that as they will have set the electoral reform agenda back decades.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, the only way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, could correctly say that his amendment is a common-sense proposition is if it suggested a six-month period. The provisions of the amendment are not compatible with a 5 May date: we do not need to look at our diaries to ascertain that. However, I agreed entirely with the rest of his speech. There is not enough time to do the job properly. There never was, in my view. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, this is a fundamental matter. The Liberal Democrats also know my position. They know that I support electoral reform and I want PR, but this is a dishonest form of AV. In my view, it is a corrupt form of voting. The coalition has chosen the date to match the election date. That is fine; that is the coalition’s responsibility. I am quite happy with that. I do not have a view whether it should be held on that or another day, but the Lib Dems will be severely punished for holding the referendum on 5 May for lots of other reasons. I think that it will be lost. However, it is sad to have a referendum on the major constitutional issue of our voting system—we have never had such a referendum—and to lose it due to insufficient time being given to the process.
I do not want to labour the point but one has only to look at what happened in New Zealand and read the information that was published by the New Zealand electoral commission that went out to individuals. I cannot envisage anything remotely like that being provided here in terms of quality and quantity, and then being taken on board by the electorate. Our Electoral Commission might push out a lot of leaflets but pamphlets and booklets are needed rather than leaflets. This matter goes well beyond two sides of A4. The information must be assimilated and debated if it is to be successful. The assessment was that 10 weeks were needed, which is how we have the date that we have, which was debated in this House back in December. We knew that the Bill needed to get Royal Assent before the recess in February. The assessment was that it could be done in 10 weeks. Mechanically, it can be done. Intellectually and educationally, I do not think that it can be done. That is what I think is wrong with my noble friend’s amendment. It should have been six months, but that is the Government’s responsibility. They have rushed this Bill. There was no need to rush it within a year of the general election. It could still have been done on the election date. I appreciate that the devolved elections come only once every four years, and if that is the key test that more people go out to vote, so be it. However, I just do not think that it can be done in the way that hearts and minds can be won. We will get a poor result. I think it will fail, but it will be for the wrong reasons. I wish it were for the right reasons. I will not support it; I will campaign against it, but I would rather that it failed for the right reasons. I would rather that there were a genuine debate about the real issues; but I do not think that it can be done in the time available.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Touhig on his amendment. I do not want to repeat much of the discussion that has taken place in the Chamber during this debate. I have studiously avoided, during my repeated interventions on this Bill, accusing the Government of gerrymandering, because I do not believe that that is the motivation behind this legislation. However, in Wales the accusation of gerrymandering will stick because removing 25 per cent of Wales’s Members of Parliament will create—indeed, it is at this moment creating—great suspicion in the minds of the Welsh people.
I claim a right to speak in this debate by way of my birthright in Swansea. My family is almost entirely Welsh. Due to the somewhat rare nature of the Savours name, which is easily traceable to 1602—a task carried out by a great relative of mine at the beginning of the previous century, before the age of the internet—we have quite a lot of information about my family’s activities over several hundred years. In preparing for this debate, I particularly researched the role that my family may have played in setting boundaries in Wales. I had been informed —incorrectly, as it turned out—that sheriffs and high sheriffs had historically had the responsibility of setting boundaries. There are two high sheriffs in my family: Edward Savours in 1747 and Robert Savours in 1845. Both were in south Wales, so I obviously had an interest. It seems that the only influence that they may have had was on parish or county boundaries. Since 1832, sheriffs probably had very little influence, as boundaries appear to have been set by a boundary commission after that.
However, during the research, I turned up some interesting background material on the boundaries in Wales. It seems that in 1944, as has already been alluded to, a Speaker’s Conference was established. From a pamphlet written in 1995 by Mr Iain McLean, a notable academic in this area, entitled Are Scotland and Wales Over-represented in the House of Commons?, we learn the lessons of history on the use of mathematical formulae and seat reductions in Wales—and how interesting these lessons are. Mr McLean explains what actually happened during the 1944 Speaker’s Conference, which was established to resolve arguments over representation. The conference, he says,
“was appointed and run on very similar lines to its predecessor of 1916-17 … Like its predecessor, the conference published only its conclusions”.
However, the minutes of the Speaker’s Conference committee are very illuminating. They say:
“It was pointed out that a strict application of the quota for the whole of Great Britain would result in a considerable decrease in the existing number of Scottish and Welsh seats, but that in practice, in view of the proposal that the Boundary Commissioners should be permitted to pay special consideration to geographical considerations … it was … unlikely that there would be any substantial reduction. It was strongly urged that … it would be very desirable, on political grounds, to state from the outset quite clearly that the number of Scottish and Welsh seats should not be diminished. The absence of any such assurance might give rise to a good deal of political feeling and would lend support to the separatist movement in both countries”.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, referred obliquely to that matter. I think that he was suggesting that that was a likelihood arising out of this legislation as it stands. Mr McLean goes on:
“Accordingly, the conference resolved not to cut the number of seats in … Wales and to establish a separate boundary commission … The 1944 recommendations have provided a template for all subsequent legislation … There should be no reduction in seat numbers for Scotland, or for Wales … There should be a Great Britain-wide quota, or target electorate, for each seat … The maximum deviation of any seat from this target should be 25 per cent … Boundary Commissions might ‘depart from the strict application of these rules’ if necessitated by ‘special geographical considerations, including the area, shape, and accessibility of a constituency’”.
Those are exactly the same arguments as we are having today. He continues:
“The Redistribution Act 1944 implemented these rules … During 1946 and 1947 the Labour Government announced that the 25 per cent rule was too restrictive and was leading the commissioners to break up historic communities. This conservative argument was accepted by the Conservatives; an Act of 1947 removed the explicit 25 per cent rule, and placed equal constituency size below respect for local boundaries in the Commissions’ rules”.
In other words, no cuts in the number of seats and respect for local boundaries put above a 25 per cent deviation from targets—a lot more than the 5 per cent that is being proposed in this legislation.
As far as I am concerned, this legislation’s effect on Wales is utterly absurd. It is unjust. It treats Members of Parliament miserably. It will interfere in family life for many Members of Parliament because the Bill is not even staged—and I heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on the question of staging. It also provides for a great level of disruption in the public service careers of Members of Parliament. Many Members go into Parliament because they believe in public service and the need to contribute to their communities. It is quite unreasonable suddenly to remove 25 per cent of them in the way that is being suggested.
Wales is being punished on the back of a populist response by the coalition Government. The expenses scandal has provoked a backlash against Members of Parliament. The Government’s response has been to cut expenses, promise September sittings and cut the number of MPs. It is a kneejerk response and Wales is being appallingly treated. It is absurd that this Parliament should treat the Welsh people and the Welsh nation in this way.
Lord Bach
We have had an extraordinary debate with many outstanding speeches from all sides of the Committee. I say more in sorrow than in anger that I am disappointed that no one from the Liberal Democrat Benches has spoken, particularly with their great tradition as a party in Wales. I cannot believe that they had nothing to say on this issue.
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will have a greater impact on Wales than on any other nation of the United Kingdom. Wales is projected to lose 10 seats of the 40 that it currently has. This represents, as we have heard, a 25 per cent reduction in its Westminster parliamentary representation. It is clearly a very significant proposal. What is so astonishing is that there was no debate in the other place on this matter. The guillotine came down. Does the Minister agree that it is outrageous and hard to understand how the elected House of Parliament could not debate this matter?
But it is worse than that. Many noble Lords who have spoken come from Wales and know how Wales is represented in another place. They will know that the Welsh Grand Committee, comprising all Members of Parliament from Wales, provides a forum for debate relating to Wales. The Grand Committee can meet only when the House directs it to do so. In effect, the Government decide when there is a need for such a meeting. A request was made from a distinguished ex-Secretary of State on 15 September 2010 to the current Secretary of State, the right honourable Mrs Gillan, to convene the Welsh Grand Committee. Unusually, the request was refused. In its report, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee made this comment about that refusal:
“We consider the Secretary of State for Wales’ decision not to convene a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in this instance to be very disappointing”.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he thinks that that decision can be justified.
