Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, immediately before this debate, we were discussing the pay of women at the BBC. I should make it clear I in no way condone the relative underpayment, but I wonder whether I am the only person in this House who really attaches rather more importance to the group of women we are discussing now, who suffer physically as well as materially and as a result of extraordinarily abusive partners or husbands who betray the person whom they should most care for. I therefore join with all other noble Lords who have spoken in welcoming the Bill.

I do not want to outdo the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in generosity, but the Government have a commitment in this area, which I think stems from the Prime Minister herself. As evidence, it is really rather extraordinary that this measure should force itself into a Queen’s Speech, and now into a parliamentary programme, so burdened with other weighty matters such as Brexit, Brexit and Brexit. This is a wonderful triumph and is not the only such case: the Government are promising the domestic violence and abuse Bill, which will make a difference to women in this situation over a wider field. I pay great tribute to the Government’s motivation. What I will say though is that it is not uncommon to find that the good effects the Government are having are weighed against—or even outweighed by—things they are doing which have an adverse effect on the group they are trying to help.

My first example is that of legal aid to women. We know that the numbers getting legal aid when they appear in court fell by about a third after the Government’s restrictions. The Government have eased up a bit, but I bet the figures never get to what they were before. Think of the plight of an abused woman facing her abuser in court without professional legal advice at hand. That is no small thing.

There is a more serious problem lurking in the wings. It relates to the ending of the system whereby aid for refuges for women is given via the HB system, to be replaced by grants to local authorities that are—I share the view that has been expressed about this phrase—ring-fenced. I do not think you need surveys, although they exist, to show what effect this is going to have on refuges. Picture a local authority with terribly difficult choices to make because its expenditure is being slashed on every side, faced with claims from a refuge. On average, three-quarters of the women in that refuge will not come from that area at all; if you are subject to domestic abuse, of course you want to fly as far away as possible from the local area in which you lived to get away from your abuser. Councils therefore do not have an incentive to give that refuge the priority that they would give to services that really were for local people. There is some evidence now that this is going to cause the mass closure of refuges. The figures that I have seen suggest that 39% might close as a result, with a 12% reduction in beds.

From a scandal we proceed to a confusion. I do not know what the Government’s policy is in the area that I am talking about, and the reason why is that I do not really think they know themselves. One consultation, launched in October 2017, to which people have to submit their representations by 23 January, seems absolutely committed to this switch from the money coming from HB to the money coming from grants to the local authority. At the same time, though—this almost beggars belief—the Government are launching a separate review of support for supported housing that is not designed to report until November 2018. So they have a policy that they are reviewing even before it comes into force in 2020. Even odder, in a kind reply the other day to a Question from me, the Minister said,

“We are continuing to explore all options for future delivery of refuge services, including a national model for refuges”.


Here we have this new localism being instituted, based on grants, while at the same time a national model is being looked at. This really is chaos.

I know that government is not usually chaotic by accident; there is usually a reason. I will lay before the House—I expect the Minister to deny it, but that is his prerogative—what I think is probably going on here. On the one hand, his department, the MHCLG, can see perfectly well that this policy is a nonsense; that while there are many things that should be given to local authorities, this is not one of them; and that it is going to lead to closures and a hell of a row. Indeed, if the Prime Minister gets involved, it will be a hell of a row that rebounds on the MHCLG. Over at the DWP, on the other hand, there is another problem: the Ozymandian project to build universal credit. HB does not fit easily into universal credit, and HB for refuges does not fit into universal credit at all. So the DWP has taken its sabre, cut straight through this and got rid of a system that is working perfectly well in order to ensure that the prospects for universal credit are not further discredited, as they have been so regularly over the last few months. Support for refuges, support for the women in tragic circumstances who have recourse to them and even support for rebuilding their lives rank pretty low in the priorities in the battle between these giant bureaucracies.

