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

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I recognise the strength of feeling with which my noble friend Lord Tyler moved his amendment; indeed, it is one to which he has spoken in the past, and one which he, I and—at some stage—my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire have discussed. We debated this issue last week when the Government tabled, and the House accepted, amendments which raised the third-party registration thresholds to £20,000 for England and £10,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

An amendment providing for a new “third” registration threshold of £9,750 was also tabled and accepted. If that was not made clear, I apologise. The point has been picked up by the Electoral Commission. Perhaps I may give some clarity. This third threshold has been introduced to provide alignment with the constituency limits. It ensures that a third party, whether or not it is already registered with the Electoral Commission, will have committed an offence if it spends more than £9,750 in a constituency. In other words, if a third party is already registered, it will be subject to the constituency limit, exceeding which will be an offence. If it is not registered and exceeds the constituency registration threshold, it will also have committed an offence.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that this third registration threshold has not been introduced with the same purpose in mind as that which applies to the other registration thresholds. It has not been introduced to bring third parties into the regulatory regime. Instead, its principal purpose is to ensure that the offence of exceeding the constituency limit operates as intended. For this reason, the Government do not believe that there is a need for a registration threshold lower than the constituency limit.

I hear what my noble friend says about the need for clarity, and I hope that these words have brought greater clarity. I can also tell your Lordships that the Electoral Commission will make very clear in its guidance the operation of the various registration thresholds so that campaigners are left in no doubt about their responsibilities. I hope that the fears which my noble friend expressed on Report, that it would not be possible to keep account of what a third party was spending in a constituency, are resolved by this.

Moreover, the Government have spent a significant amount of time listening to the concerns of campaigners. Perhaps I should address my noble friend’s suggestion of a £5,000 limit. He said that £9,750 is a significant amount. We took seriously the representations made by campaigners, organisations, the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and other Members of your Lordships’ House. One of the largest criticisms the Bill received, which was made abundantly clear to us, related to the registration thresholds. They were originally set at £5,000 and £2,000 in the Bill but the Government tabled an amendment last week to raise these to £20,000 and £10,000. This major concession was made with the intention of reassuring campaigners that the Bill would not seek to promote the principle of transparency by imposing onerous and unnecessary burdens on third parties. It was a direct response to the debates in and outside this House and I thank again all those who contributed to them. The increased thresholds mean that small campaigners need not worry that they will be unduly burdened by the Bill’s reporting requirements. The thresholds have been set at a level such that those campaigners who spend only small amounts of money will effectively be excluded from the regime.

I totally accept that this is a judgment call. I hear what my noble friend says about spending up to £9,750 but I also think it was my noble friend himself who made the point in our first Committee sitting that greater transparency goes hand in hand with a greater administrative burden and regulation. We have sought to try to strike the right balance. With regard to constituency spending, we believed that the lower threshold of £5,000 could risk capturing exactly those small local campaigners who have been so clear regarding their concerns about the impact that the Bill would have on them. It was not our intention to do so, and we certainly do not want to unpick some of the important work—

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made clear in his contribution that the Electoral Commission was concerned about the lack of clarity. The noble and learned Lord is not answering that point. Is the commission simply to be ignored?

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

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that she is not the sole spectre at the feast. Indeed, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, indicated when he moved the amendment, he does not expect the Front Benches to fall into line with him. We had this debate four weeks ago. Admittedly, there are differences in this amendment—but, frankly, in the intervening four weeks the Government’s position has not changed.

That is not to say that raising these issues is not without merit. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, it may serve to stir up the leaderships of all three parties. I endorse what was said by my noble friends Lord Tyler, Lord Cormack and Lord Hodgson, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about politics being a noble calling. We in your Lordships’ House like to think that we make a contribution. We may disagree with each other—sometimes quite strongly—but we recognise, across the House, that we have good motives for coming into politics. Although we operate, vote and make speeches by different lights, we nevertheless have the common good of the nation at heart.

However, the proposal we are dealing with this evening is not necessarily the one and only way to restore the nobility of the political calling. The rules on party financing have been the cause of much discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, gave us a very good historic perspective when she mentioned the Houghton committee. This has gone on for some time. Most notably, this Government led talks on the subject between the three main political parties during 2012 and 2013. In 2010, each of the three parties had a manifesto commitment of one kind or another to some reform of party financing.

It is a complex issue. I noted the four points that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said had been given as excuses. I checked the speech I made in Committee, and we advanced none of the four then. In particular, I made it very clear that talks were no longer continuing, and I quoted from the Written Ministerial Statement issued by the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 July 2013 when he announced that the talks had not produced results—I think they met seven times—and that it was clear that the reforms would not now go forward in this Parliament.

The noble Lord’s point was that some people were arguing that talks were still going on. I did not seek to do that, but it is a legitimate expectation that all parties will seek to find a way forward on this complex issue in the next Parliament. I was not party to these talks but I am told that they were close. The Government want party funding reform but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, it should come as part of a package and by consensus. Some have asked for donations to be treated in the same way as charitable giving, and I can understand the relevance of that comparison from a tax point of view. However, I am not sure that the public necessarily see donations to charities—many of which we have been discussing in the course of our debates on the Bill—in the same light as giving support to political parties through the tax system.

I suspect that many noble Lords support state funding of political parties. As has already been mentioned, we have Short money, Cranborne money and the money that goes to the Royal Mail. However, this would be a significant step. Short funding is probably not mentioned on doorsteps. However, although I was probably still a student when it first came in, I remember that it was a major step which attracted quite a lot of discussion. It would be naive to think that a step as significant as the Exchequer funding political parties in this way through the tax system would not be devoid of any comment, which is why I think all parties have sought to go forward together by way of consensus.

As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, I do not believe that this is the appropriate Bill for dealing with this issue, but it is the Government’s hope that further discussions will take place in the next Parliament. My noble friend Lord Hamilton said that he wanted more done after the next election. I would echo that. Anyone from all party leaderships who reads our debates and follows this will realise that there is an appetite among Members of all parties that this matter should not be allowed just to gather dust in the next Parliament. But I do not believe that it is appropriate to act in the context of this Bill or at this time and without a bigger package that commands a consensus among all the parties. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. If he seeks to push it to a vote, as he has indicated, the Government will not support his amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I shall push my amendment to the vote. I thank all those who contributed in a most passionate way to the issues that we have raised in this debate. In the 1997 to 2001 Parliament, we were told that the matter would be resolved during the next Parliament and it was not. In that Parliament we were told that it would be dealt with in the next Parliament. Hayden Phillips came in the next Parliament and it was not resolved. We were told that it would be resolved in this Parliament. Again, there have been talks but it has not been resolved. We will go through Parliament after Parliament after Parliament ducking this issue. That is why it is important that we take a decision now. Some of us are becoming exasperated by the ducking and weaving.

For me, one of the great joys of coming to the House of Lords from the Commons is that I have always regarded ours as the House of free thinkers. In the Commons, you are held in a rigid, party, heavily whipped atmosphere where there is very little room for the kind of flexibility that we can exhibit as Members of this place. Because of the rigidity of debate in the other place, I believe that party reform ultimately will come through this House and not from the House of Commons. That is why tonight I am going to push my amendment to a vote. As I have said, I believe that this is the House which at the end of the day will make the reforms. I do not know, but it might well be that I will be defeated this evening—although I suspect some people will be surprised by the names of those who move into our Lobby.

As has been said, it is never the right Bill, the right time or the right moment to spend money, but this is the right time to take a decision. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

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

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 13th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is fair enough to say that, but it is not what the House is being asked to vote on today. It is being asked to vote on something which is devoid of any definition.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If the professionals have designed a system which includes them, why can that not be in the consequential amendments? Why do the Government not come back at Third Reading to include those provisions?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Because, my Lords, there have as I understand it been many attempts made to pin down and define what is meant by “professional lobbyists”, none of which has met with approval or the kind of certainty we want in previous debates. Perhaps we can answer two of the points of the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness. Simply to introduce ambiguity to a prohibition provision that is accompanied by serious criminal sanctions is unacceptable. That lack of clarity leaves the amendment fatally flawed.

As the Government have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, our proposals for a register are designed to address the specific problem that we have identified. One of the things that gave rise to complaints in the media was that when consultant lobbyists were lobbying, people did not know who their clients were. That is the issue which the Bill addresses. It is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. The context is that this Government have for the first time made it clear to the public exactly who Ministers and Permanent Secretaries are meeting. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report on the Government’s initial proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists made clear that identifying the problem that the register is intended to address is critical if successful regulation is to be achieved.

While we acknowledge that there are those who consider the focus of the proposed register too narrow—I am aware that these criticisms have been made—we have yet to see a clear articulation of the problem that would be addressed by expanding the scope to all so-called professional lobbyists. The point has been made about in-house lobbyists. It is quite clear whose interests are represented by an in-house professional lobbyist: it is the person who employs him or her. If you are an in-house lobbyist for the Scotch Whisky Association—I am not sure if that association has in-house lobbyists, but let us assume that it does—it does not take a genius to work out that if you are lobbying a Minister or Permanent Secretary, those are the interests that you would be representing. If you are an in-house lobbyist for one of the utilities and you meet a Minister or Permanent Secretary, it does not take a huge leap of the imagination to guess that you are representing the interests of the organisation which employs you. I cannot honestly see what is added by creating a list of people and their employers. If I have missed the point, I am more than happy to have it explained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am very grateful to my noble friend and I recognise his long-standing interest in this, not just in terms of the Bill. I hope that I will directly address the points he has raised in responding to points made by my noble friend Lord Norton.

My noble friend’s amendment would revise the title of the Bill so that it referred to the registration of consultant lobbyists rather than the transparency of lobbying. His amendment appears intended to suggest that the provisions outlined in Part 1 of the Bill will not enhance the transparency of lobbying. He will not be surprised to learn that I respectfully disagree. This Government have done more than any before to enhance the transparency of government and decision-making, and these provisions will extend that transparency. We are the first Government to proactively and regularly publish details about Ministers’ and Permanent Secretaries’ meetings with external organisations, and we do so alongside a huge amount of open data regarding departmental spending and procurement. We are recognised as international leaders in open government and we continue to introduce initiatives to further extend transparency in government and the public sector.

We listened carefully to the concerns expressed during the Committee stage debate. In response to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Tyler, I am pleased that I can today commit to noble Lords that we will make further improvements to the accessibility of government transparency information. We will ensure greater co-ordination of the publication of data sets so that all returns within a quarter can be found on one page. I hear the criticism that he makes, and we ought to get better at the speediness with which we make this information available, but we will improve the access to and presentation of those data, including by improving the consistency of presentation and titling. We will also ensure greater consistency in the content of departmental reporting, particularly on including the subject of meetings. Finally, we will ensure that the gov.uk transparency pages contain a link to the statutory register of lobbyists so that the data can be easily cross-referenced.

The practical implications of those improvements are that: rather than having to visit a number of different sites or pages, all information will be accessed via one easily located page of gov.uk; the consistency of those data will be improved so that the transparency reports can be more easily located via search functions; and the subject of the meetings will be set out more helpfully—for example, rather than describing them as “introductory” or “catch-up” meetings, the detail of the meeting discussion will be outlined. Therefore, if, for example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was meeting someone, the subject would include not just energy policy but things such as fracking.

