Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, Amendments 8 and 9 are in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Bach. Clause 5 refers to exceptions to the spending rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 for the proposed referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. Amendment 8, the first in this group, seeks to emphasise that the broadcasts that are exempted are referendum campaign broadcasts. We contest that referendum-related materials and party election materials must be differentiated. Our second amendment, Amendment 9, picks up the same point. If political parties are allowed to use their election broadcasts to argue the merits of the referendum, that could lead to claims that the argument has been weighted more on one side than the other. Once you can use an election broadcast to promote views on one side or other of the AV or non-AV debate, the playing field is no longer equal. Party election broadcasts, which are an opportunity for all parties, should be about the elections for individual office holders, not the referendum.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Bill seek to create a level playing field where expenditure should not be the determinant of who wins. If that can be got around, because of the combination aspect, it leaves the possibility of the expenditure being distorted. Everyone agrees that the referendum result should be determined on its merits, not on who can spend the most money. The changes that are recommended by our amendments are important. It should be in the interest of all parties and none that clarity over the administration of press coverage and expenses during the election period is maximised.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who I am happy to see in his place, said, when this issue was debated in Committee that,
“it is vital that we have a level playing field wherever possible during the referendum campaign”.—[Official Report, 15/12/10; col. 617.]
I trust that your Lordships’ House would agree.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, saw the importance of the issue. He said:
“We recognise that there is an issue to be discussed”.
I can inform the House that there have been no such discussions. We have not been approached by the Minister or by his officials, and I have seen no draft amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, continued:
“There would have to be discussions without preconditions on either side. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to press the amendment, I shall resist—and that would be a mistake for both of us”.—[Official Report, 15/12/10; col. 621-22.]
I agree.
We withdrew our amendment in Committee, relying on the good faith of the Minister, but there has been nothing since then. I read the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whom I admire and like and am happy to see back, as being someone who would do something about this, so I would be keen to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—I assume that he will be responding to this, only because there is no other Minister on the Bench apart from him—what has happened about this.
The position in Committee was that the Government were acknowledging that there was an issue—namely, that a political party could use its party political broadcast to promote one side or the other in the referendum campaign, thereby getting around the expenditure limits, which we all agreed to be equal for everyone. That is why I withdrew my amendment, but we have heard nothing. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us about what happened.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, these are important amendments. I immediately take the point made by the noble and learned Lord on the follow-up to Committee. I regret any discourtesy that has been felt by the noble and learned Lord. While he was making his comments, I had the draft of a letter to him; I have now had it confirmed by the Leader of the House that it has been issued. It is dated with today’s date, so he might not have received it yet, but it is a fairly comprehensive letter that runs to almost three pages. I will not read it out or put it on the record. I apologise if the noble and learned Lord has not yet received it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
What on earth is the point of sending me a letter, which I have not had a chance to consider, that arrives after Report has started?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I can only confirm the factual position. I fully take the point that the noble and learned Lord has not yet had an opportunity to consider the letter. I have no idea when it was put into the system. I saw a draft earlier but was not in a position until now to confirm that it had been issued. As I indicated, I apologise for any discourtesy to the noble and learned Lord.
I turn to the two amendments. On the first one, as we explained in Committee, the Government introduced the clause to which the amendments relate in the other place after the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee identified an ambiguity in the current legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—over whether publication of material about the referendum by a media organisation in favour of a specific result would be caught by the spending restrictions that apply to the campaigning groups. Clause 5 provides that the costs of covering and reporting on the referendum in the media are not referendum expenses. In the interests of the freedom of the press, it would be wrong for the spending restrictions to apply in this way. I think that is common ground across the House.
The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord seeks to add “referendum campaign” before “broadcasts” to line 7 of page 4. This would go against Schedule 13 to the PPER Act 2000, which sets out that,
“agency fees, design costs and other costs in connection with preparing or producing”,
referendum campaign broadcasts are to be included as referendum expenses. I am not sure whether it was the noble and learned Lord’s intention to exempt such expenses from counting, but the Government do not agree that this should be the case. Designated lead campaign organisations are entitled to free referendum campaign broadcasts in terms of airtime, but the expenses incurred in respect of the production of these referendum campaign broadcasts do and should count towards referendum expenses. Therefore, it would not be right to accept this amendment, which would exempt these production expenses from counting.
Another reason why we do not agree with the first amendment is that it would bring back the ambiguity that we sought to remove through Clause 5 by limiting the provision to referendum broadcasts only. It would not therefore cover other types of broadcast, as it was designed to when we added it to the Bill. The result would be to reactivate the question of whether any broadcast other than referendum campaign broadcasts would be caught by the spending restrictions as they are currently drawn. It would then be ambiguous as to what would and would not count as referendum expenses in other types of BBC or Sianel Pedwar Cymru broadcasts—such as news programmes and politics programmes—other than those for the referendum campaign. We all agree that the media play a vital role in building public awareness and presenting facts and opinions on the matters raised by the poll. This amendment could prevent media comment if the spending limit for referendum expenses was reached. This would not be right. That was also the view of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place. We believe that accepting this amendment would go against the Committee.
We agreed in Committee to consider carefully the second amendment. I can assure the House that the Government have done so. I regret the lateness of the letter, but the position is set out in it. The Government agree with the principle that party election broadcasts should not be used as referendum campaign broadcasts. As was highlighted in Committee, there is a clear definition of what constitutes a referendum campaign broadcast under Section 127 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act—to which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, drew our attention. Any broadcast whose purpose or main purpose is to procure or promote an outcome in the referendum is a referendum campaign broadcast. Referendum campaign broadcasts can be made only by the designated lead campaign organisations. The current law therefore already provides that the purposes—or main purpose—of party election broadcasts must not be to promote or procure a referendum outcome. Therefore, we can be assured that party election broadcasts cannot be used by political parties as a significant referendum campaign opportunity. In a moment, I will come to the crucial point that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, raised.
Section 127 of the PPER Act provides a safeguard against a political party using a party election broadcast as a referendum campaign broadcast. However, it also provides appropriate leeway for broadcasters to make a judgment call as to whether material that a party might want to broadcast strays beyond mentioning the referendum in passing in an election broadcast and into the realms of what would become a referendum campaign broadcast.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Is the noble and learned Lord saying that, if one of the purposes of a political party’s broadcast—though not its main purpose—was to encourage people to vote in a particular way in the referendum, it would infringe Section 127 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is here and has recovered. He will remember what I said in Committee. I completely trust him, and I am more than happy to accept his assurances and to discuss the matter in the spirit in which he made the offer. I am absolutely sure that the two of us can reach a solution that is acceptable to both of us.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will also remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, intervened in the same debate and said:
“I think that I am right in saying that at the moment a party-political broadcast in connection with a referendum is allowed, so long as that is not the principal or main purpose, or some such phrase, of the broadcast. It may be that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and others have identified is a question of whether or not that general provision is wise or whether it should be modified. The question may go somewhat further than just this referendum and that issue needs to be looked at”.—[Official Report, 15/12/10; col. 622.]
That was the issue to which my comments and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred.
I completely exonerate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, of any fault on their part, but the consequence of what happened is that I have today been handed a letter, which I am reading while the noble and learned Lord gives what appears to be a wholly unsatisfactory answer. He appears to be saying that in order not to lose flexibility, it is important that political parties should be able to make a casual reference to the referendum in their party political broadcasts. He rejects my Amendment 9, which would mean that there would be certainty about the position and a level playing field. What would that protect? As I understand it, it would protect a political party’s right to mention the referendum. Superficially and on the face of it, that would seem to be utter nonsense and something which, if I had had an opportunity to talk to someone of the stature of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, before they gave voice to the note I have here, would perhaps have been modified. That was the impression left by the assurance I was given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
I am disappointed at the lateness of the letter from the Leader of the House. I make it clear that I am not remotely blaming the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble and learned Lord, because they are under different sorts of pressure, but it is an unfortunate process, which means that assurances are being given which, because of the speed with which we are operating, are not being delivered on. Although it is unusual to do so, I will bring this matter back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The amendment is re-moved but not removed—yet. I fully accept the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, re-moved it. As he recognises, this is not entirely consequential. We could get a turnout of 80 per cent and yet, with this change, we would still create a power rather than an obligation. I do not need to elaborate, as the point has been made. The Government cannot accept the amendment. In the spirit in which the noble Lord re-moved it, I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My understanding when I was a Minister was that, when an amendment was carried, the Government would bring forward amendments to tidy up the Bill to reflect the position in relation to the plain intent of the amendment—in this case, Amendment A1. We always did this and we expect the Government to make the rest of the Bill reflect the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, perhaps I may assist the House from my memory of our long period in opposition, when the noble and learned Lord was a Minister. There were two occasions on which the Government might have taken action. One was when it was agreed in advance that an amendment was consequential on an amendment that was carried. I believe that that is not the matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred. He may be referring to the second occasion, which was that, when an amendment was carried, the sense of the rest of the Bill had then to be tidied up in order to reflect the spirit of the decision taken by the House.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would confirm that it is the second of those occasions to which he refers, because there was no agreement that this amendment was consequential on the first when the Division took place earlier today. That is not to say that the Government refuse to look at the implications of the Division’s result. However, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that there was no undertaking to consider this amendment as consequential on the first and he will of course appreciate that there is a difference between the two positions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I am entirely unclear what the difference is. Amendment A1 states:
“If less than 40% of the electorate vote in the referendum, the result shall not be binding”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, says that if one puts in “may”, one makes it unbinding even if the turnout is more than 40 per cent. Is that consequential or is it tidying up? I have no idea. I would like to know what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is promising to do. With respect to the Chief Whip, I found the distinction meaningless, unhelpful and ill informed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
It is customary, when a noble Lord accuses another Member of the House of being ignorant, to give them the opportunity to reply.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, it might be helpful to the House if I remind noble Lords that we are on Report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I apologise. I was keen to find out the position of the Government in relation to this. What the Chief Whip said was unhelpful. It is important for the Government to state their position.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the vote took place only a few hours ago and the Government are still to consider how they will respond to it. In answer to the noble and learned Lord’s question, this is neither a consequential amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I have indicated, nor is it a tidying-up one, because it does not tidy up. It goes much further than that. Indeed, it breaks the linkage, because it would make the power permissive rather than a duty. As I indicated, that could therefore mean that the power was there in any circumstance. Even if there was an 80 per cent turnout at the referendum with a 75 per cent vote in favour, the effect would not be to oblige the order to be brought forward to implement a yes vote. That was not what the House voted for and therefore I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, which I think he fully understands.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, at an earlier stage on the Bill, I described this as the buckle that linked the AV bit of the Bill with the constituencies bit. It is a slightly peculiar buckle as the constituencies bit goes ahead even if AV does not because the referendum is lost, but AV cannot go ahead if the constituencies bit does not. I suppose that reflects the bargaining strength of the two sides during the coalition negotiations.
I do not see any great point in labouring this issue any more. The Government are not showing any great willingness to split the Bill, as some of us suggested from the first that they would be wise to do. All I would like to hear the Minister say is that this is a political deal and so has to stay. I do not even ask him to say that this is a sordid, low, political deal between two unequal partners which should never have taken place. I do not expect anything like that from the noble and learned Lord. If he would just say that this is a political deal and would the House kindly accept it on that basis, I shall do so and withdraw my amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, my name is on this amendment as well. To slightly increase the excruciation for the noble and learned Lord, it is impossible to understand what the basis of the conditionality is. Assume that 99 per cent of the population were to vote in favour of changing the system to AV, even if something happened to prevent the Boundary Commission changes being introduced, then, as I understand the Government’s position, they will not introduce AV. Why is that? What is the logic? The only logic must be some sort of political deal. Honesty would help the noble and learned Lord a lot.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, these amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has indicated, seek to undermine, even remove, the link between the commencement arrangements for the AV and for the constituencies parts of the Bill. Anyone who has ever been a political realist would recognise that in terms of a coalition one part of the Bill—the first part—had greater salience and resonance with the Liberal Democrats, and the same applied to the Conservative Party when it comes to Part 2. I believe in equality of votes across the United Kingdom and I have not had difficulty, therefore, in arguing that case.
The issue of linkage has been one which we have debated from the outset. The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, raised an issue about it as we started Committee stage and withdrew her amendment, and the parties and the coalition Government have made it very clear that these two parts are linked. The question has been raised—it was hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—as to why, if the referendum does not produce as successful an outcome as the Liberal Democrats would wish to see, we are tied in, as it were, with the boundary change. Quite apart from the fact that, as I have already indicated, there is something right in principle about trying to seek greater equality among constituencies, as a liberal and a democrat I would find it very difficult to say, if the people had expressed their view in a referendum and said no, that somehow or other we should try and thwart another part of this Bill which is linked.
There is nothing wrong in parties entering into an agreement that they then make their best endeavours to deliver; in fact it is honourable and perfectly proper. I believe both parts of this Bill hang together and are linked. They give the people a say as to whether they want to change the way in which the House of Commons is elected while also ensuring that the House of Commons is elected, be it on first past the post or on the alternative vote, in constituencies that are much nearer to being equal.
On that basis I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this amendment removes the power in Clause 8(4) to make a transitional or saving provision when implementing the AV provisions through an order made under Clause 8(1). Instead, it inserts the provision that any order made under Clause 8(1) will not affect any election held before the first parliamentary election following that day.
The Government have brought forward this amendment in response to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the power in Clause 8(4) should be subject to the negative procedure. This was on the grounds that,
“the power to include transitional and saving provision may determine which form of voting system is to apply in the case of a particular parliamentary election. That is a significant power, which ought to be subject to Parliamentary control”.
This Government attach great importance to the views of this and other Select Committees, and we have reflected carefully on the committee’s recommendations. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace indicated in Committee, we had envisaged that in the event of a yes vote in the referendum, this power might be used to provide that any parliamentary by-elections held between the commencement of the AV provisions and the subsequent general election would take place under the existing first past the post system. That is because the Government take the view that it would not be appropriate in the intervening period between the commencement of these provisions and the subsequent general election for by-elections to take place under the AV system, since that would have the result that the House of Commons would contain Members elected under two different electoral systems.
The Government are content to accept the committee’s conclusion that the issue of the powers in Clause 8(4) should be addressed. However, the effect of applying parliamentary procedure to the powers proposed would run contrary to the Government’s stated intention that the referendum on the voting system should be binding. Moreover, this House has already expressed its view on this issue by voting on the first day in Committee against an amendment to make the referendum indicative. In order to meet the Committee’s concern, the Government have instead brought forward this amendment, which removes the powers in Clause 8(4) and instead makes the position on by-elections held in the period between the AV provision coming into force and the first parliamentary election on AV clear in the Bill. This provision goes further than the committee’s recommendation by making the Government’s intentions absolutely clear in the Bill. On reflection, we think this is preferable to leaving the issue to future secondary legislation, which would be the effect of following the committee’s recommendation. I beg to move this amendment, and I hope that the House will support it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McNally, back to front-line service on this exciting Bill. We have missed him a lot in every single respect. He has explained that very—
Lord McNally
Since this is my only opportunity, I thank those on the Labour Benches for sending me a bouquet of cut flowers. After MI5 had dismantled it, it was put in a vase in my room.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
And did they find what we hid in it? We genuinely welcome the noble Lord back. He is very popular on our Benches. He has explained this very clearly. We have no problem with it. We think the critical point that he is making is that by-elections after the passage of the Order in Council that brings the boundary changes into effect, which is the last stage in bringing in AV after a yes vote, will not be conducted under AV until after the first general election is conducted after AV. We have no problem with that.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, as we begin Report on the Bill, we believe that it is important that the House is updated on our position on the Bill. We invite no prolonged discussion at this stage on the timing of Report.
The Bill is acknowledged on all sides of the House to be a significant constitutional Bill that has not been the subject of what is regarded as the norm for such a Bill—either public consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny. Report has been brought forward without the 14-day gap that convention requires between Committee and Report. These conventions exist for a reason. That 14-day gap allows consideration and discussion in Committee and then the formulation of amendments for Report and preparation for their debate. There has been one sitting day between the end of Committee and Report. It is for your Lordships to judge whether the many issues raised by the Bill meant that it was never going to be possible to scrutinise it properly in the time sought to be allotted by the Government.
We think it right to register the point about the gap, but the mood of your Lordships’ House has been to encourage the participants to resolve the problem by negotiation. The Opposition have supported and participated in this actively. They have been greatly assisted by the intervention of the Cross-Benchers. We have negotiated at all times in good faith. The Government indicated a basis for agreement on the main issues, to which the Cross-Benchers have responded, with our support, in accordance with the Government’s suggestions. Cross-Benchers have discussed amendments with the Government in accordance with what they believed the Government were indicating, but no agreement has been reached.
Our system of self-regulation works only if the parties are willingly to negotiate honestly and skilfully and can reach agreement. However, we want to help the process and to do so we have agreed today that we will seek to complete Report on Part 1 of the Bill today. There is a way to go, but my sense is that your Lordships want to get on. It is a token of our good faith that we seek to complete Part 1 today. No one could suggest that that was not very reasonable progress. We want this House to consider these matters in a reasoned and reasonable way, and we very much hope that the Government will respond to this. We want this House to be able to consider and, as appropriate, vote on the key issues before us on Report to encourage resolution by agreement.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, last week an amendment on public inquiries was tabled from the Cross Benches as a possible means of arriving at a compromise agreement between the Government and the Opposition. The Government promised to come back with a modified amendment. Following this there was an agreement that Committee on the Bill should be completed, as it duly was, last week. We are now on Report and we have further amendments on public inquiries, thresholds and the percentage variation. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to reiterate the role of the Cross-Benchers by laying particular emphasis on their being politically unaligned.
The amendments before us—some usefully tabled by expert Members on the Cross Benches—are to do with content, not process. As the current Convenor, I do not and cannot speak for one party or another in this debate, although as individuals, me included, we will vote according to what each of us thinks are useful amendments and what is an appropriate way forward. I can say that Cross-Benchers as a group wholly support the main task of this House, which is scrutiny. It follows that anything that might interfere with that role, be it a programme timetable, filibustering or flouting of the conventions of this Chamber, would probably not be supported. Thus the normal convention at this stage is that Report should go ahead, that reasoned arguments be put, that Divisions take place and that the Bill goes to the House of Commons by 14 February. I say with some confidence that this would be the view of the majority of the Cross-Benchers.
As your Lordships know, a great deal of negotiation has taken place. However, what is now called for is that the essence of these negotiations comes to the Floor of the House and that opinions be canvassed by means of voting. Whatever the outcome of the Divisions, the Bill would go back to the other place for consideration. This is the way in which this place has, for perhaps hundreds of years, conducted its business. Many of us might feel that we should now return to these practices and that necessary compromises are made at the final stage of the Bill, which is Third Reading, next week.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I readily accept that an abstention can count as a no vote. Whether it would in most cases, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think anybody can say. I am quite certain that it is wrong to assume that an abstention is always equivalent to a no vote. That is my proposition. I do not think that I have anything useful to add to the matter, save to say that what is at issue is the credibility of the parliamentary system—credibility that would be greatly damaged if some provision of this nature were not resorted to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is an important amendment, which goes to the legitimacy of any change to the voting system. First, I do not believe that the stages in the argument are substantially in dispute. The referendum deals with an important constitutional issue and I have not heard anyone say that we should not have a referendum. There are people who object to referendums but, by and large, if our country is having referendums, this is an issue to have one on because it changes the voting system.
Secondly, this is an unusual Bill in so far as a referendum is concerned because it provides for a compulsory referendum, not an advisory one. By that I mean that if the vote is passed, the consequence is not that Parliament would then produce another Act of Parliament, as it did with the Scotland Act and the Wales Act, but that there is automaticity in that the Minister is required to bring forward an order that would automatically, in the light of the vote, give effect to the change in the voting system.
Thirdly, the effect of the provisions is that if, for example, there was a turnout of 25 per cent in the referendum, which no one regards as an outlandish percentage, you could end up with what is regarded by all as a major constitutional change being produced by 12.5 per cent of the country supporting it.
Fourthly, the reason why a referendum is required is that in constitutional change of this importance—and no one disputes its importance—it should be harder rather than easier than normal to effect such a change.
Fifthly, this is a change that has the support of the Liberal Democrats, while the Labour Party is divided on it and the Conservatives are against it. The effect is that it is almost certain that unlike with, for example, the Scotland Bill, the Wales Bill and the European common market in the early 1970s, Parliament would vote in favour of these changes. That means that, if there is no threshold, you have a situation where, far from it being harder to bring about this constitutional change, it may well be easier than it would have been with a normal Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that if you ended up in a situation where the referendum was passed by 12.5 per cent of the electorate, which would be the position, the legitimacy of the change would be considerably in doubt. I agree with that. It would—I quote the noble Lord—“eat like acid” at its legitimacy and put our voting system in play for whoever next forms the Government. There needs to be some protection to ensure that a major constitutional change such as this is not easier to make than through a normal Act of Parliament.
I am aware of the history of this matter, which is coloured by the threshold that was inserted in the 1978 Bill in the House of Commons. At the Committee stage, there was an interesting debate on that, during which George Cunningham, then the Member of Parliament for Islington South and Finsbury, in a very powerful speech persuaded Parliament that it would be wrong to make such a major change without there being a threshold.
Lord Tyler
Will the noble and learned Lord explain one point to me? His colleague in the other place, Mr Christopher Bryant, made a powerful speech against any threshold in this Bill, on which the Commons voted by 549 to 31. Why does the noble and learned Lord differ from his colleagues in the other place?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do so for two reasons. First, if one reads Mr Bryant’s speech, one sees that he made it clear that this was a matter for the Lords to form a view on. Secondly, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker does not provide that the proposal would automatically fail, which was what was voted on in the Commons. My noble friend has come up with what seems a sensible conclusion to make the referendum an advisory one, which, as noble Lords have heard from the quotes from the Constitution Committee, is the norm in our country. My noble friend has found a way through in relation to that.
This is important. We were unsure what our position should be precisely on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. We had a different position in relation to a drop-dead referendum, where, if you did not get a 40 per cent turnout, that would be the end of it. Instead, my noble friend has found a way through that.