I do not know how all this will be resolved. I am extremely optimistic that the degree of opposition to this change of policy, witnessed in the 140,000 signatures to a petition got up against it, will pressure the DWP to think again. Otherwise, the bad day when that system is introduced will more than outweigh the great good to be done by this excellent Bill.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

17: Clause 10, page 8, line 29, leave out “fifth” and insert “tenth”

[Lord Lipsey]

This amendment follows on from one that I moved in Committee. In that one, I favoured seven years, which was the time given in the original amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. However, I am a sinner who repenteth and have changed my mind, now believing that 10 years is the right period. I am trying to prevent perpetual revolution in constituencies, allowing MPs to be MPs and not—as they would be should the system under the Bill survive the 2013-15 experience, which it might well not—turning them into carpetbaggers, devoting their lives to finding new seats instead of doing what they and every Member of that House would want them to do, which is to serve their constituencies and our country.

The advantage of 10 years over any other period is that it would accord with the five-yearly elections proposed in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. I think that it provides the right balance between updating population changes and so on—which we all want because we want greater equality in constituencies—and providing a measure of stability for the Members of another place that will enable them to do their jobs properly without keeping half an eye on their next move. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I will speak to the one amendment in this group that has now been moved but, first, I apologise to the House. Having studied the lead amendment in this group, which is in our name, we find that it is defective. Perhaps that is partly a symptom of the absolutely ridiculous haste with which we are being asked by the Government to table amendments for Report. The noble Lord says from a sedentary position that there is no excuse at all—he says that when the gap between Report and Committee is cut from a fortnight to in effect one sitting day. Mistakes were bound to occur. We own up to having got one amendment wrong, which is why we have not moved it. However, the matters that we hoped to raise are effectively covered by my noble friend’s amendment, to which I shall speak briefly.

There is a balance to be struck on the timing of the boundary review process. The more frequent the boundary reviews, the more up to date the electoral registers on which they are based. In the light of our previous amendment and concern about the accuracy and quality of the registers, we do not judge eight or 10 years to be an advisable interval between reviews. On the other hand, frequent boundary reviews lead to more frequent disruption of the UK electoral map, especially if such reviews take place on the basis of the narrow parity law contained in this Bill. Such disruption has been confirmed in evidence to the bodies that have often been mentioned during our proceedings—the Constitution Committee of this House and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of another place. A serious issue arises from regular and widespread disruption—one can ask any Member of Parliament about that—and that is the disconnect that it might cause between Members of Parliament and the electors they represent, many of whom will find that their constituency will change at each review in each Parliament if the Government’s proposals are implemented. Therefore, we are grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for moving his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for not moving his amendment, as he had spotted that it was defective. It raises remarkably similar issues, so he will get a remarkably similar answer—or he would have done if he had been able to move it.

On the question of the disconnect for Members of Parliament. I do know whether this has been said before—if it has not, it should have been—but this is not being done for the convenience of Members of Parliament; it is being done to equalise the electorate across the whole country and to try to create a fairer system. Once we have the 600 seats in place with equalisation of the electorate, I do not believe that minor changes every Parliament will be an insurmountable burden.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, requires the Boundary Commission to report every 10 years after October 2013 instead of every five, as laid out in the Bill. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires reports from the Boundary Commissions every eight to 12 years. The intention of the Bill is to increase their frequency, ensuring that boundaries are more up to date than at present. There is a cost implication to holding more frequent reviews, but this is offset by the estimated £12.2 million in annual savings made by the reduction from 650 to 600 MPs.

Many noble Lords have rightly spoken in Committee and on Report about the important issue of the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. That work is incredibly valuable in enabling people to participate in the democratic process, but it will not be reflected in their constituency boundaries if reviews are insufficiently frequent. That is why we advocate reviews every five years. I know that noble Lords opposite might feel that we have not gone far enough on the accuracy or completeness of the electoral register, but I hope that they will accept the logic of having reviews every five years. The Government’s view is that reviews can be completed once a Parliament, giving sufficient time for the commissioners to do their work and for parties and electors to familiarise themselves with new boundaries before the next general election. If that is the case, I see no reason why we should make do with more out-of-date electoral data. We should have reviews during each Parliament so that boundaries remain refreshed; and more frequent reviews will limit the degree of upheaval each time.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was trying to be helpful and constructive, but I hope that he sees the force of the argument of having regular reviews every five years.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I see the force of the argument; I just think that the argument for a review every 10 years is a good deal stronger. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

18: Clause 10, page 8, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) If in the event a general election is not held in 2015, or in one of the subsequent five-yearly intervals thereafter, the government shall set up an independent inquiry to recommend appropriate changes to the provisions of this Act.”

