European Council
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Perhaps we might hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and then move to UKIP.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, will the Leader of the House possibly correct the attempts of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to rewrite history? Will he perhaps remind her that the decisions on which countries joined the euro, and at which parities, were made well before the 1997 election? At that time, the decision by the Conservative Government not to join the euro was severely criticised by both John Smith and Gordon Brown.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always good to hear my noble friend, and he has of course put the record entirely right.
House of Lords: Membership
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether under their plans for an elected House of Lords the Prime Minister could be a Member of the House of Lords.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, an important part of the plans for the reform of this House is the continued primacy of the House of Commons. The presence of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons therefore underlines that primacy.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Does my noble friend accept that in a number of bicameral systems in the world it is possible for a Prime Minister to be in either House? While it might not be acceptable to public opinion at the moment for a Prime Minister to sit in this House as it is presently constituted, if in, say, 10 years’ time this House is wholly elected, is deemed more legitimate and is demanding more powers, would it not be appropriate and necessary for there to be more senior Ministers in this House? Would it not be wrong for the Government’s legislation to exclude the possibility of a Prime Minister being in this House, as used to be the case right up to the early years of the 20th century?
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, nobody has risen to support the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, but I would not think of suggesting a degree of mischief in his moving the amendment. I said to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness that he was far too expert on the subject of this great constituency to respond to this and that I would gladly do it for him.
To reply to one small part of my exchange with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, there are only 18 clauses in the Bill. It is so long because the schedules are included in it, which would otherwise form part of secondary legislation. There is no need to remake that point; it explains the thickness of the Bill.
I think that noble Lords now understand what the amendment would do. It would remove the exemption from Orkney. We have in this Bill provided two named exemptions to the parity rule, for Orkney and Shetland and for the Western Isles, Na h-Eileanan an Iar—that is said in an Ayrshire accent, to help Hansard.
We believe that it is very important for electors that their vote has the same weight wherever they are in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has been urging us through the debate to break down the parity. In the amendment, he is saying that we should be even more vigorous on the parity, but we have created the two exceptions named in the Bill because they are dispersed island groups that are not already included in a constituency that covers part of the mainland.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I urge my noble friend to tread gingerly on this issue for two reasons. First, he will remember that North Sea oil is British because of the Shetland Islands, which form the median line between Norway and Britain. As he will remember, the Shetland Islands, along with the Orkney Islands, are only on loan to this country—as a result of the wedding of the Maid of Norway to, I think, James IV of Scotland—so they could be repaid at any time. Will he please bear that in mind? Secondly, when it comes to distance, will he remember that, if any constituency has a case it must be Shetland, because the nearest railway station is not Aberdeen but Bergen?
Lord Strathclyde
It says so much about the House of Lords that I thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness was the only Orkney and Shetland expert here, but there speaks my noble friend Lord Lamont, who has real personal knowledge of Orkney and has very helpfully contributed that information. I agree with what he said.
If my noble and learned friend had been here, he would have reminded us of the practicalities involved in getting between Orkney and London. The Government are not thinking here about the travel convenience of Members of Parliament; rather, we believe that it would not be practicable for constituents to have a Member of Parliament whose base is a 12-hour ferry ride away, as would be the case if Shetland was required to be combined with the mainland.
I am pretty convinced that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, knows and understands these arguments. I hope that he feels that he has had a fair hearing and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I find it very strange that the party that seems to be supporting first past the post is the one that is refusing first past the post in a referendum. If you win by one in a constituency at the moment, you have won. However, if you win by one without a threshold, you have lost. I really cannot make much sense out of that argument.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
What about the party that says that everyone should have 50 per cent of the vote and is now advocating that that should not apply in a referendum?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
That is not, of course, what we say. It is the argument of a coalition of dinosaurs who say that in the old days you could have just two parties in a constituency. As I have argued before, one is bound to get 50 per cent. If you have 6.3 parties, which was the average in last May’s election, it does not work in the same way. Nearly every member will be elected on a minority vote. We must accept that.
The first referendum I remember was on the Sunday opening of pubs in Wales. No one mentioned a threshold—no one was going to risk doing that—so it was carried in some counties and not in others. There was no threshold. Then we came to the European Union and whether we stayed in or stayed out. There was no talk of a threshold there. The only talk of a threshold was in the first referendum on devolution. Then you had a threshold, and both Scotland and Wales failed to reach it. Then came the next referendum on devolution, and there was no threshold. I am told that when Northern Ireland had its Good Friday referendum, there was no threshold.