As many noble Lords have said, the prospect of this drastic reduction in the number of Members of Parliament has caused great concern in Wales and among those who are interested in Welsh matters. The all-party Welsh Affairs Select Committee of another place, made up of six government supporters and six opposition supporters, produced a report shortly after the Bill began its legislative stages in another place which was highly critical of the proposed changes. It said:
“A decision to cut the representation in Parliament of one of the nations of the UK, Wales, by a quarter at a stroke should be one that can be shown to have been subject to the most careful and measured consideration, and should be taken in the light of proper examination of alternative approaches, including a slower pace of change”.
The Select Committee concluded, as we have been arguing during our discussion on the Bill:
“There is no need to rush into reorganising the electoral system without careful and measured consideration of the differential effects on the different parts of the UK”.
As the debate in the Committee today has shown, this drastic reduction in the number of MPs has provoked more than considerable concern. For a start, it is a complete departure from the current legal minimum of 35 seats for Wales, enshrined, as we have heard, in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which was passed by a Conservative Government, who should take great credit for that piece of legislation. It is also a significant reduction from the level of Welsh constituencies that was in place at the time when the Welsh people voted for the devolution settlement in 1998. That settlement, as the former Welsh Secretary, my right honourable friend Paul Murphy, noted in debates in the other place, was a package. It was, he explained,
“not simply the establishment of the Assembly, but the continuance of Members of Parliament, at that level, here in the House of Commons to protect the interests of the people of Wales and their nation. If we have a referendum, and there are greater powers, that might change, but at least people would have voted on it. However, in 1998, they voted for the opposite—the retention of Members of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 72.]
Importantly, that point was echoed by Mr Simon Hart, the Conservative Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, who warned the Government that a reduction of 25 per cent in the number of Welsh constituencies ahead of the referendum on new powers for the Welsh Assembly was being decided,
“without any reference to the Welsh nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 119.]
Will the Minister please explain why the forthcoming referendum on powers has no bearing in the Bill on the level of Welsh parliamentary representation?
Leaving aside the issue of the referendum, a number of factors suggest that this sudden and deep reduction in Welsh representation goes too far, too fast. The imposition of a UK-wide electoral quota of the kind imposed by the Bill is bound to create one or two enormous Welsh constituencies that will be overwhelmingly rural in nature and will cover wide and in places inaccessible territories. It will force the construction of new constituencies in the Welsh valleys, which will be impractical and injurious to local community ties, as many noble Lords have said.
Previously, these were the sort of concerns that could have been soothed to a degree through the application of common sense and through the forum of public inquiries, which the Bill proposes to abolish. Will the noble and learned Lord clarify whether there will still be a right to hold public inquiries in boundary reviews concerning the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but not of the mother of Parliaments in Westminster?
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
I am saying very carefully that I think that there are good arguments for looking at the degree of variation that there might be between the electorates of different constituencies. When, some months ago and before the general election, a proposal was on the table to recreate constituency boundaries with only a 2.5 per cent margin between electorates, I thought that that was far too narrow and tight. The Bill currently proposes a 5 per cent variation. I am simply saying at this stage that I think there are legitimate arguments for discussing the variation that we might have, and that those are stronger arguments to have than to say that we should have hard and fast rules about never crossing county boundaries, district council boundaries or ward boundaries.
I speak, of course, as a former party agent and party organiser. From my point of view, it was much more convenient if all the wards were within a constituency; that makes it easier for the parties. I believe that, by and large, that should be the case. Indeed, amendments that we will consider later in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tyler flag up specifically to the boundary commissions the importance of ward boundaries, but we do not suggest that they should never be crossed. The reason that I think that they can never be crossed is that there is still the overarching principle in the Bill of more equal sized electorates. By and large, it is possible to achieve more equal sized electorates without crossing ward boundaries. Where they are crossed, that should be very rare. I hope that we do not cross county boundaries, district boundaries or London boroughs more than is really necessary.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord is emphasising the need to take greater notice of the 5 per cent or 10 per cent argument than of the issue of crossing boundaries. In the light of the debate that took place in Westminster Hall, called and supported by Liberal Democrat Members, a debate on parliamentary representation called by Andrew George which the noble Lord will know of, it is clear that lots of Liberal Democrat MPs want flexibility towards the 10 per cent figure. Could the noble Lord go a little further and express support for that principle here in the Chamber now? That would help the debate on immeasurably.
Lord Rennard
The only principle I will express in this part of the debate is my overarching belief, shared by many noble Lords opposite, that constituencies should have roughly the same sized electorates, but in addressing the different balance of the arguments, there is in my view more merit in the case for saying that we should look at flexibility in the size of the electorates than for saying that we should try to treat each constituency, county or district as a special case. For example, I notice that an amendment has been tabled by a noble Lord opposite that Cumbria should be a special case. There is virtually no limit to the number of special cases that you could try to establish. My view in opposing the amendment is simply that there is more merit in the flexibility of the electorate argument than there is in saying that you should never cross the ward, the district or the county boundaries. Counties vary enormously in size, and the electorates can rise or fall rapidly, so it is not proper to say that you could never cross the county boundary, but I hope that it will not happen too often.
Lord Rennard
I wish to conclude my argument and will not take further interventions. I think that we should make more progress on the Bill, and I will conclude my argument rapidly by saying that in relation to wards it is of course of general convenience for elected representatives and constituents if ward boundaries are not crossed, but we now have ward boundaries in parts of the country—Birmingham, for example—that are very large. There are more than 20,000 electors in a typical Birmingham ward. In Scotland, where we now have an STV system for local elections—thanks to the Scottish Parliament and supported by three of the four main parties in Scotland—we have larger wards than previously.
In my view, it would not be possible to have a roughly arithmetic equalisation procedure and never cross ward boundaries. In some cases—I will conclude on this point—there may be a dilemma for the Boundary Commission. For example, it may want to consider, “Do we want to keep Birmingham whole and not cross the Birmingham city boundary, or do we cross some of the ward boundaries?”. My personal preference might be to say that it would be better for representation and good governance to keep Birmingham whole and cross the ward boundaries. For those reasons, I do not support the amendments.
Lord Lipsey
I shall follow directly on from what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, and I shall be extremely brief, so my noble friend will not be kept waiting long. In one way, I shall go further than the noble Lord did and say that many of the principles incorporated in the amendments are already present in the Bill in the rules under Clause 11. For example, it states, more explicitly than the present rules, that
“local government boundaries as they exist”,
on the most recent council elections, should be a special factor that the Boundary Commission can take into account. It states that a special factor that the Boundary Commission can take into account is local ties. County boundaries, as we know, most famously in the case of Cornwall, are exactly the sort of local tie that it can take explicit regard of. So those principles are in the Bill. The trouble is that they do not amount to a row of beans because of the 5 per cent limit. That is the problem. Otherwise we would not face this difficulty.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I may take my noble friend back to the very interesting and constructive contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I am being very serious when I say that because what he suggested might, in some ways, influence any negotiations that take place. He placed greater emphasis on the numerical calculation than on the area of the amendment with which we are dealing. I ask my noble friend to press the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, perhaps to intervene more, not only on the Floor of the House but with his colleagues, because that is the way forward on the Bill.
Lord Lipsey
I have probably known the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, even longer than I have known my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and no one has ever accused him of being as ineffective behind the scenes as he is effective on the public stage. I rose immediately after he spoke in order to agree with him and to show that here we are finding common ground, which is desirable for the conduct of the negotiations that are now to take place and will help the Committee out of the current impasse, so accurately described earlier in our proceedings by the Leader of the House.