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to deal with the following situation. At the moment we have a five-yearly review, and that accords with the timetable of elections every five years, which has been proposed under the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. As I understand it, when that Bill comes to us, it will contain provision for an early election in certain circumstances: for example, a vote of no confidence in the Government in the Commons. If such a vote happens and an early election is held, the timetable in the current Bill would go awry.

We have learnt, during the passage of this Bill, to accord almost religious significance to the pronouncements of the wonderful British Academy’s study of the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred earlier this afternoon in kindly accepting an amendment from me that incorporated one of its suggestions. On this subject, the British Academy says:

“Parliament may wish to consider the possible implications of an early dissolution on the timetable for reviews set out in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, either by an amendment or by ad hoc legislation should such an occasion arise”.

In view of this rightful plea that Parliament should consider it, I asked the authors of the British Academy study what they suggested by way of an amendment, and they replied honestly, being academics: “It is beyond the wit of man, or at least the four men who wrote this pamphlet, to suggest how”. I was therefore forced back to my own suggestion here, which is a quick independent inquiry. If that does not win favour with the Government, I have another main purpose in raising this: to bring the Government’s attention to this possible situation so that appropriate contingency planning can be put in place for what the British Academy called an “ad hoc” solution, should the matter arise. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for moving that amendment. The issue that he is pursuing here is that the Government should themselves set up an independent inquiry, as the amendment says,

“to recommend appropriate changes to the provisions of this Act”.

As I said in reply to the earlier amendment, the Bill requires reports every five years after 2013. Amendment 16M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would see reports every four years. As I said earlier, the five-yearly timetable in the Bill is intended to give sufficient opportunity for the boundary commissioners to complete their task and for political parties and candidates to organise themselves ahead of the next election, which will be the case if Parliament passes the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill in its current form. We would move away from the pattern of fixed-term Parliaments starting in May 2015 if the terms in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill were changed to something other than five years or if there was an extraordinary general election.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is right that the Government undertook to consider this issue further in Committee. Having done so, we remain of the view that it would be difficult to provide for every possible reason why an election might not occur at an exact five-year interval. We have also considered a power for the Minister to vary the arrangements, exercisable only in the event of an extraordinary election. However, this would place the decision in the hands of a Minister who would have just won an election on the basis of the new boundaries. I think all noble Lords would agree that this might not be a helpful principle and that we should allow Parliament to decide if it becomes necessary. Instead of involving such complexity, the Bill seeks a middle way that does not waste those resources.

I hope that that explains our thinking behind why we are doing what we are doing. I hope that that honours the commitment that we gave in Committee to reflect on the noble Lord’s suggestion.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving it that consideration. He makes it plain that the Government have considered this issue and no doubt will be ready to respond to it should the situation arise. I take the force of the argument that he makes about new Ministers, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Straight Statistics, a group working against statistical abuse by the media, companies, advertisers and the Government. The Minister, in an earlier debate, used in justification for the cut in the number of Members of Parliament by 50 an alleged saving of £12.5 million—he will correct me if I have this figure wrong, as my hearing is not as good as it was. He is nodding in approval, but I cannot approve of that statistic.

If you take the average cost of each MP and multiply it by 50, you get to the figure of £12.5 million or thereabouts. However, that is of course an entirely phoney way to do it. There will be more constituency cases and more people for each MP to write letters to. The workload will not change. The only thing that you save by having 50 fewer MPs is the MPs’ salaries, with a total saving of about £3 million. Perhaps the difference between £12.5 million and £3 million is regarded as insignificant—

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend would take that a little further. If the Government want to save £12.5 million, they have to make sure that costs elsewhere do not rise. The level of work needed to be done by the Electoral Commission will involve the employment of more staff—a recurrent expense year on year. I do not think that the Government have thought about that. If they are going to tell us what this measure is going to save—and the only argument that I have heard from the Government is that this will save money—I think that we have the right to know precisely what it will cost in other areas, so that we can see the real costs.

