Elections: Costs

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, the plan is to set up two organisations that will receive public funds to campaign. Therefore, the general public will get not just one objective account of how AV works but two objective accounts.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in relation to Boundary Commission proposal, it is imperative in the interests of equity and justice that every opportunity should be given for interests and persons to be heard at a public inquiry? Will he give an assurance that there will be full budgeting with regard to time and financial resources in relation to such a principle, in respect of which I suspect that nearly all of us are conservatives with a small “c”?

Political and Constitutional Reform

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords—

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, we have another 15 minutes. I am sure everybody will get in. Shall we hear from the Cross Benches first and then somebody from the Labour Party?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister recollect that, about a fortnight ago, in reply to my intervention in a Question on the reduction of the number of seats in the House of Commons, he said that the justification for that was devolution in relation to Scotland and Wales? Today’s Statement makes no reference to devolution—only to the saving of £12 million per annum. Which is it? Will it be the case, as far as the reduction is concerned, that it will be pro rata over the whole of the United Kingdom, with no specific culling on the basis of devolution for Wales or Scotland?

[Lord McNally]

There is no specific culling on the basis of Welsh or Scottish devolution. There is an aim, as far as possible, to get the same size of constituency. Saving money and moving forward with devolution are not mutually exclusive. We have already pledged that we will move forward with the referendum on more powers for the Welsh Assembly—something that the Government are committed to and which is part of this broader pattern of political reform.

Parliament: MP Numbers and Constituency Review

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. If he comes to the debate next week, as I am sure he will, he will hear my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and me speaking at an appropriate length about how we think the numbers and the costs of this House could be radically reduced.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I suggest to the Minister, I hope without impertinence, that these proposals are spawned by cosmetic considerations and indeed by populism, and that it is utterly absurd to consider a reduction in the number of Members of the House of Commons to a lower level than at the time of the Great Reform Act when the population of this kingdom was only a third to a quarter of what it is now. Indeed, all that will be achieved is an enhanced distance between the ordinary voter and the ordinary representative, which cannot be good for democracy.

[Lord McNally]

On the contrary, one of the things on which we can again pay tribute to the previous Administration is the progress that they made in devolution. We intend to carry forward the process of devolution so that more responsibility is given to the Parliaments and Assemblies of the nations and regions of this country. If you do that, it is absurd to continue with a House of Commons of the same size as when it had the responsibilities that have now been devolved. That is part of the sensible consequences of devolution.

Parliamentary Constituencies: Boundaries

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Yes, of course the Boundary Commission will be taking all those considerations into account. I understand the concerns about registrations to vote, which are extremely important. As I think was mentioned in a question yesterday, 92 or 93 per cent registration is not bad as an aim, but there is no doubt that there is difficulty about registration. My brief says that,

“non-registration was higher among private renters … unemployed … those without qualifications and those in non-permanent employment”.

There are similar bad figures for ethnic minorities. Those have to be looked at, and I am quite sure that that and other considerations will be taken into account by the Boundary Commission.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

The Minister will recollect that, during the general election, much was said about seeking to achieve an equal number of constituents in each constituency. How harshly is that rule to be applied? Does it mean that a time will come when mountain ranges, rivers and county and borough boundaries will count for nothing, and that there will be total arithmetical correctitude but no soul, no character and no history for such constituencies?

[Lord McNally]

No, that would be an absurd objective, but we have to come to a realisation that when a Government are elected on 36 per cent of the vote but are given a healthy 60-seat majority in the House of Commons, the electoral system has got out of kilter. I might also mention that when 23 per cent of the electorate return only 57 MPs, there are signs that perhaps that system is in need of examination. Of course, when the Boundary Commission comes to look at this, the kind of historical and geographical issues to which the noble Lord referred will be taken into account. I am actually quite surprised at the scepticism from some parts of the House. There is nothing up the sleeve; this is a rational approach to a distorted system.

Queen's Speech

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I join others who have so warmly and sincerely congratulated the new Ministers. I also appreciate the tributes that were so properly paid to those who have been translated from ministerial office to opposition spokesmen.

I shall speak to two matters in the Queen’s Speech, which stated:

“My Government will propose parliamentary and political reform to restore trust in democratic institutions and rebalance the relationship between the citizen and the state. Measures will be brought forward to introduce fixed term Parliaments of five years”.

Perhaps I may comment on that latter statement. It will be noticed that reference is made in the plural to “Parliaments”, but the Prime Minister says that the provision now adumbrated is in respect of this Parliament only. Is that a clerical error, or has there been a change of heart on the part of Her Majesty's Government? We will welcome a statement on that in due course.