Lord Rooker
I fully accept that, and that was made clear in one of my previous speeches: that the local authority might be reluctant, if some issue comes up that transcends the boundaries, to get their MPs up to speed and briefed to lobby and kick in doors in Whitehall to put their case. At the same time they are thinking, “Hang on, that MP represents part of the area that we are a bit negative about, and complaining about”. So there could be an issue here—whether it is a new air field or another infrastructure issue—that crosses boundaries; I fully accept that. On the other hand, I accept there should not be a massive disparity between sizes of constituencies. The point is that there is no easy answer to this. This Bill provides an easy answer because of its rigidity, but because of that it is unfair.
The issue of the 10 per cent is important, but the other point is that, if the Bill is allowed to go through without any sort of compromise, the only discussion of these issues is actually here. Those discussions will not be held in public inquiries because the citizens of this country are being denied the right to go to a public inquiry to make the points, some of which I have alluded to and some which others have. That is the problem; if only there could at least be that safety valve so that some of these issues could be vented at a constrained public inquiry. I am not in favour of sending people from London around the country because that becomes open-ended. There could be a public inquiry on any constituency changes in a maximum of 15 working days—three weeks; I guarantee that that could be done. You put the constraints in place, limit the political parties so it cannot be abused, bring in genuine citizens and other bodies, including business and the church, and you could do it, but you have to have that safety valve, otherwise the pent-up difficulties that will arise at the next election will be on the heads of the Liberal Democrats.
I do not live in Birmingham; I live in a shire area and I am not proposing that we cross the Shropshire border boundaries because I would be in a spot of bother there. I have found it remarkable that, in the past six months, watching stuff go through my door in Ludlow from the Lib Dems, I have yet to see a single leaflet that hints that they are in coalition with the Tories in central government. It is disingenuous and unbelievable. As it hots up towards the election and the boundary issue comes up, these things will come back. I would rather that that did not happen, by the way. I would rather we get this right. I do not seek any advantage in this; I think there is a good case, as the Leader said this afternoon. I heard the word “concession”, and I make no bones about that; there are concessions to be made. Let us get it out into the open so that we know where we are—the sooner the better, because I want progress on this. I repeat, having proposed the amendment that would in effect have given flexibility on the date for the referendum, that there is no problem with the referendum being held on 5 May. My amendment would not have stopped that; all it would have done was give the Government a backstop if things went wrong. Little did I know when I said that back in late November or early December that we would still be in Committee at the end of January.
We do need to make progress, and we need that safety valve so that the only debate on constituency changes, splitting wards and crossing boundaries is not held in the unelected part of our Parliament. That is barmy when you think about it. All we are asking is that the people get the opportunity, when the changes are proposed for their area, at least to come forward and say, “I agree”, “I disagree”, “We have been trying to do this for years”, or “Thank heaven we are getting some changes”—at least to have the chance to say so themselves and for it not just to be left here.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I intervene only following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I am interested in the common ground to which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Crosby and Lady D’Souza, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, referred last week. They all sought that middle ground that we expect to arise out of the negotiations that will inevitably have to be held. Much of our debate on these amendments could be avoided if the Government were to concede on the principle of the 5 per cent—if they were to accept the 10 per cent for which my noble friend asked or some flexibility above 5 per cent whereby some areas would apply a 5 per cent arrangement as against others that would apply a 10 per cent arrangement. Only by that kind of flexibility do we move away from the arguments that are being deployed during this debate. It is a straitjacket. My noble friend Lord Grocott referred to rough justice. It is rough justice that arises only out of a straitjacket that the Government have sought to introduce.
I would like to know—some work must have been done in government—how many county boundaries would be breached with a 5 per cent flexibility as against a 10 per cent one. If that margin is substantial, surely that is an argument in favour of a 10 per cent flexibility. That question applies to how many London and metropolitan district council boundaries are to be breached. The difference between a 5 per cent straitjacket and a 10 per cent one applies equally to the question of whether wards would be split within individual constituencies. Surely Ministers must be beginning to accept this following the intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, today. She was absolutely blunt and said basically that we should move from the 5 per cent. Let us hope that in his winding-up speech to this debate, the Minister will signal to us that the Government are prepared to look at that particular issue, because I am sure it would help to move this Bill along.
Lord Bach
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on interesting subjects, and we look forward to hearing the Minister respond. The principle behind this group of amendments matches that which motivates the next amendment, Amendment 71A, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. The stringency of the Government’s proposals as we see it—the inflexibility of the rules set out in the Bill, the strict adherence to a tight mathematical formula and the lack of discretion given to the boundary commissioners in carrying out their work—will have damaging effects on our system.
The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House reported on the proposed equalisation of constituencies in this Bill, and wrote:
“Applying the new rules as to equalisation will necessitate the creation of constituencies crossing regional and county boundaries; in addition, many more constituencies than at present will cross local authority boundaries. This has significant administrative and political consequences, in terms of such matters as electoral administration and party political organisation. The pace of change is unlikely to lessen such administrative and political challenges and, indeed, seems likely to make them more difficult to manage”.
It went on:
“The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee heard evidence from Democratic Audit that the new rules as to equalisation were being imposed ‘without any attempt to form a consensus’ and without the Government having first investigated what people actually want from representation. There did not appear to be any evidence that the electorate considers equalisation to be significantly more important than, say, geographical, customary or traditional boundaries”.
The committee concluded:
“Pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation would have enabled a better assessment of whether the new rules as to equalisation are overly rigid”.
It has come to be expected that those of your Lordships’ colleagues who sit on that committee—and I remind this Committee that they come from all parts of the House—are always entirely wise and sensible in their assessment. We certainly think so.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I have in the course of my contributions over recent weeks tried to bring some fairly original material to our debates to help them along. I have often drawn on statistical evidence from various organisations. However, today I do not want to do that. I want to refer to a debate that took place—probably unknown to Members of this House—in the House of Commons on 11 January in Westminster Hall. I should perhaps start by explaining the relevance of Westminster Hall. It is a secondary Chamber in the House of Commons where the debates are of great importance and great interest, but where, for whatever reason, business managers in the House of Commons organise debates which very often attract fewer people. There was a particularly interesting debate that took place there on parliamentary representation. It was called by Mr Andrew George who is the Liberal Democrat Member for St Ives. The relevance of this debate was that it was the first time that many Members of the Liberal Democrat Benches in the House of Commons had had the opportunity to speak on Clause 11 of the Bill. Because of the arrangements in the House of Commons and the use of the guillotine and the truncating of debate, there were many issues which the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament had been unable to raise. Indeed, he says at the beginning of his contribution:
“I am delighted to have secured the debate, which will explore many of the issues that we did not have an opportunity to explore during the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill … We failed to get to grips properly with the issues that needed to be debated to improve the Bill before it transferred to another place”. — [Official Report, Commons, 11/1/11; col. 25WH]
Then, in an aside—I have to be straight about this—he blamed Labour Members in reference to the delay in debate. Obviously, there were areas of the Bill that we regarded as particularly important which the Liberal Democrats did not regard as important. I want to quote some of the things he and his colleague said, because they have not been considered by Ministers. The comments that were made in Westminster Hall had not been considered by Ministers when the Bill was taken through its Committee and Report stages in the House of Commons. Andrew George says:
“The Bill proposes that all constituencies have an electoral quota of approximately 76,000 with a margin of only 5% either way. It would carve up the country in a manner that would create bizarre constituencies and ignore important cultural, historic and geographic boundaries”.
We have not heard those words mentioned by any Member of the Liberal Democrats here in the House of Lords. He goes on to say:
“We do not want antiseptic constituencies with perpetually mobile boundaries. The five-yearly boundary review that would happen between each Parliament would mean an MP’s attachment to their constituency being perpetually reviewed, so the sense of settlement with the communities they represent would be continually undermined”.