[Lord Lipsey]

My noble friend is right. There are bags of extra costs in this Bill, including £80 million well spent on the AV referendum—well spent, that is, if it gets the result that both the noble Baroness and I would like to see. I am, however, confining myself to the saving on MPs, because that is the one argument that the Minister has made this afternoon. My point is that he has used a totally bogus figure—inadvertently, I am sure. If he wants to dispute this later, he can put a letter in the Library and we can no doubt correspond about it. It is extremely worrying if a Minister has inadvertently misled—

[Lord Tyler]

I know that in the past we have assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has been a Member of the other place, but I can assure him from my own experience that he is mistaken if he thinks that Members of Parliament are paid by results. You do not get paid more because you have more constituents; the payment is standard. I had an electorate of 87,000 constituents at one point; that constituency is now much reduced, but my successor does not get paid less just because he has fewer constituents. The whole basis of his calculation should be taken back to his statistician friends and looked at again.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am sorry that the noble Lord’s long experience in another place has not enabled him easily to absorb points being put by people who are, no doubt, less articulate than he is.

[Lord Kinnock]

But more numerate.

[Lord Lipsey]

The point I hope to make clear is that I am not claiming that there will not be a saving in salary; I am claiming that the workload will remain the same but that there will be fewer people to do it. You will still need people to deal with that workload and letters will still need to be sent. Is the noble Lord saying that if his constituency had increased in size by 10 per cent, he would not have written to anyone in that 10 per cent; that their problems could go fly because he had not got the money to pay for it?

[Lord Tyler]

But the allowance—

[Lord Lipsey]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, we should not have multiple interventions on Report. The last intervention did not take the debate forward in the way that the House would desire.

[Lord Tyler]

But the allowance is not increased. The staffing allowance is not increased simply because there are more constituents.

[Lord Lipsey]

This often happens in this life. I was just coming to that. What will happen is that MPs will come back and find that they have got an increasing workload. Their staff are worked to the bone, anyway, and they will suddenly see that they have an opportunity to put in an irresistible bid for yet more of them. It will be impossible for a Government to resist that pressure from their own Members, and so the extra staff will be granted and staff allowances will go up. The probability is that this will swamp, dwarf and completely eliminate any saving made by having 50 fewer MPs.

The proof of this particular pudding will lie in the eating. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to put his calculations in the Library so that we can look at the facts when they emerge after the next general election. It would be a nice subject for the independent inquiry into the number of MPs to consider and would give it a good factual basis for saying that this huge error, justified on the grounds of cost, is a statistical howler of the utmost proportions.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

No. In England, Northern Ireland and Wales, the sequence is that the AV count will follow. The sequence is the same in each part of the United Kingdom. I propose not to change the sequence but to bring further forward the AV count in Scotland, because we will have the Scottish parliamentary election count earlier. If that takes place immediately, the AV count will be brought forward. This excellent amendment has that limited advantage as well. I am most grateful to the Public Bill Office for advising me. Strong views on this are held in Scotland. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is replying to this debate, takes as much interest in the Scottish parliamentary elections as I do. I have seen him at counts in Ayrshire on occasions. Usually I am smiling and he is not, but I am sure that he will not worry about that and will give the amendment sympathetic consideration.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, my Amendment 35 in this group has much the same purpose, namely to deal with the worries that have been expressed in the Scottish press and in this House about the count in Scotland. It has had the effect of flushing out some reassurance. The Electoral Commission has publicly stated that instructions to the returning officer in Scotland will be that the count on the AV referendum is not to start until 4 pm. There may still be a case for putting this in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this short debate.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

I am quite hurt. I have brought forward an amendment that precisely meets the noble Lord’s objection, which was—I repeat—that a huge number of people could vote for the yes campaign and it would still not carry if it was less than 50 per cent of the total turnout. So—having established that point, I hope—I have therefore brought forward this amendment which meets his objection. It states that it would require 25 per cent of the electorate for the yes vote to carry, which obviously completely removes the problem he identified in relation to my 50 per cent turnout threshold.