Why are we making this exception now? We are doing so purely to try to destroy this AV proposal, and nothing else. I can see the argument going thus—let us delay the Bill and talk at length so we miss that May deadline. That would mean that the turnout would be down, perhaps in October, and it would be said that not enough people voted this time; perhaps only 20 per cent voted.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, it appeared on the face of it that this was not about thresholds precisely, but a different issue. But the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has demonstrated the connection between the amendment moved by the noble Baroness and the issue of thresholds. Because I spoke last week, I certainly will not go over the arguments, but I want to comment on two points made by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in reply to that debate. He argued that if you have a threshold relating to turnout, that just encourages people to abstain. He repeated the argument several times, saying that people will think that all they need to do is to abstain and the referendum will be rejected, but my noble friend Lord Lawson pointed out that that is not necessarily how it would go. It might well go in the other direction. He pointed out that, for example, there would be people who were against change but who believed that the threshold will be met and therefore will have an added inducement to vote. That is one category of people who would have an inducement to vote. Secondly, there could be a group of people who are in favour but know that if they do not vote, they may lose the issue. So it can work in several ways.
I made the point that in 1979, when we did have a threshold, the turnout then was 63 per cent—very high, even though there was a threshold—and that when the subsequent referendum was held without a threshold, the turnout was actually lower at 60 per cent. So in the particular case of the referendums in Scotland, when we did have thresholds, the turnout was higher. The noble Lord may say that that was an outcome threshold not a turnout threshold—and that is true—but I would argue that the effects of the threshold there are also ambiguous. If the noble Lord thinks that an outcome threshold that is something like the Cunningham amendment, with 40 per cent of the electorate required to vote yes, would encourage a high turnout, why do we not have that kind of threshold rather than a turnout threshold? The argument that a threshold encourages abstention is not very persuasive.
The second point made by the noble Lord in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was that the Labour Government had been elected by only 21.6 per cent in 2005. If that did for them and the noble and learned Lord was happy with that, why was he not happy with 21.5 per cent in a referendum?
A referendum is different from a general election. In a general election, Members of Parliament are up for election and may be up for re-election; a constitutional change is likely to be permanent and difficult to reverse. Secondly, even with 21.6 per cent in 2005, the turnout threshold put forward in the amendments would have been met anyway. There is obviously a difference between 21.6 per cent when at least three parties, and possibly four or five, are standing, and 21.6 per cent in relation to a yes/no proposition. Neither of the arguments the noble Lord puts forward against thresholds is persuasive.
I do not know whether or not we will have to vote on this but, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that we did not have thresholds in previous referenda, although we did have one in relation to the Scottish referendum, one cannot think of a country in Europe that does not have a qualified majority provision for changes in the constitution. I shall be interested in what my noble friend says in reply to these points.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, in tabling her amendment, my noble friend Lady Hayter has done two useful things. First, she has reminded us that in legislating, particularly on constitutional matters, we should be sensitive to sentiment in the different nations of the United Kingdom. We needed to be sensitive to that sentiment 10 years ago, which is why we brought in devolution; and, in the context of devolution, and after 10 years’ experience of it, it is all the more important that we should be so. However, the legislation proposed by the Government fails to be sensitive in that important regard. Under their model, a majority in the United Kingdom as a whole would trump a no vote within one of its constituent countries. In that way we risk alienating national opinion and national sentiment in whatever part of the country it was—it might be Wales or Scotland—that found its wishes thus crudely overruled.
The second important thing that my noble friend’s amendment does is to underline that whatever the result of the referendum and however the procedures might be amended in this legislation, if we then went on to have a referendum under whatever set of rules, the result is liable to be divisive. It would be divisive in the case of a particular country of the United Kingdom having its wishes on the electoral system overruled; and, equally, under my noble friend’s amendment, it would be divisive because what she proposes would mean that where there was a no vote in any individual part of the United Kingdom, that would trump the yes vote across the wider United Kingdom and invalidate yes votes in other parts of the United Kingdom. That cannot be a happy outcome either.
A third way in which it would be possible to go, although it is not proposed in the amendment, is for each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom to determine its own electoral system. In those parts of the kingdom that voted for AV, general elections would in future be conducted on the basis of AV; in those parts which preferred first past the post, they would continue to elect their Members of Parliament on the basis of first past the post. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, smiles at the evident fatuity of such a scheme, yet I do not know whether he entirely rules out the possibility of two classes of Member coming to this House of Parliament, some elected, some appointed, because he very wisely does not show his hand and delays doing so for as long as he can.
The only circumstance in which a referendum on the voting system would not be divisive and set parts of the United Kingdom at odds with each other would be the eventuality of every part of the United Kingdom voting the same way, either for AV or first past the post. It is reasonable to think that that is rather an unlikely outcome.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am glad that if the noble and learned Lord ever finds himself in government again he will not make the same mistakes.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My noble friend has tried to merge the motives of people in voting for thresholds with the arguments for and against thresholds. He says that voting for the Cunningham amendment was motivated just by opportunism. He has, not I am sure with any malicious or impolite intention, also implied that those who have argued for a threshold in these debates have done so because they are against AV. However, will he not address some of the arguments on their own merits? For example, does not the fact that almost every European country has a qualified majority for constitutional change show that there is something in this argument?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that no impoliteness is intended in any shape or form. However, I largely stand by the fact that most of those who speak in favour of a threshold tend to be those who are most opposed to the policy of having a referendum or who are against AV, which is why they want a qualification.