I have listened with interest and respect to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about the Northern Ireland position and to what my noble friend Lord Reid said. My view is that we are dealing with a voting system for the whole of the United Kingdom. Once one accepts the proposition that there needs to be something special in order to justify this change, there has to be support throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, which obviously includes Northern Ireland. Although I listened with respect, I do not think that the reason given means that the simple solution that my noble friend Lord Rooker has produced is inadequate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that there would be a differential turnout in relation to this referendum because there will be local, Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly elections in some parts of the country but not in others. If you have a UK-wide threshold for turnout, that assists in making sure that the differential turnout does not affect the result.
The Opposition support the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We believe that what he has said will promote acceptance of AV, if that is the change, which is good for the country. If there is a majority among those who vote, but the 40 per cent threshold is not reached, it will then be open to Parliament to conclude that that is sufficient, but the matter would have to come back to Parliament. There would have to be a piece of primary legislation; it would not depend just on a statutory instrument. My noble friend’s proposal does not rule out—
Lord Rennard
Is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that it would be open to Parliament in that event to reject the result of the referendum if, say, on the mathematics that I have just worked out, 13.5 million people voted yes in the referendum—a greater number than have voted for any Government in recent general elections—and 4 million people voted against? If so, the will of 13.5 million people voting yes would not count, while the will of 4 million people voting no would. Ultimately, he says that the matter would go back again to Members in the other place to decide what the voting system should be for voters, rather than leaving it for the voters themselves to decide what system they have for choosing their elected representatives.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The position would be exactly the same as it was in relation to the Scotland Act, where a massive majority voted yes in favour of Scottish devolution. It was open to Parliament to say no to all those people in the Act that followed, but of course Parliament said yes. Unless you take the view that one completely discounts Parliament altogether, it is unlikely that such a conclusion would be reached, but suppose that the position were that 5 million voted yes and 4.5 million voted no. Let Parliament decide what should then happen. That is the effect of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. With respect, that is a very sensible conclusion and one that is entirely in line with our parliamentary democracy. We on this side of the House will vote in favour of the Rooker amendment and I hope that other noble Lords will do so as well.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
If that argument is correct, why does it not also apply to general elections and constituency votes, which some noble Lords wish to alter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Is it not also right that it was an automatic no when the level was not reached in 1978, which is not what my noble friend Lord Rooker is proposing here?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
There is a difference because the 40 per cent related to something different. I am not entirely sure that I follow what my noble friend Lord Lamont said, because in general elections there is no threshold for what the turnout should be to make those elections valid and no one has ever suggested putting a turnout—
Lord Rooker
My Lords, in moving Amendment A2, I wish to speak also to Amendment 7B, which I shall move later. In line with what I have said previously, I give notice that I shall not move my other amendments. I have to move Amendments A2 and 7B as they are government amendments to make the decision that was taken on 6 December to hold the referendum before 31 October 2011 work.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, interrupted me when I was winding up. I was about to say that when the House makes a change with a few words that we all understand, the parliamentary draftsmen have to draft a provision to make it work. Back on 6 December the House voted by four votes that the referendum must be held before 31 October 2011. I am told that to make that work parliamentary draftsmen have drafted Amendments A2 and 7B. The referendum is planned for 5 May. As far as I am concerned, that was always okay, but my view is that in case something prevents it happening on 5 May, the Government need a lifeboat to enable it to take place before 31 October. Therefore, on behalf of the coalition, I am pleased to move Amendment A2 now and Amendment 7B later.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rooker, who knows the mood of the House much better than anyone else in it. It was a splendid victory. Perhaps I may also say how much I agree with his request for the list of concessions. I can help him on that. I was handed them at 2.29 pm this afternoon, and I have to say that they do not amount to very much, I am afraid. I obviously support the amendments that my noble friend is proposing. In effect, they make whole the amendment passed in Committee.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for moving the amendment, as he said, on behalf of the coalition. He described the reasons for it. The Bill as it stood was defective, because, while the noble Lord specified that the referendum had to take place before 31 October, there was no means for identifying when the date had to be set—hence the need for an order.
The amendment also sets an appropriate test for Ministers to satisfy before using any order-making power, whereby,
“it is impossible or impractical for the referendum to be held on 5 May 2011, or that it cannot be conducted properly if held on that day”.
The test is right, because the referendum date can be moved away from 5 May only for practical reasons. It would be wrong, and have very serious implications, if the reason for that was the result of some delay that had not allowed consideration of the Bill to be completed in time.
The associated amendment to Clause 4 is also necessary in this context to ensure that the scheme which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, envisages is properly workable. It provides a new power to make provision in secondary legislation to take account of a situation in which other polls are due to be held on any other referendum date set by the order.
Clause 4 as it stands will ensure that any poll which that clause already mentions is automatically combined with the referendum if it takes place on a new date set for the referendum. Any polls which Clause 4 does not mention would not be combined with the poll. It is impossible to say at this stage whether it would desirable to combine a referendum with other polls. A decision on that would need to be taken at the time and will depend on the types of polls.
In conclusion, I reassure noble Lords that, given the flexibility that these powers need to provide, any order made using the new powers will necessarily be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I end on a note of caution, because I cannot speak on this subject without saying how unfortunate it would be if the referendum were not to take place on 5 May.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I do not particularly want to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, not least in that I would not want to go down the partisan path he took in the middle of his speech, no doubt unintentionally. I do, however, want to find out exactly what is being asked because I found myself getting a bit open-mouthed at some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said. Do I understand that he wants a proposition that says, “Do you want change?”, to which in any normal circumstance, even if your wife says that you need a new dressing gown or pair of slippers, you ask what the alternative is? Then, when they ask you what the alternative is, you say, “We do not actually have an alternative. There are a dozen, 15 or 20 of them”. Once you have decided whether you want an alternative, the politicians will decide what alternative you want. I am bound to say that that totally lacks credibility, and I could not conceivably vote for it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, at the heart of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is the proposition that there has not been sufficient examination of what the right system is. It reflects the thump-thump-thump throughout this debate that there has been no adequate examination of the various voting systems. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who is very much to be admired, is indicating from a sedentary position a word that suggests he does not necessarily agree, but I do not invite him to express it.
That is not just my view; it is the view of the two Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament, it is the view that underlay the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wills calling for a commission of inquiry, and it is the basis upon which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has put his amendment now. Like everything on Report, it is a refined version that says, “Let us have it, but only if there is a desire for change”. The fact that when Lady Newton of Braintree proposes that the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, buys a new dressing gown, he says yes, does not indicate that everyone, when confronted with change, says yes. Indeed, most people, when confronted with change on important political issues, tend to say no, so I will be interested to hear the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on this issue, and the answer to the proposition that if the public want change, we should examine what the right change is before we give them only one choice.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friends, but I also ask a specific question of the Leader of the House. Over the weekend the Scottish media brought to my attention the speculation that the budget of the SNP minority-controlled Administration in Scotland could be defeated, and that that could lead to an early dissolution of the Scottish Parliament. Given that everything we have debated in Part 1 of the Bill is predicated on the Scottish Parliament elections taking place on the same day as the referendum, what is plan B if it transpires that the Scottish Parliament elections take place in March? There is speculation that it could be in March. As an Ayrshire man, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will recognise the expression,
“The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley”.
Things frequently “gang aft agley”. Will the noble Lord reflect upon this and give us some indication of what would happen?
The noble Lord deployed a very powerful argument that the reason for putting both on the one day was because of the £12 million cost of the referendum. It would seem that we might have a general election in Scotland in March and then a referendum on 1 May at a quite disproportionate additional cost. I would therefore be very interested in plan B.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I understand the current position to be as follows. The AV referendum can, but does not have to, take place on the same day as the other elections that we have been referring to in this group of amendments. As I understand it, Clause 4(8) deals with the position if they do not occur on the same day. The amendments on the local authority elections, local referendums, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, Welsh Assembly elections and Scottish Parliament elections would all, in effect, forbid those elections to take place on the same day as the alternative-vote system. That is the issue; we should not be allowed to combine. The Opposition support all the amendments that would prevent combination, in effect, for the arguments that we have already heard.
First, there is a swamping of the AV issue. The Constitution Committee of this House wrote a report that said that, where you combine elections with a referendum, the evidence from other experiences shows that there is a tendency that the elections to Assemblies that affect peoples’ lives will swamp the question. This is a bad conclusion to reach because we all agree upon the importance of the question. Secondly, if you have so many elections in so many places, it puts pressure on the organisation—see what happened in the 2007 Scottish elections as a result of more than one occurring on the same day. Thirdly, there will be differential turnout—namely, some places may have higher turnouts than others because there are elections. It would be wrong for the result of something as important as this to be determined simply by the coincidence of elections of another sort being held. Fourthly, there is a lack of clarity. It becomes more difficult for the public when a person who is standing for election says one thing that people support and then opposes a particular proposition that the public might otherwise agree with. Fifthly, there is a lack of respect. Respect between the Parliaments is important. The decision was made to combine without there being any consultation whatever.
There appears to be only one argument in favour: the saving of approximately £12 million. This is a significant amount of money. It is worth ensuring that having a clear and simple vote on the question of whether there should be an alternative vote system is dealt with properly and with clarity. The Opposition support the whole range of amendments that would prevent combination.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, earlier I raised the concerns that exist in Northern Ireland. I can understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, regarding how the count will proceed in Scotland, where two elections are held on the same day. The position in Northern Ireland is more confusing because we have three elections on the same day. I warned that this could cause confusion and over the past few days I have certainly experienced increasing unease in Northern Ireland about the count following these three elections. Two will be based on STV—one to the Northern Ireland Assembly and one to the district councils—and the third one on AV.
When I raised this matter with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, he said that when he came to respond to this amendment we would get an answer on what priority would be given to the counts for the three elections in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I should like to know in which order the counts for the three elections in Northern Ireland will take place, and whether we will have to wait for the result on AV to come through in Northern Ireland or whether it will come out at the same time as in England, Scotland and Wales.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
We support the principle behind these amendments, which is for the AV count to take place after those for the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and local elections, the local elections count being caught by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Whether that requires an amendment to the Bill or whether it can be dealt with by a clear statement from the Minister depends on what the Minister says, but we support the approach of these two amendments.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is useful to have had this short debate on this subject and I hope that what I say will be welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Lipsey, in whose names the amendments stand, and by others who have spoken in the debate. It is always good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, talk about great traditions. He finds great comradeship—if that is the right word—on traditional matters. In the dim and distant past I have been present at Glasgow counts, as well as at Ayrshire counts, so I understand what he means about the comradeship that occurs.
We debated this matter in Committee, when my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace made it clear that the parliamentary polls will, once everything has been verified, be counted ahead of the referendum poll. That is the principle that will underlie everything. The Government’s policy is very clearly that the votes relating to the elections, wherever they take place, will be counted before those of the referendum. The referendum count will come last, and the chief counting officer can, using her power of direction under paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 1, direct counting officers in the discharge of their functions or require them to take specified steps.
I refer noble Lords to the paper published by the Electoral Commission in December 2010, which is also available on its website. It sets out the chief counting officer’s intention to direct that the referendum count should not begin before 4 pm on Friday 6 May. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to that. The decision to start counting the ballot papers cast in the referendum poll at 4 pm was reached in the light of discussions with the senior returning officers from all areas of the UK and followed consultation with a number of interested organisations and affected parties, including electoral administrators.
The timing of the count is ultimately a matter for the chief counting officer to direct. I understand that the Electoral Commission is satisfied that the assumptions underpinning this direction will mean that the referendum count should not delay the results of the scheduled elections. I am also aware that specific discussions between the commission and administrators are taking place to ensure that counting officers in Northern Ireland are equipped to carry out concurrent counts and that, in any event, this should not result in a delay in the results being announced for any poll. Therefore, I do not consider that this issue needs any further clarification in the Bill.
To those such as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who would like a quick result, I say that the Gould report, which he will know well and has prayed in aid, considered overnight counts and came out clearly against them. Gould said:
“We recommend that if the polls continue to close at 10:00 pm, there should be no overnight count of the ballot papers ... To achieve the highest level of confidence in the counting process, it is essential that the emphasis is on the quality of decision-making related to the count, not on the speed with which the count is conducted”.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this group contains Amendments 110B, 110C, 110C, 110D and 110E. The amendment would give the chief counting officer, who is chair of the Electoral Commission, the power to incur expenses for the effective conduct of the referendum and in certain limited circumstances, make payments in respect of those expenses out of moneys to be provided from the Consolidated Fund. I can assure the Committee that the chief counting officer will be able to spend conduct moneys only where doing so provides a clear financial benefit. The Royal Mail, for example, has indicated that it may be able to provide a cheaper service for the sweeps of mail centres—a service that ensures that any votes still in the mail centres towards the end of polling day are identified, extracted and provided to returning and counting officers before the close of poll that evening—if it can contract for this on a national basis with one individual rather than having to negotiate and contract with more than 350 officers who will be conducting the poll at local level.
The amendment would help to make the administration of the referendum easier for the chief counting officer and for counting officers, and provides an opportunity for savings to be made on the conduct of the poll. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
This seems very sensible, but I am slightly bewildered. How on earth does the chief counting officer not have that power anyway?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, when this issue arose, the view was taken that it was uncertain that that power existed and hence there was the need to put it beyond peradventure that it did. The issue was flagged up by the example of the Royal Mail that I gave, and there was concern that that power did not exist. As the noble and learned Lord says, it is a sensible power and one which I hope will commend itself to the Committee.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
This is an important point which my noble friend Lord Foulkes has put so accurately. The position should not be different in England and Scotland. In England, interest is sufficient, which means a general interest—almost in a layman’s sense—in the subject matter, whereas in Scotland, interest and title are needed, title meaning, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, some legal relationship which gives them a right to sue. The amendment would make Scotland and England the same in relation to whether you are entitled to challenge an electoral process which is identical on both sides of the border. That seems sensible. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for bringing this amendment forward. He and I well know that the matter has been raised by the Law Society of Scotland. Indeed, I tabled a similar amendment in the previous Parliament.
The amendment would amend the provisions so that a challenge brought through judicial review in Scotland can be launched if its purposes are on the same basis as proceedings elsewhere. In Scotland, there are two separate tests for bringing judicial review, in that a petitioner has to demonstrate both title and interest, whereas in England, Wales and Northern Ireland there is a single test of interest alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, also mentioned the recommendation made by Lord Gill, the Lord Justice Clerk, in his Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review. However, I am concerned that because of the way in which this amendment is drafted, it will not have the desired effect. By stating that,
“the petitioner’s interest alone shall be sufficient to enable a petition to be lodged”,
it has almost gone too far and would effectively disapply the need to establish all other matters when considering a case for judicial review—including, indeed, whether there is sufficient legal grounds for a challenge.
The other, perhaps more practical, point is that it is difficult to see what the practical effect would be, as we think it is likely that the Scottish courts would entertain a judicial review from any elector entitled to vote at the referendum or at parliamentary elections and any permitted participant. By their very nature, they have an interest—they were taking part in the election.
We should be mindful of the fact that this issue goes wider than the referendum alone. It raises important issues about the nature of judicial review in Scotland, not least those flowing from Lord Gill’s report, and the circumstances in which they should be permitted to raise petitions for judicial review. That is an important issue. It is one that undoubtedly is receiving detailed consideration, not least by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. It would not be helpful if this Bill somehow tried to pre-empt it on an ad hoc basis, particularly, as I have indicated, we believe that an elector in Scotland would be able to raise a petition.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That is very helpful. I read the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, as saying that the current requirement in Scotland for judicial review is title and interest. He is expressing the view from the Dispatch Box that if you were an elector in the relevant election that you wished to challenge—the referendum—that would give you title and interest for the purpose of Scottish judicial review. That being so, the difficulties and dangers of trying to do an ad hoc change here do not arise and we should be reassured that any elector would be able to bring a judicial review challenge in Scotland, just as they would in England.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows, these will ultimately be matters for the court but that is certainly our understanding, or my belief.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I should perhaps have asked this before but, on page 25, Schedule 1 requires the Electoral Commission to,
“prepare accounts in respect of their expenditure in relation to the referendum”,
only if,
“directed to do so by the Treasury”.
Is the Treasury going to give such a direction? It seems extraordinary that we would not know what the expenditure of the Electoral Commission was on the referendum unless a direction had been given by the Treasury. It might be that this is, as it were, language which is always in, and that it will of course give that direction, but I thought that it was a very odd way of doing it. It would mean that we could not find out how much had been spent on the referendum, but you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a lot of questions asked about how much the referendum cost at some stage.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I probably share the noble and learned Lord’s view. It is almost counterintuitive to think that the Treasury might in some way not wish that—well, it may be, I do not know. Freedom of information requests might well flow fast and furiously if that did not happen. Perhaps if I talk long enough, I may get a definitive answer on whether this is indeed something that generally appears in such legislation or whether there is some reason unbeknown to us.
The answer is that it is part of the Electoral Commission’s accounting framework that it normally accounts to the Speaker’s office. I suspect that the paragraph makes provision that the accounts in relation to the referendum could be extracted. If that is incorrect, I will ensure that a proper clarification is intimated to the noble and learned Lord and duly circulated.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, I am getting a sapling of an idea of what the reason is and I think I understand. This is not a major point, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord could write. He should not bother to write if the sapling of the idea is, as I think was said, that we have to do it slightly differently because of this and that there will be accounts. If there will not be accounts available, perhaps he should write; otherwise, we can forget it.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 112C. There are two types of people in particular that this amendment would help. There is still what is called a three-shift pattern in factories and elsewhere of 6 am to 2 pm, 2 pm to 10 pm, which is known as a back shift, and 10 pm to 6 am on a night shift. I worked that pattern myself for many years. The 6-to-2 shift sounds great—you get into work at 6 am, finish at 2 pm and have the rest of the day to yourself. Unfortunately, most people who have worked that shift will tell you that they spend most of the afternoon lying asleep on the couch, trying to catch up with the disruption to the normal sleep pattern and normal shift pattern. You can wake up feeling disorientated at times. It may sound a bit silly but I can assure people that the disruption to your normal pattern, in working that three-shift pattern, can have that effect on you.
There is also the back shift between 2 pm and 10 pm. It sounds great—you can get up in the morning and have time to do plenty of things before you start work at two o’clock. But you can have quite an extended travel time to get to work for 2 pm and, with other things to do in the morning, you may find that by the time you finish work at 10 pm the polling station is closed. As for the people who do the night shift, again it sounds great, as you have plenty of time during the day, but ask anyone who works the night shift and they will tell you that their day is disrupted. If there is a constantly changing shift pattern, working a different shift each week following the 6-to-2, 2-to-10 and 10-to-6 three-shift pattern, I can assure your Lordships that there is a disruption to the patterns of sleep and behaviour.
The second category is a new and developing pattern to which my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock has referred. This is the growing number of people who manage two jobs, particularly women. It always seems to be women who get landed with the part-time jobs, though they are not quite cheap labour thanks to the Labour Government’s national minimum wage law that was opposed by the Liberals and Tories at the time. Nevertheless, these people are trying to keep two jobs going and are rushing between them. An extra hour’s voting time at the end of the day will give people an extended opportunity to vote.
I believe that that category of part-time workers is growing. Again, I do not like it but they are mostly women workers because they have got to snatch a job of two or three hours to cope with child care and all the rest of it. They have to dive back, run a house, and probably get their man fed and out to work. There are some areas in the world where women still do not have a proper place in life. Keeping family together falls harder on women than on men, and I regret to say that a sexist society still operates like that. I would certainly support anything that can help women and part-time workers in that category. I would indicate my strong support particularly for Amendment 112C.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My noble friend Lord Rooker has Amendment 113 in this group, but he has had to leave. It is effectively the same as the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Foulkes in that it proposes that the polls should shut at 11 pm. The point has already been made but it seems a good thing that the time should be extended for people to vote. There may be reasons why that is a bad thing. I will wait to hear what the Minister says.
The next group of amendments, which would have been moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker, but which I will move because he cannot be here, seek to deal with the overcrowded polling stations issue, which we have already discussed and in which there was an impressive intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. There was quite broad support for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The amendment that proposes that the polls should shut at 11 pm, as opposed to 10 pm, might, subject to the information that the Minister has, be of assistance in relation to that. If the number of people who would vote between 10 pm and 11 pm was quite low—even though there might be a late surge—it would reduce the likelihood of what happened in the previous general election happening again. It might, for that additional reason, be worth contemplating.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for raising these issues with his amendments, which would provide electors with earlier notice of the referendum and give voters extra hours to cast their ballots. As noble Lords are aware, it is the Government’s intention that the referendum should be held on 5 May. Therefore, any alterations to the timetable and the hours of polling proposed for the referendum would inevitably create inconsistencies between the rules governing the referendum on the one hand and those governing the elections scheduled to take place on 5 May, with which the referendum will be combined, on the other. Fundamentally, this would be confusing and unhelpful for voters. Noble Lords may already have noted that that view is supported by the Electoral Commission. The amendment would also be inconsistent with the combination of rules in Schedules 5 to 8 to the Bill.
I turn to the first part of the amendment, which deals with the referendum timetable and the issuing of the notice of poll. With the exception of the Scottish parliamentary election, the 25-day timetable will be used for all other polls that are scheduled to take place on 5 May 2011. During the Bill’s passage through Parliament, we specifically amended the deadline for issuing the notice of poll from 16 to 15 days before the date of the poll. The noble Lord’s amendment would take that up to 20 days before the date of the poll. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that a consistent deadline for the publication of the notice of poll applied for most of the polls that will be combined across the United Kingdom.
Only in Scotland will the deadlines for publication of the notice of the two combined polls be different from each other, due to a slightly different timetable that applies to Scottish parliamentary elections. However, moving the deadline to 20 days before the poll would lead to inconsistency right across the United Kingdom and potential confusion for voters and electoral administrators. The Electoral Commission will take steps, however, to ensure that electors are aware of the referendum before the statutory timetable commences, and electors will not have to wait until notice of poll is issued, or until they receive their official poll card, to change their voting arrangements should they wish to do so.