After my long preamble, far longer than I had intended, perhaps I may point out that all the amendment suggests is a change in our electoral system—which the Liberal Democrats, throughout my adult life and probably before then, have been saying is what the electorate is desperate for. I say simply that it would be a good idea if you could get one in four of the electorate to vote in favour because that would validate the referendum. Apparently, they are resisting that commonsense proposal as well.

We are in a silly position, unless someone wants to intervene from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I cannot believe that even Liberal Democrats would argue that if only three people voted in the referendum—two in favour and one against—that would be a valid basis on which we could change our country's constitution. If any of them thinks that that would be fair, right and sensible, will they please intervene? I am not filibustering; I want to get this over with as much as anyone else does. If they cannot tell me, the only difference between us is the level at which the threshold should be. In the absence of any intervention, I must assume that they are in what is, frankly, a silly position.

That would not matter to me too much, were it not for the fact that this referendum will not necessarily be the last one of this Parliament, because I have to take Nick Clegg at his word, confusing as that seems at times. He has described this as just part of the greatest reform package since 1832—greater than women's suffrage, universal adult suffrage, or anything of that sort. We have two more Bills coming down the line: one to establish fixed-term Parliaments and the other to abolish the House of Lords in its present form and replace it with a fully elected House.

It seems that, under the Bill, if three people in the United Kingdom vote in the referendum—two in favour and one against—we change the constitution. I ask those noble Lords who say that this is not as important a constitutional issue as abolishing the House of Lords in its present form the following question. Would any of them be happy with a referendum, should it come—and my word it ought to; it would surely be indefensible to have a referendum on a change in the voting system but not on one which effectively abolishes one of the two Houses of Parliament—on a two, one vote in the country? Or do they think, as I and other noble Lords do, that there should be a rather more convincing demonstration of the public will on abolishing one of the two Houses of Parliament? The danger of the present situation is that we have no threshold, which means that the precedent will have been set that future referenda on changing the constitution, however big that change may be, could be done on a very small turnout and a very small yes vote.

It is late, I do not intend to press this to a Division, but I am intrigued to discover that there is no one, apart from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tankerness, who is highly skilful and whom I assume will respond to the amendment, can explain that. I assume that the noble and learned Lord has a graphic explanation as to why he would be comfortable with a very low turnout and a very low yes vote changing our country's constitution.

[Lord Lipsey]

I understand why those on the Lib Dem Benches do not rise to their feet to dispute the amendments. But, as one who, on the AV referendum, agrees with them, I shall do and speak for a minute or two. I think that thresholds are a bad idea in referendums. I supported the amendment proposed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because it seems to me that, generally, a pre-legislative vote is a good thing, but I do not support a threshold.

If there is a vote on this, if the threshold proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is to be reached, it will require 264 Peers to vote in the Content Lobby for it to be carried. If that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is to be reached, we will need a total turnout of 316 Peers. And if that of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is to be reached—50 per cent, and 25 per cent yes— we need 395 peers to vote with 198 saying yes. I do not see why we should have a different test for the legitimacy of the vote in the country than we have for the legitimacy of the vote in our own House. Thresholds are arbitrary, they introduce bias, they distort debate and they have absurd consequences. I deal very briefly with each of these. As regards them being arbitrary, look at the range of numbers before us. They could be nice round numbers. As Sir Patrick Nairne, chairman of the independent Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, said, the main difficulty in specifying a threshold lies in determining what figure is sufficient to confer legitimacy. There is no answer to that. On the bias aspect, one side has to achieve only one thing—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I find that my amendment inadvertently has provoked a rather interesting discussion on this matter. I am listening to my noble friend with great attention. Of course, there is no scientific way of determining what the particular figure might be, but is my noble friend arguing that even if a major constitutional amendment is, say, passed by 6 per cent voting in favour, out of 10 per cent who vote altogether, that that would be an adequate degree of legitimacy justifying constitutional change?

[Lord Lipsey]

It is a good point that my noble friend makes. The answer to it is that that is why I want a pre-legislative referendum, so that the judgment can be made in the light of all the facts after the referendum and not be made in advance in what is necessarily an arbitrary way.