My noble friend asked an interesting question about what happens in other European countries. The answer is that different countries do different things. Let us take just one example. I think I am right in thinking that France requires a majority in Parliament for making constitutional change, but does not require a threshold when there is a national referendum. I am sure that we could trade statistics from around the world about different countries doing different things, but France is an example of it being done in that way.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, noble Lords cannot imagine how pleased I am to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, moving this amendment. That is so for two reasons: first, because I am interested in the amendment and I support it; and, secondly, because I have sat through almost five days of discussion in the Committee and have heard a large number of extremely important interventions. Some of them did not interest me very much, I have to say, but I have been here and heard them all. I fully accept noble Lords’ right to raise points, but they have done so a large number of times.
Now we come to an amendment that I am interested in because I share the view that it is reasonable, in a situation where we continually tell ourselves that we are dealing with a constitutional issue, that we should have some threshold, as is the case in a good number of democracies in the world. It is true that there are some disadvantages. It is claimed that it could confuse the electorate, though I do not accept that argument myself. I think that the electorate will understand perfectly clearly that they were voting on a certain issue and that they had given their opinion only above a specific threshold. There is also the possibility that quite a lot of people who abstain would consider that they would have given a no vote. However, once again, I do not think that we should attribute to the electorate ideas that they might not have. They might feel quite confident that they will cast their vote and that it is perfectly reasonable that it should be laid down in the procedure that a reasonable percentage of the electorate should vote on an important issue.
Therefore, in principle, it is a good idea to have a threshold. We could have an argument about whether it should be 25 per cent—we have two more amendments here which have a different percentage—but I am very keen that the issue should be raised, as it has been by the noble Baroness. It would be a serious dereliction of duty if we went into a constitutional amendment and had not properly discussed whether or not there should be a threshold. It is an important point and we know that in a good number of other countries there is a threshold in constitutional issue referendums or votes, either in the procedure for initiating a referendum or in the threshold required to validate the vote, which is what we are talking about in this case. This is a subject that ought to be debated in this House. I support the procedure. I accept that 25 per cent is pretty low but we have to launch the debate and see what views are taken in relation to a threshold in the constitutional referendum.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I raised the question of thresholds at Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, replied by saying, “Bring it on! Put it down and we will vote it down”, so he can hardly be surprised that the amendment has arrived. I hope that he will be a bit more flexible than he indicated on that occasion. The amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has put forward is—as has already been said—an extremely modest one. There are other amendments, with successively higher thresholds, which the House might or might not wish to examine and divide on. The principle of some sort of threshold is extremely strong.
There are two sorts of thresholds. There are thresholds that relate to the outcome of the referendum that demand that that there should be a minimum percentage of those voting yes as a hurdle. That is an outcome referendum as in the 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution. Then there are quite different thresholds—like all the amendments tonight—that are purely based on turnouts. Looking at other countries is very interesting. There, the logic of the argument is that constitutional change should occur only when there is a clearly expressed and significant majority for it.
In the United States, for example, in order to change the constitution, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress is required. Those changes then have to be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. In Germany two-thirds of the members of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat have to vote for constitutional changes. In New Zealand and Austria it has to be a two-thirds majority of votes cast, in Norway two-thirds of members of the Storting, and in Belgium two-thirds of the votes in both houses of parliament. In Denmark there is a 40 per cent threshold for constitutional changes, and in Italy a 50 per cent threshold. I believe there are also thresholds in Spain and Switzerland. The principle is very clearly accepted in many countries and the logic of it is very powerful: that constitutional change can be extremely important and has to be endorsed by the electorate by a significant majority indicating that that is the will of the people.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, a question. Under the supplementary system, would it be possible for a candidate who had no first preferences to be elected?