I hope that these practical proposals to which the Government are committing themselves will improve the transparency of decision-making further than we have already achieved, and that the Part 1 provisions will complement and enhance them. I dare say that they will do more to improve transparency than just having a long list of employees of a consultant firm. Obviously, if an employee—the noble Baroness mentioned Bell Pottinger, so for the sake of consistency let us say that this was an employee of that firm—had a meeting, the record would list not just “Joe Bloggs” but “Joe Bloggs of Bell Pottinger” and the subject of the discussion. As a result of the Bill, the list of Bell Pottinger’s clients would also be made available. I therefore believe that what we propose today does far more to improve transparency than simply making available a list of employees, and it reflects suggestions made by a number of colleagues who have made representations.

Although this does not relate directly to the actual register or to the Government’s scheme, I can also indicate that in our response to debates in Committee and to concerns that have been raised by Members of your Lordships’ House—I do not believe that this has been raised on any of the amendments now before us—we are committing ourselves to subjecting the appointment of the registrar to the scrutiny of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place. By doing so, we are reiterating our commitment to the independence of the registrar.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If I put a scenario to the Minister, perhaps he will be able to give me the answer. If an in-house lobbyist from, let us say, IGas, the shale gas production company, were to meet a junior Minister or a civil servant in the department, by what means would a member of the public or a journalist know about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord is making about the requirement to register if you are making communications with these people. It may be that that would bring more names on to the register—I simply do not know—but to enhance transparency, the complement to such an extension would be the introduction of meeting reporting obligations on these public officials. Otherwise you have a list of names of consultant lobbyists and their clients but there is nothing there to which you can then relate them. It becomes fully meaningful only if you have that complementary extension of the scheme. On the amendment, I sought to make the point that that would be a huge burden and one that would not be consistent with efficiency in government; nor indeed would it be proportionate to improving transparency.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister has not responded to the very narrow point that was made by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. She asked a very simple question: why should a Minister, in his or her registration, not register the activity of that Minister’s individual political adviser? That political adviser is working on behalf of that Minister. No doubt the noble Lord, as a Minister, has political advisers of his own. In the event that they meet lobbyists from outside, they are meeting them on his behalf. Why should not he, in his registration, refer to those meetings?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, until I became Deputy Leader of your Lordships’ House I did not have a special adviser. I now have one but I am not sure that she has met anyone, although she has said that if she could get a diary secretary it might be a bonus. We take the view, as I indicated earlier, that it is the Ministers who are making the decisions. On that basis, we believe that it is communications with Ministers—and not just meetings, as the noble and learned Lord said—that are pertinent. We believe that these proposals are appropriate and proportionate. I therefore urge the noble and learned Lord—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I will also speak to Amendments 15, 16 and 22. As the Government have made clear throughout the debates on this part of the Bill, the statutory register of consultant lobbyists is designed to address a specific problem—that it is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists. Our objective is to ensure increased transparency without disrupting in any way the fluency of the dialogue between government decision-makers and those who will be affected by policy and legislative decisions.

It is not, nor has it been, the Government’s intention to attempt to regulate comprehensively all those who communicate with government, and the register will not, therefore, be associated with a statutory code of conduct. Instead, the Government are committed to ensuring that the statutory register complements the existing self-regulatory regime by which the industry promotes the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry.

We have been very grateful to those Members of your Lordships’ House for their thoughtful suggestions as to how this might best be achieved. After careful consideration of the debates both in this House and in the other place, and discussion with the industry and transparency groups, we have concluded that the most effective option is to provide for a statutory link between the statutory register and the industry-hosted voluntary codes of conduct. As such, Amendments 12, 15 and 16 will require consultant lobbyists to state in their register entries whether or not they subscribe to a publicly available code of conduct in relation to their lobbying activity and, if so, where a copy of the code can be accessed. Such a provision will enhance both the transparency and the scrutiny of registered lobbyists, and the Government hope that the measure will therefore be welcomed.

Additionally, the Government have tabled an amendment to clarify that the registrar can both revise and replace the guidance that he or she has published. I appreciate that this group also includes amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, and I will perhaps respond to these after she has moved them.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

What are the circumstances in which a lobbying firm would not wish to sign up to the code of conduct?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure that this should be addressed to me as opposed to the lobbying firms, since it is sincerely hoped that they would sign up to a code of conduct. What we seek through these amendments is for them to indicate that they have signed up to a code of conduct and for there also to be a link as to where that code of conduct can be found.

Amendment 13 (to Amendment 12)

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hardie]

Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. In the debate about the first amendment today, I referred to how the PRCA requires people who sign up to the voluntary register to sign up to the code of conduct, which has strong enforcement of regulations or provisions. My point earlier was that if that disappears and there is to be a statutory register in place, it would be appropriate that we have something which is at least as good, not something that detracts from the current position.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I appreciate the welcome given to the government amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Tyler. As I indicated, we listened carefully to the debate in Committee. We have responded by tabling these amendments, which will require consultant lobbyists to state in their register entries whether they subscribe to a publicly available code of conduct in relation to their lobbying activity and, if so, where a copy of the code can be accessed.

The Opposition’s amendments, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would require that lobbyists declare on their register entry which publicly available code of conduct they subscribe to, implicitly requiring such a subscription in order to register. The Government are not persuaded that the amendment is appropriate. Moreover, there is no provision that would require compliance with such codes or provide for enforcement.

The objective of the Part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency and scrutiny. We are not seeking to regulate behaviour. The noble Baroness mentioned the exchanges she had in Committee with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire about lobbyists who breach the Bribery Act. Of course, breaches of the Bribery Act are punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years’ imprisonment, or both. The Government do not consider it appropriate for a Bill to contain separate sanctions in addition to those already included in the Bribery Act, which are clearly very substantial indeed. It is quite proper that the Bribery Act includes serious and proportionate sanctions but it would not be appropriate for the transparency Bill to duplicate those sanctions. The Government considered the option of including a penalty whereby a person could be removed from the register but concluded that imposing a limitless prohibition on someone conducting their profession was too extreme a penalty.

Requiring lobbyists to declare whether they subscribe to a code will expose those who do not abide by the ethical principles that are so essential to the integrity of the industry. It is not the Government’s intention, however, to introduce a high-regulation regime whereby the registrar is responsible for monitoring and enforcing subscription to, and compliance with, codes of conduct. The Opposition also suggest that the registrar should be responsible for publishing a code of conduct. As my noble friend indicated, that is premature. The Government’s amendments are intended to complement the existing self-regulatory regime, not to replace or undermine it.

To pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we do not anticipate that lobbying associations such as the PRCA, CIPR and APPC will withdraw their codes. Indeed, the industry has welcomed the link between its codes and the proposed register, which it recognises will enhance the existing self-regulatory regime. That was the feedback we got during the consultation. I heard the noble Lord’s inquiry but I am not aware that any explanation or example was given of circumstances in which a firm would not register. Rather, the industry anticipates that it will continue with its codes and that the proposed register—and the government amendment—will enhance the existing self-regulatory regime.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Would Ministers be happy to meet a lobbying company that did not subscribe to the ethical standards that have been set down, either by the association or any code that the Government might wish to introduce at some stage in the future? Indeed, are there circumstances in which Ministers would refuse to meet them?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord can reasonably expect a blanket application. There may be reasons—I do not know what they might be—that are not malign as to why a particular group has not signed up. We already know that a majority of lobbying firms sign up to and adhere to the respective codes of conduct, but we believe that making it a statutory requirement would lead to unnecessary pressure and that what we are proposing has struck the right balance.

I have a lot of sympathy for the point the noble Lord is making but it would not be appropriate to make a sweeping general obligation on all future Ministers when you cannot foresee particular circumstances that would occur at any time or place. I believe we have struck the right balance. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments and I urge the noble Baroness not to press the amendment in her name.

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

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To illustrate the point, I was making a distinction between a monthly contribution and an annual contribution.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that.

It will not come as any surprise that the Government do not feel able to support the amendment. There have been discussions among the three main parties, which have been guided by the principle of consensus. There has been not total consensus but substantial consensus in your Lordships’ House this evening—a consensus that was not found in the discussions that have taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that there had been seven such discussions. In a Written Ministerial Statement on 4 July, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the talks had not produced results and that it was,

“clear that reforms cannot go forward in this Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons; 4/7/13; col. 62WS.]

From what has been said, it has been a source of considerable disappointment that agreement could not be reached. I do not necessarily think that the Bill is the best place in which to start to do these things without that wider consensus as to what other things might be needed. However, it is important that we have had this debate, which has shown that there can be consensus across the parties.

I therefore say to my noble friend Lord Cormack that, while I am sympathetic, I regret that I cannot be encouraging. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to withdraw his amendment.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 5th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I start by echoing what many of your Lordships have said, by thanking my noble friend Lord Forsyth for securing this debate and introducing it—and, indeed, for the animated and spirited way in which he made his case. He covered, in a very short time, most of the salient points that were made in the debate. I acknowledge that he was not alone in asking for a much longer debate; indeed, I think most other contributors to the debate said the same. I have noted that request, and will ensure that it is conveyed back to the business managers. Even I am constrained in replying to all the points that have been made in this debate, and would perhaps like longer to do so. That is an important point.

Numerous noble Lords have asked for a Joint Committee. Clearly, that is a matter that could be established only with agreement across both Houses. As ever, I shall ensure that the usual channels consider the request. It is also important to put it on record that committees and their members in both Houses are already undertaking much work on the implications of independence in a whole range of different areas; they are making the case for the union and exposing the gaps in the case for independence. I pay tribute to the work done by a number of Select Committees, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

The Minister says that this will be a matter for the usual channels, but could not Ministers in this House approach the Leader of the House of Commons and ask him whether it is possible to take such an initiative forward?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thought that the Leader of the House of Commons was part of the usual channels. This would have to be done with the collaboration of both Houses, but I am saying that we will reflect on the matter. I cannot go further in making any commitment today, other than what I have already said.

My noble friend chose a debate specifically on the date, because I think he had to put his application into a ballot before the White Paper had been published. It may be worth reflecting on the fact that the date may be about the only thing in the White Paper that had not previously been in the public domain—and even that was leaked about two days before publication. We had already been told that the date would be in March 2016, so I suspect the only new information was the specific date of 24 March, which I think is the anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth I, and therefore of the union of the Crowns. Indeed, as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose reminded us when he talked about the Earl of Seafield and the end of the auld sang, it is also the date on which the previous Scottish Parliament last sat. However, I rather suspect that that was an ex post facto justification that some people gave for that date, rather than stating the reason that, as my noble friend pointed out, it will be the start of the 2016 Scottish election campaign.

I take the point that even if Scotland were—heaven forbid—to vote yes, actually naming your cut-off point does not seem the best way to go about negotiations. One of the things that has been evident from this debate, if not necessarily from the White Paper, is that a considerable amount of negotiation will have to take place. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

Sometimes we have heard people in the Scottish Government compare this White Paper to the 1997 White Paper produced by the Labour Government, which paved the way to the referendum on devolution. However, there is a world of difference between a White Paper produced by a Government, which reflected a constitutional convention that had met in public over many years and had achieved a consensus, and a White Paper that is the product of a single party behind closed doors, and is dependent not just on the Government of the rest of the United Kingdom, but on other member states of the European Union, members of NATO and numerous other countries. It is important to make the point that this White Paper has no guarantee of delivery. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, strong on assertion but perhaps not so strong on argument.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about the fact that it is sometimes said by some Scottish National Party people that there would be two new countries, and the rest of the United Kingdom would have to negotiate lots of other treaties. However, the first Scotland analysis paper, which the Government produced in February, examined the constitutional position. We did so on the basis of advice from Professor James Crawford of Cambridge University and Professor Boyle of Edinburgh University—two outstanding experts in the field. Their analysis—one which represents the view of the United Kingdom Government—is that the rest of the United Kingdom would be a continuing state, with all the rights and responsibilities such as permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations and membership of the European Union on the terms that have been negotiated, and Scotland would be a new state.