I turn now to the amendment on polling hours. It is an important amendment and important arguments have been adduced in its favour. It would extend the polling hours for the referendum, which could be difficult for polling staff and polling agents. It may even be difficult for people who rely on public transport to get to a polling station for 6 am for the opening of the poll. At the end of the day, extending the close of poll by one hour could have implications for the staff at the time of verification, not least in those cases where two polls will be combined on one day. However, perhaps more importantly, it could be confusing to voters to have polls taking place on the same day but closing at different times. Under this proposal, voters would turn up before 7 am or after 10 pm to vote in the referendum, but would perhaps be told that they were unable to vote in the Scottish parliamentary election, the Welsh National Assembly election or some of the local government elections in England. I suspect that would increase, rather than reduce, the possibility of voters missing their opportunity to vote, which could cause some dissension.
The important point, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned, is that the opportunities for postal voting and voting by proxy are now such that if the current polling hours are unsuitable for electors, they still have the opportunity to vote. I readily accept that in many cases work patterns and family patterns may make it difficult, but it is now possible to vote either by proxy or by post. As we all know from taking a keen interest in elections, the number of postal votes has increased considerably; obviously a good number of people take that opportunity. It may be that the message about opportunities for postal and proxy voting can be reinforced in the context of information relating to the polls.
It is also important that the issue regarding the timetable for the polls goes wider than the referendum alone. It should perhaps be reviewed in the longer term for future national elections and referendums. With these words and assurances, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I will move and speak to the amendments in this group on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker. There are three of them, two of which seek to deal with the chaos at the end of the general election. On page 32, paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 2 to the Bill, “Rules for the Conduct of the Referendum”, provides that:
“The counting officer must provide a sufficient number of polling stations and, subject to the following provisions of this rule, must allot the electors to the polling stations in whatever manner the officer thinks most convenient”.
My noble friend Lord Rooker proposes that that be amended so that,
“no polling station shall be allocated more than 1050 electors”.
If you put a limit on the number of electors sent to a polling station, you reduce the chance of there being the chaos that there was at the previous general election.
The next amendment in this group is Amendment 120. At page 35 of the Bill, paragraph 17(1) says:
“The counting officer must provide each presiding officer with however many ballot boxes and ballot papers the counting officer thinks are necessary”.
My noble friend Lord Rooker proposes amending that to ensure that the counting officer in every ballot station has as many ballot papers as there are electors allocated to that polling station. That is sensible because it means that they cannot run out of ballot papers. Again, it is a way of reducing chaos.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment 121. On page 35—I know all noble Lords are following this in their own copies of the Bill because it is so completely fascinating—sub-paragraph (7) says:
“In every compartment of every polling station there must be exhibited the notice—
‘Mark one box only. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may not be counted’”.
If noble Lords turn to page 61, they will see that, instead of “Mark one box only”, the wording in the second paragraph of the notice given there is:
“Vote in one box only”.
If noble Lords go to page 67, line 25, they will see the phrase:
“Vote in ONE box only. Do not put any other mark on the ballot paper”.
If noble Lords go to page 74, they will see in paragraph 2:
“Vote in one box only. Put no other mark on the ballot paper”.
My noble friend Lord Rooker says that “Mark one box only” and,
“Vote in one box only”,
say the same thing; that it is confusing to have different phrases on different notices; and that we should use the same phrase,
“Vote in one box only”,
right across the notices given to electors. That seems extremely sensible, so his amendment, which affects page 35, rule 17(7), is to take out the words “Mark one box only” and put in the words
“Vote in one box only”,
because that is the phrase used everywhere else. It is difficult to imagine—though I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord will have some clever answer for this—why different phrases were used.
The first two amendments avoid the chaos. The third amendment—I am not sure why it is in this group, but it is easy to deal with in this group—is to ensure consistency in the instructions given to electors. I beg to move.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, one rarely sees an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker that does not have a huge amount of common sense within it. We all remember what happened at the general election, where people were queueing at polling stations because the flow of people simply could not be accommodated, and we can all agree that at this referendum election there is certainly going to be more confusion than there is at a normal parliamentary election, where everyone understands what is required of them. It is the simplest possible thing to have to do—put a cross by their favoured candidate—and we all accept the result; at least, the vast majority of us accept the result.
What the noble Lord proposes here would be desirable in any event, if we were just going through the same system as we did at the last general election, but given that we are going to have polling stations where there is more than one decision being made and where electors will confront, for the first time, the option of the alternative vote and have to understand what is involved, there is bound to be confusion. I predict with complete certainty that, should we go down the road to AV, there will be far more spoiled ballot papers than there normally are—that has been the case with every move away from first past the post. Staying with the referendum, there will be people who will seek the advice of polling clerks. I do not know what the law is if they seek that advice. Are the polling clerks expected to explain what the choice is, or are they supposed to keep quiet about absolutely everything if a potential elector is confused?
I hope that the Committee will accept my proposition that this is going to be more complicated than a general election. I hope that the Committee will accept the evidence of their own television sets that, at the last general election there were polling stations that simply could not cope with the number of electors coming at a particular time. It must therefore follow, surely, that we need to make special provisions for this very unusual election where there is bound to be more confusion. I cannot be confident that there will be large numbers of people voting, but we need to allow for that and we clearly were not allowing for that effectively at the last general election. Amendment 115 is presented with characteristic simplicity and common sense in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker and I strongly support it.
Lord Grocott
I am not asking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to respond further; I just want to put the record straight. I am not sure that I made it clear that my concern was not about holding local elections and a referendum on the same day but about the fact that the referendum itself was something entirely new. The question voters are going to be asked is whether they support the first past the post system or the alternative vote system. However, a lot of people will be confronted with that question for the first time in their lives and it would not be surprising if they found filling in their ballot paper rather more confusing than normal.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his detailed response. However, unfortunately, it did not quite hit the mark on any of the three amendments. I completely take his point that it would be ridiculous to have two stations in certain places because you might have a village with 1,051 electors. However, I wonder whether that would not be best dealt with by saying that the norm should be 1,050 electors, save where there are exceptional circumstances, because generally you are trying to get to a figure of 1,050.
Secondly, I was confused by the noble and learned Lord’s answer in relation to what the chair of the Electoral Commission intends to do. I understood him to say that she intends to direct that 100 per cent of ballot papers be printed, but that she wants flexibility. But what does she want flexibility for if she intends to instruct that 100 per cent of ballot papers be printed? Why not put in the Bill what I understood the first part of the noble and learned Lord’s answer to indicate what she intended to do? That would give certainty.
Thirdly, in relation to the difference between the notice and the form, the noble and learned Lord took a good shot at this but I do not think that he said that there was any particular reason why they were different. As my noble friend Lord Grocott says, this will be a completely novel experience for voters to vote on whether there should be first past the post or an alternative vote system. There needs to be clarity. Yes, he is right that the chief counting officer has the power to change the forms but the wording of the Bill is mandatory. For example, paragraph 17(7) states:
“In every compartment of every polling station there must be exhibited the notice—
‘Mark one box only’”.
If I were the chair of the Electoral Commission, although I had a power to make changes, in the context of mandatory language I would feel safest, legally, in not making a change. We agree that it is much better if the wording is the same right across all the material. One of the purposes of scrutinising this Bill is to make it better, so let us make it better and make it consistent in relation to all the places where its provisions will be applied. That would make for a better organised poll and would get rid of any difficulty or risk in that regard for the chair of the Electoral Commission.
I absolutely respect the effort that the noble and learned Lord has made but my noble friend Lord Rooker may bring all three of these amendments back, with a slightly different amendment in one case and broadly the same amendment in the other two. In the case of the third amendment, it would help greatly if he were willing to go through the Bill and ensure that the wording is consistent, as his officials can do that much more quickly and much more consistently than we can. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this is a minor and technical amendment to correct a cross-reference under rule 13(6)(a) of the referendum rules. The effect of this minor amendment is that the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast may not be questioned by reason of any non-compliance with the provisions under rule 13(3) for England and rule 13(4) for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland relating to the provision of polling stations. Noble Lords will note that, as it stands, the reference is not to rule 13(3) and rule 13(4) but rather to paragraph 13(5)(a) and (b). The purpose of this amendment is to get the cross-reference correct. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Just for clarity, the reason why sub-paragraph (5) is not now included as an exception in sub-paragraph (6)(a) is because it is included in sub-paragraph (4). Is that right? Looking at it to start with you want it to apply to sub-paragraph (5) as well, but sub-paragraph (5) appears to go in the drafting because the deletion in the amendment goes up to the second “or” in the second line. You would not want a vote not to be counted if the polling station happened to be in the wrong district. I assume that sub-paragraph (5) is deleted because it is included in sub-paragraph (4), or am I wrong about that? I cannot see any reason why a technical failure of the position of the polling station in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland should vitiate the vote. I assume it is because the polling stations in sub-paragraph (5) are included in sub-paragraph (4). Officials are nodding. It might be better if the noble and learned Lord says yes.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble and learned Lord has accurately identified the issue and that is, as it were, the error that this amendment seeks to correct.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend has made the point. What I was trying to say and I have been trying to say it in a number of contributions earlier, is that these polls will be far more complicated than we are led to believe by the Government and will cause lots of problems. I have no wish to exacerbate the problems; that is why I strongly support the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke that an all-party group should be set up to look at these schedules and identify any problems that might arise. That, surely, is us on this side being a wee bit helpful.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, Schedule 2 is important. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is right that it reflects experience from other elections. Looking at the 15th Marshalled List, Amendments 112A to 122A are specific amendments to Schedule 2, so I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was right when he said that there were no amendments to Schedule 2. I am interested in a number of specific issues that relate to the interaction between the referendum and other polls. First, in paragraph 13 (3), it is said that in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,
“the polling station allotted to electors from any parliamentary polling district wholly or partly within a particular voting area must … be in the parliamentary polling place for that district unless the parliamentary polling place is outside the voting area”.
Why is the parliamentary polling area being chosen for a referendum and for the other votes when Parliament is not the district for the count, nor the place for which people are voting? I am surprised that that has been chosen.
Secondly, paragraph 22—this is for the referendum—places upon the presiding officer the,
“duty to keep order at the officer’s polling station”.
That makes the presiding officer the person responsible. Is it envisaged that the same presiding officer will be appointed for the local elections and the parliamentary elections? I assume that it is. If not, who is in charge of the polling station? Issues might arise in relation to the conduct of a polling station of the sort, for example, that arose at the end of the general election as to when to close the doors, or what to do about the queues. There needs to be some degree of certainty as to who is in charge. I assume that that will be achieved by the same person being appointed as the polling officer.
Thirdly, the schedule envisages a polling agent being appointed and a referendum agent being appointed. The purpose, as I understand it, of a referendum agent and a polling agent being appointed is that those two “agents” are responsible for seeking to prevent personation in the polling station. Is it envisaged that this would be two people, or is it envisaged that it would be one person for the same polling station? Do the same rules apply both in relation to electoral law on referendum voting and the polling voting? Can there be a conflict? Again, we would be looking for the same person to be appointed to deal with both.
The thing that I cannot find in the rules, though I am sure that it is here somewhere, is what prohibitions there are on material relating to the referendum within the polling station. For example, will it be permissible to have within the polling station the “neutral documentation” provided by the Electoral Commission describing the two sorts of system, or will that be prohibited? This relates to the question legitimately raised by my noble friend Lord Grocott regarding the extent to which help on the issues will be provided to individual voters. It is obvious that partisan material should not be provided but what, if any, material will be allowed in the polling station which is genuinely intended to assist voters? If the answer is nil, I would accept that and understand it, but equally I would not regard it as objectionable if neutral material prepared by a neutral body were allowed. It would be useful for the Committee to be given answers to those questions.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord agreed with my noble friend Lord Tyler and said that he was right, as he is in so many things. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, asked whether I was impressed with the depth of her passion on this subject. I confirm that I am. I understand exactly what she was saying. I say to those who echoed her remark about cross-party talks that I am sure that if the Labour Party were to write in and ask for those cross-party talks, that would be accepted, if they have not already taken place. The noble Baroness is right that this matter should be conducted in a non-partisan manner.
The debate naturally strayed far and wide across the gamut of electoral law and I will follow up some of the more detailed points in writing. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, said that she was frantic, unhappy or depressed—I cannot remember which word she used—about the 1979 referendum. My memory of it is that it went rather well. It had a good result and was excellent in many respects. Therefore, I do not share the noble Baroness’s unhappiness, which perhaps shows the width of the gulf between us on these great issues.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, Clause 12 is headed “Boundary Commission proposals: publicity and consultation”. I am interested in a number of questions in relation to whether there will be a change in the notification process as a result of Clause 12. The new Section 5 that Clause 12 inserts into the 1986 Act provides:
“Where a Boundary Commission have provisionally determined to make recommendations affecting any constituency, they shall take such steps as they see fit to inform people in the constituency … (a) of the effect of the proposed recommendations and … (b) that representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the Commission during a specified period of 12 weeks”.
First, can the noble and learned Lord give us some indication of what timetable the Government envisage for the first boundary review under the Bill, which has to conclude by 1 October 2013? When do they envisage that those provisional reviews will be published? Do they envisage that there will be one review for each country or region, or will the review apply to the whole United Kingdom—perhaps excluding Northern Ireland—all at once? I am particularly keen to know how the resources of those who may have to respond to those issues will have to be deployed.
Secondly, how do the Government envisage that there will be notification to the public of their right to make representations? This might be apparent if I thought about it more, but what is the effect of subsection (3) of the new Section 5? Will its effect be that, where there are new proposals, new Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) will apply again with exactly the same time limits? If the Boundary Commission makes a provisional proposal that is then changed for whatever reason, will it be necessary to advertise the proposal in precisely the same way and will the commission need to advertise again that representations can be made?
Separately, do the Government envisage that the boundary commissions will each issue guidance on what they will do to comply with the new Section 5? If the boundary commissions will issue guidance, will that be in draft form so that this House can see it before the conclusion of Report so that we get some idea about how the new Section 5 will operate?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am particularly pleased that we are making such great progress on the Bill. It is very encouraging to have had that earlier response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to the amendment moved by the Cross-Benchers. It was particularly encouraging that the noble and learned Lord responded and took the initiative, because earlier today I was reading a blog—strangely enough—belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in which there appears a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who wrote:
“There has been a potential (and sensible) deal available on this Bill for at least the past two weeks and the failure to clinch it is (in my view) mainly on the government side. The irony is that the deal has substantial Liberal Democrat support”.
I am glad that the deal has been clinched, and I am glad that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who came here to do the clinching, as it were.
On Clause 12, although almost everyone in this debate has talked about “the Boundary Commission”, I remind the House—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, does not need reminding—that there is more than one such commission in the United Kingdom. Although England and Wales might have a combined boundary commission—I am advised that they have separate commissions, but that means that my argument applies a fortiori—there is otherwise a different boundary commission in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom.
On this matter, and on other matters, how are the Government going to achieve a measure of consistency in the work carried out in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England in relation to, for example, appeals? Following the passage of this Bill, will guidance be issued to the boundary commissions that says, “This is what we expect you to do”, so that the Government take the lead, or will the Government perhaps say to the chairs of the four commissions, “You should get together and work out a modus operandi for your areas”?
Obviously, local hearings are the important issue that we have been dealing with recently, but there are a number of other issues on which it would be invidious if one decision was made in Scotland and different action was taken in England. It could be that in entirely similar circumstances, an oral hearing was held in Scotland but not in England, or vice versa. It would be helpful if the Minister in his reply could put this into a United Kingdom context and talk about the collaboration and co-operation that he envisages among the boundary commissions.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for their contributions and questions. I was just a bit wary when the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned me coming here for the clinching, particularly for an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, but I understood the spirit in which he made his remark.
I shall pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. He was absolutely right to remind the Committee that in fact there are four Boundary Commissions responsible for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. One of the issues that we will want to address in preparing the amendment which I indicated in the earlier debate is that of consistency. The important point is consistency, but it need not necessarily be one of exactness, which raises issues of how much should be set out in the Bill and what should be left to the guidance of the Boundary Commissions themselves. That is something we want to work through with them.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether the Boundary Commissions would provide guidance on how they will carry out the review. Prima facie this is a matter for the commissions, but the practice in the past has been for them to do so. It is my understanding that the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England confirmed for the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place that they intend to do so again for this review. However, the question of draft guidance is a matter for the Boundary Commissions. I do not think that it has been produced in the past, but if the noble and learned Lord has information to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it. Moreover, I am not aware of any being ready to be published at the moment. In fairness to the Boundary Commissions, it would be difficult for them to produce draft guidance given that we are still at the stage where changes are being made. Indeed, as I indicated in my responses to the amendment moved last week by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on how long it would take to put these matters online, and indeed the matter that was debated earlier today regarding public hearings, it might be rather difficult for the Boundary Commissions to produce draft guidance ahead of the Report stage when your Lordships are still debating what the actual shape of the consultation will be.
I was asked when the initial recommendations would be published. That is entirely a matter for the commissions. I was also asked by the noble and learned Lord whether the commissions have to advertise in the same way for the initial and the revised recommendations. My information is that, yes, they would have to do that. I shall give a little more clarification on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It is certainly not the Government’s intention to issue guidance on how the commissions should interpret the legislation, but I understand that the commissions work together on issues that are of common interest and common practice. While not issuing them with guidance on how to do that, we would certainly give them every encouragement to work together. It is also my understanding that each Boundary Commission will produce a report, and certainly I do not think it is intended that there would be one UK report. What I could not be certain about is whether there would be separate reports produced at different intervals for each of the regions of England. I really do not know whether that has happened in the past. But, again, it is certainly not my understanding or anticipation that there would be one mega-UK report. There will be reports from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, I assume, England, but I do not know whether the Boundary Commission for England would wish to break up its report into separate regions. At the moment, I am not in a position to say.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The way it is done at the moment is that Boundary Commission reports are issued within England or Scotland covering a particular part, usually a county, because there are limits on being able to cross particular boundaries. You have to decide within a particular area which constituency will go where. We know that that is not going to be the position here, so while I understand completely that there will not be a UK-wide report, I am keen to try to ascertain the extent to which the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will, as a matter of practice, be divided up between areas of, say, the eastern region, the East Midlands and the West Midlands. That is significant in terms of how resources are dealt with by political parties in looking at the particular issue, even though it may well be that the Boundary Commissions have not resolved how to do that at the moment. I would ask, therefore, whether they will produce guidance indicating how they are going to do it or does one just have to wait until a particular report covering, for example, the north-east or the south-west of England is produced so that resources can be put to dealing with the area at that particular point? That is what I was interested in.
The noble and learned Lord took my questions as relating to inquiries, but my question was really about the timing of the guidance. I have with me a document from the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England covering the procedure at local inquiries. Of course the commission could not possibly have that ready yet because only this afternoon did we find that there are now going to be local inquiries. Having raised the matter, is it envisaged that further guidance relating to the whole consultation process, part of which will be in writing, will be issued? However, I am much more focused on the order of batting and the timing.
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 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.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for answering the questions. I was trying to get at two strands. The first, as I think everyone agrees, including the secretaries of the Boundary Commissions, is that it is going to be a testing timetable to deliver the first review by 31 October 2013. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is for the Boundary Commissions to determine how they will do that, including when they will make their announcements of provisional proposals; how they will divide up the four countries; and the method by which they will announce how representations will be made. When legislation is going through Parliament, it is not unreasonable or unusual in this House to ask that the body concerned, without in any way infringing its discretion, sets out its broad proposals. That helps us then determine the validity or otherwise of a timetable, particularly a timetable such as this. I ask the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Howarth of Newport
It was a word used by the Minister, I think the noble Lord will find.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
If I might interrupt this momentary and rather fascinating debate about statutory drafting, my experience of Bills passed before 1997, and post-1997, is that legislators sometimes resorted to exhortatory language in Bills when they thought it was appropriate. I do not feel able to give the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the comfort that he seeks because, for reasons that I cannot adequately explain to the Committee, that was often the way that deals were done on legislation, so one cannot be quite categoric about that.
My point, if I might revert to it, was: without in any way interfering with the discretion of the Boundary Commissions, if we were able to get some indication about how it would be done that would be helpful to show that it can be done and, just as importantly, it would help the other groups—in particular, the political parties—to prepare their resources for what everybody agrees to be a quite testing process. Secondly and separately, resources provided by the state for this are important to get the requisite high standards and to ensure that consultation will be proper. When we return to this on Report, it would also be of value if there were some indication of how the resources have been worked out and how we are to be satisfied that those resources are adequate. However, I will not stand in the way of Clause 12 standing part at this stage.
Lord Baker of Dorking
That last point is a very fair point. If there are to be public inquiries as well, I am sure that the resources of the Boundary Commissions will have to be increased because that would extend the timescale and, indeed, the work of the activities. On the general questions raised on the nature of the boundary inquiries by noble Lords opposite who had previously served in the House of Commons, very little advice needs to be given to the Boundary Commissions, quite frankly, because in the past—I have been involved in two boundary inquiries myself because my seats were affected—they worked completely honourably, openly and fairly.
The commissions first published a great deal of advice and ask for comments from everybody and then they considered those comments. Overwhelmingly, the comments made at that stage were made by the local political parties. It is quite rare for communities to form a view at that stage. I know that noble Lords opposite have made great play about this provision—that it is disrupting the natures of old communities. When it came to the actual inquiries which I went to there was, first, lots of advertising: it was on the radio and in the local newspapers. I suppose they could now use e-mail and all the rest of it. When the two inquiries which I attended actually took place, no representatives from the local communities turned up at all although there were substantial changes.
The people who turned up at those inquiries were the local Conservative representatives, the local Labour representatives and the local Liberal representatives. It became an absolute haggle: “We’ll move that ward out but have that village back, please”. In that haggling the Labour representatives usually won, in my experience. They are very good at haggling on that basis. However, do not believe for a moment that an outraged community is going to turn up in droves at these inquiries.