Lord Rooker
No, as my noble friend explained in even greater detail. However many candidates there are on the list, noble Lords should envisage the current ballot paper but with two columns. Voters put an X in the first column and an X in the second column—obviously for different people—and the contest is then between those two candidates only. One person could get elected, of course, with more than 50 per cent in the first column, as is the case with AV now, and that would be great. However, it would not be possible for the least popular candidate to leapfrog the popular candidate, as can happen with AV.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am afraid that I was not a distinguished member of the Government at the time, but let me speculate as to what might have been in the mind of the Government.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, delves into the bowels of history, is it not the case that today the leader of the Labour Party has said that he intends to vote for AV in a referendum?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
He has and that is fine. He is not saying necessarily that that is what everyone else has got to do, but the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is absolutely right in relation to that. What is the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler? I do not know, but perhaps it was that this would be enough to get the Liberal Democrats on side. Sure enough, it has proved to be the case as far as the Conservatives are concerned. But, ultimately, the problem which the Liberal Democrats say this is to try to resolve is a lack of trust on the part of the electorate in politicians.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 16A and 17, which are in this group. I wish to follow up on something to which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred. He referred to “a proportional vote system”, which would be inserted under proposed subsection (3)(c) to be inserted into Clause 1 under Amendment 16. In other words, this referendum would not deal with only clear alternatives set out in the referendum question; it would pose the question, “Do you want a proportional vote system?”, which at this stage is not to be identified in the referendum question. By implication, there inevitably would have to be an inquiry arising out of a referendum which might choose new subsection (3)(c) as the option.
I am very interested in inquiries because last week we spent several hours arguing the case for an inquiry. What interested me about this amendment, and why I sought in my Amendment 17 to include the supplementary vote, is that that is precisely what I want to see. I want to see an alternative vote referendum based on the need for an inquiry in exactly the same way as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in their amendment.
In private conversation, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whether he might be prepared to accept this amendment. There may well be conditions in which some of us would like to divide the House on this. It raises very important issues. He gave me the same explanation; namely, that it is too complicated. But the reality is that, of all the electoral systems that confront the British electorate at the moment, apart from first past the post, the supplementary vote is the simplest system. It is used nationally in the mayoral elections. It has been supported by many millions of voters. Next year, when the mayoral elections finally take place in the new mayoralties—I think that there was reference to 12—I presume that they will also be fought on the supplementary vote. I cannot quite understand why introducing the simplest possible system should be regarded as a complication of the question.
In winding up, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, might offer to take back to those who have their names to this amendment the suggestion that before Report they might be prepared to include, if they were to retable their amendment, reference to the supplementary vote.
The content of Amendment 16A is the substance of an amendment that I shall move later and, again, it is about the principle of an inquiry. The referendum question at the moment refers specifically to “the” alternative vote—a specific system that has been identified, which I and many of my colleagues reject for different reasons. My amendment, which I would have slotted in as paragraph (d) of subsection (3) as proposed under Amendment 16, would enable the public to vote on a question which asked whether they were in favour of “an” alternative vote system. That would then beg the question of an inquiry to take place and a decision to be taken by Parliament or whoever wanted to make representations. Finally, a decision to be taken by government could be put to the House. I ask the noble Lord to take this back to his noble friends, because I regard the amendment that he has moved as one of the most important to be considered on this Bill.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has made an attractive speech which was full of interesting references, although I think that this is a somewhat curious amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made a powerful point, but it leads me rather in the opposite direction to the noble Lord and to think that one could not support this amendment.
It will not surprise anyone that I speak as someone who has been over time a strong supporter of our existing system. In the 1970s, I even wrote a pamphlet defending our system, called Electoral Reform No Reform. At least I stand by the title because it has always seemed to me that the advantages and disadvantages of electoral systems are more evenly balanced than people acknowledge. The word “reform” is tendentious and “change” would be a better word. I have to confess on reading my pamphlet written 40 years ago that not all the arguments have stood the test of time brilliantly. I accept that there is more of a case than it appeared then for something like the German mixed system.
Some of the criticisms, however, that are made of our system, including one made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, are fallacious. The noble Lord referred to the first past the post system as one that depends on making the winner someone with a plurality rather than a majority of votes. The criticism is commonly made about our system producing over 50 per cent of the seats with people who have perhaps only 40 per cent of the votes and this is not a majority. The point is made that the Government do not reflect majority opinion under our electoral system. The fallacy in this argument is that there naturally exists in public opinion such a thing as a majority. It is true that if you take any single issue—like whether people are for or against the euro, whether they are for or against privatisation, whether they prefer public expenditure to lower taxes—you can get a majority for any single proposition. But elections are not fought on one proposition; they are fought on four or five issues. Opinion polls show that it is much more difficult to get a majority for four or five issues at once than it is for one issue. So it is a wrong argument to say that you have an electoral system that produces a majority when there is not in fact an underlying real majority.
What is the magic of a majority anyway? In a democracy, power, even by a majority, must be exercised with restraint and with respect towards one’s opponents. All electoral systems create a majority in an artificial way. The first past the post system does it by converting around 40 per cent of the votes into 50 per cent of the seats. The alternative vote system creates a majority artificially by taking the second preferences of the bottom candidate and allowing those to determine the outcome. But the second preferences of the second candidate do not count. The second preferences are given undue weight, which is why I was able to quote in Second Reading what Winston Churchill said about the system when he called it the least scientific in which the most worthless votes for the most worthless candidate determined the outcome. That is the artificiality of the AV system in creating a majority. With PR, equally, majorities are created rather artificially because people take two or three parties that may have fought the elections on completely different programmes, as we well know, and add them together and call it a majority, although nobody actually voted for the programme of the Government. So the artificiality of a majority is something that has to be recognised before one pours all this criticism on first past the post.