It sometimes seems rather odd to me that a party that aspires to independence finds it awkward to admit that it wants to be a new state. I thought that was the whole purpose. Scotland would be a new state, and it would have to enter into a whole series of different negotiations, including seeking membership of NATO and the European Union. If I may pick up another point, it was certainly rather a novel approach—perhaps this is one of the other things in the White Paper that we had not quite anticipated—to refer to Article 48 of the TFEU. The view of the United Kingdom Government—again, this was set out in the first paper of the Scotland analysis series—is that Article 49 would represent the appropriate way forward. We can have a debate as to whether Scotland would have to come out to go back in, or whether there would be a possibility, following a yes vote, of negotiations taking place during that period. However, the important point, which was reflected in the speeches by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is that there would have to be negotiations—and we cannot predict with any certainty what would be in those negotiations. The only thing that is certain is the uncertainty.

Arguments have been made about Schengen, about membership of the euro and about the rebate. Approaching this from the perspective of Croatia or Bulgaria, we would be talking about giving a rebate to a country that the First Minister has said would be the eighth wealthiest in the world. I also think that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the Scottish Government as to the nature of the rebate. They have said, “As the budget has been set for the European Union for 2014-20, we will decide between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom how the rebate is split up”. I know that there are people in this House who are much more knowledgeable about this matter than me but my understanding is that it is not a constant, annual lump sum that can be divvied up or shared; it is a function of the United Kingdom’s respective shares in the EU economy and receipts. Any change in the size of the United Kingdom, for example as a result of independence, would automatically be reflected in the rebate calculation. Therefore, there would not be a Scottish share of the UK rebate to be handed over. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the Scottish Government in their White Paper as to what they are talking about.

As regards currency, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it is highly unlikely that there would be a currency union. That was reflected by other former Chancellors, including Alistair Darling, and the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. I think it also has been said by the Shadow Chancellor. Therefore, while we get an answer to whether Scotland could take part in the Eurovision Song Contest, we do not get an answer as to what the currency position would be if a monetary union was not agreed with the rest of the United Kingdom. Because questions such as that are ducked, the Scottish people will not be given, as a result of this White Paper or from the Scottish Government, the proper information with which they can make up their minds—our minds—when voting on 18 September next year.

My noble friend Lord Selkirk talked about defence and the primary importance of the security of the realm. We believe that the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom benefits from a full range of UK defence capabilities and activities. Scotland has greater security and influence with the United Kingdom’s geopolitical influence, which few states of similar size to Scotland can match. In addition, there is the important defence industry in Scotland. On the idea of joint procurement, as far as I am aware, since the Second World War, no complex naval vessels have been built outside the United Kingdom. If the rest of the United Kingdom should start building these vessels outside the UK, that could not automatically go to Scotland. There would have to be open competition, even in these circumstances. My noble friend is absolutely right to stress the defence implications of independence, but there are defence benefits from Scotland being part of the United Kingdom.

The 2015 election was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. In answer to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, last Thursday, I had a question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth on what would happen after the vote on independence in September 2014 and whether Scottish MPs would have to leave at that point. I think that that is when I said that they would not need to do so. Obviously, it would be a matter for Parliament to address what would happen in 2016, although I cannot honestly see how people could represent constituencies or a country that no longer belongs to the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not see how that could happen, or how Parliament would deal with that or with the intervening period between the elections in 2015 and 2016. Should that ever happen, I think it would be a matter for both Houses.

I certainly picked up the point made by my noble friend about the idea that we should somehow postpone the United Kingdom general election. Given that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was on the statute book before the date of the referendum was announced, the Scottish Government had full notice of it. I find it somewhat preposterous that for some reason people in the rest of the United Kingdom should be denied their democratic opportunity to select their Members of Parliament to facilitate a negotiation.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I should have thought that that operation in Libya was a typical example of something that was finite and coded but which, as we know, was referred to the committee prior to the operation being completed. One wonders whether that operation would have fallen foul of what is in the Bill as it stands. I have no doubt that the Minister has in his brief, in very large red letters, “resist at all costs”—perhaps more than many of the other amendments that we have considered today. I would imagine that the services are particularly worried about this area. However, I would say to them that they must go away and reconsider this issue.

This is classic House of Commons debating material. I should have thought that the House of Commons will latch on to this wording and really drive it in Committee very hard. The Government should get a better line in dealing with these matters than we have heard hitherto.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Campbell-Savours, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for introducing these amendments, three of which concern the ISC’s ability to oversee operational matters and the fourth concerns the relationship between the ISC and Select Committees. It is worth reminding ourselves that one of the purposes of the Bill is to extend the ISC’s statutory remit. It makes clear its ability to oversee the operational work of the security and intelligence agencies and of other parts of the Government’s intelligence machinery.

With this formalisation, we certainly expect that the ISC will provide such an oversight on a more regular basis. The provisions of the Bill allow the ISC to consider,

“any particular operational matter but”—

as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, quite properly indicated by quoting from the Bill—

“only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that … the matter … is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation, and … is of significant national interest”.

The starting point is that the ISC’s oversight in this area ought to be retrospective and, so as not to cut across the role of Ministers, should not involve, for instance, prior knowledge of approval of agency activity. It is important that when there is an ongoing operation, or indeed a future operation, the responsibility for national security lies with Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made it clear that the ISC is not seeking to intervene in that and accepts that the primary and principal responsibility lies with Ministers.

The ISC’s consideration of an operational matter must also,

“be consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding”.

The first amendment would have the effect of leaving it solely to the judgment of the ISC to decide when the criteria for considering a particular operational matter are met. It is our intention that the memorandum of understanding will set out the factors that should be taken into account in assessing whether a particular operation is still ongoing or is of significant national interest. None the less, while fully accepting that the committee does not have ambition or aspiration to extend beyond what is said, I am sure that even reasonable people could come to a different view about whether those particular criteria are met or not in a particular instance.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that the judgment as to whether an operational matter meets the criteria is one that should properly be for both the ISC and the Government and not just for one or the other. It is important that the judgment is got right; I do not think that anyone is suggesting in any way whatever that there will be any deliberate attempt to intrude in circumstances where it has not previously been anticipated that the ISC should, but the last thing that anyone wants is for a different judgment to be struck that could lead to impeding the operational effectiveness of the intelligence agencies.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, indicated what was perhaps at the crux of his concern. He mentioned the case of Libya. I understand that there may be a concern that the requirement that both the ISC and the Prime Minister should be satisfied that the criteria are met will slow down responses to more routine requests from the ISC for information about operational matters. The noble Lord used the word “cumbersome”. I assure your Lordships’ House that that is not the Government’s intention, nor do we believe that it will be the effect of the clause. However, I further assure your Lordships that we are looking very closely at this and it may well be that a memorandum of understanding to be agreed by the Government and the ISC is the right vehicle for agreeing a process that will allow the information that the noble Lord indicated to be provided to the committee, and in an appropriately prompt manner. Alternatively, it may be that there are other approaches that might make the position clearer, and I suspect that as this Bill progresses through Parliament we may return to it. But I indicate that it is a matter to which we will give further consideration. It may be that the memorandum of understanding is a better way to address it—and I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will not press that amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that he would wish to remove one of the key restrictions on the ISC’s new power to oversee agency operations—namely, the requirement that its oversight of operations should be retrospective. There is nothing in red in my briefing, but there is an indication that the amendment should be resisted. We have worked with the current committee to develop the new arrangements, and it is the committee’s view, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made clear in his speech to his amendment, that the committee agrees with the Government that it should not oversee ongoing operations.

There are clear lines of ministerial responsibility for authorising agency operations, and we believe that they could be undermined by the ISC having prior, even contemporaneous, knowledge of particular operations. Secondly, once a particular operation has commenced, it may well be that things move very quickly, and it is essential that the agencies can focus fully on the task on hand. It is better to bring the committee in and have retrospective oversight of a particular operation. Indeed, some operations will be so sensitive, with perhaps highly sensitive sources in play, that the details are kept within a very small, need-to-know circle, even within the agencies. The committee fully understands this; it is part and parcel of the work that it does, and which it recognises that the agencies do on our behalf. Once an operation has concluded, the ISC will then be well placed to carry out its work, which will no doubt include making strategic and policy recommendations, and giving views on any lessons learnt. The noble Lord’s concern expressed in Committee, which he has reflected this evening, on how operations might be defined, particularly if there is a long-running set of activities, was whether that could be defined by the Government as a single operation. I certainly understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but that is not an appropriate or proper interpretation of the clause. The nature of operations varies, and this is one of the reasons why we have provided in the Bill detailed consideration as to how the ISC’s operational oversight remit should operate and should be set out in a memorandum of understanding, which the Government will agree with the ISC.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Would it not be better simply to remove the whole section on ongoing operations and deal with the whole thing in the memorandum of understanding?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

No, my Lords. One of our purposes is to ensure that this is put on a statutory basis. That has not been the case hitherto and this is a step forward. I can reassure the noble Lord that it is not the Government’s intention that a long-running operation be outside the scope of the ISC’s oversight for its entire duration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, explained in Committee, a long-running operation could, for instance, be broken down into discrete phases of operational activity, parts of which could be judged to be no longer ongoing and, on that basis, could be subject to the oversight of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I very much hope that on that basis the noble Lord will see fit not to press his amendment.

The third amendment in the group, Amendment 23, would allow the ISC to oversee an operational matter that does not meet the criteria in Clause 2(3) if the relevant Minister of the Crown agrees to the consideration of the matter. It is difficult to see the circumstances in which the provisions of that amendment would need to be used, although I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said. His concern was that there may be a circumstance whereby both the Government and the committee agreed that it was proper that there should be an investigation, but that it would be statutorily barred from that. The concern is that that amendment is aimed at allowing both to agree on what the ISC could consider. I am sympathetic to the kind of situation that the noble Lord described. The Government are not convinced that there is a need for this amendment, but we appreciate the intention behind it, which is to introduce a degree of flexibility that might prove useful in the future. It is certainly a matter that we would want to keep under review as work continues on drafting the memorandum. We would be willing to look at that again because, as the noble Lord indicated, it would relate to an issue on which there was agreement between the Government and the committee. It is just a question of how we can get that right without opening up to some unintended consequences.

Finally, I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which raises some important points relating to the relationship between the ISC and Select Committees. The first part of that amendment would mean that Select Committees could ask the ISC to consider any request to review any particular issue related to national security. The second part would mean that a Select Committee could request that the ISC transfer information to it that the Select Committee,

“has stated it needs to carry out its function”.

The third part states:

“The terms of any consideration … are to be set out in a memorandum of understanding between the ISC and the Select Committee in question”.

Again, I recognise and appreciate the intentions underlying that amendment—an intention expressed by the noble Baroness to create a stronger link between the ISC and other committees. It certainly would be our intention that the new ISC should be closer to Parliament than its predecessor and that it should be a strong and effective committee. Equally, an important feature is that the ISC operates within a framework that enables its members safely to be party to highly sensitive material and that it can scrutinise matters that are secret and of which the rest of Parliament and the public, for good reason, do not have sight. Of course, at the moment it is open to Select Committees to write to the ISC requesting it to review a particular matter. There is nothing in the new arrangements that will stop that. I am sure that any such requests will be treated seriously by the committee.