That has not been said by a Liberal Democrat Member in the House of Lords; it was not said in the House of Commons by a Liberal Democrat Member because they did not have the opportunity to say it. It was said in the junior chamber in the House of Commons, in Westminster Hall.
He then goes on to say:
“The amendments to the Bill which I and other hon. Members tabled were unsuccessful, in that they were not selected or therefore debated”.
There are procedural differences in the House of Commons. Whereas here we can debate technically all our amendments, in the House of Commons they have to be selected by Mr Speaker. If they are not selected, they are not debated. Even if they are selected they are not always debated because of the guillotine and timetable. He goes on about his amendments:
“They sought to find circumstances in which the Boundary Commission was given sufficient discretion to work towards the target figure, taking into account reasonable geographic, cultural and electoral issues. We want the Government to allow places to make decisions for themselves collectively, provided that they do not request more favourable treatment, such as over-representation”,
which we accept.
“I hope the Minister takes note of that. It is not about more favourable treatment but simply recognising the distinctiveness of places, which the Bill does not take into account”. [Official Report, Commons, 11/1/11; col. 26WH]
Why has no Liberal Democrat Member of the House of Lords got up to their feet and repeated a statement of that nature to this House? Never once in our debate—someone said that we have now been debating for 90 hours—has that point been made by a Liberal Democrat Member of the House of Lords. I can tell you what the answer is. There is a contractual agreement within this Chamber between two elements of a coalition; that agreement is silencing debate. It is completely undermining the very ethos of this Chamber in the House of Lords.
A Conservative Member—obviously a very courageous one—a Mr Martin Vickers of Cleethorpes, said in the same debate:
“Continually changing boundaries will impact on the vitality and sustainability of local political parties. The democratic process needs viable local parties and associations, but constant boundary changes inevitably impact on their viability. Taking one ward out of a constituency can render the local party virtually bankrupt if the ward’s financial make-up means that it contributes greatly to the party. We need to think seriously about that”.— [Official Report, Commons, 11/1/11; col. 26WH]
And so we do. Why are not Conservative Members of this House getting up and arguing the case that is being put in Westminster Hall in the House of Commons? And then, later in the debate, Mr Andrew George says that,
“the boundary of my constituency changed at the 2010 election and those constituents who used to live in my old constituency still contact me. Given the arrangements in the Bill, that sort of thing would happen at every election, so there would be confusion”. —[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/11; col. 38WH]
And how right he is.
Let us take a town on the margin of a county, on the margin indeed of a constituency, that switches from one election to another between Members of Parliament, where the electorate do not actually know who their MP is, because of this constant change and movement as the Boundary Commission somehow has to find a way of ensuring that constituency boundaries fall within this 5 per cent limit which we would wish to extend to 10 per cent.
Take a county like Cumbria, and let us take the town of Kendal. Kendal was not in my former constituency but it was very near the county boundary; a beautiful town on the fringes of the Lake District. Indeed, the people of Kendal would say that they were part of the Lake District. There is a possibility that within the terms of this Bill that town might be split.
I know that Members of Parliament with large city seats very often find that their cities are split. It will work in a large city. It will work in a large community, but it will not work in a small community. It will create divisions within that area—divisions inside parties, between officials inside parties, between treasurers, secretaries, chairmen—all kinds of unseen divisions that boundary commissioners when they are taking their decisions about the future of constituency boundaries would never at any stage be aware of. Those are the kinds of issues that might well surface during the course of an oral inquiry. But the Bill goes on to take away the opportunity for such a forum to examine the minor detail of what would happen in the small community, a town like Kendal, in the event that it were split in the way that the Bill might provide for in the end.
I have a lot more to say on these matters, but I shall save my words for later in the evening—indeed, the night.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I would like to give some practical examples of what my noble friends have been describing here. I know that some folk do not like practical examples, but this is what this House is for; to listen to each other and to learn from each other. I am still on a learning process.
The point about wards being the building blocks is illustrated in the former constituency I represented. It illustrates the folly of tinkering with political systems because a party is part of a coalition. That is what happened to the Labour Party in 2004 in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament elections where the Liberals put as a price for joining a coalition the introduction of proportional representation to local government.
I can advise any coalition party involved with the Liberals that in the long run they will tinker and tamper with PR to your detriment and downfall. What happened at the local elections was a disaster, but we have already discussed that and I do not want to be accused of or be guilty of repetition. A multi-member ward system was introduced.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I was just looking at my notes because we had an earlier intervention on Maldon. The noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, referred to Maldon. He is talking to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, at the moment but he might wish to take note of this. Maldon has a very interesting history. It was referred to by Lewis Baston in his brief, which my noble friend will have received. However, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, did not tell us that the boundaries were changed in 1955 to 1974, in 1974 to 1983, in 1983 to 1997, in 1997 to 2010 and in 2010 to 2015. The evidence from Maldon is that the people of Maldon are confused about what constituency they belong in because of all the changes over the past 40 years to the boundaries of the constituency in which they have been placed. It is rather strange that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, failed to refer to that when he commented on his own constituency.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has heard and taken note of those remarks. I say to my noble friend with the greatest friendliness that I do not intend to try to turn myself into an expert on the electoral history of Maldon. I come back to the point that I was making, which is that I think the public in general rightly expect us in a Committee on a Bill of this kind to do two things. One is to explore to the full the details in the Bill to open up every possible angle of vision to ensure that we look through the consequences. It is very important in any Committee on any Bill to try to identify the possible unintended consequence or consequences of it.
On the whole, this House has done a job in that regard of which we can be proud. What disgraceful negligence it would have been on the part of this House if we had not discussed Wales at all, which my noble friend Lord Touhig has just mentioned, given that the other House has apparently failed to do so. Anyone who has read that wonderful classic of Welsh literature, How Green Was My Valley, knows that the mountains create a real cultural and social barrier between the different Welsh valleys. There has been no opportunity to explore Wales, or Manchester for that matter. I have heard more about the electoral districts and history of Scotland than I have ever done in my life. Of course, I am very tempted to talk about the beautiful town of Stamford and say what a tragedy and monstrosity it would be if it were divided up and part of it were taken away and put into Leicestershire or somewhere else, but I will not go down that route despite the blandishments of my noble friend Lord Graham, a man whom the whole House holds in the very greatest regard. I simply say that we are doing that part of our job properly, well and thoroughly, and it is quite right that we are doing so.
The second task which the public as a whole would expect of us is to make some progress, or at least to attempt to make some progress, towards consensus, because the public always think that we should try to get consensus on constitutional matters. The public are right about that, and I think that most of us, in our heart of hearts, all feel that we should try to get consensus. There has not been much of an effort to get consensus for a long time, but such an effort has been made this afternoon, and that is very important. The Bill does not deal with wards at all, but the Minister has said that he will take that on board and come back to the Committee with something on wards. That is a very positive statement. I take it in good faith, as we all do, and I do not think that we need say anything more about wards this afternoon, and I shall not do so.
Views have been expressed on both sides of the House, including by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Newton, that counties are important. We can all argue about how important they are in particular contexts, but it is clear that they are important. Paragraph 5 to Schedule 2 says simply that the Boundary Commission “may” take account of counties. However, that is just permissive; it implies that you can do so if you really want to. It does not accommodate the counties. We debated earlier the preceding group of amendments, some of which would have forced the Boundary Commission to take account of counties. My noble and learned friend proposes a very reasonable middle road in Amendment 71A: namely, that the Boundary Commission “should, where practicable” do so. In other words, there is flexibility but no insistence. If the Boundary Commission feels that other more important considerations ought to override the sanctity of county boundaries, so be it. That is real progress and a sensible way forward. I hope that it may be the basis of consensus on this important matter of counties.