Lord Skidelsky
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I will simply point out that the movers of this amendment are not advocating any particular electoral system. It is neutral between the three choices. It is simply advocating a referendum in which those choices are given. That is all. Your points may be completely valid but they are not the point of the amendment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
If I digressed, I apologise to the House and stand rebuked. Specifically on the amendment, its Achilles heel is the one the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, alighted on—namely, that it gives as an alternative this broad category of a proportional system. Proportional systems vary enormously. Some of them, like the German mixed system, are not so different from our system. They are different but they are not very different. And there is a world of difference between PR on a national list system, as it used to be at one time in Italy and as it is in Israel, and the German system. It is a huge variation, so much so that it would make the question, if it was put in this form in a referendum, completely nonsensical. I do not think one can follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and say, “We will have a referendum in which two or three of the outcomes may be definite but if a rather vague outcome is voted for, then we will have another inquiry”. This seems to be a slightly unbalanced and rather strange way of proceeding.
The second objection that I have, which is the reason I called it a rather strange amendment, is this device of using AV in order to determine which electoral system we have. It would be extraordinary on something as important as our choice of electoral system, which could have profound effects on the way we run politics in this country, to say that again the result should be determined by the second preferences of the system that people least wanted. The arguments that I put forward against AV seem to apply equally strongly to a referendum. To revert to the point I made earlier, I do not think one could leave PR as a choice just defined as PR. If one tried to answer that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was suggesting, by putting the supplementary vote system, or STV, or any of the many different systems of PR, that would make the whole referendum meaningless. So I am afraid that, although the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a very interesting speech, I think this is a completely unworkable amendment and should be rejected.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I am tempted by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, not only because I always find him an exceptionally persuasive and erudite man but for two other reasons. One is that it uses AV to choose the winner of the contest. No electoral theoretician would think this was a good way of choosing between these preferences. You would need some sort of Condorcet system which ran off options to find the one that emerged as having the most support rather than a system that simply eliminates a better choice. It does not work terribly well for this kind of referendum. AV has the great advantage of simplicity, which is also the reason I, for one, favour it as our national electoral system.
The other reason I am quite tempted by this amendment is that I have no doubt that the result of the referendum, whether it was AV or first past the post, would certainly knock out PR for ever. The power of the arguments that would be placed against a PR system for Britain would be so enormous that nobody would be tempted. As a political observer I add this point. The only people who would be speaking up for PR in such a referendum would be the Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrat advocacy of anything at the moment is a certainty for its unpopularity. This is the party that has lost more than half the votes that were cast for it at the General Election. The thought of these poor lambs bleating round the country for STV, or whichever system they choose, would make it a certain feature of the result of the referendum that it went down the plughole. So for those reasons, I am tempted by the noble Lord’s proposal, though not perhaps for the reasons that he put forward.
I go back to where I started on electoral reform, about which I did not know a huge amount at the time, which was with the Jenkins committee. That committee’s terms of reference were written, in many ways wisely, by the party of which I am a member. The terms of reference did not say, “Put forward a whole lot of possible options and discuss their merits as the electoral system for Britain”. Nor did they say, “Recommend an electoral system and we will have it”. They said, “Recommend the best possible alternative to first past the post to be put before the British people in a referendum”. I regret deeply that it was not put before the British people in a referendum at the time.
In the same way as the coalition is wise to put forward an alternative for the referendum, in writing the terms of reference widely in that way the Government were right about what a referendum can seriously manage to do. I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, correctly. He said that this was an abuse of a referendum. It is not. Let us face it: referendums have their strengths and limitations. They are quite good at resolving a simple question on which the political class is divided. The supreme example in my lifetime was Europe. The referendum of 1975 settled things, rightly or wrongly, for many years to come. There was no other way within our political system that it could have been settled because of the state of the Labour Party at the time and later the Conservative Party, which nearly blew itself apart over Europe. The voice of the British people came down clearly on a single alternative, which was to stay in, rightly or wrongly. That defused a bomb at the heart of the political system.
This is no disrespect to the British people, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect them to come to grips with the degree of complexity of choice such as is implied by this referendum, still less the choice that exists in real life. Imagine the kind of atmosphere that goes on during an election with claims and counter claims being made. Every time someone says, “This is more proportional”, the AV lot will say, “Ours isn’t more proportional”. You would have a cacophony, which even those who have been studying this subject for half their lives, such as me, would have difficulty disentangling. At least the option that we have before us would give the British people a clear choice to make and the arguments between AV and first past the post are not that complicated.