However, I have a number of concerns about the idea of creating a formal statutory mechanism for making and considering the requests. First, I am concerned that the ISC could become overwhelmed with requests to report on particular matters. If it acceded to all requests, the programme of work could be overtaken with matters that are of interest to other committees, which would take the focus away from the core work of the ISC. Secondly, there is the question of what the ISC would be able to say in response, given the highly sensitive nature of the agency’s work. Members of the ISC are of course bound by the obligations of the Official Secrets Act. Thirdly, if the ISC regularly refuses to action requests from Select Committees, an inevitable tension could arise between the ISC and those committees. I fear that that might undermine the perceived effectiveness of the new ISC and its closeness to Parliament.

On the requesting of information to help Select Committees with their work, it will be clear that there will be real limitations on what the ISC could provide, given that much of the material that is provided to the ISC is, by necessity, extremely sensitive.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Have civil servants and the Minister considered the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, when he intervened in Committee on these matters? If they have not, why do they not meet him prior to Third Reading so that he can discuss with them his concerns arising from his experience as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I recall having read, in the past 24 hours, a particular phrase from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, refers. I could take the Joint Committee on Human Rights in isolation but numerous other Select Committees could start making requests and the point I am trying to make is that if the ISC started to receive requests—indeed, it is possible at the moment and no doubt the committee considers them—but on a statutory basis, the concern would be that if the committee decided to respond positively to those requests, that would detract from its core function and purpose. Equally, the point I was making was that if it regularly refused action, that could lead to tension and detract from what we are trying to achieve by way of a greater closeness between the new committee and Parliament.

There is also the point that I was making about the information. By its very nature, some of that information will be extremely sensitive and will be classified as secret or top secret, according to the government system of protective markings, but the ISC, in its accommodation, staffing and procedures is set up to handle sensitive information. The ISC secretariat is vetted and its accommodation is secure. However, other committees are not set up to deal with such information, nor are they, we believe, in a proper position to assess the damage that disclosure could cause. If the ISC refuses to provide information, again, that could lead to tensions between committees.

The new ISC will need to consider how it works with Select Committees and with Parliament more broadly, but I am concerned that the provision suggested in this amendment might serve to skew or disrupt the ISC’s work programme and its reputation could be damaged by refusals to take forward work or pass on information. It is important that the ISC can direct its own work programme as far as possible and focus its efforts on issues that it, with its unique perspective, thinks are most important. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I hope that they will reflect on the concerns that have been expressed and feel able to withdraw it.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as my noble friend knows, these issues were canvassed in the course of the consultation. A considerable number of representations were received indicating that this would not be appropriate in the context of inquests and, of course, PII would apply and would be available. The Government listened to those representations and responded to them by not having inquests covered within the ambit and scope of the Bill.

I was explaining the question on that particular case. An allegation was made that people transferred into Afghan custody were and continue to be at real risk of torture or serious mistreatment and that the practice of transfer was therefore unlawful. There was a CMP for part of the proceedings, with the consent of all parties. After examining all the relevant evidence, the judge concluded that transfers into Afghan custody at two sites could continue only provided that a number of additional safeguards were observed, and that a moratorium on transfers to another site should continue until there were clear improvements that would reduce the risks of mistreatment. In his judgment, Lord Justice Richards paid tribute to the way that the case had ultimately been conducted by all concerned and the Secretary of State’s conscientious approach to disclosure.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Before the Minister moves on and following the question asked by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, why were inquests singled out? There must be some explanation.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I have indicated that there was a consultation. There was strong representation that it would not be appropriate to have this kind of procedure in inquests. My main line of defence is that we listened to the consultation and responded to it. I believe that the right judgment was made.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I readily understand the point made by the noble Lord. He is right to point out that, although it would happen once every 20 years, the first time would be in May 2015. It has been recognised that there are issues. That is why, as I shall come to explain, efforts have been made to address the issue with the devolved Scottish Parliament and the devolved National Assembly for Wales.

The Government are committed, as I have indicated, to working co-operatively with all three of the devolved Administrations. We have been consulting the respective party leaders and the Presiding Officers in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I can confirm that my colleague and honourable friend Mr Mark Harper wrote to the Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly on 17 February proposing that if the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly passed a resolution, with the support of at least two-thirds of all Members, agreeing that the 2015 Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly general elections should be moved to another date no earlier than the first Thursday in May 2014 and no later than the first Thursday in May 2016, the Government would then be willing to table an amendment to this Bill that would, if accepted, make this change. Copies of these letters to the respective Presiding Officers have been placed in the Library.

A resolution with the support of at least two-thirds of all MSPs or Assembly Members would be a clear indication of cross-party support for such a move and would be consistent with the existing requirement in the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act for a two-thirds majority in a vote for early Dissolution. In any event, we will carry out—I think this also addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—a detailed assessment of the implications of the two sets of elections coinciding at a later date. In the light of that, we would consider whether to conduct a public consultation in Scotland and Wales on whether the devolved institutions there should be permanently extended to five years.

The situation in Northern Ireland is different. Northern Ireland Office Ministers are conducting separate discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland on this issue and have concluded that it would be better to await the outcome of the combined polls scheduled for May this year before deciding whether special provision would be needed for Northern Ireland.

On Clause 2, it has been recognised that if we are to establish fixed-term Parliaments there must be a mechanism to deal with the situation in which a Government have lost the confidence of the House of Commons or where otherwise there is a consensus that there should be an early general election. Clause 2 therefore provides for the circumstances in which an early parliamentary general election can be held. There are two ways in which this can occur: through a traditional vote of no confidence in the Government, passed in the other place by a simple majority of those voting; or by a Motion, passed by a majority of two-thirds of the total number of seats in the other place, which states that there should be an early general election. As such, the Bill will provide the House of Commons with a new power to vote for Dissolution, which is not currently within its gift.

As many noble Lords will be aware, these votes have been the subject of some discussion and controversy. I wish, therefore, to explain to your Lordships exactly what the two votes are about, what they mean and why it is necessary to have two separate mechanisms for two separate circumstances where Dissolution might be required.

First, the defining principle of the Bill is that no Government should be able to dissolve Parliament for their own political advantage. That is why the threshold for passing a Dissolution Motion, as set out in Clause 2(1), that would trigger an early general election should be set at a majority of two-thirds of the number of seats in the other House. This is a majority that no post-war Government would have been able to achieve. In short, this means that we are the first Government to surrender to Parliament the power to call an early general election.

Some have questioned the rationale for giving the other place the power to vote for Dissolution. However, if there is a clear consensus that there should be an early general election, it would be nonsensical to force the other place to engineer a vote of no confidence. That is why Clause 2(1) provides the House of Commons with a new power to vote for Dissolution following a process that we believe is robust and transparent. The absence of such a power in other countries has meant that no-confidence Motions have sometimes had to be engineered to trigger an early general election in circumstances in which there is widespread consensus that there should be one.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Will the Minister confirm that, if the 1997 general election had been held under AV, the Labour Government majority would have been far higher—more than the threshold set in this Bill?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not in a position to confirm that because it is highly speculative as to whether that would have happened or not. One does not know what kind of campaign there would have been if there had been an election on AV.

Clause 2(2) recognises the traditional right of the House of Commons to pass a Motion of no confidence in the Government on a simple majority of those voting. No-confidence votes have, until now, been a matter of convention—although it has been widely accepted that a no-confidence vote in the other place would require a Prime Minister to resign or call an early election. However, there has been nothing to date to enforce this. For the first time the Bill gives legal effect to a Motion of no confidence passed by the House of Commons. Such Motions will continue to require a simple majority.

Clause 2(2) provides that, following the passing of a no-confidence Motion in the other place, there will be a period of 14 days during which the Government may seek to gain the confidence of the other place. If, during the 14-day period, a Government emerge who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, it will be free to govern for the remainder of the five-year term since the previous general election, and the country would not have a general election. However, if no such Government emerge at the conclusion of the 14-day period, Parliament will be dissolved. As the Constitution Committee concluded, a period of 14 days strikes the right balance between allowing enough time for an alternative Government to be formed while ensuring that there is no prolonged period without an effective Government. We must bear in mind that a Government who are known to have lost the confidence of the House of Commons will continue to be the Government during the campaign period.

A Motion for an early election will be confirmed by issuing a certificate by the Speaker of the House of Commons. A similar provision is set out in the Parliament Act 1911, which provides for the Speaker of the House of Commons to issue a certificate confirming that a Bill has been certified as a money Bill. In the case of a no-confidence Motion, the Speaker’s certificate will confirm that the Motion has been passed, and that the 14-day period has ended without the House of Commons passing any Motion expressing confidence in any Government. Such a certificate will mean that there is no ambiguity about whether the other House has voted for Dissolution in the requisite majority or whether a vote of no confidence in the Government should trigger Dissolution.

Clause 2 sets out that the Speaker’s certificate, in these cases, shall be conclusive for all purposes and that the Speaker must, as far as is practicable, consult the Deputy Speakers before issuing the certificate. While it has been argued that the requirement for a two-thirds majority should not be set out in statute, I was pleased to note that the Constitution Committee shares the Government’s assessment of the Bill’s interaction with parliamentary privilege. It provides the House of Commons with a new power—one that is to be transferred from the Prime Minister to the House of Commons. We believe that such a fundamental constitutional change should be laid down in statute.

However, in doing so, the Government do not believe that the provisions in this Bill will undermine the other House’s exclusive cognisance. I have made available in the Library a copy of a memorandum that the Government placed in the House of Commons Library on 13 September setting out their view that the Bill does not affect the relationship between Parliament and the courts.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has indicated, this matter has been debated in Committee and on Report, and it is clear that the Government have taken a different view from him. However, I accept that it is helpful for us to be able to have a further exchange on the issue.

The Government believe that the framework that is set out in this Bill and indeed in other legislation is sufficient for this referendum. Perhaps I can establish some common ground. We agree with the principle that party election broadcasts should not be used as referendum campaign broadcasts. However, Section 127 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 prevents the main purpose of any broadcast other than a referendum campaign broadcast being to procure or promote an outcome in a referendum, which we believe is sufficient reassurance. In other words, it ensures that a party election broadcast does not become a referendum campaign broadcast. I think there is common ground here and that the mischief which the noble and learned Lord identified—although I would not necessarily accept it—is an incidental part of an election broadcast in which one side or the other is endorsed.

Our view is that there is clear merit in maintaining some flexibility in this area while acknowledging the clear limits already imposed by Section 127. Such flexibility might enable, for example, the inclusion of a brief statement during a party election broadcast that referred to the referendum and to whether the party supported a particular outcome. Although the noble and learned Lord did not say it, I understand from him that he would find nothing wrong with the existence of the referendum being referred to or indeed with an encouragement to vote; it is the endorsement of a particular yes or no position that he seeks to address.

If such a reference was an expression of a party’s wider policy on matters—for example, on political reform—that were of relevance to the elections on 5 May, one might say that precluding mention of that position in a related election broadcast could have an adverse impact on campaigning for a particular party in those elections. To pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I can confirm that six weeks would be within the relevant campaign period for the referendum. I understood the noble and learned Lord to agree with the proposition that if in that broadcast a party was to support, let us say, constitutional reform—I do not think that my noble friend even specified a particular outcome of the referendum—that would fall foul of the law if his amendment were passed.