On bias, one side has to achieve only one thing: it has to prevent a majority voting against the change it opposes. However, the yes campaign has to do two things: it has to win more votes and to do better it has to make sure that the turnout is up. This also raises questions about legitimacy of the result. Would the side against which this bias exists really regard a result achieved in this biased way as legitimate? In my view, it would not, although it might rely on a verdict of Parliament after a referendum as a legitimate verdict in the circumstances.

My third point is that the threshold distorts debate. What we want in this referendum is both sides putting their strongest possible case in front of the electorate either for the proposed change or against it—whichever they want. But this case gives the no campaign an incentive to put two different arguments: “Vote no if you must vote, but we’ll get just as many votes if you just don’t bother to turn out”. It is the sit-and-watch-telly no campaign. That does not seem to be a very good idea. The experience of Italy—I will not go into it in great detail—where abstentions are not a vote does not reflect well on this practice. Nor indeed does the consequences of the introduction of the threshold in the first Scottish referendum on devolution, which led to the issue being completely unresolved in fact until the 1997 referendum finally settled it. The referendum did not have the effect that everybody wanted it to have of settling the devolution process.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Grocott has just described one absurd result where two people vote for and one against. I accept that that is an absurd result. But it is no more absurd than the result that would stem—I am sure he was not intending this—from the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, where 32 per cent vote yes, 1 per cent vote no, and yet the referendum automatically, and without further debate in Parliament, falls. That would be at least as absurd a result as the one my noble friend Lord Grocott predicates.

I have rattled through an argument that deserves more probing and profundity, because the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, came out with a perfectly viable solution to these competing considerations. I was, therefore, very glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was not going to press his views to a vote. However, I think that the House should briefly be exposed to the case against these thresholds as well as the case for them, if only to reinforce itself in its wisdom.

At one stage I thought about abstaining on my noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendment because of my dislike of thresholds, which for once in my entire time in the House of Lords would have affected the result. It is a good thing I did not, so phew. The House of Lords might consider the argument that I have briefly developed and decide that, in view of it, we made a wise decision earlier this afternoon, albeit narrowly.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

13: Clause 8, page 6, line 23, leave out paragraph (b)

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Lipsey]

As the Minister was making his remarks the unworthy thought occurred to me that perhaps we should have a referendum on the constituency changes. You would get a jolly good turnout in Cornwall and people in the Isle of Wight would be flocking to the polls with those from Brecon and Radnor and Anglesey, all to say no to this. Then the Minister would be able to say, “As the British people have spoken, I cannot force this down their throats”. That perhaps is a little too much. The boundary changes will no doubt, if agreed by this House and by Parliament, go ahead at the end of the day. There seems little point in pushing the matter any further and I therefore beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 109 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110ZZA and 110ZZB, which are grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the purposes of this debate. Quite recently, although it actually feels like months ago, these matters came up at a reasonably early stage of the Committee, when the Minister jumped to his feet and said that they fell much more naturally to being discussed under Schedule 1 to the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister—he is not with us this afternoon—hoped then that by the time we got around to Schedule 1, we would have forgotten all about them and let them go. As the Committee knows, on this Bill we are, quite rightly, grinding extremely fine so here they are again.

The amendments concern the steps that the Electoral Commission must take to get the electorate informed. Perhaps I might recap on a debate that we were having last night. The background to this is the very wide lack of understanding of the alternatives to be put before the British people in the referendum, whenever that may come. I illustrate this from a poll with a large sample taken by YouGov in September. It asked people whether they had heard of AV and, if so, whether they knew what it meant. To summarise, one-third said that they had heard of AV and had some idea of what it meant. They did not define what “some idea” meant and, if they were examined further, we might find that that was a rather optimistic interpretation of their true state of knowledge. One-third had heard of AV but had no idea of what it meant. One-third had not heard of AV; they also had no idea of what it meant, which is perhaps not surprising since they had never heard of it. That is a long way from where we would want to be when we get around to the referendum.

I am not using this to make a speech for AV or against it. My position is perfectly well known. I simply make the point that the better informed those participating in this referendum are, when it comes about, the more the result will have legitimacy and stability, because we will be able to have confidence that the people really have reached the verdict they wish to reach, on reflection, and that chance factors have not simply swayed it. This is not the job of the Electoral Commission only; it is the job of the campaign organisations on both sides, of our national media—I thought I might get a laugh for that—of politicians and of those who are not political in the party sense but who are interested in politics.