Moreover, as I said in an earlier debate on the Bill, in a number of years’ time people may think, “Well this has worked quite well. We would like to go further to a proportional system”. Or, they may say, “That was a big mistake. Let’s go back to first past the post”. They may say, like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, “Never go back”, but that may show the inadequacy of the system that I thought he favoured. It is not a once-and-for-all choice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that there are other choices that could be made about our electoral system. They do not all have to be made in one jump at one time.
I now move on to the case made rather well by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. The idea that there is something called a proportional system that has a unique set of features is completely without foundation. The differences between STV, the single transferable vote, between national list systems and between the additional member system as used in Germany and recommended in part by the Jenkins commission, are enormous. This calls for a proportional system but there is virtually no proportional system in the world. The only exception is Israel. I have talked to many people about electoral systems but I have yet to find a single person who thinks that the Israeli electoral system is ever other than a complete disaster. It allows for the representation of parties with only tiny members of votes who can then hold the polity to ransom in favour of their peculiar religious objectives. Israel is a disaster among democracies for that reason and, arguably, the current state of the Middle East is a result of that political system.
Other than the Israeli system, there is huge variety among more proportional systems as to how much proportionality. You can have a national list with thresholds, for example. It is a perfectly good system as long as you do not mind all MPs being chosen by their parties, the end of the constituency representative tradition in our country and the complete dominance of the party Whips over our politics forever more. You can have a national list system. STV is not designed to bring about proportionality at all, although it is a more proportional system. STV came out of the 19th century tradition where they wanted a greater emphasis on the character of individual Members of Parliament rather than on the party that they represented. If you look at the Irish STV system, what happens there is that the contest is not between parties but between individual members of those parties about who is the best representative of the people. You can make a case for that but it is not essentially the case for proportional representation, although it produces proportional outcomes. Additional member systems have a completely different set of characteristics again.
At this stage, one can hear the people crying, “Mercy, please. We pay you to sort some of these things out. Some of us think we pay you too much”.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who was one of the architects of the system, has said that, if he had his time again, he would not support the system. I think that a lot of people who were involved would feel the same. So we have those three systems.
We should recognise that, if the coalition policy gets pushed through this House, we will have elections for the second Chamber—with another system of elections and another structure—as well as a change for the Commons. That is why I argue the case against having this referendum—indeed, against any changes for first past the post. I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, did not agree with what he wrote 40 years ago because I am sure that it was right then and I am sure that it is right now.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I did not say that I completely withdrew what I said. I said that not all the arguments had stood up so well. As regards the German system, I did not say that I preferred it; I said that I thought it was the best of the alternatives.
Lord Grocott
I will even try and trump my noble friend on my knowledge of Scottish elections. I agree entirely with what he said and the implication of what he said. However, is it not also true to say that in what was described as the laboratory of a Scottish election for the Scottish Parliament—where people have two votes, one for PR and one for first past the post; and that is as near a laboratory as you will ever get in an electoral system—in election after election, more people turn out for the first past the post option than they do for the PR option. With this kind of debate, the whole of the discussion takes place as if nothing has happened, A lot has happened. A lot of electoral systems have been tried. Those who were suggesting, insisting on, demanding reform—for there was a huge public demand for a change in the electoral system—have been proved conclusively and unarguably wrong in terms of the benefits they told us would accrue if their proposals were accepted.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am very reluctant to join in the almost filibustering tactics of the Opposition and incur the wrath of my colleagues, but would the noble Lord not reject the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that a vote for someone who loses an election is a wasted vote? In a presidential election people lose, but that does not mean that their vote has been wasted. In case the Opposition have not noted it, people will lose under the alternative vote if they vote with their first preference for a losing candidate. Will that be a wasted vote as well? This whole idea of a wasted vote is complete bunkum.
Lord Grocott
I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I speak as someone who has lost nearly as many elections as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—four, as a matter of fact, all for the Labour party. If anyone should be opposed to first past the post and want to change to any other electoral system, it probably ought to be me. I should add that I have also lost three county council elections and one or two parish elections as well. So it is a pretty abysmal electoral record. However, I have no doubt whatever that as far as local electors in local constituencies are concerned, first past the post is the fairest, best and most understood electoral system. But that is not what we are here to debate. I am not going to filibuster—I can assure the House of that. I am going to stick rigorously and briefly to the amendment that we are debating and try and say why I am opposed to it.
The amendment would give us a choice between first past the post, the alternative vote system and a proportional vote system. People like me used to be at a huge disadvantage—like the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I have not changed my mind on this over decades—but I support, and always have done, first past the post. Historically, however, we were always at a huge disadvantage. We were asking people whenever we were in debate, “Judge the first past the post system, which you know and with which you are familiar, against these various alternative theoretical systems”, which were unspecified—and particularly, I say without undue criticism of the amendment, unspecified in the choices being put to the electorate here. As for the first past the post system, it is precise and exact. That is what we know. That is what we have lived through. It has its strengths and it has its weaknesses, and we are very familiar with its weaknesses.