I ask the House to consider that to legislate to forbid a party to articulate its legitimate policy position is an important step to take.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have an important question for the Minister as to what happens during the broadcast. He referred to flexibility. He is a Liberal Democrat Minister in the coalition. Will he assure us that the flexibility to which he referred will preclude in a Liberal Democrat broadcast any reference to the fact that more than 50 per cent of the electorate would be required to secure the election of a Member of Parliament? In other words, if there is flexibility, I seek to be assured that it in no way leads to misleading statements being made on the 50 per cent requirement.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I have two points in response. Speaking as a member of the Administration, I am in no position to offer detailed assurances on the content of a party political broadcast when that party is only one part of the coalition. However, I shall indicate what the dynamic might be in how the broadcasting authorities treat this issue and, indeed, are doing so—it is not hypothetical.

We believe that it is ultimately a matter for the broadcasters to see that the rules in Section 127 on the content of party election broadcasts, together with relevant guidance issued under the Communications Act 2003, are adhered to. That is the Government’s position. I accept that the noble and learned Lord might disagree with it, but we have not yet heard any compelling reason to convince us that that stance is wrong. The proposed approach would in any case still require broadcasters to take a view on whether the proposed content in a broadcast complied with the new rule. Broadcasters would have to make some sort of judgment as to whether the content of a party election broadcast indicated a preference for a particular referendum outcome. Such a judgment might well be in the field of whether a general endorsement of constitutional reform fell within that or whether the content had to be much more specific, endorsing a yes/no position.

As I indicated on Report, the chair of the Broadcasters’ Liaison Group has already written to the political parties, drawn their attention to Section 127 of the PPERA and asked them to contact him if they intend to include any reference to the referendum in a party election broadcast in order to ascertain whether any reference crosses the line into Section 127 territory and could in the group’s view be unlawful. We believe that these lines of communication will clarify how the legislative framework will apply in the context of the combination of the referendum with other polls on 5 May. The framework for regulating party election broadcasts sits under the Communications Act 2003 and within the broadcasters’ guidance. We believe that that, combined with the Section 127 provisions in PPERA 2000, provides the necessary clarity.

That said, the Government acknowledge the important issue that has been raised by the noble and learned Lord in tabling this and other amendments at earlier stages. The PPERA framework for referendum regulation was introduced by the previous Government and, despite the confidence that I have expressed in the legislation, aspects of the framework might need a longer-term refresh. I reassure the noble and learned Lord that the Government will reflect further on these points in the light of the referendum and the experience of the poll on 5 May. In the mean time, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Indeed. The figure is 613 for Great Britain, which, with Northern Ireland, takes it to 630. We are agreed on that. That, in many respects, just underlines the problem. Even with that wording, if you subtract the 18 Northern Ireland seats from the current 650, you get 632, so we are already some 19 seats up. Noble Lords might recall that when the 1986 legislation was passed, it also had the provision that there had to be at least 71 or 72 seats in Scotland, which is now down to 59, so we can perhaps add another 12 to that. Not only are we 19 up, we have a further 12, so we would have drifted upwards by some 31 from the target figure.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, quoted the fifth report. I do not dispute that no one else has, but I do think that somewhere along the line there have been some quotations from it before, although that is neither here nor there. While he indicated that in the view of the Boundary Commission it was not right for it to set a fixed target or adhere to a fixed number, I rather think that, given the rules under which it operates in the 1986 legislation, that is probably a proper way for it to go about its business. The whole point is that Parliament is setting a figure of 600. It is not the Boundary Commission but Parliament that will set a fixed number.

The Government’s position has been made clear; there needs to be a legislative cap on the number of seats to control the ratchet effect of the current legislation, under which the number of seats has increased at every review—with the exception of the post-devolution review—since 1950. It is likely that the target would be missed under the noble Baroness’s amendment even at the first review, since the 2009 electorate divided into constituencies at an average of 72,000 would fill 631 constituencies. Indeed, she said that we would be invited to address the issue of constituencies of around 100,000, but that is wildly out of kilter with anything that is being proposed here. That is not what Parliament is being asked to address. We are looking at a quota of approximately 76,000, with a variation of 5 per cent on either side—a band of 7,600.

Setting out the size of the electoral quota in the Bill poses some problems for the way in which the noble Baroness’s amendment is framed. However, the way in which the Bill is written allows for changes in the number of registered voters while maintaining a smaller House of Commons. A specified quota, such as that proposed in this amendment, would mean that the number of seats will rise as the number of registered electors rises, making it yet more unlikely that the commissions will ever meet the target of 600 seats.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

What happens if the population rises by 2.5 million and, when it is spread out as a ripple effect across the whole population, each constituency then meets the limit of 76,000 plus 5 per cent? Do we then increase the number of seats or simply increase the number of voters in each constituency?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as the Bill is set out, at each relevant date the quota for the Boundary Commission—the number of registered voters—will take that into account. Given that the Bill provides for five-yearly boundary reviews, the population is unlikely to increase by 2.5 million in one boundary review, although it could happen over time. We are still talking about 600 seats. Therefore, the quota would increase, still allowing for a variation of 5 per cent either way. My point about the noble Baroness’s amendment is that with the quota being set in the Bill—if her amendment were to be carried—an increase of 2.5 million in the population would significantly increase the number of seats and move further away from her other objective, stated in her amendment, of not being substantially in excess of 600.

The next issue is that of the 7.5 per cent tolerance from the parity quota. Your Lordships’ House has discussed increasing the tolerance from the quota set out in the Bill on several occasions. I merely confirm that the Government are committed to the principle of equity and of equally weighted votes. Five per cent is the minimum variance necessary to ensure that the Boundary Commissions are able to take into consideration the important practical factors set out in rule 5 without undermining the principle of fairness for voters that is at the core of these reforms. A greater tolerance in these circumstances would be unfair to electors. The discretion given to the Boundary Commission by a tolerance of 7.5 per cent allows for the possibility that different Boundary Commissions could adopt different practices and, therefore, that there could be an imbalance in the number of seats in each part of the United Kingdom.

The amendment also sets up a potential for internal conflict. The provisions in the Bill have been praised as a substantial improvement on those currently implemented by the Boundary Commissions because they have a clear hierarchy and are not contradictory. However, the provisions in the amendment do not have such a hierarchy and there is no guarantee that the commissions will be able to draw constituencies of 76,000 people without crossing historic county boundaries—a term that remains undefined.

I turn to the other leg of the noble Baroness’s amendment. To ensure that constituency boundaries do not cross various other boundaries, we have listened to the concerns of noble Lords and are bringing forward an amendment later this evening that will put into the Bill the local government boundaries that we know each Boundary Commission considers when drawing up constituencies. The 5 per cent variation will allow the Boundary Commission for England to use wards as building blocks in most if not all cases. We expect that it will do so. However, it is important to allow the Boundary Commission for England discretion as it carries out its independent duties. The amendment talks of historic county boundaries and specifically mentions Devon and Cornwall. I thought I heard the noble Baroness say that historic boundaries had never been crossed before. I am told that the Littleborough and Saddleworth constituency crossed the Yorkshire-Lancashire border. If there ever was an historic sensitive boundary, I suspect that it might be that one.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord invited me to look to the best interests of the Liberal Democrats. I would not tread anywhere on looking at what might be considered the best interests of the Conservative Party.

If the referendum was on the question proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and if the answer was yes, what would then be the follow-on from that? Would the Government propose a system that would have to be debated by Parliament? My noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree made a good point that you can ask the public if they want a change and if, they say yes, you then leave it to politicians to foist upon them what that change might be. Even if it was a question of, “Vote yes and we will set up a committee”, that is not really an appealing slogan on which to have a referendum campaign. Voters could reasonably claim that they had been cut out of a significant decision.

In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said two things: that Parliament would take the final decision and that, inevitably, the next general election in 2015 would be fought on a different system from first past the post. Yet nowhere can Parliament be mandated to pass a Bill to make it an Act. We all know that a change in the electoral system would require primary legislation for it to come into law. If the voters have voted yes to wanting a change, what guarantee will there be that both Houses of Parliament would then manage to coalesce around what that particular change might be? It could be the worst of all worlds, with people voting for change and then finding that politicians have frustrated the change that they seek.

As has been made clear on a number of occasions, the attraction of the approach taken in this Bill is its clarity. We set out how the alternative vote system would work, as comprehensively done in Clause 9 and Schedule 10. Any questions about how optional preferential AV works can be resolved by looking at the Bill. That would not be the case with the noble Lord’s amendment. I urge him to withdraw his amendment and, if he seeks to push it to a vote, I invite noble Lords to vote it down.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Perhaps I can apologise for the somewhat staccato nature of presenting my amendment because I was caught short and could not work out finally which notes I had to refer to.

Let me answer the critically important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. The facts are that no one, anywhere, has done any homework on how AV works. Maybe the Liberal Democrats have done some, to work out to what extent it will benefit them. In the event that the amendments had fallen in a different order today, I would have been able to produce earlier during our proceedings the evidence that I will produce under the next amendment—that is, figures which show that a complete miscalculation has been made by the Conservative element in the coalition as to how AV operates, drawing on the Dunleavy material from 1997. A lot of people have not done their homework and are presuming, because there is an item on the agenda that says “AV is presentable and works”, that somehow that is enough authority for Parliament to carry the legislation in the form that it has. No work has been done and, until it has been, it is highly irresponsible for any Government to present to the British electorate a question in the form in which this is currently being submitted. No work has been done.

All I was doing in my amendment was drawing attention to the fact that no work has been done and that all the electorate have to say is, “We do not want first past the post any more”. Then, Parliament could, by whatever means, with the aid of Government, establish inquiries to examine and evaluate all the systems and then come forward with recommendations. Let me be absolutely frank: once you have got rid of first past the post, due to the complexities of alternative electoral systems, it needs Parliament to decide on what system is selected. You cannot leave that very complicated question to the public. A complicated series of options—a whole of spectrum of systems—has to be placed in the event that you widen that offer to the electorate.

I stand by my amendment. Unfortunately, for whatever reason and the time factor, I will not have the opportunity of voting upon it today. After the next amendment, when I produce evidence of what happened in 1997, some Members of the Committee might well think, “I wonder what we are doing”. If I might put it bluntly, they know not what they doeth. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, helped to devise the system for mayoral elections that we have inherited. There are no proposals to change it. We are talking about elections to the other place. I have made it very clear that we see the merit of a system where preferences can be expressed as far or as little as individual voters wish. For the purposes of electing the House of Commons, we prefer it to the supplementary vote which by its very nature limits the extent of the preferences that the individual voter can indicate. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said that the Government believe that it is the best system. I dispute that. If he looks at his notes, he will see that that is what he read: the Government believe that it is the best system. Perhaps he would like to check his notes, but I wrote his words down. I will stand corrected if I misunderstood what he said.

All I am saying is that the Government may believe it, but Conservative Back-Benchers in the House of Commons have never been confronted with a real discussion. People do not know how this system works. I challenge any Conservative Back-Bencher here today to tell me, to assure the House, that Conservative MPs in the other place know how this system works. When these matters were debated in the other place, there were about five Conservatives in the Chamber. Everybody was whipped in to vote as part of a contractual agreement within the coalition. There has been no discussion. I cannot understand why Ministers are not listening to their own people. Why not carry out a consultation even in these last days of dealing with the Bill. Why do they not carry out a consultation on their own Back-Benches? They may even, if I might modestly suggest, send them a portion of the contribution that I have made to the debate, drawing on the statistics that have been produced following the sample poll of 8,500 people in 1998. Maybe it is then that they will realise what they are doing. Ah, finally we have tempted one out of the box.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[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 Campbell-Savours]

The answer is yes.