I think that there is also consensus on a third and very important point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, from the coalition Benches: namely, that you cannot achieve these things and give the Boundary Commission any flexibility in practice unless we look again at the 5 per cent limitation. Otherwise, anything that we tell the Boundary Commission will be completely negated by the 5 per cent rule. What you cannot and must not do—I do not think that any of us would want to do this—is to give the Boundary Commission a contradictory brief and put it in a situation whereby it cannot solve the problem that it is being set. That would be quite wrong. If there is to be flexibility to enable the Boundary Commission to take account of county boundaries or other local factors which it considers to be important, it is clearly necessary to look again at the 5 per cent rule. I think that consensus has emerged in the course of our proceedings on that very important matter.
Fourthly, and finally, I sense there is a growing feeling that something needs to be done about my next point, not necessarily by continuing with the present status quo but not necessarily, either, by having what is in the Bill, which is nothing at all. We need to ensure that we do not just say, “Leave this matter in this House and never again is there to be any open discussion of the principles of our electoral boundaries”. That would be a very unnatural situation. Therefore, we need to preserve something like the public inquiry system. My noble friend Lady Hughes explained how that had made a big difference in Manchester in a recent case to which she drew our attention, and I know of other cases in which that has happened.
I think I mentioned that I, with some supporters, gave evidence to a Boundary Commission. We did not win our point but there was a general sense of satisfaction that we had been able to air it and that the arguments had been properly, duly, publicly and transparently weighed. We do not need the existing form of public inquiry. My noble friend Lord Rooker set out how he thinks that the whole process could be more rapidly conducted. I was very interested in his suggestion in that regard, which seems a promising avenue of discussion under the heading of future amendments on the Marshalled List. However, some sort of public and open appeals process is absolutely essential if we are not to put ourselves in a situation whereby the great and the good, if we can describe ourselves in that way—perhaps we are the great and the bad—take an irrevocable decision and then hand over to a bureaucracy the right for ever after to take decisions behind closed doors and subsequently announce to the grateful public what their electoral boundaries will be without it ever having to explain itself in public in any kind of open forum.
We have made considerable progress on those four principles this afternoon. The prospect may be emerging through the mist of a structure that could command the consensus that we all regard as very desirable for a Bill of this kind.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The point I was making was that it now calls itself South Edinburgh to take in the various parliamentary constituencies in the south of Edinburgh.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I have tried to be patient.
Four out of the seven provisions in the amendment relate to wards and how they should be used in the Bill. I cannot accept that the Government have been dismissive—the word used by the noble and learned Lord—of wards. I certainly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, about the importance of the ward level. That is why, in response to the previous set of amendments, I stated our belief that wards are in many cases already the building blocks of constituencies. They are the level that can often reflect local community ties. The English Boundary Commission has confirmed that in the majority of cases in England, wards are used as the basic element of each constituency. For reasons that I have already given—that some wards might combine a large part of an urban area on the outskirts of the city and a rural hinterland—there might be reasons to give the Boundary Commission discretion to split boundaries. Therefore, an absolute prohibition, as proposed in the amendment, goes too far. I hope that the undertaking that I gave in response to the previous debate to look seriously at the issue of wards and to bring back our proposals on Report will satisfy the House at this stage. On that basis, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
I do not deny that for a moment. I think the noble Lord has been so busy making speeches that he has perhaps not had an opportunity of reading Hansard because that point has been made.
My second point again applies to this group of amendments.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the noble Lord accept that some of us would contest the contribution of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock? The noble Lord will remember from stories told by secretaries in the House of Commons during the period when I was there that there were often conversations between Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative secretaries in which they discussed workload. It very often surfaced during the conversations that Labour Members in inner-city seats had a far bigger workload than other Members of Parliament. My noble friend obviously contests this, but he had a secretary who I am sure was involved in those conversations as, indeed, was the noble Lord’s. It was well known.
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—
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to take my noble friend back to the debates that we had some time ago, and I am not sure whether he was the Minister dealing with the electoral registration legislation. However, does not this amendment have implications for individual registration, and could not the position be aggravated if the amendment were to proceed on the basis that one has to knock on the door and have a document signed in the case of every elector? Surely this amendment has implications for that and the gathering of signatures.
Lord Bach
We believe that it certainly does have implications for that, and I have already mentioned individual registration. One of the Government’s responses to this line of criticism is that bringing forward individual registration will somehow mitigate it. Our concern is that it will make it worse, certainly in the short term. What disturbs me more is that my noble friend does not remember that I was the Minister responsible for the legislation to which he referred.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does my noble friend accept that one of the reasons why there was a delay—in the case of some of us, we wanted the delay to go on for ever—is the experience in Northern Ireland, where electoral registration rates dropped dramatically? Even to this day we are suffering from the legacy of the introduction of individual registration in Northern Ireland. I apologise to my noble friend, but he knows that I repeatedly argued against this system.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble and learned Lord in reading his brief referred to what I think he said were annual recalculations. He said that they are based on census figures with an annual uprating. How is that uprating calculated? What new information does it include that leads to the higher figures?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I cannot give a technical answer, but I can say that they are produced by the Office for National Statistics at the local authority level and that they are estimates of change. I do not have the psephological—I am sorry, I meant the statistical—basis for this.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Just by saying that, the noble Lord will see that data on births, marriages and deaths give you only a certain reflection of changes in population because there is also immigration and emigration, which would not necessarily be picked up. I accept that for health statistics, it might be better if people registered, but there is no necessity for them to register in their particular area.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If that is the case and an annual uprating is being made along the lines set out by the noble and learned Lord, is it fair to refer repeatedly to the 2000 census being the basis for calculations?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I did not say that it was the 2000 census; I said it was the 2000 electoral register. The 2000 electoral register is the relevant basis for assessing the electorate. In the same way, the report that the Boundary Commissions will be expected to produce by October 2013 will be based on the electoral register as at 1 December 2010.
As I have indicated, because population estimates are produced at the local government level, it would be equally or even more of a problem to estimate the true level of the population at lower than that level. Local government geography is obviously a relevant issue for the Boundary Commission, but it might find that even if population estimates were consistently compiled for areas smaller than the local authority level, the data may not be sufficient to allow it to draw up a constituency boundary that meets the two size requirements as set out in the noble Lord’s amendment. For example, the commission might have to depart from using wards as a building block to reduce the population of a constituency that was slightly over the 130 per cent limit. Furthermore, the amendments are silent on what would happen if the commission found itself unable to comply with both of these rules in an area. The amendments would make the commission’s task vastly more complex and unachievable.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
In terms of this Bill and the four Boundary Commissions’ reports, which are required by October 2013, the relevant date is 1 December 2010. That is fixed.
There is the separate issue of trying to get the electoral roll as complete as possible through a number of initiatives such as the rolling register and data matching, which the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, and I have discussed. That will not be used for determining the electoral quotas for constituencies until the next boundary review, but it will be relevant for determining who is eligible to vote at any election—be it a European election, by-elections, local elections, Scottish parliamentary elections, Welsh National Assembly elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, and indeed the general election of 2015. That is why it is so imperative that we give an impetus to get people on the roll. In terms of their being eligible to vote, that effort ought to be made.
I do not want to mislead the House in any way. If those people came on the roll now, or during a drive that brought them on to the roll in the next 12 months, that, by definition, would not affect the number of people on the electoral roll on 1 December 2010. Hopefully, by sustaining that, these people would be on the electoral roll on 1 December 2015, and therefore would be part of the calculation for the quota and the constituencies, which would be the subject of the ensuing boundary review.