These are great issues for our future as a democracy and all those have a role to play, but the Electoral Commission has a role. It has been created to play a role and it is right that Parliament should give it some specific guidance on the minimum activity which we expect it to undertake in playing that role. If the referendum were to go ahead on 5 May—and I know there are those in this Committee and the government Front Benches who support that—there will be only some 10 weeks between the passage of the legislation and the day when the people deliver their verdict.

My two amendments are straightforward. First, they ask that the Electoral Commission prepares a leaflet that summarises the meaning of the question before people and what its implications would be. It summarises, in an impartial way—because the Electoral Commission owes its whole role to its impartiality—the arguments for and against AV and for and against first past the post, so that any elector wishing to study the matter can see a short summary of the arguments. That is then distributed to every household in the country so that everybody gets their chance to read it. A fairly straightforward proposition, you would think.

The second amendment is slightly tongue in cheek and says that the leaflet should be examined by the Plain English Campaign. Actually, from my own experience as a journalist on the Economist, I think that an Economist journalist would be an alternative because these are both groups of people who are very used to making sure that the language in which complicated ideas are expressed in order to communicate is clear. It is a serious purpose behind a tongue-in-cheek amendment because the number of people who have a natural grasp of voting systems is quite small, as I have shown. The number of people who understand the issues involved on voting reform is also quite small. To produce language which is generally comprehensible is quite complicated.

I know the Electoral Commission tries hard to get its language right. Indeed, it is contemplating producing a consultative document on a public information booklet—not exactly a leaflet but a booklet on the referendum. I have not studied it in detail but it is the kind of thing which could be done with an examination not just for the content but for the clarity of the language in which it is expressed.

It is perfectly true that there is this draft booklet; it is true that the Electoral Commission is of course planning information activities, and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. But we, as parliamentarians, have a right to expect certain things of the Electoral Commission and to lay down in the Bill that it must perform certain functions. This is all going to be done in a terrific rush, and the commission may get into some sort of difficulty, as its resources are not very great for the task ahead of it, so something has to be dumped. If it is in the Bill, the thing that is dumped cannot be the exercise it mounts to make sure that the public are properly informed. In other words, it is right that the intention of the commission be underlined by Parliament and by provisions of the kind that I propose in this amendment, which is a companion amendment to the wider amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

Has the noble Lord put a price on such a leaflet being delivered to every household? How would the Electoral Commission receive the funds for such a leaflet? I imagine that it would be a very expensive proposition because of not only the publishing but delivery to every elector. It would mean that the commission would have to employ part-time leaflet deliverers, which would be a costly exercise in itself.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention, which enables me to repeat my earlier point. It seems that the Electoral Commission is planning something of this sort anyway, so the cost is not additional to what appears to be planned, unless it is to be dropped down the line.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords—

[Lord Lipsey]

Could I finish answering the noble Lord’s points before I take a further point from him? We have a costing for this referendum. It is not nil but some of us think that it is well worth it. Democracy comes with a price and it is a price that is very well worth paying. On an issue of this magnitude, the relatively small figures that would be involved in an exercise of this kind are part of that worthwhile price.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

It is one thing for an organisation to publish a leaflet. The Forestry Commission or the National Trust could publish a leaflet that organisations could pick up on a voluntary basis. However, it is another thing to publish a leaflet and give an assurance that it will be delivered to every elector—or every elector’s home—throughout the United Kingdom. That is a costly exercise by any stretch of the imagination. The amendment also asks to put into legislation that there shall be a leaflet, whereas the Electoral Commission might say that local radio, or national television for that matter, is the better way to communicate.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am grateful for those points, too. On the latter point, these are not alternatives; they are designed to supplement each other, but a leaflet that can be studied at leisure and revisited has a different impact from that of a television programme, although I agree that they are complementary. As far as cost is concerned, we need to keep a sense of proportion. After all, every household gets a poll card. Nobody thinks, “Oh God, it is so expensive sending these poll cards. People don’t need them to vote. Elections are so unimportant that we could avoid the cost of a poll card in future”. Indeed, I believe that electoral law provides for the political parties to send one leaflet to every household in the country. The noble Lord, who knows much more about the House of Commons than I have ever known, will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that also takes place. We should not think that sending a leaflet to every household would mean great disproportionate expenditure. It is not a major logistical exercise of its kind and will not cause the budget deficit to soar where otherwise it would shrink.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, continuing my attempt to be reasonably even-handed in these debates, I have a variety of views.