[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

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Perhaps I might speak to it now.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If it makes it easier, yes.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 31st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Obviously the noble Lord is right to the extent that differential turnout has an effect on the value of votes, but the Bill at least gets everyone to the same starting point. The argument that seems to be coming from the noble Lord is that somehow or other you can have an equal starting point that would then be compounded by differential turnout, making the situation even worse. That is what I find unacceptable.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Why is it not right in terms of constituency sizes but right in terms of London elections—in Westminster in particular? The Minister was here last night when I read those statistics out for Westminster that showed a huge differential between wards in central London. Why is it all right for one and not for the other?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I was here last night and I heard those interminable statistics. The point is that this is not what we are debating at the moment; we are debating parliamentary constituencies. I have enunciated a principle that the Government consider important for this part of the Bill, and one that we believe would be seriously undermined by the proposal that is implicit in the amendment.

In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, acknowledged in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, this also overrules rule 1, and the Committee has debated at considerable length the question of the size of the House of Commons and the fact that the Government’s position is that there should be a House of 600.

The current situation is that there is no hierarchy of rules and there is a flexibility to move away from the aspiration, which is there in the current rules, that the Boundary Commission should go as close to the quota as possible. It was clear from the exchanges that took place in the debate that in fact there is that flexibility to move away that has led to the kind of wide variation that I have just illustrated with the difference between Manchester Central and Glasgow North, and indeed has led to a steady increment over many years, almost invariably in an upward direction, in the number of seats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I make two points in response. Yes, there is a quota, but, first, in making recommendations, the Boundary Commission may have regard to local ties. As I indicated yesterday, the Government are minded to look again before Report at the question of wards, which, perhaps more than any other electoral area, best reflect local ties.

Secondly, as I indicated in my opening remarks, there are a number of different communities within one given constituency. Members of Parliaments of all parties seek to represent as best as they can different interests in different communities within their constituencies.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does the Minister have a view on whether when taking decisions the commission should have in mind the marginality of constituencies?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If the noble Lord is saying that the Boundary Commission should have regard to the political makeup of a particular constituency, I can tell him that I am aware of no statutory basis for doing that. I would be very surprised if that was a function. Indeed, the way in which political parties presently dress up political considerations in all sorts of different guises when they give evidence to inquiries suggests very strongly that the Boundary Commission would not do that.

Our reservations about the amendment are nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of past and future representation in the areas concerned, but this is not the right place to deal with such specific exceptions. Where the situations described arise, they can be dealt with under the provisions presently in the Bill. If local circumstances argued strongly for a avoiding a cross-river constituency, the Boundary Commission’s detailed consideration of specific elements of the case would produce the most effective result, where local specifics of geography and the importance of community structure in each riverside area would be balanced with the need for electors in all parts of this United Kingdom to have equal-value votes. That is the best way of achieving balance between equality of constituency size and having proper regard for community in design of our future constituencies. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[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 Campbell-Savours]

Will the noble and learned Lord give way?

[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

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Well, there is no Speaker here. We are not arguing any case that would prevent any member of the public registering to vote prior to the 2015 general election. Nothing that we are arguing in any way interferes with that, so why does the noble and learned Lord keep suggesting that we are?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I have not suggested that. If that was the impression that the noble Lord got, I have to correct him. I have not suggested that anyone is standing in the way of having people registered for the 2015 election. With respect, I have not yet heard anything—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sorry if I got in the way of a dialogue between the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and my noble friend Lord Tyler. The noble Lord said that we Liberal Democrats put this forward to increase our majority—if only we had a majority to increase. I doubt that the amendment would achieve in the long term what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, intends, because it would have an impact only on the first boundary review. Irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, the outcome of the second boundary review, to be held on the same rules with 600 Members of Parliament, would be implemented. It would only mean a stay of execution, if that is how he wishes to put it.

I have indicated, as have noble Lords opposite, that this agreement was reached by the parties. It allows the people to have their say on which voting system they will use. It will also allow the election that takes place in May 2015 to be held on the basis of boundaries that are far more equal than was the case at the last election or would be the case if we did not pass the Bill. In these circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To explain, it is the second review that worries me. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, looks on it favourably. The second review will be under a system of individual registration. That will be extremely damaging to the work historically done by the Boundary Commission. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton mentioned, there will be huge variations in registration levels in the various authorities throughout the United Kingdom because of problems in securing reasonable returns under individual registration arrangements by local authorities. To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on this issue of gerrymandering, I have never accused the Government of gerrymandering.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It was still the loss of the House of Commons. On the question of six years, five years would, if we are moving to fixed-term Parliaments, allow for regular periodic review. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, while the convenience of political parties should not, by any stretch of the imagination, be our overriding concern, political parties do oil the wheels of democracy. What we propose will allow a period of some 18 months, recurring over the fixed term of five years, for local parties to adjust. The Government’s approach has been a simple one: to ensure that constituency boundaries are as up to date as possible.

To respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the Cabinet Office has guidelines on undertaking any kind of consultation, be it legislative or otherwise. They recommend 12 weeks, but that is guidance; it is not binding. It is well known that the provisions of the Bill are set out in the coalition agreement. Any incoming Government, by the very nature of being an incoming Government, are bound to bring forward legislation in their early days that they have not had the opportunity to consult on beforehand. The Government have made it clear that this legislation should make progress, which is why it was introduced early in the Session. The timetable has meant that that did not allow for pre-legislative scrutiny. However, in the previous Parliament the then Government added whole new parts to the CRAG Bill, including AV referendum clauses, without any prior public consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, may have complained about that, too; he has a certain consistency. This was indicated in the partnership agreement. It is also fair to point out that before today, the House—at Second Reading and in Committee—had debated and scrutinised the Bill for some forty-seven and a half hours. We cannot be far short of forty-nine and a half hours now. I am sure that there are many more hours of scrutiny to come.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Is the Minister saying that, in introducing this highly important constitutional Bill, the Government breached the Cabinet Office code of practice?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

These guidelines are not binding. I am indicating that any Government who come into office immediately after a general election with flagship legislation will, almost by definition, not have had the pre-legislative scrutiny that would otherwise attend legislation. I do not think that it is unreasonable for a Government taking office to pursue their flagship legislation. Why do we propose reviews every five years?

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not think that there is much more that I can add to that. The noble Lord can ask another question but I am not sure that I can add much more to what I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If that is the case, why did the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill not state the reason why there would not be prior scrutiny of the Bill? The rules stipulate that a reason is to be given for not subjecting a Bill to prior scrutiny.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It was quite proper that, having indicated a coalition commitment to introducing this legislation and having laid down certain times, the Government should make speedy progress to introduce the Bill. I also believe that it has had more than 40 hours’ consideration in the other place. It has now had approximately forty-nine and a half hours’ consideration in this place with, no doubt, many more hours to come.

The reason why the Government propose reviews every five years is that at present—I think that this has been acknowledged—a review takes place every eight to 12 years. We believe that that leads to boundaries becoming out of date and infrequently refreshed. For example, the movement of electors means that boundaries can get out of date quickly. In 2006, some 59 constituencies were more than 10 per cent larger or smaller than the quota used for the previous review. Three years later, by 2009, the number of constituencies outside that 10 per cent range had almost doubled simply due to the movement of electors. These variations in size make votes unequal. The figures demonstrate how long periods between boundary reviews can exacerbate that imbalance and unfairness.

The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, graphically illustrated the life and commitment of Members of Parliament and his comments were echoed by many other noble Lords who have been Members of the other place. However, it is fair to say, as my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart indicated, that the underlying purpose of this Bill is primarily to serve the electors, not the elected. By a similar token, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that there was no consultation with local government on the use that it made of current parliamentary boundaries. However, I do not think that it is beyond the wit of local authorities to find other boundaries within which to deliver administrative services. The important point is that we look to ensure that the Bill is in the interests of electors and represents one vote, one value.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said. His comments on the utility of boundary reviews displayed a refreshing candour. However, I could not agree with his comment about pulling up the roots every five years. The rules that the Bill sets down for the Boundary Commission state at paragraph 5(1)(d) of Schedule 2 on page 10:

“A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit … the inconvenience attendant on such changes”.

That is disapplied for the first review, which is to take place and report by October 2013, because by its very nature—I think that this has been recognised—when one loses 50 seats the upheaval is bound to be greater. But thereafter the Boundary Commission is able to take into account,

“to such extent as they think fit … the inconvenience attendant on such changes”.

My noble friend made a pertinent point when he indicated that the more frequent and regular the review, the less likely it is that there will be any huge change in constituency size. The figures that I cited show that the longer the interval between reviews, the more the figures diverge, which inevitably leads to greater upheaval when the review actually takes place. Indeed, in evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Professors Butler and McLean indicated back in 2006 that it was possible to have more frequent reviews without significantly impairing their equity.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does the Minister really think that it is fair to draw boundaries in the inner cities on the basis of electoral registration figures that have been damaged by the fact that a whole canvass was not possible? Surely that full canvass has to be completed and maximum registration achieved before we can even begin to consider redrawing the boundaries. By not agreeing with me, the Minister is conceding, in the case of the argument about violence, that violence in many ways pays.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am only indicating that it could be a circumstance in which the Electoral Commission may take that view. All the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, identified may well have been addressed, but there may be a recalcitrant council somewhere in the country which, for one reason or another, has not done that.

I remind the Committee that electoral registration officers are under a statutory duty to compile and maintain comprehensive and accurate electoral registers. It is not as if it is a voluntary activity; there is an obligation on local authorities to compile as best they can comprehensive and accurate electoral registers. As was commented on earlier, the Electoral Commission’s report on performance standards for electoral registration officers in Great Britain, published in March, showed that just under 96 per cent of electoral registration officers met the completeness and accuracy of electoral registration records standard this year.

I salute what Glasgow has done—the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, mentioned this—and that should be the model. It is important that we have as accurate and comprehensive registers as possible. It is worth reminding the Committee that another report of the Electoral Commission, The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain, also published in March, stated that the UK’s registration rate of 91 to 92 per cent compared well with other countries. I am sure that that touches on the question of notional registration, which I am sure we will debate further when we come to Amendment 89C—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for advance notice of it. The 91 to 92 per cent figure for completeness is derived from the 2000 census, but it is an approximate measure. It could not form the basis of a boundary review as it does not provide sufficiently robust data to give confidence for something such as a boundary review. However, I take the noble Lord’s point and I shall carefully look at his amendment before we come to debate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There are two points there. The first is that the figure that we have been using of 96 per cent comes from a report published by the Electoral Commission. It was not published by the Government. That is a matter that will need to be taken up with the Electoral Commission. The point that the noble Baroness has made will be drawn to the Electoral Commission’s attention. The second point underlines that it is not necessarily the wisest move to say that the Electoral Commission then has to make a subjective judgment as to whether the terms and conditions of the certification that is inherent in this amendment are met.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Following what my noble friend said, why can there not be a random selection, a pilot project, to check whether the statistics to which my noble friend referred are accurate? It might well be that local authorities are not submitting particularly accurate returns. I presume that these figures from local authorities come from electoral registration departments. They could maybe take a dozen local authorities in various parts of this country and check whether that is the case. Secondly, when the Minister referred to the pilot projects before, is it true that the pilots, and the registration levels that arise as a result, will not influence the statistics that are to be used by the Boundary Commission in its review?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The first point is, as I have indicated, a matter for the Electoral Commission. At least two noble Lords in this debate—the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and my noble friend Lord Tyler—have identified themselves as advisers to the Electoral Commission. These points will have been noted.