As for the alternative vote system, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has already conclusively argued, it is actually a series of possible options in itself. As for a proportional vote system, there are very nearly as many of those as one can imagine. Whenever I was in a debate with someone about first past the post versus proportional representation, they would always say to me, “Ah, but you’re arguing against that form of proportional representation, not the form of proportional representation that I am in favour of”. When you are choosing between what is known and what is unknown, a referendum of this sort is always difficult. But I am not therefore arguing that you can never put anything to the electorate because, taking that to its logical conclusion, you never could put anything to the electorate as you would always know what is familiar best. I am saying, in relation to this amendment, that if we are to have a referendum—I would prefer that we did not, but if we do—it needs to be as specific as it can be.
I find myself in a strange position. Probably for the first time in my life, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I do not think that this amendment is helpful. It does not have the precision of the proposal currently on the table: it is first past the post versus the alternative vote system. That at least has the merit of clarity, although I would much prefer that we did not have either.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, helped the House—at least it was helpful to my line of argument—when he conceded, and he can correct me if I am wrong, that for him, and I would assume that it would apply to whatever referendum question went to the public, this would only be a short-term solution. This is a referendum about work in progress. I must say that that alarms me.
I think that I can probably help the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his summing up. His Liberal Democrat colleagues rightly have been asked: “How long? Should this referendum result in a yes, for how long would it stand?”. The Liberal Democrats have already given us their answer, which is basically: “As short a period as possible. We want to move on rapidly to full PR or whatever”. I can guess what the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would be if he were asked: how soon after a yes or no vote should the matter be put to the public again in a referendum? I would guess that his answer would be, “We wouldn’t want to touch that with a barge pole”. I think that that would at least be a straightforward and honest response. But as far as this proposed amendment is concerned, it is not one that should be attractive to the House.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, as someone whose title was taken from Lerwick in Shetland, I was somewhat startled and delighted this afternoon to arrive here to find that Shetland is once again in the cockpit of history. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, was equally delighted as a former MP for Orkney and Shetland. I do not think that Orkney and Shetland have been so near to the pulse of the nation since Charles James Fox was for a short time the Member of Parliament for the rotten borough there. That was after he had contested the Westminster by-election and there was an inquiry into whether the result was fraudulent. However, I do not think that I ought to go into the merits of the special treatment of Orkney and Shetland.
I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snape, in one respect, as I shall talk mainly about AV. On Part 2 of the Bill, which seeks to reduce the size of the House of Commons, I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Baker that, when we compare the size of our legislature with the size of legislatures in other countries, we should look not at Europe—as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, did—but at countries such as Japan, the United States and India. There is a strong argument for saying that our legislature is too large.
Briefly, on the second principle of equalising constituencies, I will listen carefully to what the Opposition say, but I do not think that so far the case has been wholly convincing.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I want to deal briefly with this, as I really want to talk about AV, if the noble Lord does not mind.
We heard moving speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Myners and Lord Elystan-Morgan, about natural boundaries, rivers, county boundaries and history. I remember in my suburban constituency of Kingston that people used to think that Worcester Park should be excluded simply because it was on the other side of the bypass. I am sure that in Shetland, too, some people think that Orkney should be excluded because it is too far away. These are, as has been said, important points and principles, but the overriding factor must be the integrity and fairness of the democratic system and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, elegantly said, ensuring that as far as possible each vote is of equal value.
Part 1 of the Bill stems from the coalition agreement. As I support the coalition and the necessity of a coalition because of the economic situation that we face, I support the general principles of the Bill. However, I have some suggestions for improving it. In the coalition agreement, there is one statement with which I disagree. The agreement says:
“The Government believes that our political system is broken”.
The phrase,
“our political system is broken”,
was last used by Sir Oswald Mosley. I do not believe that our political system is broken. Of course we have had, rightly, anger and disillusionment with politicians over expenses. We have had some rotten apples. We have had some people who should be and will be punished. However, that is not the same as saying that our constitution is broken. There is no connection between the scandal of expenses and arguments about fixed-term Parliaments, an elected House of Lords or, indeed, AV; they are totally separate. There might be more respect for politics, which is what we all desperately want, if we admitted that AV is being put forward because of a political alliance, as a result of which one party that would not naturally have favoured it has conceded it to the other party. There is no reason to justify this by saying that our political system is broken.
Bismarck once remarked that laws are like sausages, in that it is better not to see them being made. Many laws, many aspects of our constitution and many anomalies in our constitution are the result of accidents of politics and political deals. That applies even to the wonderful and pure theory of PR in Europe. In continental European countries, PR was often introduced in order to save the Liberal party from the rise of socialism and Labour parties.