In relation to fixed-term Parliaments and to the sovereignty that is vested not in any institution but in the ordinary people, a great deal can be said with regard to the matters suggested here. One thing that you cannot have is fixed-term parliaments on the one hand and a greater exercise of sovereignty by the ordinary people on the other hand. Let me give this instance. A Prime Minister dies; one died in 1923—Bonar Law. A Prime Minister resigns on account of chronic ill health, as did Anthony Eden. A Prime Minister may find himself so much in opposition with his own party that there is no alternative. Most people would argue that it is utterly proper, all things being equal, that a fresh mandate should be sought by that new Prime Minister. That was the clarion call of the Conservative Party three years ago when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair, and I thought that there was a great deal of sense in it. Had Mr Brown taken that course, he might very well be Prime Minister today—but that is another matter. What you cannot have is a situation of a fresh mandate for a fresh Prime Minister, when Prime Ministers are becoming more presidential all the time, and at the same time have fixed Parliaments. There is a price to be paid for everything and, very often, although these views are honourably held, they are antithetical to each other.

There are arguments for and against fixed parliaments, and one could say that they are very much like curates’ eggs—good only in parts. A very substantial statement was made 12 months ago by a very well known public personage, who said that there was a case in favour of fixed parliaments and then went on to say this:

“I know there are strong political and moral arguments against fixed-term parliaments. Political—because there's nothing worse than a lame-duck government with a tiny majority limping on for years. And moral—because when a Prime Minister has gone into an election, and won it promising to serve a full term, but hands over to an unelected leader half-way through, the people deserve an election as soon as possible”.

Of course, the author of those words is the right honourable David Cameron in May last year. As the House will have noticed, when he put the matter in the balanced way that he did, his words did not exactly light up with incandescent fervour for the idea of fixed parliaments.

When I first heard of the proposal of fixed parliaments with the 55 per cent rule written in as part of the structure of such an institution, I was horrified. It seemed to me that when a Prime Minister had been defeated, albeit by a single vote, there was no alternative but for that person to go to Buckingham Palace and surrender the seals of office. I accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that of course one should distinguish between the fall of a Prime Minister and the Dissolution of a Parliament. But to say that that Administration or political structure and that party or those parties would still remain in power unless there was a 55 per cent defeat would create an impossible situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, with his usual statesmanlike and scholarly approach to the question asked what the genesis was of the 55 per cent. In my cynical old age, I believe that the 55 per cent was decided on because it was 2 per cent more than 53 per cent. And what is 53 per cent? It is that proportion of Members in the House of Commons who are not Conservative Members. The Conservative Party has 47 per cent and the Opposition, as it were, 53 per cent, so 55 per cent leaves a margin beyond that.

A totally new factor has now come into the situation, which was referred to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who spoke of the speech made by Mr David Heath, the parliamentary secretary to the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, on Tuesday night. I have read through that speech a number of times and have found it somewhat confusing, but ultimately one comes to a passage on which I should be grateful if the House would concentrate for a moment. Mr Heath said:

“Returning to where a vote of no confidence has taken place, it is extraordinary to suggest that there would be circumstances in which this House would refuse to vote for a Dissolution when it was clear that a Dissolution and a new general election were the only way forward. However, even given that, we are putting forward”—

and this is the new matter—

“the automatic Dissolution proposal, as a safeguard that we will make part of the legislation, if no new Prime Minister can be appointed within a certain number of days. It seems to me that that is appropriate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/10; col. 150.].

Mr Heath went on to say that the period could be 20, 30 or 35 days; it matters not.

In fact, 55 per cent is not part of that basic structure as has been suggested. If a Prime Minister had been defeated and given up the seals of office there is a period of 30 days for a successor to decide whether he or she can form a Government. If such a Government is formed, the 55 per cent does not really come into it. If it cannot be formed, then that Government has fallen, not because of the 55 per cent but because of the automatic Dissolution system. That being so, one then asks what is the purpose of the 55 per cent. I think that it was intended to be an instrument to be used in terrorem against the Liberal Democrats. Put another way, it is an instrument—a chastity belt—to prevent the Liberal Democrats jumping into bed with any other political association. If that is the case, and I believe it to be so, we should look at these arrangements and proposals exactly in that cynical light.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I shall not venture into that territory because I do not think that I know the answer to that question. Clearly this is precisely the kind of issue that needs clarification. I entirely accept that.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

It seems to me that on Tuesday night David Heath was introducing a new institution into the situation, which was the period of 25, 30 or 35 days during which there would either be a failure to put together a Government, in which case there would be sudden death, or the whole matter would be prolonged. Was he speaking ex cathedra or not?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am certainly beyond my area of knowledge. These are matters of detail and we ought to allow—