As I confirmed in a debate before the Christmas Recess, the base for this boundary review was this 1 December past and the next one will be 1 December 2015, if this Bill goes through in full. That is more likely to be able to take account of the information from these pilots, and, I hope, broaden that out. I understand that there are issues on the Benches opposite about individual registration. It is more likely that these will be taken into account quicker than were we to wait for the day when certification comes from the Electoral Commission, as is proposed in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I will intervene only briefly because I do not want to get into this whole debate about individual registration once again. I spent hours on my feet in Committee on two pieces of legislation that went through under the Labour Government that introduced this monstrous piece of legislation on individual registration. It will be to our ultimate cost but that is an argument for another day. All I want to say is that I intervened in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the question of inner-city constituencies because there is a real problem developing here. Because of lack of registration and this national formula, we will end up with fewer inner-city seats but ones that have vast populations.

We must remember that inner-city seats involve far more work. I remember when I was the MP for Workington, comparing my constituency workload with that of some of the London MPs. They got three or four times the volume of mail that I did—so much so that they often simply could not provide the level of service that they wanted to in their inner-city seats. I thought I was being heavily pressured by constituents. One of the major problems in inner-city seats is to do with immigration, often involving groups of people who are not registered at all and who cannot register. That is in addition to the general problem of higher population. I simply do not believe that the Government have taken this whole matter into account. They say, “Oh well, local authorities can simply put the resources in”, but they cannot. I say again that my own Government failed to ring-fence these budgets. However, if we had known that this legislation was coming, we might well have had to think more seriously about the need to ring-fence budgets in this area. In some ways we are now paying the price for not having done so. I invite Conservative Members to ring up some of the electoral registration officers that I have talked to, who complain that they simply will not be able to deliver on the Government’s agenda in this area.

Finally, when we look at this debate it is important to consider what happens in rural Conservative seats with what I believe to be a far lower level of casework as against the position of city centre seats in London, Birmingham and Sheffield. We should actually consider the different workload. I think many Conservative Members simply do not understand the weight of additional work that arises in those constituencies. I cannot see any way around it. There is nothing in this legislation that is there to help; we have had no undertakings from the Dispatch Box that we are going to get over this problem. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has repeatedly raised this question of higher populations in inner city seats and we have heard nothing from the Government. As this Bill progresses through Committee I think we are going to find that a lot of our debate revolves around that particular issue.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, in introducing his amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, correctly identified that this would add a third precondition to the order being laid to implement those parts of the Bill in the event of a yes vote in the referendum and the introduction of the alternative vote.

Perhaps it will not come as any surprise to your Lordships’ House that we cannot accept that there should be a further condition. We are not quite sure what “substantially up to date” means and, quite frankly, no case has been made as to why it should be done with regard to setting this order in motion as opposed to the fundamentally important point—on which I would substantially agree with what has been said not only by the noble and learned Lord but by other contributors—of getting a more accurate electorate. Indeed, I would say that even if there were a no vote in the referendum it should not in any way diminish the wish and the objective of trying to ensure that the electoral register is made as accurate as it possibly can be. It is important that it should be as up to date as possible but I do not believe it should be a condition of the commencement of the AV provisions.

As noble Lords will be aware, the electoral registration officers across local authorities in the United Kingdom already have a statutory duty to take the steps that are necessary to maintain the registers and the commission has a statutory responsibility to promote public awareness of electoral registration and elections and to set and monitor performance standards and electoral services. It is worth noting that the report to which the noble and learned Lord referred, The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain, published in March this year, reported a registration rate in the United Kingdom of 91 to 92 per cent. That compares reasonably well with other countries. Furthermore, the commission’s report, Performance Standards for Electoral Registration Officers in Great Britain, also published in March, showed that just under 96 per cent of electoral registration officers met the completeness and accuracy of electoral registration records standard this year, a considerable improvement on the previous occasion.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

When the Minister quotes such a figure as 91 per cent, does he mean that 91 per cent of the population are registered or does he mean 91 per cent of the households in the particular area have submitted a return to the registration officer?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I understand it—if I am wrong I will certainly make the correction—it is not of the population because obviously there are members of the population who are ineligible to appear on the electoral roll. I understand that it is the figure of those who are eligible to vote.

I take the important point made by the noble and learned Lord that there are groups—young people, people in the private rented sector, people from ethnic- minority communities—where the figure of non-registration is disturbingly high.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

When will the first boundary review take place based on individual registration statistics?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

According to the terms of the Bill, I think that the second boundary review will report on 1 October 2018. The noble and learned Lord indicated that there were difficulties involved in rushing registration and we have taken that on board. However, I cannot be absolutely certain about the extent to which that will be fully fed in for the report that comes out in 2018, with, I think I am right in saying, a review date of 1 December 2015. I hope that my arithmetic is correct. We hope to make substantial progress with individual registration ahead of that date.

I hope to reassure the Committee that this is an important issue and that that is how the Government are treating it. We have put in train measures to try to increase voter registration but we do not believe that that should be a precondition for the introduction of the alternative vote system. However, I believe that such an increase is absolutely right in its own terms and that we should make a concerted effort to improve voter registration, not least so that those who are entitled to vote get the opportunity to do so in future elections and, indeed, in a future referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Does the drafting work? Is it appropriate? Why is it not in there? These are the questions for the Government. It might not necessarily be in the form or in the shape that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, put it, but as an alternative that the Government can select, after a proper consultation. Ultimately, one way of dealing with this issue would be for there to be a simple referendum on replacing first past the post with AV. Assuming that there was a yes vote—ignore the complications that we talked about earlier on—choosing which of the three systems was best could be done by the Government. There could still be compulsion in introducing AV, but there could be a proper debate with the public and in Parliament as to which is the best system, rather than the way it is done at the moment, which is that the Government have selected a particular system of AV, about which there has been no consultation and no explanation to the public. There are two questions. First, is the drafting right? Secondly, why not incorporate in the Bill the three options and allow Parliament to decide after a public consultation which is the best?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I appreciate the fact that, in introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that he did not wish to re-rehearse the issues on the supplementary vote, which we have already been through. Was it on day three of Committee? He gave us the Hansard references. Indeed, I do not want to rehearse again the reasons why the Government do not support the supplementary vote for the purposes of the Bill that were outlined by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I do not think that the House would welcome being detained at present.

We believe that the noble Lord’s amendments would limit voters’ choice in expressing preferences for the candidates who would be standing for election, as they would be able to express a preference for only two candidates. Our preference, if I may put it that way, is that there should be more optional preferences that can be exercised by voters without any compulsion to vote for each candidate.

There is clearly a difference of view about the type of system that should be used. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that it was not the classic supplementary vote but perhaps the supplementary vote with cosmetic—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Tweaked.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The supplementary vote, but tweaked. That does not commend itself to the Government, who have indicated that their wish is for the system that I understand goes under the term optional preferences. The noble Lord has indicated that he is not pressing his amendments, but I have no doubt that we will return to this.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister did not deal with my central question and the reason why I moved the amendment. In terms of legislative language, is it in good order?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Certainly not in order to achieve the objective that we as a Government wish. No doubt, however, it would achieve the objective that the noble Lord wishes. If he has any suggestions about the drafting of other options, we would be happy to hear from him. Still, so far as I am aware, the amendment would probably achieve what the noble Lord wishes to achieve but certainly not what the Government wish to achieve.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

At this stage, on the basis of the response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There may have been a misunderstanding. I wanted to make a particular point to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who said that an X had been put through a name, rather than against it. There was a suggestion that in such cases, far from wanting a candidate, the voter did not want them. Those are circumstances where it would be invidious to suggest what would happen. Certainly when an X is marked against a name, it is clear from the provision in the Bill that the vote would be valid.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is concerned —and I understand his concern—that this might lead to undermining the system. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who indicated that if there was a yes vote in the referendum, in the run-up to a general election in 2015 there would be advertising making the position clear. There were indications that that actually happened in the Scottish elections where a single transferrable vote requiring numbered preferences was used.

The night is drawing on but perhaps I may relate one small anecdote. I stood in the first ever European election in the south of Scotland and I have the dubious distinction of being the first person ever to lose their deposit in a European election. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Alderdice will recall that the 1979 European elections in Northern Ireland were carried out on the basis of the single transferable vote, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom they were carried out on the basis of first past the post. A corner of Galloway in the south of Scotland received Ulster TV, on which the advertising encouraged people to use their vote by marking 1, 2 and 3. In several polling stations in that part of Galloway a number of ballot papers were marked with a 1, 2 and 3, although the election was on the basis of first past the post. However, there was agreement that the number 1 on a ballot paper would be accepted as a valid vote.

Let us not underestimate the voters. There will be ample advertising to indicate that the nature of the election will be a preferential vote system. I do not believe that that will undermine the election or that it will give rise to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

On the question of undermining, has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, consulted his election guru sitting near to him on his right and asked him what he thinks the effect of this would be in terms of undermining the AV system, which he has been advocating so passionately over recent weeks? He is sitting there and has not said a word. It would be very interesting to see whether he is prepared to get up and advocate this when he knows that Liberal Democrats more widely would be opposed to it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not think that anyone is advocating this—in fact, the opposite is true. We want to make sure that there is a proper advertising campaign for the system. I hope that I have said sufficient and that what is already in the Bill is enough—that is, if someone places an X against a candidate’s name, the intention will be clear. It will be taken as being the equivalent of putting a 1 and the vote will count.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is the preferences of the votes allocated to those who are still in the count, as it were. If someone has been eliminated from the count, it is not the party’s vote that is being transferred—it is the voter’s preference that is still being allowed to have a value.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I think that the noble and learned Lord has missed the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, which is critical to the operation of AV. The noble Lord has hit it right on the head. The additional preferences, the second preferences, of those voters who voted BNP as their first preference, when transferred, could take the top candidate over the 50 per cent threshold and thereby secure the election of that candidate. At the same time all the other second preferences, or whichever preferences, of all the other candidates would be completely ignored. That is the central flaw in the AV system, which is why Conservatives should be opposing it. The only AV system that gets over that problem is the one that I designed—SV. It is built to avoid precisely that happening, because the second preferences are all transferred in one go to the top two candidates, and you avoid all that nonsense. The noble Lord hit it right on the head.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Because of that second count, everyone, other than the person who came bottom the first time, still has their first preference. It is the first preference that counts then, and it may be that the person who came top the first time gets elected or the person who came second takes over. Those people’s first preference will still count. Some people say that you might prefer your second preferences over your first; that is a matter for the individual voter. However, this allows individuals to give their first preference to the party that they actually want to support, and then they can vote for a second preference, a third preference and so on.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Why should it be only the second preferences—those cast as the candidate at the bottom—that are the ones to take them over 50 per cent? Why just those? Why not all the others?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is the way that particular system works. It is the system we have used in this House for electing the Lord Speaker. I do not recall anyone challenging the validity of the system working for that purpose. It is the system that works in Scottish local government by-elections and I have never heard any suggestion that it is perverting the result.