None the less, we should be cautious about trading permanent changes in the constitution for short-term political advantage. We do not want to get into the situation of Latin American countries, where people campaign on changes to the constitution. We do not want to get into the situation of the fourth republic in France, where there was an old joke about the man who went into the library and asked for a copy of the constitution and was told, “We don’t stock periodicals here”. We do not want to get into the situation whereby one political change is seen as a precursor to the next. Some see AV as precisely that—as a precursor to a move towards PR.
The support for AV in the Bill and the coalition in some ways seems quite surprising. In February this year, the Deputy Prime Minister described AV as a “miserable little compromise”. As has been said, AV is the system used in Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia. In Australia, AV has proved to be often less proportional even than first past the post and to lead to even larger swings—the large swings under first past the post have been among the things most criticised about our present system. AV has not reduced the proportion of safe seats, which is a very high proportion that is similar to the number in this country. In addition, the system of AV often leads to deals, which are not always declared publicly, between major and small, minor or fringe political parties in order to secure office.
The intellectual justification for AV seems somewhat elusive. The system was first proposed in 1917 in the Speaker’s conference, which is more likely to be remembered for having proposed votes for women over 30. The system was put forward in 1931 as a positive solution, and Winston Churchill described it at the time as,
“the worst of all possible plans … the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal. The decision … is to be determined by the most worthless votes given to the most worthless candidates”.
As has been said in this debate, in many cases the outcome of a poll in a constituency under AV will be decided by the person who comes bottom, who might be the British National Party candidate, as has been said. In any case, it seems difficult to justify why the result should always be decided by the second preferences of those who voted for the candidate who came bottom, even if he is only the third candidate. I recently read an article by an Australian academic who suggests that, under AV in Australia, it is possible that, depending on the number of candidates standing, someone might actually be elected who was nobody’s first choice.
As was said by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the referendum proposed on AV is unusual in that it is not an advisory referendum but an implementary one. That raises an important matter. Changing our voting system is a very significant move. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said, when we make such changes they ought to be for generations—for the long term—and the outcome must be seen to command confidence and respect. They must be seen to reflect a real demand for change. If there is a derisory turnout, those conditions will not be met. I submit that this is a significant change.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made some points against the first-past-the-post system, but I say that it has served us well. The same system is followed by leading democracies such as the United States, India and Canada. It has accommodated change, such as when the Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party in the interwar period. What some see as inflexibility or the insensitivity of the system has often protected us from extremism, such as we see when we look at the different electoral systems in Europe and the rise of far-right parties in Holland and Belgium. That was particularly the case in the 1930s, when extremists of both left and right failed to get any parliamentary representation whatever in this country, which was quite different from the experience in continental Europe. We like to put that down, of course, to the moderation and good sense of the British people. I am sure that that exists, but we should not deceive ourselves too much. It may also have a lot to do with our electoral system, so I suggest that we have to think carefully before we change that.
That brings me on to the point about referendums and constitutional change. Many countries have a specific threshold, either of turnout or of the numbers voting yes, before constitutional change can be made in a referendum. Germany and Spain have provisions for a fixed majority before they can effect a change in their constitutions. In Denmark and Italy, the requirement is for a specified proportion—in Italy, it is 60 per cent, I think—not in outcome but in turnout. In 1979, of course, George Cunningham inserted into the Scottish devolution bill a requirement for a 40 per cent yes vote. That has possibly somewhat scarred the Labour Party—I am not quite sure why—so I was particularly interested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, returned today to the subject of a threshold.
I want to put a question to my noble friend Lord McNally, the Minister who, as I understand it, will answer at the end of the debate. I understand that the coalition agreement specified that there should be a simple majority in the referendum without an outcome-specific threshold—that is, there should not be anything similar to the Cunningham amendment. Am I not therefore right that the coalition agreement does not specify that there could not be a turnout threshold and that a provision in the Bill which said that the result of the referendum would only have the effect of law provided that there was a certain turnout would not be inconsistent with the coalition agreement? That turnout provision could be put at whatever level the House decided. It could be quite low. It could be in accordance with the recent turnout in local elections—in the high 30s or higher than 40 per cent—which would mean that, to get a yes vote, you would have to get the votes of 20 per cent of the electorate as a whole.
Some people object to a turnout threshold on the grounds that it encourages people to abstain but, first, the referendum is to be held—this is a subject of controversy—on the same day as local elections, when people have every reason to participate. Secondly, in order to encourage someone who would have voted not to vote as a gesture with political meaning, you would have to have some sort of campaign. I do not really accept the argument that having a turnout threshold would simply encourage people to stay away and would invalidate the whole idea of initiating a debate on this subject. The result of the referendum vote would be much strengthened if there was a provision for a minimum turnout. That would lend much greater legitimacy to the outcome of such a referendum, and I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give it serious consideration.