The other point, which goes along with that, is that people might not be taken into account if they come on to the register now for the 2015 election, but many people have come on to the electoral register since 2000 in England who likewise would not be taken into account for 2015, if the amendment that is being moved by the noble Lord’s noble friend were to be carried. An update of 10 years is some considerable improvement.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am not delaying the debate, but there will be people in the Chamber who have not been here during our previous debates and who are wondering why we are going on a register that is based on December 2010. Why cannot we wait, let us say, 12 months? If we were to wait 12 months, could we not get a boundary inquiry in and the new boundaries introduced for the next general election? Will the Minister explain why we have to have a register that is based on the end of last year and not, perhaps, later this year?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am certain that I have already given that explanation, but I am more than happy to repeat it. The judgment was that in order to get the Boundary Commission reports by 1 October 2013, 1 December 2010 was the date that was necessary to give the Boundary Commissions their starting point: the raw figures from which they must work. October 2013 was chosen because it is approximately 18 months before what would be the general election in May 2015. I cannot remember which noble Lord it was—it might even have been the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—but someone certainly made comments in debates earlier about the importance for local parties selecting candidates to adjust to new boundaries. Eighteen months was thought to be sufficient time to allow that to happen. That is the judgment that has been made. It will be pretty challenging. I do not think anyone has denied that. Indeed, noble Lords opposite have commented that it will be a very challenging task for the Boundary Commissions to have their respective reports published by October 2013, but that is why we have chosen that date.
Lord Wills
Quite simply because they are not on the register. There is a lot of suspicion that some local authorities do not invest the money given to them by central government in paying enough attention to ensuring that everyone who is eligible to be on the register is on the register. Many local authorities do an admirable job and spend more than is given to them by central government for these purposes. If the noble Viscount is trying to suggest that I am somehow insinuating that there is a positive process here, rather than people just excluding themselves, as it were, he is partly right. There is no doubt, from some of the evidence I have seen, that some local authorities are far less diligent than they should be in including people on the register.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My noble friend refers to the 3.5 million who are excluded. It is not that they will not be allowed to vote in the next election; they may well be if they seek to register. The issue must be that the 3.5 million excluded are therefore not being taken into account when the boundaries are being set for the new constituencies. That is the key argument that we are not getting over in the Chamber—the exclusion of those people from the calculation on boundaries is distorting this whole piece of legislation.
Lord Wills
My noble friend is absolutely right: this is precisely the point I made on Second Reading. This is the key point. If this were somehow an intractable problem, and we were stuck for ever with large numbers, millions of people eligible to vote who somehow, for whatever reason, could never be included in the register and therefore, for a practical purpose, we just had to get on and deal with all the other issues that the Minister has alluded to, I would agree with him. I agree with him that a lot of what he has said is desirable, but he has failed to grapple with this essential point. If, as I say, this were somehow an intractable, insoluble problem, I would be much more sympathetic to the approach that he has taken, but it is not.
Lord Wills
Of course, I agree with my noble friend—he is absolutely right. This goes to the point about the folly of the Government rushing this through. I will come in a moment to the point about the 2011 census, which is crucial, as my noble friend Lord Howarth has already mentioned. The point is that measures are in place to make the register comprehensive and accurate. I hope that I can help the Committee to have a little more understanding; those who followed the debates about individual registration in the other place will be familiar with the argument and I crave their indulgence.
The previous Government—I was the Minister responsible—faced a real, intractable problem. Everyone agreed, I think, that individual voter registration was desirable. There was very little doubt about it. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned pronouncements of the Electoral Commission many years ago and I think most people recognised that individual registration was desirable.
Lord Wills
I will come to the doubts that people had, and those of my colleagues who are shaking their heads may feel more comfortable when I have made further remarks about this.
Individual registration was desirable as an objective in its own right. It helped to guarantee the integrity and accuracy of the register and, in a modern democracy, it is right and proper that individual citizens should register their right to vote, rather than the head of the household doing it in some 19th century, Victorian way. However, the problem was that it was widely recognised—and the Northern Ireland experience, which was arguable in several ways, substantiated this—that any move to individual registration was likely to exacerbate the problem of the comprehensive nature of the register.
In other words, more people were likely to fall off the register, for all sorts of reasons, not least that there are a large numbers of adults, regrettably, who are still functionally illiterate. Any move to individual registration, desirable as it was in its own terms, carried with it a very real and severe risk that even more than the 3 to 3.5 million people already disfranchised, despite their eligibility to be on the register, would be disfranchised. That was unacceptable, so for many years there was a stand-off between those who felt that the integrity of the register was more desirable, and that we should therefore move immediately towards individual voter registration, and those who said that we should not do that at the cost of disfranchising eligible citizens. This was a real problem.
The previous Government came to grips with this by bringing in a measure to implement individual registration; not immediately, not rushing it through as this Government are doing with this registration; but in a measured way. We made it explicitly subject to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register by 2015. We did not do that lightly; we gave the Electoral Commission the power to oversee the process, to report annually on its progress in achieving the objective and we gave it substantial new powers, data-matching powers, at a time of great anxiety about the Big Brother state and all the rest of it.
These measures went through with all-party consent in the House of Commons—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives all agreed. I hope that the Minister is listening to this, because this is important. We went through this process with all the Front-Bench spokesmen and spokeswomen in the House of Commons and explained to them why their initial reservations about the timescale were misplaced. We had lengthy discussions and consultations, all of which, I am afraid, have been absent in the progress of the Bill. We persuaded them, genuinely persuaded them, that it was simply not possible to achieve a comprehensive and accurate register any more quickly than on that timescale and they agreed to it.
Any noble Lord who wants to read the Hansard record of these debates will see that they signed up to this timetable. They all recognised it. The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman and the shadow Justice Secretary for the Conservative Party agreed to the timescale because, when they familiarised themselves with all the details, all the difficulties of making the register comprehensive as well as accurate, they recognised that this could not be rushed through; it did need that timescale. To do those politicians credit, they changed their minds about this. They had thought we should just rush in individual registration and that the register could look after itself, but when it was explained to them what the consequence of this could be, they changed their minds. I pay tribute to them. This was a consensual process, a process of consultation; we reached agreement on it and, in doing so, incidentally, the Government changed their mind on certain details as well. It was a genuinely consultative process, which, from my perspective, is a model for how constitutional reform should be conducted.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The objective was laudable and it was supported by many Members. However, when discussions about resources took place, was there not a reservation in the mind of my noble friend that, if a Government were ever elected who would starve local authorities of resources, the whole programme of individual registration would collapse, particularly when, in the register which will apply in 2018, we find that the boundaries set in 2018 will be based on individual registration? Is it not a sting in the tail that we introduced a measure, with the best will in the world, but now that the resources will not be there to ensure that it is properly introduced, the measure will damage boundaries in the future?
Lord Wills
My noble friend is completely right: I was full of reservations and trepidation about the future. One does not embark on this sort of wholesale radical change without a lot of consideration and worry about whether one had made the right judgments about this. I was very worried and I remain worried about some local authorities. A lot of local authorities are exemplary democrats in this respect. They spend a lot of money and resources on ensuring that registration is comprehensive and accurate. It does not matter what their political complexion is—there are Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat local authorities which are exemplary in this respect—but I came across enough evidence to show that many local authorities do not take these issues sufficiently seriously. A lot of colleagues from the other place told me of examples where they thought that local authorities were wilfully not putting effort into registration, for party political advantage.
I make no secret of this now: I wanted to ring-fence the money that central government gave to local authorities for this. I thought it was so important to our democracy that local authorities should have no option. I was stopped by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which was hysterically paranoid about anything that might smack of central government directing local authorities. Such is the power of the universal panacea of localism. I am in favour of localism, let me say, but there has to be a balance. I wanted to get this money ring-fenced and I was stopped.
I hope that the Government will look again at this matter. I see that the Local Government Secretary is, in many ways, admirably robust in trashing local authorities. This is one area where he could show his iron fist and ensure that every local authority invests the money that it is given by central government in making sure that we have a functioning and healthy democracy.