Lord Howarth of Newport
It seems to me that what is proposed in this amendment is the more important if one takes the view, as I do—but contrary, I think, to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Baker—that there will be extensive public interest in, at any rate, certain proposals for boundary changes. In recent days and weeks, the people of Cornwall and the Isle of Wight have given us to understand in no uncertain terms that they have very strong views about how constituencies should be drawn in their parts of the world. Given the radical and wholesale changes that the provisions of the legislation will entail, I think that we should be prepared for considerable strength of feeling and for vigorously expressed representations not just on the part of the political parties but, certainly in controversial cases, on the part of many members of the public. It is, as my noble friend Lord Wills suggested, important that people have feedback and that they should know that their representations have been listened to, gathered up and presented for careful consideration by the boundary commissioners through the activity of assistant commissioners, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey has proposed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is quite an important amendment because it relates to what happened earlier this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Lipsey is proposing that an assistant commissioner should look at all the written representations relating to a particular provisional recommendation and publish the effect of those written representations. That is important because it means that the representations are being considered and the public as a whole can see them all in context. It also seems to be of relevance in determining whether a public inquiry is appropriate. If a proper analysis is carried out, which is what an assistant commissioner will do if the proposal of my noble friend Lord Lipsey is adopted, it will be easier to see whether a public inquiry is appropriate or helpful. The effect of the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is that, even if the technical requirements are satisfied, there will be a public inquiry only where it is helpful—that is, the Boundary Commission will have the discretion to say no if a public inquiry will not help in any way.
Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the proposal of my noble friend Lord Lipsey will be of value, first, in ensuring that written representations are properly considered and that that is apparent; secondly, in properly analysing what issues there may be in relation to a particular provisional recommendation; and, thirdly, in deciding whether, in exercising its discretion to have a public inquiry, there are sufficient issues for the Boundary Commission to bite on to be sure that such an inquiry will be useful. I respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord considers this amendment in the context of the public inquiry amendment and comes back on Report to tell us what conclusions he has reached.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, it is traditional with all Bills for both Houses of Parliament to seem to ascribe still higher levels to the degree of parliamentary affirmation that must be given to orders under them. In this case, I have been trumped in advance by my noble friend Lady McDonagh, with her desire for the super-affirmative procedure. In this case, though, my amendment might turn out to be of more significance than immediately meets the eye.
I do not want to go over old ground too much, but this Bill was introduced very quickly. It passed through another place before many Members there had fully digested its implications, particularly the fact that it is the starting point for what I call “permanent revolution” in the electoral geography of our country—converting them all into carpetbaggers traipsing around the country looking for a new seat. That penny might have been slow to drop, but I am told by Members of another place—they have many great uses to this House—who have kept in close contact with people down the other end that it has. I think that if the Bill were introduced into the House of Commons today, it would have a much rougher ride than it did. Indeed, if we all had a few pounds for every time an MP—dare I say it, a Conservative MP—had clapped us on the back and said, “Keep up what you’re doing in the Lords”, we should be very much richer.
Who can say whether by 2013 the House of Commons in its wisdom—there should be no question of this House questioning orders under the Bill; that would be quite unconstitutional—will have moved to a very different position? Rather disgracefully, the House of Commons in 1969, on the instructions of the Government, voted down an order to introduce boundary changes proposed by the Boundary Commission, so this would not be unprecedented. It is perfectly conceivable, at any rate, that in 2013, when the Commons sees the damage that the Boundary Commission will inevitably have to wreak in redrawing the maps within the limit of 5 per cent and 600 constituencies, it might not fancy it. Although to vote down an order in those circumstances would be an act that required the most careful consideration, the Commons might want to do that.
When you think that a matter of that magnitude might again come up as a matter of serious public debate, you can see that you really cannot dispose of this other than under the affirmative procedure. It would look, rightly or wrongly, as though the Government were trying to sneak something through, and in the wake of that they would look very bad. It is crucial that the House at the other end is given a full opportunity to debate the orders before it in those circumstances.
As I say, all this might be a mistake. The Boundary Commission might miraculously square the circle, and no doubt that would be a wonderful thing. I am not holding my breath for that, though. More importantly, nor are 650 people not very far removed from this House holding their breath and expecting the circle to be squared before the 2015 general election. In that case, the House would be well advised to pass this amendment and ensure that the affirmative procedure is used for all the orders under the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, all three amendments in this group seek to place a higher threshold on passing any order contained in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Lipsey’s first amendment does that quite generally by amending Clause 14, on orders, to ensure that orders are exercisable by an affirmative statutory instrument.
Amendment 102A, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, refers to the commencement order bringing into effect the alternative vote provisions in the event that more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer yes than in favour of the answer no. The amendment specifies that any such order must be made under the affirmative procedure.
The affirmative procedure would require an order to be laid in draft for a period of 40 days, after which it would need to be agreed by both Houses. The Companion informs us that if a scrutiny committee of either House recommends between the end of the 30-day period and the end of the 40-day period that the order should not proceed, it might not proceed unless the House concerned rejects the recommendation by resolution in the same Session.
Amendment 101 is in the name of my noble friends Lady McDonagh and Lord Snape, who I look for anxiously.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lords are not moving their amendments, so I will not comment on them.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey’s amendments give the House the opportunity to think again. They give Parliament an additional check on the changes that the Minister can bring forward by order. In the context of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation that the Bill received, such checks are unarguably a good thing.
There is an issue of whether recourse to the super-affirmative procedure might be appropriate in all cases of orders being moved under the terms of the Bill. This affirmative procedure has significance in the context of a later amendment, Amendment 102AB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. That amendment says that Clauses 10(2) and 11, which are in effect the operative clauses for changing the rules and for changing the number of Members of Parliament from 650 to 600,
“shall come into force on a date to be appointed under subsection (1B) following reports from the Boundary Commissions, made as if section 11 of this Act were in force, being laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State”.
As I understand the noble Lord’s amendment, the Boundary Commissions would do their work, Clause 11 would not formally be in force and it would then be for Parliament—that is, both Houses—to vote on whether Parliament wanted to bring Clause 11 into force. Parliament would then be deciding before implementation whether it was the appropriate thing to do.
If Parliament were taking such an important decision, then, in my respectful submission, that decision should be taken in accordance with the super-affirmative procedure proposed by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. There is real merit, although we will debate this more fully later, in what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, is saying, because it would give the House the opportunity to consider not only the effect of what is being done but what an independent body—for example, a commission set up to look at the size of the House of Commons—had said about whether it was appropriate to reduce the size of the House from 650 to 600 and, if that was not appropriate, what the appropriate figure, if any, was to reduce the House to.
Those of us who have been enjoying the provisions of Committee have come to know well the views expressed by the cross-party committees in both Houses on the lack of proper constitutional process on the Bill. I know that noble Lords enjoy hearing me repeat old favourites, so I say again that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the House of Commons and our Constitution Committee have said that there should have been a public consultative process before the Bill came to the House and pre-legislative scrutiny to enable it to be properly considered. Those points are added to by the fact that it has been very difficult for the Government to justify precisely how they get to the figure of 600. The Leader of the House saying that it is a nice round figure perhaps lacks the intellectual and constitutional justification that one looks for in this significant change in the House of Commons. The lack of intellectual justification and of proper process goes to an important constitutional point. The House genuinely feels uneasy about a majority in the House of Commons and a political majority in the House of Lords—that is, a political majority of the Liberal Democrats and the Tories over the other parties in the House—being able to push through a change in the size of the House of Commons, which reputable independent experts think has been chosen as a means of favouring the governing party.
It is worth quoting a statement that Mr Mark Field, the Conservative MP for Cities of London and Westminster, endorsed on Second Reading in the other place. Mr Straw quoted from the statement put on the Conservative website by Mr Field. Referring to Mr Field, Mr Straw said:
“He says that ‘the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by Party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 47.]
Therefore, there is a legitimate argument that this is being done for party-political advantage. The importance, therefore, of my noble friend proposing the super-affirmative procedure is that if, as I hope, we adopt the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, a process will be in place that will ensure that the Government can undertake proper arrangements to look at whether the figure is right, and that when we pass that amendment—I hope that we do so—and debate whether we bring Clause 11 into force, we will be informed by a report of a body that is beyond reproach. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider my noble friend’s amendment in that context.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lipsey is self-evidently proper. The legislation provides for seismic constitutional and political change but has been all too little considered hitherto. There was not only the lack of public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny to which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has referred but the reality of the way in which the Bill was transacted in the House of Commons is that the Committee stage was entirely perfunctory.
At Second Reading in another place some Members of the other place expressed considerable anxiety about the way in which things were being done. For example, Mr Simon Hart, a Conservative Member of Parliament, said:
“I wish to address the issue of honesty. Let us not try to fool people about this Bill. Let us not pretend that it is a response to some kind of great public desire or thirst”.
He did not necessarily want the Bill to fail because he accepts the foundations on which it was constructed, but he continued:
“It is the process, not the principle to which I object”.
He went on to say that,
“there is a fine line between political reform and political vandalism”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 120.]
If the House of Commons passed this legislation in the pretty shallow and perfunctory way in which it did—with a very brief Committee stage and very important sections of the Bill, including Clause 11, not being thoroughly examined in Committee—it follows that the other place must have the opportunity in due course to consider again whether it has done the right thing. If the orders made under the Bill were in effect to go through simply on the nod under the negative resolution procedure, that would not be good enough and the House of Commons would not be performing its proper constitutional role. Therefore, the simple affirmative procedure is probably the right procedure to be adopted for decisions on orders made under this legislation.
I have some reservations that the super-affirmative procedure would create too much scope for obstruction and too much scope for the intervention of party- political interest in the eventual decision-making.
However, it is imperative that, when the other place comes to make decisions on orders under the Bill, it should do so consciously and deliberately, which the affirmative resolution procedure would enable it to do. In that way, the other place might slightly make up for the pretty neglectful and haphazard way in which it considered the primary legislation.
Lord Bach
102: Clause 18, page 15, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) Part 1 of this Act shall not come into force until the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible.”
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister has frequently tried to place the Bill in the proud lineage of great reforms that led to the introduction of universal suffrage in Britain. I quote from his “new politics” speech, delivered in May last year:
“I’m talking about the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great reforms of the 19th Century. The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832”.
In the same speech, recalling the “anger and disappointment” felt by thousands of people who were turned away from the polling stations on general election night, he declared:
“You must be confident that, come polling day, your voice will be heard … Under this government’s plans, you will”
However, we know, as the Committee has heard before, that as a result of gaps in our electoral register, many millions of people are going to be denied a voice—indeed, any acknowledgement of their existence—in the two central proposals contained in the Bill.
The Government are fond of saying that this Bill is underpinned by the principle of equality, but you cannot get equality on the electoral playing field on the basis of a grossly unfair or unequal register. This is particularly so in respect of the proposed boundary changes, which are to be drawn on the basis of the December 2010 register, from which it is agreed that upwards of 3.5 million eligible voters are missing.
Putting that problem on one side, I think that the problem of underregistration also has a significant bearing on the referendum on the alternative vote, which is the subject of Part 1 of the Bill. As we are well aware, the Government intend that the referendum will be held on 5 May next, which, in our view, would be an unsuitable date. Even if the referendum goes ahead on that day, the referendum will at least be contested on a marginally more up-to-date electoral roll than that to be used for the boundary changes, if for no other reason than that there is still time to put missing people on the register. If the referendum was not going to be held so soon, this would allow even more time.
Happily, the Bill provides for that eventuality. Following the Committee’s acceptance of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker, the Bill will not actually require a referendum to take place until October of this year. We believe that that extended deadline provides an important opportunity for the registration problem to be properly addressed and sufficient leeway for the acceptance of Amendment 102.
Amendment 102 is concerned with the commencement of Part 1 of the Bill. If accepted, the amendment would require the Electoral Commission to certify,
“that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”,
before the AV referendum is held. The amendment would not require a certain percentage of eligible voters or resident adults to be registered. In previous debates, that was felt to be an unreasonable target. Indeed, there was some disagreement about what the right percentage target would be. The amendment would simply impose on the Electoral Commission a requirement to judge whether local authorities are doing all that they reasonably should to ensure that as many people as possible are registered to vote.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I have noted what the noble Lord has said. Does he consider that there may be some people—perhaps a lot of people—who do not register simply because they are not interested in voting at all? That may be deplorable, but that may be the case. Therefore, many of those who are not on the register may not be so due to any failure on the part of the responsible authorities in getting them on the register.
Lord Williamson of Horton
This amendment relates to the date of the coming into force of Clause 11, which will be Section 11 if and when the Bill is passed. Noble Lords will know only too well from our very long discussions so far that Clause 11 is the important clause which deals with the reviews by the Boundary Commissions, the number of parliamentary constituencies and the equalisation subject to a small margin of the size of constituencies. I tabled this amendment in the hope that it would contribute towards an agreement on the Bill, in particular so that the referendum on the alternative vote could be held on 5 May this year. I even had hope last week and, of course, after today's proceedings I have even more hope.
The thinking which underlies the amendment is that, although there is a clear and close deadline set by the Government for the referendum, the timing for the completion of Part 2 of the Bill on the Boundary Commissions’ reviews and changes to constituencies is not so tight. The Government’s timing on Part 2 is that it will be completed in good time—perhaps by October 2013—for use in the general election of 2015. From the almost 100 hours that I have spent listening to discussions during the passage of the Bill so far, I am well aware of the political imperative for the Government that the Bill should not be split and that there is a link between Parts 1 and 2. Because my amendment still permits and requires the work on the constituencies to keep going forward, I do not consider that the link is broken.
I shall briefly explain my amendment. If Parliament agrees that the Bill be passed, the work of the Boundary Commissions would go ahead because they are required by this amendment to make their reports as if Section 11 of the Act were in force. These reports would therefore be subject to the provisions of Section 11 because they have to carry out their work as if Section 11 were in force. When these reports are complete they will be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State who will set by statutory instrument the appointed date for the coming into force of Section 11. As the date for the coming into force of this section would be set by statutory instrument it would require affirmative resolutions of both Houses.
What is the advantage of deferring the coming into force of Section 11 until it is needed, while the actual operation of the section continues in the mean time? In my view, there are at least two advantages. First, it will strengthen in practice the hands of citizens who wish to make representations about the Boundary Commission’s proposals because Section 11 will not actually yet be in force. Secondly, and more importantly, it will give time for further examination, in particular independent examination, of the practical consequences of the smaller House.
During the course of the debates in this House, there has been a recurring theme that 600 was a rather arbitrary figure—I choose my words carefully—and that the consequences may not have been fully worked through. So I think that it would provide time for an independent examination of the practical consequences of the proposals on constituencies that are in the Bill. This point has been made in the debates and it was made this afternoon, in a short trailer—I think that is the word—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when he rather approved this idea. It is always very pleasant to have a trailer that is favourable so perhaps the drama itself may actually be favourably received.
What I have suggested may be relatively small advantages but I think they are worth having, particularly because my amendment does not slow up the work required by Section 11 in the period before it enters into force. Will the Minister think carefully about the independent examination of the practical consequences of the decisions on the constituencies? In my view it could be done under my amendment—I think it would be right to do that. However, at some stage there is a strong feeling in the Committee that we should not just let it happen without any independent examination.
To summarise my amendment: the Bill passes, the work goes on including the work on Section 11 but, just as in the well known showbusiness phrase that the show is not over until the fat lady sings, in this case the show is not over until the Secretary of State lays a statutory instrument setting the date for it to come into force and affirmative resolutions of both Houses are agreed. That is what I might call the political equivalent of the fat lady singing.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is an important amendment. It is designed to try to promote the settlement of an impasse in the House. We support the principle of this amendment. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, promotes it on two bases. First, it strengthens the hand of the citizen in making representations in relation to individual Boundary Commission issues. Secondly, and more importantly, it will give time for further examination, particularly independent examination, of the practical consequences of the reduction in the number of constituencies.
We thoroughly endorse that approach. It is implicit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that that examination should take place before the implementation of the reduction of the number of constituencies. It is also explicit in the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that Parliament should have another opportunity to consider this before the implementation. At the heart of the case in favour of that is the widespread concern around the House that the production of this Bill and its passage through Parliament have not been attended by the normal processes that one would expect to precede a constitutional Bill of this enormity and importance.
Noble Lords know the quotes well; the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place stated:
“The Government has declared that the Parliamentary Systems and Constituencies Bill is intended as a ‘major step’ towards restoring people's faith in Parliament. The Government’s failure to consult on the provisions in this Bill risks undermining that laudable intention”.
Our own Constitution Committee stated:
“We conclude that the Government have not calculated the proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on the basis of any considered assessment of the role and functions of MPs”.
Lord Rennard
Will the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee whether it is his view and, perhaps, that of his party, that on the completion of a boundary review by the independent boundary commissioners, he thinks it wise to go back to Members in the other place to ask them to vote on whether they should accept the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions on the new boundaries or simply to have the old boundaries—which, by then, will be even more out of date—from the previous general election? Is that not merely postponing an argument which will be even more fierce in another place in a couple of years’ time, or whenever it is, as we are invited to debate whether to accept the boundary recommendations of the independent commissioners or to keep the old ones? Is that not merely creating more of a problem?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has responded in an incredibly unconstructive way. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, has made it absolutely clear that what he envisages is a vote on the principle in relation to the issue and that is what we should be focusing on.
Lord Newton of Braintree
It is clear that a significant effort is being made, and I would like to pay my own tribute to the leading figures on the Cross Benches, to resolve the impasse or to bring us back from the precipice, to use the phrase that was used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I share the hope that there will be a positive and constructive response to this.
The noble and learned Lord indicated that he recognised this was not necessarily perfect and that there was some more thought to be given to the issues, which I thought was a very helpful way for him to have put his remarks. So I say to my noble friend, who I suspect is in a constructive frame of mind—I share the hope that he is—that there is at least one person behind him who would strongly support such a constructive approach.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I will intervene only briefly and do not really want to go down all the roads that I went down some years ago during the Labour Government’s two attempts—the second was successful, in my view quite mistakenly—to reintroduce individual registration. I have never been able to understand why the Liberal Democrats supported that. I understand that the Electoral Commission, in its various reports, kept on promoting the principle. However, the Liberal Democrats must have been aware of the dangers that would arise, even in some of their own seats such as the one that includes Bermondsey. Bermondsey is in a seat that could be gravely damaged through the introduction of individual registration, and I simply cannot understand why they seemingly allowed it all to happen.
My own view was very simple; there was a problem to be resolved, and that was fraud within the electoral system. That, I suspect, was the driving force behind those who argued for it. They chose an extremely expensive way of resolving the problem, whereby the whole of the United Kingdom would be subject to individual registration, against the parts of it in which there was a particular problem. Without going into detail, most Members of the Committee will understand precisely what I mean. There is a problem in certain parts of the United Kingdom, which had to be dealt with.
On two occasions under two separate Bills, I came up with a recommendation that would have sorted out that problem by giving local authorities the right to opt for a particular status whereby they would be given additional resources to sort out the problems in their areas, but the Labour Government unfortunately turned it down. Indeed, I lobbied almost every member of the Labour Cabinet about it to try to get them to understand the importance of avoiding individual registration, which will do immeasurable harm to our party in the longer term. Now we have it in place at a time when local authorities’ budgets in this area are not ring-fenced and when local authorities will not place the money that is necessary to ensure a high level of individual registration.
I welcome my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope only that the Government will accept it. They will not, of course, because they too have been convinced by this rubbish recommendation from the Electoral Commission, which should have known better.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I, too, stand convicted of being convinced by the rubbish recommendation of the Electoral Commission. I believe that the principle of moving to individual registration is right. Apart from anything else, the concept of modern citizenship is that the task of registering to vote should no longer be the preserve of the head of the household. However, if the principle of individual registration is correct, the practicality involved in the best way to get there is more complicated. As the experience of introducing individual registration in Northern Ireland has shown, the consequences can be catastrophic if you get the process wrong. The very swift introduction of individual registration in that part of the United Kingdom in 2002 led to a collapse in the number on the electoral register, with a fall of around 119,000.
Learning the lessons of that experience, the Labour Government legislated to introduce individual voter registration according to a clearly phased timetable based on the twin principles of ensuring the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the electoral register. That process gave the Electoral Commission a central role in determining whether the final move from household to individual registration was safe to proceed with, and the transition was based on a two-stage process—a voluntary phase and a compulsory phase. The legislation made it clear that the voluntary phase would not finish before 2014. In 2014, the Electoral Commission would then be required to assess, based on trends in voter registration, whether the collection of identifying information should be made obligatory. Assuming that a positive recommendation was agreed by Parliament, compulsory individual registration would follow in 2015.
The timetable received explicit backing from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers in the other place. It is a matter of deep concern that the Government have now abandoned those pledges and that they intend to tear up our carefully formulated and agreed timetable and to accelerate the introduction of individual registration without the safeguards that we put in place.
As I have already noted, the rush to the production of individual registration in Northern Ireland produced a dramatic fall in registered numbers. The Electoral Commission subsequently reported that the new registration process disproportionately impacted on young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally and those living in areas of high deprivation. We must not repeat that outcome when the system is introduced in Great Britain. That is especially important in view of the Electoral Commission’s report of March 2010, which identified who was least represented on the electoral register.
The phased implementation of full individual registration by autumn 2015 was intended to minimise as far as possible the risk of worsening under-registration. The Government already intend to cut seats and redraw boundaries on the basis of an electoral register from which 3.5 million eligible voters are missing. The premature rollout of individual registration would increase that number and, over time, would distort the planned boundary revisions even more. I do not support the policy of reversing the move to individual registration. However, I do support making sure that it is done properly.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, what an interesting debate this has been, with noble Lords changing their minds about what they had done under the previous Government.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement. We welcome the Government’s constructive approach, as set out in the statement. We on this side have repeatedly made it clear that we are ready and willing to talk. We believe that that is the right way forward. We believe that that approach is what this House wants to see and that it is right for the Bill and right for this House. We wish to preserve the self-regulating nature of your Lordships’ House.
In his wise intervention last week when we last considered the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made clear his support for negotiations because, as he put it,
“it has always been the way to work”.
