Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

The noble Lord has had to listen to the debate for only the short time in which we have been speaking to know that the attack is coming on several fronts at the same time. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, stuck to that particular argument, but that has not been the only argument adduced. My argument is, counter to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that all power and effort should be devoted to having the referendum on 5 May because that is to the advantage of the public and the whole system. That is how we will get the biggest possible vote, and it is for that reason that I support the 5 May date. We would be quite mistaken to turn our back on it.

[Lord Lipsey]

Like many other noble Lords, I did not find it easy to get in here from where I live, in Wales, this morning. I regret that I did not see the groupings suggested for these amendments in advance, because we would have done better to separate the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which would give us a contingency plan in case it was impossible to make 5 May, from the amendments that I and some other noble Lords have put forward, which suggest an alternative date. It is my view, which I shall argue again, that it is not right to have these referendums on the same day.

Before I come on to the aspect of that argument, I shall say a couple of words in response to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who is a great supporter of the alternative vote—and I am glad to have common ground with him. I did not take it terribly well when he said that the debate on this has already been interminable. It is a bit odd to say that a debate has been interminable as you jump to your feet to make a substantial contribution yourself. Leaving that to one side, I believe that this is a desperately important matter, particularly to the people of Scotland and Wales, who have some representatives on the Benches opposite. To say that we have had an interminable debate—I think that we had one of about an hour and a half the other day—suggests that this Government are uninterested in concluding debates in a civilised and thorough manner and merely want to push this Bill on to the statute book with a sort of droit de seigneur because they won the general election. So I thought that was sad.

I also did not find the noble Lord’s 1998 analogy terribly convincing. Yes, there were two separate polls in London in 1998, but they were both on local government matters—elections to the council and changes in the structure of government in London. People’s minds were on local government at that time, and it is not unreasonable to expect a combined vote on that. But here you are having local government elections at the same time as you debate what system should be used for national elections. I certainly do not underestimate voters’ intelligence; it is when Governments try to confuse them that voters get confused. There could not be any recipe more confusing to the voter than combining a referendum on what system should be used for general elections in future with one on who should run their local council tomorrow. That is a very sad combination and, on this side of the House, we have tried various ways to skin the cat and to avoid it.

The other topic that will come up on other amendments is cost; it is the only substantial argument put forward by most of the speakers for the Government for combining the two things. I except the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, from that charge. On this matter, I have just received a most helpful and polite note from the Leader of the House in response to the promise that he made last week to set out the cost in full. It sheds light on one confusion that arose last week, when nobody knew whether it would save £15 million, or whether £30 million would be saved, by having the two things on the same day. I shall paraphrase the noble Lord’s letter, and no doubt he will interrupt if I get him wrong; he said that it would save £15 million, because it would cost less to have the referendum on AV, and that it would save £15 million in addition because it would cost less to have local government elections if there was an AV referendum. My sense is that an official has sensibly not tried to get too sophisticated in the analysis and has attributed half the cost to one thing and half to the other.

That is a great clarification for which the House will be grateful. It enables us to concentrate on the wider figure. I am not going to have a discussion on whether £80 million, £50 million or £30 million is a very large sum of money. My experience is that many people do not distinguish the number of noughts on the end of a figure anyway. If I had £1 for every time the Guardian has said £1 billion when it means £1 million or £1 million when it means £1 billion, I should be rich enough to pay for the referendum out of my own back pocket.

There is a curiosity highlighted by this. If it is worth having such a referendum at a cost of around £80 million, surely it is right to pay an extra £15 million—less than 20 per cent of that—to have a referendum that really means something and settles the argument one way or the other once and for all. Penny-pinching to the tune of £15 million would not make great sense and is in danger of dumping us with an illegitimate referendum. The reality, as every Member of this House knows, is that it has nothing to do with cost. The Government want it on that day as part of a deal. The Lib Dems, wrongly in my view, think that they are more likely to win the referendum if it takes place on 5 May. It has nothing to do with cost, which is a convenient stick to beat opponents with.

So, do we think that combining referendums with local elections is a good thing? It saves money, which is a good thing. Why then, in Wales, is there to be a referendum in March and another in May? Why not combine those two? It would save money. That shows again the vacuity of the cost argument. It is not about cost. That is why the Government are prepared to pay for a referendum on Welsh legislative powers in March separate from the one in May. It is about the view of Lib Dem members of the coalition that they are more likely to win on 5 May and the Government’s view that the Lib Dems can have what they want, as long as they—the Government—get their boundary changes and a reduction in the number of MPs that will increase their advantage in the House of Commons as a result.

This is a crude political deal justified to this House as it was to the other place on arguments that have no substance. I hope that noble Lords will not back the Government in this attempt.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, first, I am a little seduced by the amendment, although I think it is a little sneaky and probably has an overtone. Secondly, I am provoked by my noble friend Lord Fowler, who said that he wishes there had been a referendum before we joined the EEC. I have to say that had there been such a referendum we would not have joined. Thirdly, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hamilton. It is the importance of the occasion and the importance of the outcome that concern me. If there is any doubt at all that that there could be confusion—I am not being patronising about electors—as a result of holding both votes on the same date, I would regret that very much. At all times we should consider the correctness of the outcome. Whichever outcome we may want, it is a matter of what the electorate want.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Skidelsky]

Is the noble Lord not descending but ascending into discussing the strengths and weaknesses of different electoral systems? That is not the point of the amendment. The referendum will happen. The amendment is about adding another choice to the two being offered.

[Lord Lipsey]

I see that that is what the amendment would do. However, it adds not one choice, but a plethora of choices without defining what they are, all with completely different characteristics one from the other and having very little in common except that they can, just about sometimes, be squeezed into the rubric of proportionality. That is why this is not a suggestion that should carry faith.

When the referendum campaign comes, I guess that what will happen in the last few weeks is that those who are against any change will say something like, “If you don't know, vote no”. They will try to capitalise on people’s ignorance. Even those in this Chamber—and there are many sitting around me—who favour first past the post would probably rather it was not decided on that basis. They would probably rather the people took a clear view of the virtues of the electoral system that we have and the virtues of the alternatives and made their verdict on that, which we would all accept as the way forward. This is a recipe for an extremely blurred choice of ill-defined alternatives which is hard to explain and unfair to ask people to grapple with. It is made even worse because unless the referendum date is moved as a result of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which we passed earlier, they will be grappling with this choice at a time when they are dealing with local elections, new mayors and, in Scotland and Wales, with the all-important question of what their national governments should be. This is a seductive amendment, but it is profoundly misguided and I hope therefore that the House will not countenance it tonight.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. In the Committee debates that we have had so far, one thing has been left out to a large extent: the perspective of the public. The referendum should be about fairness and trust: being fair to the public and trusting the public. I support the amendment in the broad spirit in which I interpret it, which is that the public should be given a proper choice and not the restricted one that would currently be imposed on them.

I have heard people say quite a lot recently that the public are not very interested in voting systems. As an example, they are more interested in how the cuts will affect them today, tomorrow and the next day. Yes of course; most people are not going to be that exercised at present about something that is still fairly abstract and we are not even quite sure will actually happen, but when the public has confirmation of the date and the terms of the referendum, they will, with help from newspapers, TV and the internet, rapidly become experts in different voting systems.

However, there will be qualified interested only if the choice is between first past the post and AV: and no wonder, since a win for first past the post cannot possibly be interpreted as a ringing endorsement if AV is the only other option on the ballot paper. Likewise if AV wins, that too cannot possibly be seen as the system the public would most prefer if they have been denied other key voting systems.