Lord Campbell-Savours
It has never come out publicly before, but my noble friend was blocked. I knew that, and I knew the Ministers responsible for doing it. When he was blocked, though, did that not give him cause for concern about what he was introducing? Maybe we should not have proceeded with this process, which we are now being punished for. We introduced it for the most honourable of reasons, and now we are punished by the lack of resources available to local authorities.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
We are having a very constructive debate on this amendment. I appeal to all my colleagues to conduct themselves in a way whereby we might get some compromise on this amendment.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I entirely agree and have already said several things along the lines of what my noble friend has just said. To respond to my noble friend, I am naturally grateful for his comments. I agree with everything he said. Since we are talking about changing political parties, no doubt in the 1880s I would have been a Gladstonian Liberal and a home ruler. At least, I trust that I would have been.
There has been a change in the atmosphere this afternoon. There have been memorable contributions from the Cross Benches and the Conservative Party in favour, in principle, of the way in which this amendment has been framed. I repeat that we all now hope that we will be able to have a reasoned and calm dialogue with the Government on this. I hope they can accept this amendment, which would go a long way to solving all the problems before us. At the very least, we would expect, in the new circumstances, a very good explanation if they cannot accept it and, I hope, a proposal of their own that is better than either the original one in the Bill or the one that my noble and learned friend has just put forward.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
My noble friend will know that I was one of those who were pressing him to have a vote. I have indeed changed my mind because he was, quite rightly, arguing privately that there was a need for the House to have the time to gestate and understand the implications of that amendment. Another reason for changing my mind was that there were a lot of Cross-Benchers in the House—more during that debate than on any other issue that we have discussed on the whole Bill. Some of us realised that it was important that we gathered their support over the following days, this being one of them. I am sorry that my noble friend was criticised as he was.
Lord Wills
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. All that I ask the Government to reflect on in approaching this is that these issues are profoundly important. They are difficult and complex and there will, inevitably, be valid points of view on all sides on all these issues. If they will not listen to me, I hope that they will take an example from the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maples. That was the sort of debate of which we could have had far more thus far from the other Benches. In whatever time is left for us to debate the Bill, I hope that we will see more contributions such as the noble Lord’s from his colleagues on those Benches.
Any responsible legislative process would have set out these and all the other relevant issues and then consulted on them and come to a decision on the optimum size of a constituency and so of the House of Commons. Allowing the British people themselves to have a say in this would have been desirable, but the Government have not done that. Instead, they have determined a figure, for which they have failed so far to produce any good reason, and then shaped everything else around it. This is not just a wasted opportunity but a lazy and irresponsible way in which to approach legislation of such importance. It is also damaging to our democratic process—all the more so, I have to say in passing, because of the way in which the Government seem intent on getting this legislation nodded through this Chamber.
Why have the Government failed to produce any coherent explanation for how they arrived at this figure of 600? It is curious, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that before the election both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats had decided on a figure lower than 600 and had arguments for doing so, which we have heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Maples. So why did they change their minds? There is a coherent case for keeping to the pledges that they made to the electorate before the election. That coherent case was made by the noble Lord, Lord Maples, today. Why did they not stick to it? They will not say.
In an attempt to elucidate this information, I put in a freedom of information request, as I have already told the House. The last time I mentioned this in the House, I mentioned that I had not yet had a response, but such is the power and influence of this House that the next day I got a response, for which I am delighted. The response that I received from the Cabinet Office, dated 11 January, confirmed that the modelling that I was looking for on the impact of a reduction to 600 and to lower figures exists but that some of that information is being withheld under Section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. I think that the Government have ignored the existence of Section 35(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, which would remove their justification for exempting the information that I requested, so I have put in a request for an internal review of the Cabinet Office’s decision and I look forward with great interest to seeing the results of that review.
Leaving aside the legislative niceties of this, I believe that the public should know how and why the Government went back on the promises that they made to the electorate at the election and decided to increase the size of their reconstituted House of Commons to 600. The public want to know how the Government think this will affect their relationship as voters with their MPs. I think—and I say this in kindness to Ministers—that the public want to be reassured that, in reaching that figure of 600, the Government were not motivated in any way by the pursuit of partisan advantage. They will want to be reassured about that. The Government must realise that, as long as they fail to come up with any coherent argument for why that figure of 600 was arrived at, the suspicion must remain. They cannot avoid this. I know that it is unwelcome.
I see Ministers sitting on the Benches opposite and I know that they are without exception decent and honourable men and women. It is with some trepidation that I keep coming back to this point, but they must realise the cynicism that exists about all politicians at the moment. They must realise that the suspicion that they are motivated by nothing but partisan self-interest exists and they should be doing everything that they possibly can to dispel it, so I hope that when the Minister concludes the debate on this amendment he can provide some reassurance about that.
On Thursday last week, I wrote to the noble and learned Lord’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, asking whether he could release the information that I had requested. When you put in a freedom of information request, it refers only to work that has been done within the Executive by government, not to work that clearly feeds into the process of formulating legislation that is done by special advisers and Conservative and Liberal Democrat party officials. I have therefore also asked the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in the interests of openness and transparency and of reassuring the public about the Government’s motivation in alighting on this figure, whether he can confirm—it may be that the Minister can confirm this in his remarks at the end of this debate—whether any modelling has been done on the differential impacts of different sizes of the House of Commons on the party composition of the House of Commons, either within government or by the Liberal party, the Conservative Party or special advisers. He can confirm or deny it. I very much hope that he will take this opportunity to start clearing up this issue once and for all. It is an important issue and we need to move forward from it. We can do so only if he can provide us with the reassurance for which I am asking.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend is, as always, very wise. It would have been greatly for the convenience of both Houses of Parliament had this legislation been segmented and introduced on the sensible basis suggested by my noble friend.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was very interesting, because that is the question that is being asked by many Members on that side of the House, but they never intervene during the course of debate. We would welcome an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Perhaps he would like to embroider his comments, because he would be speaking on behalf of all his colleagues on the Back Benches.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I think I could even be persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to sit down a little earlier than I otherwise would in anticipation of hearing him develop his thoughts at rather ampler length. I think that the whole House will look forward to that.
Lord Martin of Springburn
I agree with the noble Lord, but if a Member of a devolved Parliament was paid to deal with health, prisons and social work, while the noble Lord quite rightly would not turn a person away he would find a way of notifying his constituent that the democratic process meant that some matters were devolved to another elected Member. That is the point I wanted to make.
As a trade union officer I noted that no two officers worked in the same way, and it is the same with Members of Parliament. What I am trying to say is that there are ridiculous practices and that I have highlighted one of them. There is no point in honourable Members saying that they are overburdened when they create rods for their own backs.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have to say to my noble friend that I am slightly disturbed by his comments about petitions. If I remember rightly, my noble friend’s constituency was an inner city seat in Glasgow, but what if he had been in a seat in rural Scotland and the village school was about to close and 500 constituents wrote to him about that closure? It would be a highly contested issue in that part of the constituency. Does my noble friend not feel that perhaps in those circumstances each of the 500 petitioners should receive a communication from their Member of Parliament? It makes them feel that they are participating in the debate and that their Member of Parliament is actually responding and not just taking them for granted.
Lord Martin of Springburn
All I can say to my noble friend, as he has called me, is that if three of the names on the petition were from the same household and they were sent three individual letters, something would be wrong. I say as well that something would be wrong if £13,000-worth of envelopes were being used. The point I wanted to make was that something was wrong with that.
Let me make another point about pressure. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will remember, he was our Chief Whip between 1979 and 1981. I was sad to see him leave the House. He kept us until 10 o’clock on a Thursday night in the Commons. I know that to be the case because a whole load of us went up to Glasgow on the sleeper train. For years now, unless it has changed since the last election, debates on a Thursday are non-voting. That begs the question: is every Member of Parliament right there in the House of Commons, to which they were elected, on a Thursday, or are they elsewhere? I would hazard a guess that they are elsewhere. I am not criticising them because that is their business, but the case has been put that there are more pressures on this generation of Members of Parliament than there were on the old.