Looking for,
“a spirit of real co-operation”,—[Official Report, 19/01/2011; col. 405.]
he hoped that we would have some concessions from Her Majesty’s Government and that we will respond constructively. I very much agree with that view and with the view from the Cross Benches, which was expressed so well by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, and the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who said:
“I urge that the Government and the Opposition redouble their efforts to reach a compromise so that the debate can proceed in a timely fashion and we are able to conclude the Committee stage of the Bill in a timely fashion with the necessary compromises on both sides having been achieved”.—[Official Report, 19/01/2011; col. 401.]
We on these Benches very much agree with these views. In that spirit, I can report to the House that I and others met Ministers last week on these matters and put proposals to the Government, although so far this has not borne fruit. There have been further contacts over the weekend and we have sought to do all we can to promote further discussions, so we are profoundly grateful for the statement that the Leader of the House has given today. We are, as the noble Leader says and as the House is aware, at an impasse. The Government’s right to get their business done in reasonable time has to be balanced with the Opposition’s right, and indeed responsibility, to give reasonable scrutiny to any Bill but particularly to an important Bill of considerable parliamentary and constitutional significance.
The House has faced such an impasse before on a number of occasions and has met and resolved it by the House giving leadership. That is both what we need to do now and what I hope we will do now. The Leader of the House had three principal points in his statement and our response to them is as follows. We will continue to involve ourselves constructively in any discussions. We will consider constructively any of the Government’s proposals, as indicated in the statement today by the Leader of the House. We will participate constructively in any wider discussions beyond the Bill currently in front of us about the conventions of the House.
The statement from the Leader of the House indicates that the will for discussions is now there. We welcome that, although it will of course be for the discussions themselves to show whether that will translates itself in practice into specifics. Concrete progress is required on the issues of concern in the Bill. With concrete progress, I am confident that we can resolve the impasse before us, but that will involve give and take. In the mean time, we will continue to maintain the level of scrutiny that we have been applying to the Bill, with many amendments in front of us yet and considerable scrutiny still to be carried out in this Committee.
This House had a tough and difficult time last week. We debated the Bill long into the night. I do not know whether the House faces a tough and difficult time this week as well. However long we sit, we on this side stand ready for constructive and positive discussions. We welcome the fact that the Government are indicating their readiness to take the same constructive and positive approach.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I speak on behalf of the Cross-Benchers. It will come as no surprise that there is deep concern among us about the breakdown in the conventions and procedures of this House. I thank the Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his words today, but would like to muse a little further on the possible consequences for this Chamber.
Scrutiny is our job, but I doubt that a reasonable person would conclude that the speeches in the dark hours of the night last week, and maybe even again tonight, represent scrutiny or sensible revision. We are therefore forced to believe that it is the Opposition’s intention to delay the Bill beyond the date on which it would be possible to have a referendum: 5 May.
Many Cross-Benchers, of course, hear the justifiable worries that the Opposition have expressed about the lack of scrutiny of certain parts of the Bill, and I am sure that we acknowledge the difficult combination of two contentious issues for reasons of political expediency. We recognise that the date of 5 May was always, to say the least, an unhelpful goal. I think everyone would also agree that there is some legitimate question about whether the Salisbury/Addison convention really should apply to this Bill.
Despite all this, I hope that I am expressing the views of the majority of Cross-Benchers in saying that the tactics that the Opposition are using to delay the Bill fly in the face of the conventions that have governed this House for perhaps the past six decades, that these tactics undoubtedly bring this House into disrepute, that any success of such tactics may well encourage their further future use, and that these factors put together may even mark the beginning of the dissolution of this House. I say this with some reluctance—even to me, it sounds somewhat dramatic—but I believe it to be true. Why would the public, let alone the other place, choose to support a Chamber that is seen to be deeply unserious in undertaking the role of revision and scrutiny? We are at a dangerous crossroads.
As everyone knows, the Cross-Benchers are fastidiously independent and non party political. What I say is absolutely not anti-Opposition; indeed, as has been said and was shown by Cross-Benchers in this House last week, we very often support the Opposition in their valuable amendments. No, our collective concern—for once, perhaps we are acting as a group—is that the self-regulation and fundamental tasks of this House are sufficiently valuable to be preserved. We therefore both understand the need for and urge that there be significant compromises on both sides of this House so that we may proceed with dignity and resolve.
“(2) In England—
(a) each constituency shall be wholly in one of the electoral regions specified in Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002;(b) no district or borough ward shall be included in more than one constituency;(c) the Boundary Commission should, where practicable, have regard to the boundaries of counties and London boroughs and in any case no constituency shall include the whole or part of more than two counties or London boroughs.(3) In Northern Ireland, no local authority ward shall be included in more than one constituency.
(4) In Wales—
(a) no unitary authority ward shall be included in more than one constituency;(b) the Boundary Commission should, where practicable, have regard to the boundaries of unitary authorities, and in any case no constituency shall include the whole or part of more than two unitary authorities.(5) In Scotland, regard shall be had to local authority ward boundaries.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the amendment would insert a number of additional factors for the Boundary Commissions to take into account when drawing constituencies in the four parts of the United Kingdom. It in effect represents the opposition Front Bench’s conclusions in relation to the issues discussed under the previous group of amendments.
At present, the new rules for drawing constituency boundaries proposed by the Bill are dominated by the overriding requirement for every constituency, with a few exceptions, to fall within the margins of 5 per cent either side of a new UK-wide electoral quota. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in relation to the 5 per cent/10 per cent issue was interesting and instructive, and I strongly recommend that noble Lords read it tomorrow.
Although Rule 5 in Clause 11 lists a number of further factors which the Boundary Commissions may also take into account when drawing constituencies, they are subordinate to the numerical prerequisite. In practice, that means, as we have just discussed, that the Boundary Commissions have very limited scope to take proper account of those other considerations. The only general rule that sits above the iron law of the electoral quota is the stipulation that each constituency shall be wholly within one of the four parts of the United Kingdom. That at least is recognition of the fact that there are certain political and administrative boundaries which it would be unwise to cross in pursuit of mathematical equality. We believe that that recognition does not go far enough and that the Bill should allow for greater sensitivity and flexibility when it comes to dealing with the administrative units within, as well as between, the four parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I congratulate my noble and learned friend. His amendment has achieved a very elegant solution to the problem that we were concerned with under the last amendment, and it is a very important step forward. If this amendment were passed, would he agree that we would still need to look very carefully at the 5 per cent rule and replace it with the 10 per cent rule? If that were not done, the Boundary Commission could not have regard to the criteria that my noble and learned friend rightly wants it to have regard to, because it would conflict with the very narrow 5 per cent rule?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I agree with the last point from my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford. Increasing the figure to 10 per cent would make it much easier as a matter of practicality to do what the amendment would do, and the independent research that has been done by bodies such as Democratic Audit also suggests that that 10 per cent flexibility does not lead to unacceptable differences between constituencies that might be said to favour one party over another. We can achieve the purpose that the coalition sought to achieve and preserve communities in a way that most contributes to effective political activity.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who will be replying to this because he is completely alone on the Front Bench out of the team dealing with this, takes the amendment in the spirit in which it is offered and gives us a favourable response.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I want to make a brief intervention, encouraged by the very positive response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to the previous debate. We are talking about very much the same subject here. I make this intervention on one issue only: the question of political party organisation. This is, perhaps, a direct plea to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who I know is an expert on this. I think that he told us on one occasion that he became secretary of his local ward party at the age of seven. He has moved onwards and upwards ever since.
When we are talking about trying to get boundaries as coterminous as possible, we are not just talking about community cohesion—although that is important, as my noble and learned friend said—about trying to reduce the public’s confusion over who their elected representatives are or about keeping to a minimum the number of local authorities or health boards that MPs have to deal with. It is also vital in relation to political party organisations. Political parties are absolutely essential to democracy. When I go around in seminars organised by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, I explain to new democracies in eastern Europe and north Africa—I have been to Macedonia and to Egypt to talk about this—the importance of having active political parties with good organisation.
The experience in Scotland has been that, because in both Ayrshire and Edinburgh, the two areas that I know best from a constituency point of view, we have ended up having different boundaries for the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was lucky in this, because Orkney and Shetland have been given special treatment on so many occasions—great difficulties have been caused in terms of party organisation. It really has confused people and made things more difficult.
The kinds of things that are difficult are, for example, fundraising activities. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said, political parties are run by volunteers. When you get them in, they are not paid in most cases, apart from national organisers, but they are the ones organising the coffee mornings. At this time of year, we should perhaps think as well of the Burns suppers that are taking place to raise money. There are Labour Party Burns suppers around the whole of Scotland at the moment. All those kinds of activities are much more difficult if you have different party structures. If you have to have a ward structure or a local liaison group for another party organisation, as we have in Scotland—we have a CLP and a regional party structure—it makes things very difficult. People can spend hour after hour organising just meetings and minutes for meetings. They are trying to get things organised within their party structures rather than doing the fundraising.
Parties should also be involved in political education. We should be having much more political education run by the parties, getting young people in and getting them to understand what democracy is about, as well as what our parties are doing. It is therefore vital that we should not strangle or snuff out this voluntary political activity by a complex overlapping of boundaries. That is why I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will be as sympathetic to the proposal in this amendment as he was to the previous one.
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.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the detail into which he went. I will very briefly deal with his points. First, he rightly says that the Bill states “may take into account”, rather than the commission being bound not to cross ward, unitary authority or other boundaries. If the noble and learned Lord cares—not now—to read my amendment, he will see that in some cases it is an absolute prohibition, for example in relation to European Parliamentary boundaries, district or borough wards. In others, it is not; it is a provision to “take into account”. I have sought to reflect the point that the noble and learned Lord makes.
Secondly, I think the Minister said that 187 constituencies cross both metropolitan and other local authority boundaries. He does not need to intervene on this; his point is broadly that 187 currently cross different sorts of local authority boundaries. I completely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who has much influence in the House, said. I am sure that he completely and excellently represented his constituency. The point that is being made on the other side is that it is better if that is not the position. One assumes that if it is 187 now, it is bound to go up under the changes to be introduced under the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord’s third point was that he accepts as a matter of principle that the ward will be the building block. That was expressed explicitly by Nick Clegg when he appeared before the House of Lords Constitution Committee and when he spoke in answer to questions in the Commons. Why not put that into the Bill? My fourth and final point is to say how sad I was not to be in Edinburgh South—that is, Morningside, where I was born and brought up—to attend the noble and learned Lord’s Burns Night supper.
I am grateful that he said at the end that he will come back with some ideas. I am not taking that as him giving me any kind of assurances, but I shall wait to see what happens next before deciding what to do about this sort of amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
I am not intervening on the noble Lord and I do not expect him to respond, but we are in the Committee stage and he has raised an issue that lies absolutely at the heart of one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Bill. I could not believe it when I saw that a paragraph in this Bill is headed “Exempt constituencies”, although the word used may be “Excepted”. Without any attempt to relate them to any other part of the Bill, two constituencies were going to be exempted just like that. As soon as I saw that, I must say that I and a number of noble friends thought, “This Bill has a very big piece of hybridity in it”. It has all the basic characteristics of a hybrid Bill because one group is being treated separately for no discernible reason. The Bill gives no explanation of why it is being made into a category.
That is a weakness in terms of how Bills ought to be drafted. Here let me say quite clearly, especially knowing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is to wind up the debate, that I do not object in the least to the Western Isles or to Orkney and Shetland having their own constituencies because of their characteristics. I fully support that and think it is absolutely right, but as soon as you trespass into that kind of territory when drafting legislation, it is obvious that there is not a single constituency in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland that could not make a case for their unique characteristics to be treated as a constituency in its own right and being one of the excepted cases. It is bad drafting and bad politics because it would be so easy to put down an amendment for every single constituency.
I am sure that, at his convenience, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, could draft a clause that would allow for Orkney and Shetland quite properly to be a constituency in its own right. He could write it in general terms, which is how you should write legislation, and it would probably include a number of other exempted constituencies, but at least there would be some rationale for what is being done. There is none in this paragraph as it stands. It is yet a further example, but a particularly glaring one, of why this is a bad Bill that has been badly drafted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, that exchange at the end goes to the heart of the issue in relation to these amendments. I should indicate which amendments I understand we are considering, starting with Amendment 78B, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, that argues for a classification of constituencies that fall in the special authorities category. I think the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is on that, as is that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. We are considering Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, which says that there shall be five constituencies in the city of Edinburgh. We are considering Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, which argues that a constituency called Argyll and Bute should be preserved. We are not, obviously, considering Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, which is in the group, because it is about the Isle of Wight. We are not considering Amendment 85 because it is about the Isle of Wight. We are considering Amendment 85A, which is my noble friend Lord Grocott’s amendment dealing with Telford. We are considering my noble friend Lady Hayter’s Amendment 85C, which argues that there should be a constituency that includes the whole of the City of London. We have not had argued my noble friend Lord Liddle’s amendment in relation to Cumbria. I will only deal with the amendments that I have just referred to, going through the list.
The Government have consistently argued that the core principle underpinning their proposed new rule for drawing parliamentary constituencies is equality. The Bill is designed, within a very narrow tolerance, to create equal-sized seats. As we have said repeatedly, we on this side of the House agree with the principle of creating more equal-sized seats but, as we have consistently pointed out, the Bill sets out this objective in a clumsy and unfair fashion. As we have heard, and will continue to hear, it aims to equalise seats on the basis of an unequal electoral register and it aims to do so in a way that will override all other factors such as geography, community and history, which ought to be taken into account in some way when designing patterns of representation. Yet, a curiosity about the Bill is that while the principle of numerical equalisation is deemed to be the trump card in almost all cases, there are some places and some circumstances where the iron law of uniform statistics has been disregarded.
For example, a new rule on the maximum territorial extent of a constituency has been invented, accompanied by a “get out of jail” free clause for at least one Scottish Highland seat from the requirement to adhere to the electoral quota. Alongside that, in new paragraph 6 in Clause 11 is a further exemption from the electoral quota, which we have heard a lot about, for two Scottish island seats—Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles are to be preserved, as it were, in aspic. Despite having substantially fewer voters than the proposed new quota of 75,000—in the case of Orkney and Shetland I think the electorate is around 37,000 and in the Western Isles it is just 21,000—these constituencies are deemed to warrant a special status in the Bill. I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Grocott that it is obviously sensible—but I also strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that where you are dealing with any public Bill, but most especially when you are dealing with a constitutional Bill, there must be some principle involved. What is the principle involved such that these two should be preserved constituencies? Is it that they are island constituencies? That cannot be the Government’s principle, because the Government explicitly rejected exemptions for both Anglesey and the Isle of Wight. Is it unique geographical circumstances? It cannot be, because there are more islands that are populated in Argyll and Bute than there are in either the Western Isles or Orkney and Shetland. Is it because of the particular historical status of these two constituencies? It cannot be, because the City of London has been mentioned in electoral legislation for more than 100 years and the Western Isles was first mentioned in electoral legislation only 70 years ago.
Without a principle, it is very difficult to understand why special favours have been granted. I do not know whether noble Lords remember—many noble Lords were not in the House when it happened—but at the very beginning of this process I admitted to the House that this is a hybrid Bill because two constituencies were being taken out, not on the basis of principle, but on the basis that they were being treated differently from the rest of the country. I do not want to go over the argument of whether it is hybrid. My own view remains that it is hybrid and that it is absolutely clear that hybridity can come not just from property interests, but from interests such as a desire to live in a particular place, as occurred in the previous case concerning Gatwick Airport. Put all that to one side. The consequence of the Government resisting the hybridity Motion and the consequence of there being no principle underlying these two exceptions mean that we are now in the position that we are in.
Distinguished Members of this House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, make persuasive arguments for special treatment for other places. The argument that he makes, that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, makes for the capital city of Scotland or that the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, makes are all incredibly persuasive. With respect to my noble friend Lord Grocott, I am not sure that the argument for Telford was quite as strong as the others, but those ones were very persuasive and that is because there is no principle that one can legitimately identify. There have been a lot of attempts to identify a principle. I have distilled the two that have been given so far by Mr Mark Harper in the other place and by Mr Nicholas Clegg and I understand them to be island communities, geography and history. They just do not stack up as an explanation.
I understand the foundation of the Bill to be a pamphlet written by Mr Andrew Tyrie, Conservative Member of Parliament, who is described as the brains behind the boundary review policy. In his pamphlet, Pruning the Politicians, Mr Tyrie wrote that special considerations,
“should be abolished … The principle of equal representation is too important to be compromised by get-outs”.
Not for the first time, I disagree strongly with Mr Tyrie. Although we should create more equal-sized seats, we should do so in a way that, in special cases, continues to allow factors other than pure statistics to influence the shape of constituencies. The best solution would be for the Government to bring forward the proposal that some independent body identify a very small number of exceptions to preserve the principle of equality, rather than the situation we have at the moment, where two political parties have come together and agreed these two exceptions.
I do not know the basis on which these two exceptions were agreed. Were they agreed in the coalition agreement talks? Were they agreed separately? What was the basis on which the agreement was reached? I think that one is a Scottish National Party seat and one a Liberal Democrat seat. I think that the exception in relation to size particularly helps two Liberal Democrat seats in the north of Scotland, so it would appear that two of the exceptions help the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Judd
Does my noble friend agree that once again, as we consider these amendments, we see that the Bill is strategically flawed? The British public, the electorate of the whole United Kingdom, have not seen the case for the change, let alone the details proposed for the change. In a democracy that was really sound, there would be an opportunity for an expression of opinion by the electorate of the whole United Kingdom on what was being proposed. If we are taking upon ourselves the responsibility for making the change, it is more important than ever that all the rationale for what is being done is absolutely explicable and spelled out. What I fear is that, at a time when public confidence in the political system is at a pretty low ebb, this will again be seen as arrogance on the part of a closed political community in Westminster.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I agree with every word of that. The detailed point is that, if you were minded to have exceptions, surely the starting point would have been a public consultation in which people who thought that their area was entitled to special favours could have put their arguments, which could then at least have been seen by the public. However, because this Bill has had no public consultation and no pre-legislative scrutiny, that opportunity has not existed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I come now to address the series of amendments that have been spoken to or moved. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, about which amendments we are dealing with, except to say that the initial amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, was Amendment 66C. Linked with that was the amendment that relates to the exceptions or the preserved constituencies, to which the noble and learned Lord devoted most of his remarks. However, we are on common ground as to which amendments we are discussing.
On numerous occasions during the Committee stage of this Bill, I have spoken about the principles behind the Government’s approach and our belief in equal votes—one vote, one value. As my noble friend Lord Tyler indicated, that is the principle and it is important that the exceptions to it are limited. I shall therefore deal with the exceptions first. They are the constituencies of Orkney and Shetland and what used to be referred to as the Western Isles—I am not a Gaelic speaker and I do not want to disgrace the Gaelic language by even attempting the Gaelic name.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, again raised the question of hybridity. Noble Lords who were present at the outset of these debates, before Second Reading, will recall that that matter was thoroughly debated in this House. The Clerks gave the advice that the Bill was not hybrid and the House had its say on the matter, rejecting the argument, however eloquently and persuasively put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the Bill was hybrid.
The noble and learned Lord asked why the Bill makes the exceptions of the two preserved constituencies. For anyone who has looked at a map, the reason is probably blindingly obvious. The constituencies are at the most extreme parts of our United Kingdom. If anyone has any doubt, let me say that Orkney and Shetland are at the very top and go far north; they are not in a box somewhere in the Moray Firth—my former constituents used to be very irritated when it looked as though the distance between Shetland and Aberdeen was very small. Indeed, the fact that they are so far away is a factor. We are talking not just about geography but about extreme geography, where the dispersed island groups cannot readily be combined with the mainland. It takes 12 hours by ferry from Lerwick in Shetland to Aberdeen on the Scottish mainland. By any stretch of the imagination, that situation is extreme.
We could contrast that with other islands that are already combined with mainland constituencies. Argyll and Bute is one example; it comprises a substantial mainland area together with islands. The constituency of St Ives, which is represented by my honourable friend Mr Andrew George, includes the Scilly Isles. The constituency of, I think, Cunninghame North, which includes Arran and, I suspect, the Cumbraes, is represented by—I am sorry, I cannot remember.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. We had, as everyone in the Chamber knows, 21 hours of debate on this issue on Monday and Tuesday, stopping at 1 pm. We then had another few hours on Tuesday evening and, through Wednesday night into Thursday morning in this sitting, we have now had between seven and eight hours on the Bill. Between now and the date by which the Government have said that the Bill has to be out of Parliament, there are nine legislating days in the Lords. The Bill has been listed for Monday and Wednesday of next week for the Committee stage, making a total of 13 days in Committee.
On the basis that the Report stage takes between a third and half of the time taken in Committee, there are to be between four and six Report days. On the basis that Third Reading takes between one and three days and, because this is an important constitutional Bill, there are the usual gaps between the two stages yet to come—Committee and Report, and Report and Third Reading—there is absolutely no prospect that this Bill will come out of the House on 16 February.
We have offered for the Bill to be split to allow the referendum to go ahead on 5 May, which the Government have said is their desire. We have no desire to stop the referendum. That offer has been rejected by all, up to and including the Prime Minister of this country, and therefore some other solution is required. It is a solution that needs to be negotiated between the parties. The sooner serious negotiations start, the better. I make it clear on behalf of the Labour Party and the Opposition that we are keen to engage in serious negotiations.
This process of going deep into the night should be brought to an end. As I look across the Chamber, I must say, with the greatest respect, that half the people on this side and half the people on the other side are half asleep; probably half the people who are supposed to be negotiating are getting more and more exhausted. There should be an adjournment and cool heads should start to kick in. The way in which the House of Lords always pulls back from the brink is by negotiation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, urged earlier in the day, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, urged during the 21-hour session and again today, and as is the view of many on all sides of the House, we should stop what has been described as legislating until we drop and show some leadership by starting to negotiate. For all those reasons, I urge the House to resume.