What it could do is potentially dissuade voters from exercising the wider choice that is offered by the alternative vote. If it may be suggested that their subsequent preferences are somehow not going to have any weight at all, they may be deemed to be wasted votes. I would hope there was some degree of consensus that, whatever system you wish to adopt, the idea of having a wasted vote is one we should seek to avoid. By the proposal put forward in this amendment, some votes, if they are down to fractions, cease to have the value which I should like to see—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I can reassure the noble and learned Lord and the Committee that the breadth of the power is limited to amendments that are consequential to the changes being made by Clause 9 and Schedule 10. It is envisaged that in order to introduce the alternative vote system, should that be the wish of the referendum, amendments will be required to provisions in existing secondary legislation which concern the conduct of United Kingdom parliamentary elections. For example, changes will need to be made to certain forms that are prescribed for use at a UK parliamentary election including the poll card issued to electors prior to polling day to provide them with information on how to exercise their vote at the election, and the postal voting statement which postal voters must complete and return with their postal vote, and which again includes information about casting their votes. These forms are set out in secondary legislation. While we believe that all the necessary primary legislative provisions are in the Bill, it seems sensible not to have our hands tied. This power therefore covers any possible consequential changes to primary legislation that may be deemed necessary to implement the alternative vote.

I can offer a reassurance to your Lordships’ House that, as Clause 9 is currently drafted, before making an order under subsection (4), the Minister would be required to consult the Electoral Commission, which would give an independent view on any change. Such an order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and would therefore have to be debated and approved in each House. I can confirm that it could allow amendments to be made to Acts passed before and after the Bill, but as I have indicated, this is for technical issues and not to change any matters of policy. In our memorandum concerning the delegated powers in the Bill for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we covered the order-making power in Clause 9.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If, by any chance, the Government were to decide before May that the system they have selected should be tweaked in some way, that would require a change to primary legislation. Does not subsection (4) actually preclude such a change being possible in the event that it needed to be made? Should not subsection (4) be a little looser to allow for the possibility that the Government may want to tweak the system in some way?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not think that that would be an appropriate use of the power. It is important that when Parliament determines what the system should be, that is the system which is put to the people in the referendum and should not be tweaked. As I have indicated, this makes provision for amendments to primary or secondary legislation to be made that are consequential and necessitated by this clause or by Schedule 10. As I have indicated, they are related to things like the poll card or the information that goes with postal votes.

Just before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, intervened, I was going to end by saying that we have not been made aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has made any critical or adverse comments in respect of these provisions. We believe that they are necessary and appropriate. In the event of a yes vote in the referendum, they will facilitate the implementation of the alternative vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The previous Labour Government did a wonderful job when they brought forward the proposals for the Scotland Bill, which I was happy to support, and which indeed were endorsed overwhelmingly by the Scottish people in a referendum. But the effect of the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would be that, before any order was made under Clause 9(4), the Minister would be required to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, in addition, of course, to the Electoral Commission. As I indicated in my response to the previous amendment, the kind of changes that are anticipated under this order-making power are for matters such as the information that goes on the polling card; information that would go with a postal voting statement; matters which currently reflect the first past the post system, but obviously would need to be changed with an alternative vote, should that be the will of the electorate in the referendum.

In all fairness, I am not sure that that is high on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly, or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Voting systems for UK parliamentary elections is a reserved matter. It was a matter of common ground in the Act that was put forward by the previous Labour Government, which I was happy to support and was supported by the Scottish people; the Government of Wales Act was supported by the Welsh people in a referendum; likewise for Northern Ireland, where it was agreed that UK parliamentary elections are reserved.

It is not necessary, therefore, for the UK Government to be subject to a statutory requirement to consult the devolved Parliament and Assemblies before making an order, which will be of a technical nature. We are not aware of any similar requirement to consult the devolved Administrations in respect of existing aspects of electoral law relating to UK parliamentary elections.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Would they be consulted?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As my noble friend, Lord Strathclyde, said earlier, people have been talking about electoral reform for years and years. Indeed, it is less than 12 months since the Government which he supported brought forward their own proposals for a referendum on the alternative vote, so it has had plenty of exposure.

It is important that we address the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, proposed some time ago and which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated, this was part of the coalition agreement, and it is worth recalling that back in those days in May this year, it was very clear that no party had won the election. Indeed, given the instability in world markets at the time and the potential political instability which could be fed by that, my own party, the Liberal Democrats, came to an agreement with the Conservative Party to form a coalition Government to bring, I believe, much needed stability at a very crucial time.

There were several issues in that agreement with regard to constitutional reform and the coalition’s programme for government made a clear commitment to both the issues involved in this Bill—a referendum on the alternative vote and a boundary review to ensure a reduction of the House of Commons and equality of value of votes in constituencies. It was the Government’s view that both issues should be tackled and implemented together, and we have never made any secret of that particular fact.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble and learned Lord must have been privy to some of these negotiations. Why was it in those negotiations that the Liberal Democrats did not demand from the Conservatives that the question in the referendum went wider than one system? Why did they not ask for a multiquestion to be placed on the referendum ballot paper?

The book from Selsdon suggests that Gordon Brown offered it to the Liberal Democrats, so surely there was a basis on which they could have asked the same from the Conservative element in the coalition.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It was the late Lord Butler who said, and no doubt he was not the first, that politics is the art of the possible. All I can say is that, casting one’s mind back, agreeing to a referendum on the alternative vote was a huge move on the part of the Conservative Party. Indeed, together with other elements, it formed part of the basis for the coalition agreement. Speculating about other voting systems does not take us much further. This is what was agreed and this is what provided the basis of the stable Government which we formed in May of this year.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does he not understand that the Conservative element in the coalition would not have backed down if the Liberal Democrats had asked for it; it would not have blocked an agreement being made; and, in fact, they were walked over during the course of the negotiations?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am interested that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seems to have greater insight into what the Conservative Party would do than the Conservative Party itself seems to have.

This was the basis of an agreement which has formed a stable Government for this country, and part of this agreement features in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is not correct. The relationship between the area provision and the constituency represented by my right honourable friend Charles Kennedy is that he currently represents the largest area in the United Kingdom. The area referred to in Part 2 is just slightly larger. It is not to preserve a particular constituency. Indeed, if one thinks about it logically, if you start at the top and come down, it would eat into his present constituency anyway. It is not an automatic read-across. The noble Lord has just got it wrong on that point.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Can the Minister clarify something very simple for me? Perhaps I misunderstood. Is he saying that one judicial review in one part of the United Kingdom could block the boundary changes that trigger the introduction of AV? Is that exactly what he is saying? Can we have that clarified?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I shall repeat what I said. I said that the Boundary Commissions could be judicially reviewed. Of course, I hope that that does not happen and that there will be no such a challenge. Whether any challenge would lead to a delay would depend on the nature of the challenge and the time it took for it to be heard. I remind the House of the provisions in the next Part of the Bill at Clause 10(3):

“A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically … before 1st October 2013”.

We hope that that will find favour with the House and will be in the statute to which the Boundary Commissions will have to adhere.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister said that the boundary commissions could be reviewed. Can I isolate within that Boundary Commission review whether a judicial review within one particular part of the country will in itself lead to this blockage of the introduction of AV that is being referred to?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think I also said in my response earlier that the length of any possible delay would depend upon whether action needed to be taken as a consequence of that ruling and whether there was a knock-on. I also indicated that as the Bill stands the Boundary Commission review would have to report by 1 October 2013, and that is what we wish to put into statute.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In reply to my noble friend, these issues were rehearsed when considering a specific amendment not to have the referendum on 5 May next year. The amendment was defeated by 210 votes to 166. I do not doubt for a moment that there will be a campaign on the yes and the no sides for change to the alternative vote and that people will also be campaigning on the local elections. I do not believe that that will confuse the voters. There will be a clear question on what system of elections they want for the other place in the future and there will be clear questions on who they want to elect to the local council, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly. While I suspect that the co-operation between parties may not be as cordial as it might otherwise be, as we have already seen embryonically, various people across the parties are coming together to mount joint campaigns for the yes or the no vote. It is rather a sad reflection on our politics that people who want to come together to argue a particular case for a future voting system cannot do that and campaign for a local candidate of their own party at the same time.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

May I remind the noble and learned Lord that he is speaking to his amendment, and that the contribution he has just made should follow on the next contribution, which comes from my noble friend who will wind up the debate prior to the Minister’s reply?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

With respect, my noble friend asked a question and I thought it only courteous to give him an immediate reply.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

That is not the question. We are dealing here with those who argue that a candidate should need 50 per cent of the poll to win, so do not switch the question to another area. I am only addressing what happens. There are problems with first past the post, which is why I am in favour of electoral reform. I am trying to place on record material to show that those who argue that we need a majority of the electorate to win are simply wrong.

The second important issue is the incidence of the use of additional preferences, which is the principal argument used to justify AV. Last week, I referred to the work of Rallings and Thrasher on results in Queensland, Australia. Colleagues may recall that in the 2009 state elections, 63 per cent of all those who voted “plumped”, or voted for, only one candidate. In some areas, as many as three-quarters of all those voting voted for only one candidate. The question is: what would happen in the United Kingdom?

Again following the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I enlisted the help of Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde. Let me make it clear that I am not reflecting his views—I do not know what he believes in—as I simply asked him for statistical information to be provided. Professor Curtice has given me factual data. I tracked down the six by-election results in Scotland that provide data that indicate the usage of additional preferences under AV. Such data can be secured only where votes are counted electronically, which is why I asked the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether the counts would be based on an electronic or a manual basis. Remember that we are dealing here with AV. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is shaking his head. Perhaps I have misunderstood something.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

I am not entirely sure why the count had to be electronic to get the information on where the transfers went.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To be frank, I do not understand that either. However, I asked that question and I understand that it is because of the way that votes are counted manually. One returning officer in a seat in Scotland told us that he had different buckets into which he placed different votes and, as the tellers went from count to count, they moved the votes from one bucket to another. Perhaps that has something to do with how they count the additional preferences. As I said, I have not been able to trace that information up to now.

As I said, remember that we are dealing with what are normally STV local authority arrangements where there are by-elections in individual seats. Let me take six seats that were up for single-member election. In Glasgow Ballieston, of those who voted: 100 per cent —obviously—used their first preference vote; 51 per cent did not use their second preference vote; 68 per cent did not use their third preference vote; 84 per cent did not use their fourth preference vote; 91 per cent did not use their fifth preference vote; 92 per cent did not use their sixth preference; and 93 per cent did not use their seventh preference. At another Glasgow Ballieston by-election, of those who voted: 47 per cent did not use their second preference vote; 74 per cent did not use their third preference vote; 83 per cent did not use their fourth preference vote; 92 per cent did not use their fifth preference vote; 93 per cent did not use their sixth preference vote; 94 per cent did not use their seventh preference vote; 94 per cent did not use their eighth preference vote; and 95 per cent did not use their ninth preference. What a system. People are not using their additional preferences.

Crime: Rape

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am certainly prepared to give that assurance. Those people have a very regrettable but very real experience. It is because of the importance that we attach to the way in which we as a society deal with victims that the coalition Government are committed to trying our best to increase the number of rape crisis centres and to put those which exist on a more stable financial footing.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, evidence has shown that the two-tier offence arrangements that exist in New Zealand lead to far higher levels of successful prosecutions. Would the Government consider changing the law in the United Kingdom to mirror the arrangements in New Zealand?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I must confess that I am not overfamiliar with the law in New Zealand. However, as I indicated in an earlier answer, there is a concern, which I am sure is shared on all sides of your Lordships’ House, that we should do more. We ought to find ways to do more to raise the conviction rate. If there is relevant evidence from another jurisdiction that has many similarities to our own, we would be prepared to look at that.