There was a fairly hefty pressure on Members of Parliament, if they were lucky, to leave on a Thursday. The Minister could not even take the sleeper train because of the distance to his constituency. He would not have been able to get back by the Friday. I was lucky enough to get to mine by the following morning. Also, constituency engagements were such that it was not pleasant to travel overnight. You would have surgeries and meetings with various organisations.
There are other amendments that I can comfortably support, and I know that this is a probing amendment, but there is no point in us being here if we do not express our views. I do not see that we need great academic bodies to do a study on whether we should have a reduction of 10 per cent.
Lord Baker of Dorking
My Lords, I am goaded to intervene in this debate because the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that no one had spoken from this side of the Committee today, or that very few had done so apart from my noble friend Lord Maples. I made it clear at Second Reading that I support this Bill largely because of Part 2. I have not been in the Chamber, but I have heard every speech made during this debate because I have been watching it on my computer. I have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey, Lord Anderson and Lord Graham, who are not in their places, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who is in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in the flesh. I can recommend to colleagues that watching the debate on one’s computer is a very good way of keeping up with the debate. I find that each speaker has a good first five minutes. There is no question about that; they put their arguments succinctly. But after that—I must choose my words carefully—there is what I would say is an elaboration of those first five minutes. Very little new is added, so you can switch to doing other things on your computer and return when the next speaker turns up. That way, you get the general thrust of the debate.
When it comes to a reduction in the size of the House of Commons, I have something approaching an impeccable pedigree in that even when I was a Member of the House, I felt that it was too large. In the 1990s, I made speeches and wrote articles about it, but they, like most of my speeches and articles, have disappeared into the mists of history. Some Members may recall that three years ago I introduced a Bill in this House that sought to reduce the number in the House of Commons by 10 per cent, which would have meant a reduction of 65 Members, not the 50 Members we are considering today. It went through this House with great ease. It got to the other place and was debated, but of course private Bills from Peers die in the House of Commons after a debate.
During the debate, people asked why there should be a reduction of 10 per cent. Here the noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked why there should be 500 rather than 65 and so forth. When I introduced my Bill, some Members of this House said that a 10 per cent reduction was not enough and that they want to see a 20 per cent reduction, which would have involved 130 MPs.
I believe that one of the reasons the House of Commons became too large was this. When I was first elected back in 1960, the Commons then comprised 623 or 624 Members. It then grew exponentially for only one reason: the Speaker’s Conference of 1917. The conference was held to discuss a reduction in the size of the House to 500. Unfortunately, I should say to the former Speaker that his predecessor at that time was not as particular as he could have been. No minutes were taken of the Speaker’s Conference so no one knows what actually occurred. The only thing that did emerge was that as society developed and the population expanded, it was thought to move to an average of about 70,000 constituents per seat. That was why, in my time, the number of seats grew from 623 to just over 650. So I believe that we are over-represented in the House of Commons.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about the need to reduce the number of constituencies, I suggest that he would have had a very different experience in his constituency of Mole Valley compared with that of a Member of Parliament with an inner city seat, like my noble friend Lord Martin of Springburn. The intense nature of representation of an inner seat is very different indeed from what the noble Lord would have experienced in Mole Valley. I am sure he served his constituents very well, but he should remember that when he is thinking of cutting seats.
Lord Baker of Dorking
I wish that the noble Lord had considered my political career with more care. If he had, he would have known that I represented two inner city London seats, both of which were quite small. I represented Acton, which was very much a working class seat, and St Marylebone, which was not. Both constituencies were quite small, with populations of around 40,000. I then went to Mole Valley which at one time had over 75,000 constituents. I have therefore had experience of representing both an inner city seat with considerable problems, which was the case in Acton, and a large county seat in Surrey.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made the point that MPs are now much more stretched than they were in the past. Both the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I were Members of the House of Commons in the late 1960s, as I believe was my noble friend Lord Howell. We had no secretarial assistance, no research assistance, no desk and no telephone. We had to sit on the green Benches in the galleries opposite to conduct our affairs, and the only free telephone call we had was to our town clerk. We were also given 800 free sheets of parliamentary paper. After that we had to buy them, as we had to pay for all our post.
I ask noble Lords on the Labour Benches to wait. Let me develop this agony column for a while before I am interrupted. I do not believe that, in those days, Members acted in any way less significantly to their constituents. The noble Lord is nodding—of course they did not. Indeed, when I had a larger constituency—Mole Valley, about which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, reminded me—I had more than 75,000. I did not have a research assistant and I had only a part-time secretary. Were my constituents disappointed in what I gave them? Not at all; at every election, they returned me with a larger majority.
Lord Tyler
No, they could have done so if they had wanted to. In the Third Reading debate there was one mention of the reduction from 650 Members to 600. They did not see this as a big issue. The spokesman from the Labour Party’s Front Bench did not mention the issue. Why is it that your Lordships are more conscious of the strain and stress on current MPs than are MPs themselves? I am mystified by this. The only possible rational explanation is, as was pointed out earlier, that this House is enjoying itself and extending debates quite unnecessarily. With that, I am sitting down and finishing.
Lord Soley
My noble friend puts his finger on a critically important point, which I want to cover, along with other related issues, in Amendment 59.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Before my noble friend sits down, will he comment on the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who said that there had been no debate on the figure 600 at Third Reading in the House of Commons? I have with me Hansard from 20 October 2010. It shows that the debate started at 5.29 pm—
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am intervening on my noble friend; I was asking him to comment on this matter. The debate started at 5.29 pm and ended at 9 pm. That was under a guillotined proceeding on the Bill.
Lord Soley
I do not have detailed knowledge of that matter, but I know that my noble friend pays great attention to these things. I also know, not least from letters that I and, I think, others have seen, that Conservative MPs complained that insufficient time had been allowed to discuss issues relating to the size of constituencies. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I just hope that I know enough about this issue to be able to give him an answer.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend makes a good point. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he honed his skills when answering every petition when he had a majority of about 400, although he said that he also did so when he had a majority of 18,000. That just shows that there are different approaches. I do not think that anyone has the answer for what is absolutely right and what is wrong, but a scientific inquiry would not find an answer either—other than possibly 650 different answers.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, if the issue is that in safer seats the whole process of representation is conducted in a different way, surely there should be an evaluation as to what extent there would be considerably more safer seats arising out of a reduction to 600. If it could be shown that there would be more safer seats, that may be a very strong argument against the change.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Even given a very short time to think about that point, I think that that is something of a non sequitur. There may be other ways in which we want to debate having safer seats.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked how the gender balance would be affected by the proposals. The equality impact assessment attached in an annexe to the Bill suggests that the effect would be neutral, but it is fair to say for the record—she asked about the commitments of the respective parties to diversity—that the Liberal Democrats have instituted a campaign for gender balance to provide encouragement and support, through a range of training, for women who are standing or considering standing for Parliament. The Conservative Party has a five-point positive action plan based on clear principles to guarantee that more women and ethnic minorities are selected for winnable seats. More pertinently, I recall from debating the Equality Bill in this Chamber before the election—now the Equality Act—that there are now specific duties on political parties.
Someone asked about the timing of the measure and suggested that it was not so urgent. However, if the Boundary Commission is to get on with its work of making proposals and recommendations in a report by 1 October by 2013 so that the 2015 general election can be fought on boundaries using an updated constituency electoral register, clearly there is a timing issue here as well.
I conclude with the words of my noble friend Lord Baker that these proposals to reduce the number of MPs to 600 would not impair the workings of democracy in the United Kingdom by having a smaller House of Commons. I commend that view to your Lordships' House and, on that basis, ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.