Lord Soley
I support that strongly. I have watched with growing concern the way in which this has been handled by the Government. It is mind-blowing that the Government, and the two political parties that make up the Government, are prepared to do so much damage to the reputation of the House of Lords.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
It is pretty clear what my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock is trying to do. It is pretty far reaching and I do not think, frankly, that it is sensible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I say that with the greatest respect. As I understand it, Amendment 67C proposes that every constituency shall be in either Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England. The words,
“together with the home and overseas dependent territories”,
mean either that a constituency also has to be completely within the home or overseas dependent territories, or that when you add the people to a constituency in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England from the home or overseas dependent territories, that constituency is wholly in one of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England. It leaves open the question of how you identify the people from the dependent territories, whether by connection with a constituency in the UK or by reference to their dependent territory.
The current position is that if you are from a home or overseas dependent territory and you are resident in the UK, and you have either leave to remain or do not require leave to remain, you can vote in a UK general election. What my noble friend is in effect suggesting is that we should by this Bill, without consultation and almost certainly against the wishes of the majority of most of the members of the home and overseas dependent territories, absorb them into the United Kingdom. The current position is that while many of them have allegiance to the Crown, they are not governed by our Executive or our Parliament. From my experience—I was the Minister responsible for the home dependent territories for a considerable period—they would be outraged by the suggestion of such a change being made in this way. I know that my noble friend wished only to raise a debate on this matter but from their point of view—they will read Hansard—it is absolutely critical that we make it clear what the effect of the amendment is, and I make it completely clear that we on this side of the House oppose it.
Lord Rooker
May I give my noble and learned friend an example from one of my former ministerial roles that comes to mind? I have never been to the Isle of Man, which is not a member of the EU. I did not realise that, during the 10-year ban on UK beef, beef grown in the Isle of Man was exported through England to Europe because it was not subject to the beef ban. It was not a member of the EU so it was not subject to the ban. It would not have wanted to be subject to it either. There must be other complications in other areas of policy that would have the same disastrous consequences. I agree with my noble and learned friend that the amendment would lead to incorporation into the UK, and consequently membership of the EU. The Isle of Man might not want that, given all its ramifications. I give that practical example as that 10-year ban would have destroyed its beef trade, as it destroyed that of UK farmers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My noble friend Lord Rooker gives just one example. From my experience of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, the idea that they could suddenly find themselves in the European Union, with ramifications not just for the sale of beef but, for example, in relation to imposts in the form of tax and VAT, would be for them a major issue and, I anticipate, something to which they would object.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, would my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer care to ponder whether the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is on record in Lancashire as being totally opposed to people interfering with the boundary between Lancashire and Yorkshire, has been consulted on whether the Isle of Man could suddenly be added to the county of Lancashire?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I have not had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but I imagine he would oppose it.
My position is clear on Amendment 67C. As to Amendment 77A, the proposed new paragraph 5(2) on page 10 of the Bill states that under the new arrangements the Boundary Commission for England,
“may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit, boundaries of the electoral regions specified in Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002”.
It then states, in brackets, that when having regard to that you should ignore Gibraltar. Obviously the reason you should ignore Gibraltar is because it has no part to play in elections to our national Parliament.
The second amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, suggests that we should have regard to Gibraltar and European parliamentary boundaries when considering what the national constituency boundaries should be. For example, the Boundary Commission might consider that a European Parliament boundary here would be a good place for a constituency boundary. I do not object to regard being paid to the European boundaries but, because I oppose the first part, I think they should be kept separate—this applies to Gibraltar as much as to everywhere else—and we should not have regard to Gibraltar in paragraph 5(2). Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition, I also oppose Amendment 77A, which I am sure was only a probing amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it is an interesting probing at this time of the morning. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the Government do not support his amendment because there are both principled and practical objections to it. The principled objection is that these territories are separate from the United Kingdom—their people are represented by legislatures in their own territory—and I certainly join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in saying that I suspect there would be considerable opposition for such an incorporation without any consultation.
The practical difficulty is that residents of the overseas territories may not be on the United Kingdom parliamentary register on the basis of an address in these territories. The noble and learned Lord indicated the basis on which people can be registered to vote in the United Kingdom. It is formed of British, Republic of Ireland and qualifying Commonwealth citizens aged over 18 who are not subject to any legal incapacity. Anyone resident in the territories who is entitled to register in a parliamentary register would do so from a UK address, not from an address in the territory itself. As Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom, I also do not understand why the Boundary Commission should have any regard to it. I therefore share the opposition to that amendment.
The noble Lord has raised an interesting issue, and he may wish to return to it on a more appropriate occasion, but I am afraid that I can give him no comfort if he seeks to pursue the amendment. I ask him to withdraw it.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. We are in the most unusual situation that Monday in the House of Lords has only recently, after 22 hours of debate in Committee, become Tuesday. I must say that your Lordships are looking remarkably sprightly. I am almost tempted to do it all over again.
I know that I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the entire staff of the House, who most ably supported us through the night, had the foresight to provide a lucky few with camp beds and provided a most delicious breakfast in the early hours of this morning. But there is considerable pressure and concern throughout the House from those who wish to find a way to progress business, which by all measures is going extremely slowly, and to find ways to respect the convention that the House passes government business in a reasonable time. We are about to go into Committee on the 10th day on this Bill and I am hopeful that today's progress may be somewhat speedier than yesterday’s. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I first associate myself with the remarks of the Leader in relation to the staff, who played a real blinder during the course of the day. I am only sorry that my duties in the Chamber prevented me from joining the Leader of the House for breakfast. Secondly, what has made this House successful over the years is finding solutions to the sorts of problems that we currently face. I made it clear at the beginning of yesterday's business and on the frequent occasions when I moved that the House resumed, that I am willing on behalf of this party to discuss reaching conclusions, whether on procedure or on the substance, in order to bring an end to the position.
“2 (1) No constituency shall have an electorate more than 5% above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom unless the Boundary Commission concerned believes there to be overriding reasons under the terms of these rules why it should.
(2) No constituency shall have an electorate more than 10% above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we agree with the principle of creating more equal-sized seats, but we have practical concerns about the way in which the legislation seeks to pursue this reasonable objective. Our amendment would inject some common sense into the rigid mathematical formula for redrawing parliamentary boundaries that is proposed by the Bill. Clause 11 of the Bill proposes an entirely new system of rules for drawing parliamentary constituency boundaries, based on the paramount requirement that, save for some protected seats in Scotland, the electorate of any constituency shall be no less than 95 per cent of a UK-wide electoral quota, and no more than 105 per cent of that quota. The Deputy Prime Minister explained in evidence to your Lordships’ House’s Constitution Committee that the 5 per cent disparity limit had been chosen because the Government believe, having consulted the Boundary Commission, that it was the closest to absolute mathematical equality that could be practically achieved without forcing the Boundary Commission to split wards. Yet the heads of the four Boundary Commissions told the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in another place that:
“The electoral parity target may require the Commissions to work with electorate data below ward level in many cases”.
That sentiment was forcefully echoed by Professor Ron Johnson, one of Britain’s foremost psephologists. He told the Select Committee that:
“It seems to me that the Commissions will be in great problems in some parts of the country”.
By way of example he cited the position in Sheffield, the home of the Deputy Prime Minister. Professor Johnson told the committee:
“Sheffield will almost certainly be entitled to five constituencies under the current reduction. Sheffield has 28 wards. That would be three constituencies of six wards, which would be too big, over the five per cent on one side, and two of five wards which would be below the five per cent on the other side. You would have to either split wards in Sheffield or somehow around the Barnsley/Rotherham interchange manage to create constituencies which cross the boundaries all of which were within five per cent. I very much doubt”—
Professor Johnson went on—
“that is feasible because wards in Rotherham are about the same size as wards in Sheffield anyhow and there are some hills in the way before you get to Barnsley. They are going to have to split wards, I have no doubt about this”.
The facts seem pretty clear—if the Government genuinely do wish to avoid splitting up wards, they must relax the 5 per cent disparity limit.
There are other arguments in favour of a more flexible threshold. A 5 per cent disparity limit will deprive the Boundary Commissions of the flexibility they need to take proper account of history, local ties or geography when drawing boundaries. As a consequence, towns and villages will be divided between constituencies, and natural boundaries will in many cases be overlooked. Let us consider how some instances would have applied at the last election. A number of constituencies that fit well with their local authority would no longer have been able to do so—Wyre Forest for example, which is coterminous with its district, would have had 2,131 too many electors. Similarly, Shrewsbury and Atcham, also coterminous with its district, would have had 1,552 too many electors. A number of counties and boundaries with statutory limits on electorates would no longer have been able to sustain whole numbers of constituencies, and would therefore need to share at least one seat with a neighbouring county or borough.
Take the six seats in the county of Oxfordshire—Banbury, Henley, Oxford East, Oxford West and Abingdon, Wantage, and Witney. They were on average 1,907 electors over the threshold. So, approximately 11,000 Oxfordshire electors would have needed to be shed so that they could be in a constituency shared with a neighbouring county. For example, part of the Prime Minister’s constituency might have had to be shifted to a seat based in Gloucestershire. Another striking example is the historic county of Cornwall, and the Isles of Scilly, which would have had to find 13,138 electors—or an average of 2,190 per constituency—from Devon to make up the number they require under the Bill for six seats.
The problem would have been particularly acute in London. The borough of Barnet—Chipping Barnet, Finchley and Golders Green, and Hendon constituencies—would have had 371 too many electors for its three seats. Enfield borough—Edmonton, Enfield North and Enfield Southgate constituencies—would have had 219 too few electors, with an average of 73 per seat needed from a neighbouring borough. The borough of Sutton—Carshalton, Wallington, and Sutton and Cheam constituencies—would have had 1,119 too few electors for two seats, an average of 560 per seat. The borough of Wandsworth—the Battersea, Putney and Tooting constituencies—would have had 3,427 too few electors for three seats. So you would have had all these constituencies crossing, with a very small number, into neighbouring boroughs.
Looking ahead, a Democratic Audit model of how boundaries would have to be drawn in the future using the 5 per cent proposed in the Bill has found that,
“only 9 out of 46 counties, accounting for 67 of the 503 seats proposed for England, did not need to be grouped with another county”.
Indeed, this sort of widespread disruption resulting from the new rules will be the chief legacy of the Bill if it is left in this form. That is because even in regions and counties where there may be little or no change in the number of constituencies, the knock-on effect of the rigidity of the 5 per cent rule will none the less produce wholesale alterations to the boundaries of seats within these counties whether or not their electorates fall within the proposed 5 per cent threshold.
The existing rules for drawing constituency boundaries require the commissions to take into account any local ties that may be broken by alterations to constituencies. This is widely seen as an essential counterbalance to the mathematics and reflects one of the strengths of the British constituency system, which respects real communities and well understood boundaries, and in turn fosters an identity within those constituencies and a connection between electors and their representatives.
No doubt the Minister will counter that the rules set out in the Bill will similarly allow Boundary Commissions to take into account factors such as geography and local ties. The Minister is correct in that rule 5 does provide for an allowance, but what the Minister will seek to gloss over is that such considerations must be subject to the rule governing the size of constituencies. It is there in black and white on page 10 at line 22. So it is the numbers first, and then as long as you have the numbers, apart from two or three exceptions, then and only then can you apply geography, local ties and history.
So this Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill would thus transform the process of a boundary review from one that seeks to balance electoral equality with community identity to one that would abandon the latter in order to achieve a negligible advance in the former. As well as creating pointless anomalies, the Bill will lead to widespread unnecessary disruption. This is because when allied to the reduction of 50 seats proposed in the Bill, the rigid 5 per cent thresholds for acceptable disparity from the UK electoral quota means that there will be very few, if any, seats that will be unaffected by the boundary changes. Cutting the Commons to 600 seats has the effect of increasing the electoral quota in all parts of the United Kingdom, even in England where it would go up from 71,537 registered electors to 75,800. Currently, only a minority of constituencies have electorates within 5 per cent of the new electoral quota, and even they are not guaranteed to emerge unscathed.
In England, the adoption of an electoral quota of 75,800 would require each constituency to have an electorate of between 72,010 and 79,590. On current electorates, just 204 constituencies have electorates within that range. Clearly, all of the others will be subject to some change but, in practice, every single constituency will probably be redrawn. The chairs of the Boundary Commissions have admitted so publicly, because the knock-on effect is so enormous.
A prime example is what will happen to the county of Hampshire. Because the rules will not allow the Isle of Wight to remain a single seat, the county will need to accommodate approximately 35,000 electors from the island who will need to be allocated to one of the mainland seats. This will have a significant ripple effect on constituencies across the county, leading to significant changes in the shape of Hampshire constituencies. Although that extreme level of disruption would not be seen again after the first redrawing, widespread disturbance of constituency boundaries would none the less be evident every time there was a future review, because population changes will constantly push constituencies outside the 5 per cent threshold. That was confirmed by the heads of the Boundary Commissions in evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in the other place. It has also been highlighted by Lewis Baston of the Democratic Audit team, who has predicted that,
“there will be only two boundary reviews under these rules—one reporting by 2013 and in force from 2015, and another reporting in 2018. At that point, MPs will revolt at the prospect of repeated disruptive boundary reviews, as they did in similar circumstances in 1958”.
We need to avert this if we possibly can, but we need to get greater equality among the size of constituencies. We can start by revising this Bill so that the goal of numerical parity, which is important and which we support, is balanced with the real-life needs of local communities. That is the purpose of our amendment. It would provide the Boundary Commission with the practical leeway that it needs to balance the different factors which influence the design of constituencies, while still ensuring the creation of more equal-sized seats. Our amendment states:
“No constituency shall have an electorate more than 5% above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom unless the Boundary Commission concerned believes there to be overriding reasons under the terms of these rules why it should”.
That would enable the commissions to have a meaningful ability to take account of the geographical and other factors which regularly have a bearing on their calculations at the moment. It will allow the Boundary Commissions to exercise their judgment in a field in which they, after all, are expert. However, to ensure that there is an absolute limit on levels of disparity between different seats, the amendment also states:
“No constituency shall have an electorate more than 10% above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom”.
Democratic Audit has calculated that a 10 per cent outside limit would be just enough to prevent the division of wards in almost every case and enough to enable the Boundary Commissions to work within county boundaries, with maybe two exceptions.
Our fundamental argument is simple. We believe that although the majority of seats would and indeed should be within 5 per cent of an electoral quota, there are more instances than are allowed for in the Bill where the Boundary Commission should be allowed to exercise a degree of discretion of up to 10 per cent from the quota.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Can the noble and learned Lord give us any idea of roughly how many constituencies would be, so to speak, saved by his amendment? Are we dealing with 100 or 10? It may be an impossible question to answer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
No, it is not impossible to answer. The estimate that I gave of the number of existing seats that were numerically outside it is, if I can find it, something like 203. I think that the number that would be outside it would be less than half of that. I shall come back to that when I find the figure, which I agree is important.
Lord Tyler
The second part the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, which is very interesting and I hope will be examined carefully by your Lordships’ House, is dependent on an electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom. I may have missed something in either what he said or where the amendments come, but I have not found different electoral quotas for different parts of the United Kingdom. Would those quotas vary dramatically in Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland? If so, that would undermine the presentation he has given us, which otherwise is very helpful.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not think that it would. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with the figures in relation to that. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
I have to inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 64 to 66C inclusive, by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am sorry that the noble Earl thinks that. He is being a little too impatient, if I may say so. The point that I am making is that the relationship between the structures of local government and the system of parliamentary representation is very important. It needs to be intimate. Members of Parliament and elected members of local authorities need to work together. This system should be an organic whole, which is one more very important reason why the rules that the Government propose to govern the designing and drawing of the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies need to be sensitive to the realities of local government. I say no more than that, but these considerations genuinely matter.
I welcome the Minister’s tone and hope that his department will examine the practical implications of not moving beyond the 5 per cent tolerance either side of the norm, and consider whether it would produce anomalies and offensive manifestations in the way in which our constituencies are drawn that we would be very much wiser to avoid.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, it may assist if I indicate the Opposition’s position. I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord said. On that basis, I rather read him as saying that he did not rule out—indeed might consider—a 5 per cent barrier with exceptions up to 10 per cent, but 10 per cent being an absolute barrier either way. The Minister is giving no assurances but he is willing to consider it. I am happy with that and I will not press it. Perhaps the appropriate course would be for myself and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who rather favoured the argument of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, to come along with us. I am more than happy for the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to come, and if the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would be kind enough to grace us with his presence, that would be helpful as well. If we could meet quite quickly, that might be of assistance.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, it is not as if I had any intention of wishing to be included in that distinguished company, but I have a small point which may be helpful. I greatly welcome the attitude of the noble and learned Lord. This is one of the sanest, fairest and most common-sense amendments that we have had in this context. No doubt the Minister believes that arithmetical consistency is extremely important. I totally accept his sincerity, but it is not the case that it can be achieved. It can be achieved only if there is a register that is perfect in content. But you do not have such a register. It is inaccurate, possibly to the tune of 3.5 million. You may be thinking that you are aiming at a target through telescopic sights, and you are, but there is a kink in the barrel. Arithmetical consistency and total correctitude are simply not achievable.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the Committee for two minutes to make one simple point to the Minister. When he goes away to consider this, will he take with him the evidence from Scotland of the application of almost identical rules to those which he seeks to introduce? In 2007 an almost identical set of rules was applied to the revision of the Scottish Parliament boundaries. The Boundary Commission adopted a hierarchy that was almost exactly the same that the Bill imposes on the commission. As the noble and learned Lord knows, the result of those revisions was a set of provisional proposals that caused outrage across Scotland. There are at least 10 reports of local public inquiries signed off by sheriffs principal which criticise the effect on communities of that rigidity.
Finally, I shall repeat just three sentences from the West of Scotland regional inquiry. They are the words of Sheriff Principal Kerr when he rejected the provisional recommendations and opposed the degree of flexibility that the Boundary Commission had not. He said:
“I take the view that the Boundary Commission in formulating their proposals for the present review in the West of Scotland allowed Rule 2 to predominate unduly in their thinking”—
which is exactly what the Bill will do since rule 2 imposes parity in numerical terms on the electorate—
“with some consequences which I would describe as unnatural in their failure to have sufficient regard to the geography and social composition of the areas and populations with which they were dealing. The conclusions at which I have arrived in this report after seeing and hearing local reaction at the inquiry may go some way towards redressing the balance in favour of matching political constituencies to the realities of life in this part of Scotland”.
There are 10 of these decisions, and they are a formidable quarry for those in support of local public inquiries. They may be used later in the debate, but in the mean time I urge the Minister, for whom I have the most enormous regard, as he knows, to take them away and look at them when considering the proposal for more flexibility in this Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, on the basis that the noble and learned Lord has signalled that he accepts the broad approach that I have suggested, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. In moving this Motion, it may be helpful to set out the Government's intention in relation to progress on the Bill; there has been a little recent comment in the press.
The Government announced as long ago as July last year that there would be a referendum on 5 May to decide the system to elect Members of the House of Commons at the next general election. The Government also made clear our desire to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons at the same election. The Bill subsequently passed all its stages on the Floor of the House
In this House, we are now on day nine of Committee on the Bill. Although it is right that this House undertakes proper and detailed scrutiny of the Bill, it is also right that the House deals with legislation in reasonable time. The Bill was introduced to your Lordships' House on 3 November, and began Committee on 30 November. The Opposition's approach has been consistently and deliberately slow. This time last week, the House debated the Bill for six hours, dealing with just two amendments. That is not good scrutiny; there is no precedent for moving so slowly. I have had many representations from noble Lords on all sides of the House in recent weeks who are concerned about the slow progress on the Bill. The Opposition have dragged their heels; they have had their fun; it is now time for this House to behave responsibly.
For this House to stand in the way of a referendum on 5 May would be extremely serious. The Electoral Commission is clear that in order for the necessary provisions to be made to hold a referendum on 5 May, Royal Assent for this Bill should be granted by 16 February. In order to give proper time for Report and Third Reading, I believe that the House now expects us to make substantial progress towards completing Committee today. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said. The Bill has two parts: Part 1 provides for the introduction of an alternative system for electing the House of Commons, subject to a yes vote in a national referendum; Part 2 provides for the reduction in the number of House of Commons constituencies from 650 to 600 and the adoption of new rules for determining constituency boundaries that are designed to introduce equality in the number of electors in each constituency.
As Members will know, the Bill has been described by Mr Nicholas Clegg as the most important constitutional reform since the Great Reform Act 1832. There is no dispute that the Bill is of far-reaching constitutional significance. The Bill passed through all its stages in the Commons, where it was the subject of a guillotine Motion, between September and 1 November 2010. As the noble Lord the Leader said, in your Lordships' House the Bill had a Second Reading over two days at the beginning of November and has so far spent eight days in Committee before today. Six days in Committee have been spent considering Part 1. It will, as is normal, spend longer in this House than in the other place.
The Electoral Commission announced that the Bill has to have Royal Assent by 16 February 2011 to allow the referendum to take place on 5 May 2011. Last Thursday, without consultation, the Government fixed a third day on Tuesday this week for consideration of the Bill in Committee, making three consecutive days for its consideration this week. They have also made arrangements with the House authorities consistent with there being an all-night sitting tonight. I read in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday that the Cholmondeley Room and the Attlee Room are being prepared to be dormitories for male and female Peers. Your Lordships will be concerned to know that the Sunday Telegraph did not indicate which was for male and which was for female Peers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I want to make a brief point. There are precedents for splitting Bills which have got into difficulties. I refer to the 1977 Scotland and Wales Bill which, after a lot of discussion, was in fact split in the House of Commons. That enabled the Scotland Bill to go forward in that Parliament, and the Wales Bill went forward a little later. It was unfortunate for Scotland, perhaps, that the people did not want devolution at the time. A way was found to split the Bill and there is no reason why a way should not be found to split this one.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
On the question of splitting the Bill, the advice I have received is that it is not open to this House to send back to the Commons a Bill that has been divided into two unless the Government give their consent to that. That position was made clear by my noble friend Lady McDonagh and that is why there was no vote on it. The Government did not give their consent. However, if the Government consent to it, it is possible for that course to be taken.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, asked an extremely good question a few minutes ago. She said, “Why the urgency?”. Of course, the answer is that last July, when the Government announced their intention to bring this legislation forward and published the Bill, there was no urgency. There was no urgency when it was debated in another place. There was no urgency when it came here. The situation has become urgent because the Labour Party has decided to go on a marathon go-slow on the Bill ever since we started Committee.
“United Kingdom electoral quota
The United Kingdom electoral quota shall be defined as the total electorate of the United Kingdom on the designated enumeration day divided by 650.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My distress at the lack of interest in the substance of the Bill is a matter of some import.
Amendment 58A would replace the current proposal in Clause 11 to fix the House of Commons at 600 seats, with an alternative rule which would anchor the size of the other place at its current membership of 650.
As your Lordships’ House’s Constitution Committee made clear in its report on the Bill:
“We conclude that the Government have not calculated the proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on the basis of any considered assessment of the role and functions of MPs”.
That reality was exposed in the debate last Monday, when the Government again failed to provide any adequate explanation as to why 600 seats is the optimum size for the other place or, in particular, why a 600-seat Commons would serve the public more effectively than the current 650-seat Chamber.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, conceded from the Front Bench that:
“We have never suggested that there was anything magic or ideal about a House of Commons of 600 any more than the current size of 650 is ideal”.—[Official Report, 10/01/11; col. 1222.]
Is that, I ask, rhetorically, the best that the Government can do in a situation where they are using their political majority in the other place in order to push through a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament? It is obviously a dangerous precedent that is being adopted, because it involves using your political power to fix the size of the legislative chamber in circumstances where people will allege, as we do on this side, that it is being done for political advantage.
It is worth saying that that approach to the question of the size of the legislative chamber has not been adopted in this country since the Second World War, when a Speaker’s Conference agreed the arrangement that then became law in 1949 and, though there have been changes to the detail, it has never been disputed that the people who should decide the number of constituencies in the country should be the boundary commissions, which are believed—correctly, in my view—to be beyond party politics. We do not want to get into a position where, when you win an election, you then use your majority to fix the size of the House of Commons to suit your political advantage.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Is there not, as a result of this affront to our constitution in the way that this is being done, the danger that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? There must be a considerable temptation for any incoming Government to do the same. I would hope that we would resist that temptation, but the pendulum will swing and the party or parties opposite will not be for ever in Government. The danger is that one hallowed principle of our constitution will be wilfully thrown away.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I agree with all of that. I very much hope that we would not succumb to that temptation, but once the door is open, it becomes harder and harder to resist.
Lord Trimble
The noble Lord refers to this as a “hallowed principle of our constitution”, but it was not applied to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace said, with regard to the Scottish Parliament, that there were some really arcane discussions, which he said he might reveal to us some time, that resulted in the rather unusual figure there. I know myself, and I will not weary the House, about the political considerations that drove the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I confess ignorance with regard to the Welsh Assembly. But that “hallowed principle” has not been applied by Governments drawn from both sides of this House over the past few years.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not want to go into Northern Irish politics because I feel that if I did, I would make a number of mistakes. I can talk about Scottish politics, and I can say this: the effect of the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in Scotland was, in political terms, wholly to the detriment of the Labour Party. However, it was introduced by a Government with a substantial Labour majority. Yes, it was done by a Government, but it was plain that it was being done in a way that was to the detriment of the interest of that Government. So, in my view, it does not raise the issues that the noble Lord is raising.
Lord Trimble
I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord has misunderstood the point that I was making, which was with regard not to the number of Westminster Members from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but to the size of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is a different matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I accept that as well but I can see no process by which, when you are setting up a Parliament, you can do so except by the passage of a Bill in Parliament.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
May a voice from Wales seek to assist my noble friend in respect of what happened regarding the Welsh Assembly? There was a consensus; it was agreed that there should be 60 seats, 40 of which would be exactly the same as the Westminster constituencies, while the other 20 would be based on regional representation and on a form of proportional representation. It was done not in a partisan way at all but on the basis of consensus, which manifestly has not been done in this case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I think that that is fair, and it applies to the putting together of the Welsh Assembly, the putting together of the Scottish Parliament and the reduction in the number of Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament. As I say, I defer in every single respect to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, in relation to what happened in Northern Ireland.
We believe that the case for a 650-seat Commons has not changed since the current Prime Minister spoke in its favour—indeed, in favour of a slightly larger elected Chamber—at the 2003 Oxfordshire boundary inquiry. Opposing proposals to alter his own constituency borders, he told that inquiry:
“Somebody might take the view that at 659 there are already too many Members of Parliament at Westminster. They may take the view, depending on what happens in the European constitution, that Westminster has less to do, with less MPs—I certainly hope that is not the case. This is all some way off”.
What has changed in the mean time to alter the view that there is no need for a reduction in the size of the House of Commons? The Government have failed to answer that question.
Our amendment stems from a conviction that the current Commons of 650, which is broadly the figure that it has been since 1983, is the appropriate basis on which to stabilise the size of that Chamber. Although the membership of the House has been pretty stable over the past number of years, both rising and falling, concerns have been expressed about the potential for a ratchet effect resulting from the interplay of some of the existing rules for drawing parliamentary boundaries.
Our amendment therefore follows the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee, in its 1987 report on the rules for drawing constituency boundaries, which proposed that the UK electoral quota should be calculated using the “fixed divisor” method. The Committee recommended that the divisor should be fixed on the basis of a 650-seat House of Commons.
Put simply, under our proposed alternative rules, an initial UK electoral quota would be calculated by dividing the total UK electorate by the fixed number of 650—in other words, not altering the current size of the House of Commons. This mechanism, which should be read alongside our other amendments, would not necessarily fix the House at 650 seats for ever. It would stabilise the House at around that size but with the mathematical rounding up or down involved in the calculation of seats in the four parts of the UK, and once special allowance is made for seats like the Scottish islands, it could be possible to see very minor fluctuations in the size of the Commons—one or two seats either side of 650. We see that as a virtue of the fixed divisor method and an advantage that it holds over the Government’s proposal for a fixed number of seats.
The latter approach—the fixed number of seats adopted by the Government—was criticised by the head of the English Boundary Commission when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry in 1987. He warned that stipulating an exact fixed number of seats for the Commons would require the boundary commissions to use a “Bed of Procrustes” for drawing constituencies, stretching the borders of those that were too small and lopping parts off others that were too big. He warned the committee away from that method and instead urged the use of a fixed divisor, which would result in a broadly stable Commons while allowing the boundary commissions a bit of practical leeway.
Now, of course, even if we could convince the Government of the practical benefits of our amendment, we would still need to persuade them on the issue of the most appropriate size of the Commons. Before we consider the relative merits and demerits of this amendment against the Government’s proposal for a 600-seat House of Commons, though, it is worth reminding ourselves of what the two parties opposite were saying on this subject before the election.
The Liberal Democrat general election manifesto contained a commitment to creating a 500-seat House of Commons elected on the basis of the single transferable vote. The Conservative Party manifesto contained a commitment to the continuation of the first past the post system for elections to the Commons but pledged to cut the number of MPs, saying that it envisaged a 585-seat House. So why did the coalition agreement settle upon 600 seats as the perfect number, as opposed to 500 or 585? I ask the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who I assume will be answering, to explain the reasoning behind that specific decision.
In particular, why did the two coalition partners agree on a figure that was higher than both their original proposals? Compromises usually involve a meeting in the middle—what happened here? Could the proposal for a 600-seat House have had anything whatever to do with the Conservative Party’s fears that the mathematical reality of a reduction below 600 would require the loss of seats in shire counties? Or did that have no bearing on the decision?
Leaving aside the reasons why the Government are so fixated on a 600-seat House, there is a broader question about what is wrong with the size of the current Commons. The Government claim that it is, to use their words, a bloated Chamber and that the UK suffers from something that they describe as “overrepresentation”. The facts show they are wrong on both counts. The claim that Britain is overrepresented in comparison with similar-sized countries is based on simple international comparisons of numbers of elected national representatives per head of population. In fact, the extent to which the UK has more elected representatives in the national legislature per head of population can be exaggerated. As a briefing note from the House of Commons Library makes clear, the United Kingdom has roughly the same ratio as France and Italy. However, the central point is that these calculations take account only of national legislatures and do not include any reference to levels of representation beneath that tier.
Lord Rooker
It is interesting that my noble and learned friend mentions France. In France, one in 100 adults is an elected official of some kind, whereas in this country the figure is about one in 1,600, if we take into account parish councils and urban districts. France is remarkably democratic and has less pressure at a national level because there is so much devolved democracy—16 times more so than here.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That is an interesting point and, significantly, my noble friend Lord Rooker has prefaced the point that I was just about to make. As I said, the central issue is that the calculations of the numbers of national representatives per head of population take account only of national legislatures and do not include references to levels of representation beneath that tier. If we look below the national level, the United Kingdom has far fewer elected officeholders per head of population than almost all comparable countries. An academic study by Democratic Audit found that, at local government level, the population per elected member is around 2,600 in the United Kingdom, 250 in Germany and 116 in France. Therefore, when sub-national elected representatives are factored in, as my noble friend Lord Rooker has pointed out, it is apparent that the UK does not suffer from overrepresentation; if anything, it suffers from the opposite.
In any event, there is a fundamental problem in seeking to draw simple comparisons between the numbers of elected representatives in different national legislatures. Some countries are unitary states, whereas others are federal states; some have a Westminster model, like that of the United Kingdom, whereas others have a presidential system, like that of the United States of America. As a consequence, their administrative and electoral systems are organised in different ways. Therefore, comparing rates of representation in one national legislature with those in another is a largely pointless exercise akin to comparing apples and pears.
A more sensible basis on which to decide what level of representation is right for the UK is to examine how the size of the House of Commons has changed over time. If the number of Members of Parliament were growing inexorably and out of all proportion to the size of the electorate, there would clearly be a problem. However, the evidence shows that that is not the case. The Commons has not grown disproportionately in size over recent years. The size of the Commons has increased by around 3 or 4 per cent, or by 25 Members, since 1950, but the electorate—and, therefore, the average size of constituencies—has increased by 25 per cent over that period.
There has also been a significant increase in the case load of Members of Parliament, which has grown out of proportion to the size of the population as a consequence of changing social norms, political developments and new forms of communication. According to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, in the 1950s and 1960s Members received on average 12 to 15 letters per week. Today, the average is 300 per week—I am still quoting figures from the Modernisation Committee—and then there are e-mails, faxes and telephone calls to take into account. There is no evidence that having fewer MPs will reduce the demand for their services. Assuming that that remains the same, the pressure on the remaining Members and their staff will increase.
If the service that Members of Parliament provide to their constituents is not to deteriorate, and if MPs are to be able to take part in Select Committees and Public Bill Committees, which have become considerably more active in recent decades, Members of Parliament will need greater resources to employ people as caseworkers and secretaries. The savings made through a reduction of 50 Members of Parliament would inevitably be lost, which would undermine the argument that this is a worthy, cost-cutting measure.
The provision on the size of the House of Commons is one of the most important in the Bill. We are being asked to cut 50 seats from the primary political body in the United Kingdom and to fix its size in statute, in perpetuity, at 600, but we are not really being given any proper explanation as to why that is the most appropriate size for the House of Commons. Does anyone in this Chamber honestly think that this is the right way to enact such a fundamental constitutional change? What, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is the justification for reducing the size of the House of Commons and increasing the size of this place?
In conclusion, one of the central arguments that can be made in support of an unelected House of Lords is that its Members are able to exercise a greater independence of thought than representatives who are elected—they are that bit freer of the party constraints that have a more restrictive impact on the actions of colleagues in the other place. That is one reason why, down the years, your Lordships have been able to act as the guardians of the constitution and face down Executive moves that are rooted in party interests and not the national interests.
The new era of coalition government is a challenge to your Lordships’ House—a challenge as to whether it is willing and able to act as an independent-minded revising Chamber. The alternative is to become a rubber stamp for the Executive. This Bill, and this issue perhaps more than many others, will serve as an important litmus test on how your Lordships’ House intends to respond to that challenge.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)
I must advise your Lordships that, if Amendment 58A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 59 to 63ZA inclusive and Amendment 66B due to pre-emption.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I will just deal with the central points. First, the suggestion has been made by some noble Lords that we should not be debating this at all because we are the Second Chamber. I utterly reject that contention. Our position has always been that we take a—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is shaking his head at that suggestion. He is the one who suggested that it should be left to the elected Chamber. I disagree with that. He said that we did not care about it at Third Reading in the Commons. I shall just quote Mr Sadiq Khan, who said that,
“this Bill is a bad means of delivering both objectives. It is too inflexible and too hasty, and it will lead to great and ongoing political instability. This House has failed to improve the Bill because it has not been allowed to do so. To our shame, that task now falls to unelected peers in the other place, whom we must now rely on to inject some democratic principles into what, to date, has been an inglorious episode in recent parliamentary history”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/10; col. 870.]
I agree with all that my right honourable friend said.
The second contention is that if one looks at history, this House has a proud history of dealing with politically driven attempts to change the complexion of the House. Some Members will remember the attempt by a Labour Government in 1969 to introduce an Act of Parliament designed to jigger with the boundaries. It was this House that blocked that proposal, so the idea that we should not be giving this proper scrutiny is completely wrong.
The third contention is that the numbers in the House of Commons should be reduced. It is an important issue to debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who we have all come to respect in this House for the way that he has dealt with this Bill, put his case this strongly. He said that introducing a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament would “not impair” the working of democracy. That is not remotely a basis on which it could be said that the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that it is almost impossible, I would have thought, scientifically to work out what the approach of individual Members of Parliament will be to their constituents. It will change. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, that it will be for each individual Member of Parliament to determine how it is done. I completely agree with Mr Tony Wright who, before the previous Parliament came to an end, presided over the Public Administration Committee. He said that there should be an examination of what the right role and function of Members of Parliament should be.
The debate this afternoon reveals that there are differing views about it, not just in relation to what you do in relation to your constituents, but about what is the right number to have as an effective national legislature that also selects the Executive. Surely before one embarks upon something that one seeks to justify by saying that reducing the number would not impair the working of democracy, it would be sensible for there to be some independent examination of this issue—for example, the Speaker’s Conference in 1944—but there has been nothing at all. In those circumstances, when Members on this side and on the other side of the House ask for the reasons why we are reducing, the answer given by the Government is that it will not do damage.
There have been two particularly signal speeches; one by the noble Lord, Lord Maples, and one by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. They sought to grapple with the issues. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was funny and witty and was made slightly unfortunate by the fact that he wanted to tell us all off after five minutes, but we will forgive him for that. He has a consistent history of supporting reducing the number quite significantly, and I gathered from his speech that his view is that the Commons would be a better place for dealing with policy issues if it was smaller. I also rather understand that the noble Lord, Lord Maples, was putting the same argument. They were both putting the argument quite effectively that as far as the size as their constituencies was concerned, geographically in relation to the Mole Valley in Surrey and in relation to numbers as far as the noble Lord, Lord Maples, was concerned, they could cope. That was their argument. They may be right. I do not know whether they are right, but they are two, if I may say so with respect to both of them, admirable mavericks who have had that view over a long period of time. It is not a view around which moss has gathered.
That is why, instead of it suddenly bouncing out of a clear blue sky that we should reduce from 650 to what is in effect an arbitrary number, the right course is that there is a proper examination so that people outside this place will have some confidence. The consequence of doing it in the way that the Government have done it, the consequence of there not being an intellectual argument to support it, the consequence of there not being any independent body that has concluded that this is the right thing to do, is that you could not say after this debate that even the House of Lords supports this with any degree of unanimity. It is an unstable proposal as far as our House of Commons is concerned, and it is a very unwise thing to be doing.
My amendment was a probing amendment. In parenthesis, if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, were here, I would, with respect, answer her complaint that we did not vote last Monday. My experience in the Lords is that we vote in Committee from time to time but, generally, we try to avoid votes in Committee. That has been the practice in relation to the something like 60 groups of amendments that we have had so far in this Bill. I apologise to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that that was not adequately explained to her by us.
This was a probing amendment. Three points came out of it. First, I am sorely unimpressed by there not being any sense of consensus about what should happen to the number. Secondly, the danger of it being done by fiat from the other place is very high. Thirdly, I think we need to come back with another amendment that seeks to ensure—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I hear a noble Lord say “Oh for God’s sake!”. The tradition in this House is that we have the debate in Committee and then we produce a further amendment on Report. If it is the intention of the House to change that procedure, I would be interested to hear whether we are dissatisfied with our current procedures. Fourthly, a process whereby an independent body determines the size of the House, as is the current arrangement, may be best. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(c) if there is a system of fixed-term Parliaments but a General Election is to be held other than on a 5 year cycle beginning with May 2015, then the Boundary Commission shall submit a report under subsection (1) no later than 18 months before the due date of each General Election.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this amendment connects in quite closely with previous debates but also raises a new point. It basically deals with the relationship between this legislation and the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which is making its stately progress through the other place and will, I hope, arrive here by the end of this month. We will be having a debate on it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, gave us an indication of how the Government envisage the relationship between the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and this Bill. The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill envisages five-year Parliaments and five-yearly looks at the constituency boundaries by the Boundary Commissions. He says he envisages that there will be roughly an 18-month gap between the date on which the Boundary Commissions report and the date that the subsequent general election takes place. Those 18 months are presumably a period in which, where there are changes to the constituency boundaries, the constituency parties can select new Members of Parliament, people can get to know their constituencies and there can be a canvass in relation to it.
There is one factual issue in relation to this and one principle issue in relation to law. I raise first the factual issue which my noble friend Lord Lipsey touched on. He asked how many changes there would be every five years and made the point that if the numbers remain critical and it is only a 5 per cent variation, it is possible to envisage the boundaries of many constituencies changing. I quote from a document called The Ten Per Cent Solution which is by a man called Mr Lewis Baston and dated 20 January 2011. He says the following: “The government’s Bill”, which is a reference to this Bill,
“proposes that the boundaries will change every election, which disrupts the relationship between MP and constituency and will no doubt lead to confusion. Because the 5 per cent limit is so tight, many constituencies that were the right size in one boundary review will be too big or too small by the next. This will happen because of growth and decline in population. It will also happen because of variations in electoral registration from year to year, which are likely to be larger under the forthcoming Individual Electoral Registration system. It is quite possible that radical changes in boundaries will be made for no better reason than fluctuating registers, which as we know have become much less stable, complete and accurate”.
So this report from Democratic Audit says that the effect will be quite significant; it uses the phrase “many constituencies”. I do not know what work the Government have done on this but it is important to know their estimate of the effect of the five-yearly review—not the first review but the five-yearly review.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for tabling this amendment. At the outset, I will clarify that I agree with his interpretation of the rules. Perhaps I may put in the caveat that the rule with regard to taking into account inconvenience does not apply to the first review in 2013, but would apply thereafter. I thought that I had indicated that it was subject to the 5 per cent rule when I responded to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. That is indeed the case. I was responding initially to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, who talked about uprooting the whole system every time and starting again, which is not consistent with the discretion given to the Boundary Commission.
As the noble and learned Lord—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—indicated, the intention is that there should be fixed-term Parliaments of five years with boundary reviews in sync. The intention of the amendment is to retain the relationship between the cycle of general elections and the boundary review reporting timetable if the cycle of fixed-term Parliaments shifted away from the pattern starting in May 2015. That would happen if the terms of the fixed-term Parliament were changed to something other than five years. I thought that that may have been the point of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, but he made it clear that that is not the case. However, he indicated the possibility that there could be an extraordinary general election. We do not believe that it is possible to provide for every reason why an election might not occur at the exact five-year interval. Instead of such complexity, the Bill seeks to address the matter in a way that would not necessarily waste resources. At the same time, future Parliaments would be able to consider how best to address the issue of the reviews getting seriously out of sync. The commission's annual progress reports that are required by the Bill will increase Parliament's knowledge of each review and assist it in deciding how to act.
As the Bill stands, there would still be a broad alignment of boundary review and general election cycles. I will give an example. If the boundary review reporting cycles were realigned to be exactly 18 months before any general election, it is possible that the Boundary Commission would be forced to abandon a review midway and start again from scratch. For example, if there was an extraordinary general election in 2018, before the 2018 report was due out, the Boundary Commission would have been reviewing boundaries for three years on the basis of electorate figures for 2015, and that work would have to be scrapped and a new review cycle started on the basis of 2018 electorate figures. This would be a waste of resources.
I accept the constructive intent of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. It is not necessary, but I am willing to reflect on whether we have done the best we can to maintain sync. However, if issues became such that there was a serious mismatch, it would be open to a future Parliament to redress that. The amendment does not achieve the outcome it intends and could lead to an unnecessary waste of resources. With these comments, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That was a helpful response. First, I thank the noble and learned Lord for confirming that my view of what the Bill meant was correct, which is obviously important. Secondly, he is in effect acknowledging that if there is a general election outside the fixed term—I say in parenthesis that if the fixed term were changed in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill as it goes through this House, it might affect the cycle, but that would require an amendment to this Bill—the intention is that there should be an 18-month gap, and that may have to be dealt with by primary legislation after the general election. It is that eventuality that my amendment seeks to avoid. It is an unsatisfactory situation that every time there is a general election outside the cycle—none of us in the Chamber knows how regularly there will be general elections outside the cycle, and if one looks at history one can envisage circumstances where one has an early general election, for example because a coalition falls apart, and then there is an indecisive result and one ends up with considerable uncertainty—and one needs a boundary review, one has to wait for primary legislation, and the party that gets into power after a closely fought election is in the driving seat in relation to when the review takes place.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will consider this. I, too, will consider it, and perhaps we could meet to think of a way in which some degree of certainty can be assured, because this is an important issue. I would also be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would write to me with the Government's estimate of the number of seats that might change their boundaries in the first of the five-yearly reviews, as opposed to the one that they envisage ending in October 2013. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey that the facts are critical. On the basis of the helpful response of the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Presumably a large part of the purpose of parliamentary reform is to refresh our parliamentary democracy, re-animate it, and re-engage the citizens of this country with it. My noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment is particularly helpful because it addresses a problem that we all recognise to be real and disturbing, which is the poor propensity of people in the 18 to 24 year-old age group to vote. There is some evidence that the attitudes that people bring to their first opportunity to vote as young adults tend to persist through life. We must all agree that it is extremely important that we make a determined effort to ensure that there is a much fuller participation of young people in our parliamentary democracy and that they take up their right to vote.
My noble friend has tabled a helpful amendment in enjoining a particular duty on the Secretary of State. We had some discussion on Monday about our fear that local authorities, because of the reductions in their funding, will be unable to pursue electoral registration as vigorously as they should. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made a powerful speech on that problem. If local authority funding is to be cut by some 28 per cent over the next four years, it must follow that any activity that is not statutorily required of local authorities will be in jeopardy. My noble friend’s amendment would insist that at least the Secretary of State was able to certify that every effort is made to bring 17 to 24 year-olds on to the register. That points in a direction that implies that the Secretary of State himself must take steps to ensure that the registration process is carried on vigorously, effectively and thoroughly.
It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord would say something about the Government’s view on the practical prospects for improving the proportion of registration in all age groups, but particularly in this one, the behaviour of which will be so crucial to the future of our democracy. We can change the voting system and constituency boundaries, but if we fail to re-engage people to vote, those reforms are little better than a sham.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not think that there is much dispute about either the facts or the outcome sought. In March 2010, the Electoral Commission produced a report entitled The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain. In a sample of areas that it examined in detail, 56 per cent of 18 to 24 year-olds were missing from the electoral register. In the 2005 general election, 37 per cent only of those between 18 and 24 voted, so there is a more than 50 per cent underregistration, and only just over a third of that age vote.
We have heard repeatedly in the debate and outside that if young people are not registered and do not vote, they set a trend in their lives that distances them from democracy. I do not think that anyone in the House disagrees with any of those propositions. We on the Front Bench of the Labour Party support the amendment because we have heard nothing from the Government about what they propose to do about it. If they had some proposal that could assist, we would be interested to hear it, but this proposal, made by my noble friend Lady Thornton and supported by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, builds into the system the requirement for work to be done on the issue, which is something that the noble and learned Lord himself has said in previous debates that he wants to do. He should tell us what the Government will do about what they have already agreed is a problem. If it is not as good as this amendment, maybe this is the way forward.
Lord Soley
I support my noble friend Lord McKenzie and my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth who I understand cannot move the amendment. It is a particularly important issue and I know that, like me, my noble friend Lord Knight will have had real examples of the problem in his own constituency when he was an MP. However, I have to say that this matter does not affect just inner-city areas: it affects the whole private rented sector. I had a survey carried out in my constituency of Hammersmith, which lasted for more than a year. A number of things stood out, but one which stood out very strongly was the overrepresentation of people from the private rented sector coming to see the MP or the councillor because their problems were more acute. This is really what the issue is about. These people need representation and yet they are the ones who are least likely to be on the list.
I recognise the problem for local authorities. People in this group are particularly hard to identify and to follow up on if you fail to get them to register in the first instance, but it is important that we make an effort. I know that it affects rural areas as well, which is why I say that it is not just a matter for inner-city areas. The private rented sector generally has in it people who tend to be on lower incomes, often in accommodation for not that long. If it is a shorthold tenure, it will be for a maximum of six months, although obviously that can be renewed as appropriate. But it means that you are dealing with a high turnover of people, often on low incomes and yet often with multiple problems that need to be addressed by an elected representative, be it a councillor or a Member of Parliament.
I do not have any simple answer, but I can say that at one stage Hammersmith council got particularly good at following up on these people and did rather well on increasing the representation of people in the private rented sector. However, I do not think that any of us has got it right yet. As I have said, although it is more extreme in urban areas, it also affects rural areas. The evidence is very strong that there is underrepresentation on the electoral roll of people in private rented accommodation, and it would be useful to know if the Government have any ideas at all about how to address this.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is well tilled territory. The position according to the Electoral Commission is that if you own your house outright, 93 per cent of you are on the electoral register; if you are buying on a mortgage, it is 86 per cent; if renting from a council, 79 per cent; if renting from a housing association, 75 per cent; and if renting from a private landlord, only 44 per cent. If you are “other”, it is 78 per cent. I do not know what “other” is. Perhaps it is living in a commune or in a tent somewhere or, indeed, in a caravan, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Graham. Why is this? The Electoral Commission report says:
“Taken as a whole, tenants in the private rented sector are significantly more likely to be absent from the electoral register than owner-occupiers or those in social housing. This pattern arises from the greater turnover of households in the private rental sector compared to other tenures as well as the associated concentrations of specific social groups in private rental accommodation, notably young people and students, and some BME groups”.
Again, I do not think that much of this is in dispute and that what we are looking for are proposals as to how it might be dealt with.
I endorse all that my noble friend Lord McKenzie has said about the private rented sector, but there is a further point to make. I turn to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to the effect that, “You do not want this review to take place using very out-of-date material. It is going to take place using material prepared in December 2010, so all your proposals that there should be an improvement in the number of young people and BMEs in the private rental sector will not apply unless you want to delay it”. That is the key answer. What is the hurry for this to take place by 2015? The obvious answer to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is that a period of time should go by, maybe a year, and then we should take the register at December 2011, but only if the sort of steps that my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord McKenzie of Luton have been asking for have been taken.
If that is wrong, because we can delay the date until December 2011 and we can seek measures to be taken to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State or the Electoral Commission to ensure better representation of the three underrepresented groups, we can achieve both. I would therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to give answers to two questions. What is being done about the private rented sector to get more people on to the electoral register? What would be the problem in answering his oft-repeated song that we delay for a year or some other period the date at which we take the electoral register for the purposes of the boundary revision? What would the nation lose by that? There would be more people from these underrepresented groups on the electoral register.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as has been indicated, this amendment is very similar in its terms to the previous amendment, although it focuses on the need to maximise the proportion of private sector tenants on the electoral register. It will therefore not come as a surprise if I indicate that the arguments are substantially the same. I will answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The difference is that what we are being invited to do with these amendments is put off the boundary review to some indeterminate time. No date is fixed in these amendments, although the noble and learned Lord said that it could be 1 December 2011. But we have heard the whingeing complaints that to do it in 2010 is going to make it tight for a boundary review to report by 2013. Given that, I rather suspect that using a review date for the electoral register in December 2011 is going to make it impossible for the 2015 election to be fought on new boundaries. That is the crucial difference.
The party opposite appears to wish the boundaries for the 2015 election to be fought on electoral data, so far as England is concerned, that go back to the year 2000. We have quoted on many occasions in these debates the report from the Electoral Commission published in March last year, when of course the party opposite was in power. These underregistrations have not suddenly materialised since May last year. I have indicated what we intend to do with regard to younger people in terms of data matching, so I found it rather breathtaking to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, say that we should get on with it. I think that we are probably proposing to do more in our first eight months in office than all that happened during the past 13 years. I give credit for initiatives that were taken, like rolling the register, but all that would come to naught because any benefit that came from that if we hold the 2015 election on electoral data from 2000 would be lost. Any positive steps taken by the previous Administration will not have any effect.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, mentioned Glasgow, and in previous exchanges the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, has indicated what has been done there, and it is a positive example. But of course none of that would be taken into account if we had to use electoral data from 2000. I welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, because I wondered where he was earlier.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maxton
My noble friend, inevitably, gets there before me. I will come to that in a minute.
Is it the Government’s intention to draw up the register based on these databases, which local authorities will be able to go into, and therefore add large numbers of people who have not registered to vote? If the Government are not going to do that, what is the point of going into the databases? There is no point at all.
The Minister has implied that the Government are drawing up a register from the databases and then basically saying to people, “You’re on the register. If you wish, you can prove to us that you do not live there any more and come off the register”. However, as my noble friend has quite rightly said, all this would have been solved—and considerable sums of money saved in the longer run—if we had introduced compulsory national identity cards and a national identity register. Each local authority could have used that and drawn up its own register without any bother whatever.
That would not have been the only use. You could then use the card itself to vote electronically wherever you wished. That would have increased the number of people taking part in our democratic process, which would have been to the major benefit of our whole electoral system.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
This is an important issue. The debate has been greatly assisted, first, by the very forceful and well researched way in which my noble friend Lord Boateng introduced it; secondly, by the exceptional speech of my noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke; and thirdly, by the speech just made by my noble friend Lord Maxton. He asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, quite a number of pertinent questions about what he has been saying in response to this collection of amendments—namely, “We are doing a bit of data matching and we want to see how the pilots go”. We need to know the legal basis of data matching and the consequences of data being matched.
This issue raises important points of principle. Those outside this Chamber may think that this debate is about political parties’ different views on the methods of selecting boundaries for constituencies and voting systems. If we are genuinely about to introduce a new system for identifying constituencies, there must be a real sense that that connects with the people who currently do not connect with our democracy.
The statistics that my noble friend Lord Boateng referred to make it clear—I do not believe that this is seriously an issue in this Chamber—that members of the BME communities in this country are underrepresented on the electoral register by comparison with white British electors. The figures produced by the Electoral Commission find that overall registration levels among the BME communities stand at 69 per cent compared to white British electors at 86 per cent. I do not think there is any dispute that that is a bad figure and that efforts should be made to increase the levels of electoral registration by BME communities—though I wait to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.
The much missed Robin Cook said that democracy is not just a method by which we select those who govern us but also a system of government that expresses our values. Diversity is one of the critical values of our country, as is that there should be genuine equality. In producing an electoral reform described by the Deputy Prime Minister as the most significant since 1832, the least that could be done is for the legislation to have some explicit recognition of the problem relating to registration of BME groups. Surely it is at least as important to reach the hard-to-reach groups as it is to go through a technical change in the way that we define the constituency boundaries in this country.
The response of the noble and learned Lord has been twofold: he does not want it to be fixed on information that is out of date—I hope I dealt with that before dinner—or on an indeterminate date. I indicated that there was a determinate date, which seemed to cut the ground from under him. His second answer was that it must be done before the next election. Why? Does he regard it as more important to do it before the general election than to ensure that people are reached who are not now being reached by our electoral system? If he has the time, can he explain why the next general election is so critical? Is that to do with party politics or with crafting a good system? Ultimately, we will be judged—not just this House but Parliament generally—by whether people believe that we are producing a system that is trying to reach the whole of our community rather than simply serving the electoral interests of one or other party. That is why it is important that the noble and learned Lord at least makes some effort to explain why he thinks the next election is more important than reaching the hard-to-reach groups.
My noble friend Lord Boateng proposes that Parliament express a view that this is important. He suggests that the Secretary of State should approve a process by which hard-to-reach groups, especially BME communities, are reached before we move to the next phase, the boundary review. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, says the responsibility for that lies on political parties. I accept that but registration should be separate from political parties. Yes, all political parties should make their contribution but nobody doubts that those responsible for registering people on the electoral register—the electoral registration officers and local authorities—also have a responsibility for it. That is why, without disputing the responsibility of political parties, it is important that the state undertakes its responsibilities as well. I know from my experience as a Minister that you really get the state to change its view of things by making the things that the Government want conditional on some improvement in the delivery of public service or public policy. The effect of the amendment would be that the boundary changes would be introduced only if there was an improvement in the registration of BME groups.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I was asked to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who asked me to express his apologies for not being here. I am sure that he is sorely missed by all noble Lords. This is a probing amendment. Nevertheless, it is a relevant role for a revising Chamber to scrutinise legislation, to point out flaws, hopefully to get them dealt with, and to seek more information from the Government on how they arrived at the composition of the Bill that they have put before Parliament.
I arrived with some trepidation to attempt vainly to fill the shoes of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I would have been filled with even more trepidation if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, had still been on the Front Bench. The fierceness with which he dealt with previous speakers filled me with fear and trepidation. I felt quite intimidated when my noble friend asked me to move the amendment. I have never seen the noble and learned Lord in such a—shall I use the word?—crabbit mood. He was very fierce and gave the appearance of being a wee bit intolerant and authoritarian in questioning a Member’s right to put forward amendments. I feel that I have escaped the hangman’s noose now that the noble and learned Lord is not on the Front Bench to deal with me. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be gentle with me.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock was eagle-eyed in spotting something that reflects—perhaps I am dipping my toe into the pool of controversy here with what might be seen as a vicious attack on the Government—the rushed nature of the Bill. Why has the legislation not caught up with changed realities? To say that this should go to the Speaker of the House of Commons but not the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords does not recognise the new reality. Legislation goes through both Houses of Parliament. This is not a major thing that will bring revolution. Nevertheless, in terms of respect, thoroughness and exactitude, this seems daft. I am trying to clarify whether this has been missed or whether it is a deliberate omission—and if it is the latter, why has it been done? It does not reflect the fact that we are a bicameral Parliament. This should come before the Lord Speaker as well.
In asking these questions of the government Front Bench, I hope that I do not get torn to pieces or ripped apart because I have the temerity to speak to an amendment. The only thing that I can think concerning the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is that he has been working very hard and perhaps is a bit tired. However, the hour is not our choice; it is the Government’s choice.
I just want to be clear about what we are looking for here. Is the exclusion of the Lord Speaker from the Bill just an act of omission or is it deliberate? If it is deliberate, I should like to know the reason. If it is a mere act of omission because of the rushed nature of the Bill, will the amendment be accepted and placed in the Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I congratulate my noble friend Lord McAvoy on his courage in moving the amendment. The absence of the reference to the Speaker of the House of Lords—the Lord Speaker—presumably means that it is not intended that there should be a debate on the report in the Lords. Presumably the argument is that, by giving the report only to the Speaker of the Commons and not to the Speaker of the Lords, the Government envisage a debate in the Commons but not here. However, it would obviously be important for both Houses to debate it. As we said earlier in our debates, this House has tended to be more effective in relation to Boundary Commission reports—1969 has been referred to. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is about to respond. I do not know where he was in 1969. He may well have been helping the then Home Secretary, who was perhaps responsible for trying to go round the corner in relation to the Boundary Commission report. I think that it would be good for democracy if both Houses debated such reports produced by the Boundary Commission. Is the fact that the Lord Speaker is not referred to intended to mean that the focus should be on the Commons, or is there no such intention? If the Government are happy for both Houses to debate the report, might a way of indicating that be by saying that the report should go to both Speakers?
Lord McNally
My Lords, first, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that he and I have bonded—I think that that is the only word that can describe it—since he came to this House. If my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness should be threatening in any way, the noble Lord would find me between him and my noble and learned friend in an attempt to protect him.
We have had a fair amount of paranoia during the Committee stage of this Bill. The Opposition have suspected us of rigging this and that, but the simple fact is that the report is delivered to the Speaker of the House of Commons in his capacity as the ex officio chair of the Boundary Commission. He then lays it before Parliament on receipt, which ensures that Members of both Houses have the opportunity to read it. The laying process involves papers being received in the Journal Office and reported to the Commons in the daily Votes and Proceedings, and to the Lords in the daily minute, after which they are said to have been laid on the Table of the House. Therefore, Members of both Houses are able to see them. I have no doubt that, once they are laid on the Table of the House, there will be usual channels discussions to enable a debate in both Houses. There is nothing up my sleeve and no mystery here; this just involves the basic procedures of the workings of the Boundary Commission. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has made a powerful case for why his amendment is in the interests of the Liberal Democrats. I shall make a case, probably not quite as powerful, for it being in the interests also of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives to whom I talk are all absolutely confident that AV will be defeated in the referendum. I do not happen to agree with them, but they are very confident.
Let us just think what the situation would be if the Campbell-Savours amendment, or “Jessica’s law”, did not apply and the Liberal Democrats were defeated in the referendum. What would then be the situation of the Liberal Democrats? They would have lost AV, which they are relying on to deliver them extra seats at the next general election, as everyone agrees it would. However, coming along the line will be the 5 per cent rule and the equalisation, and what is also agreed is that those rules will hit the Liberal Democrats much harder than any other party. According to Democratic Audit’s calculations, they would lose 11 of their 57 seats, whereas Labour and the Tories, with many more seats, would lose 18 and 17 respectively. It would be a real reduction in the proportion of Lib Dem representation in the House of Commons.
I do not know what bedlam the coalition will be in if and when we get to such a stage. I do not expect that the coalition will be very politically popular; it will need to last to have any chance of regaining its political popularity. In those circumstances, what will the Lib Dems do? If the Boundary Commission review comes into force, as it will in 2015, they will be faced with a loss of seats as a result not only of losing votes but also of the redistribution. The sensible thing to do, therefore, would be to find the nearest and quickest excuse to bring this coalition Government to an end and to adopt a sauve qui peut stance in a general election where they might preserve more seats than they would in a general election eventually to be held under the new system proposed by the Government. It would not suit the Tories to have a general election in the middle of this Parliament, because they would be extremely unpopular, and no doubt deservedly so. I come to the conclusion that it is very strange indeed that this side is arguing for the amendment, although I see no nods of agreement on the other side with any of the arguments that we have put forward.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The amendment would mean that you would get the constituency boundary changes only if the AV vote was yes. I do not support that, but it is an inevitable consequence of the loose language in which the coalition puts this. On 20 December, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said:
“Indeed, as my noble friend Lord McNally has said on a number of occasions, this Bill is about fair votes and fair boundaries. It shows that the two are, in fact, linked. It shows how the two will be linked because it will shape the way in which the other place will be elected in 2015”.—[Official Report, 20/12/10; col. 882.]
My understanding of this Bill is that, if the AV vote is no, you still get your constituency boundary changes. Am I wrong? Please confirm that. If I am right, why did the Minister say that on 20 December?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Because we are going to win the referendum.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his amendment. I particularly thank all noble Lords opposite who have shown such concern for the interests of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party. It has been very touching. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats and my Conservative colleagues, let me say how appreciated it is.
When we eventually got around to it, the motive behind this amendment was that it got us back to the supplementary vote, which was the product of what was, I am sure, a stimulating dinner party in 1989. To be fair to the noble Lord, he has persisted in this throughout these debates.
The amendment would provide that the first boundary review, which would create fewer and more equalised constituencies, would not have effect until the referendum had taken place and only then if the electorate had voted yes. As Members of the Committee will be aware, there are differences on these Benches on the merits of the alternative vote system and first past the post. We have made no secret of that. However, both parties in the coalition are agreed that the public should choose which system we use and should do so in a referendum.
Linking the boundary changes to the referendum would effectively mean asking more than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said. If we change the Bill in the way proposed by the noble Lord, we effectively make a vote against the alternative vote a vote against the boundary changes, too. He described that as a way of incentivising the Conservatives to support the alternative vote. If the referendum result were to be no, it would prevent the modest and sensible reduction in the number of seats, for which the Bill provides, from taking effect. The amendment would see the existing constituency map, with its inequalities in electorate size based on data from, as far as England is concerned, 10 years ago, continue until those data were even older.
As a democrat, I would be bitterly disappointed if the people voted no in a referendum on the voting system, but I would accept that that was the vote expressed by the people. It would be wrong to use that as an excuse to break off an agreement.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for Amendment 58ZA. When I first read the amendment, I immediately identified what he was driving at and had some considerable sympathy for it. He is absolutely right that, if the Government could simply disregard a modification that the Boundary Commission suggested, that would not be acceptable.
I am afraid that the issue comes down to textual analysis. Amendment 58ZA proceeds on the assumption that Clause 10(6)(5B) confers a separate discretionary power whereby the Government may decide whether to include a modification that has been requested by a boundary commission. However, we do not consider that to be the effect of new subsection (5B) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Rather, new subsection (5B) explains how the modifications referred to in new subsection (5A)—the two subsections need to be read together—can come to be included in the order in council. On that basis, the inclusion of requested modifications is part and parcel of the requirement to give effect to the Boundary Commission’s recommendation, as provided for in new subsection (5A). Therefore, the Bill requires the Government to include such modifications in the order in council.
I should perhaps also point out that the noble Lord’s amendment might make it less clear that the Government are not permitted to make any modifications other than those requested by the boundary commissions.
I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that answer. I readily acknowledge that the matter is textual. After reading the subsection several times, I was persuaded that new subsections (5A) and (5B) need to be taken together and that there is nothing malign intended. No doubt the noble Lord will want to read what I have said, but I am certainly prepared to consider—although I am already satisfied with the wording, which we have discussed through—satisfying myself further on the matter. However, on that basis, I ask the noble Lord to reflect on what I have said and to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I completely understand the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has made that the draft Order in Council can be modified only if the Boundary Commission requests a modification. However, is the implementation of the modification optional if such a request is made? The wording of the Bill appears to suggest that the Minister has discretion on whether to accept any modifications that have been requested.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
With respect, I think that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made was whether Ministers have such discretion. It is certainly my understanding that the power is not intended to be discretionary. The intention is that, if a boundary commission wants a modification, Ministers will be obliged to incorporate that modification in laying the Order in Council. The two new subsections (5A) and (5B) need to be taken together. New subsection (5B) describes the circumstances in which a modification would be made.
As I have indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and indeed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I will read this again. I have done so already and I am satisfied that there is no malign intent that would oblige Ministers to follow a request from one of the Boundary Commissions, but I am willing to give it further reconsideration and others will no doubt look at it and read it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I have two questions about Clause 10. We have gone through several points on Clause 10, which changes the review dates. We have not referred to this but Clause 10(5) repeals Section 3(3) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. As I understand it, it deprives the Boundary Commissions of being able to carry out interim reviews between general reviews. That would mean that the Boundary Commission could not do an interim review short of five years to deal, for example, with a significant change in population. What is the reason for repealing that power, which presumably would be of use in certain circumstances?
Secondly and separately, the clause as I understand it does not change the basic structure of how the Boundary Commission operates, which is by producing reports at specified intervals. The reports then define what the new constituency boundaries are. What are the circumstances in which there can be a modification after the Boundary Commission has reported? How is that consistent with a process whereby representations can be made, on the basis of which a final report is issued? I know modifications can be made that can affect the report after it has been produced because this is referred to in the amended subsection (5).