On the previous exchange, which I had not expected, I am entirely on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, because I am aware that there are endless examples of requirements or practices that ensure that information is delivered to all households in the country. I guess that the latest such example is the widespread circulation of leaflets on how to avoid flu during the winter, but there have certainly been electoral examples as well.

On the amendments, my feelings are mixed. I half sympathise with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; I am worried about the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—for reasons that I will come back to—but I support his second amendment very strongly because, whatever materials are produced, it would be helpful if they were looked over by someone who writes the kind of English that everybody can understand. One of our latest arrivals, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, will recognise from our association some 30 years ago that I used to be driven to distraction by social security material being produced in a form that no normal person could understand. I seem to remember that we got the Plain English Campaign involved to try to help us improve things, and I think that they have improved. Some effort needs to be put into making sure that whatever goes out uses terms that can be understood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I move this amendment in a probing frame of mind. It refers to paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, which provides the nuts and bolts of the referendum arrangements. I sometimes think that they can be skimped in our deliberations. Paragraph 10 is headed, “Encouraging participation”. As I said earlier, I am sure that everybody wants that. Therefore, it is a very important part of the mechanics of the referendum.

My concern is that in paragraph 10, five individuals and tiers of officer are referred to: the Electoral Commission, the chief counting officer, regional counting officers, counting officers and registration officers. The last four—the chief counting officer and everybody down to registration officers—are under a duty and must,

“take whatever steps the officer thinks appropriate to encourage participation in the referendum”.

My concern, especially in view of the tight time scale in which the referendum is likely to be conducted, is that there will be a lack of co-ordination between all these different officers about what they do. You could get a right mess with each of them carrying out their duty to encourage participation, some in this way, some in that, some here, some there, often overlapping and often leaving gaps of encouragement. I therefore thought it fit to propose this amendment which will cast upon the chief counting officer a duty to, in effect, facilitate co-operation between all those bodies, not forgetting that in the same paragraph 10, all four sets of officers,

“must have regard to any guidance issued by the Electoral Commission”.

So it has its oar in as well.

It is as simple as that. We surely need somebody who has a primary role to facilitate co-operation between all these various people and organisations. Lastly, I point out that under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the chief counting officer is chair of the Electoral Commission. That is all I need to say. I beg to move.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I am not entirely sure why my Amendment 110ZB is grouped with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but it gives me a particular pleasure to follow him in the debate. We have heard only too little from his Benches in the course of this debate, and therefore I wish him well in his speech. I should perhaps add that he should mind how he goes on the way home. A vow of omerta has bound the Lib Dems together over this Bill, and he has, I am sure inadvertently, broken it by intervening for a whole two minutes this evening. So mind how you go.

My Amendment 110ZB is not terribly well related to Amendment 110ZA, but is about a quite different matter. It harks back to the stain that still hangs over our democracy from the May general election. Memories in politics are, alas, short, but not in this House, of course. Therefore, I hardly need remind noble Lords of what happened. In a number of constituencies—16 in all—people turned up at the polling station before the 10 o’clock deadline wishing to cast a vote in those constituencies. They were not allowed to vote. According to the Electoral Commission’s 20 May interim report on the matter, 1,200 voters were excluded from voting as a result of that cock-up.

For each of the 1,200 voters, the ban was absolute. It may not be a large percentage of the national total, but for a few days, our papers, no doubt exaggerating a little bit, were comparing us to a third world democracy. We could not even organise a vote, and when you see the way voters queue up in South Africa for hours and hours under a hot sun to exercise their right, and you find that in our own country people who have turned up on time are denied it, it leads to a shiver of shame going down one’s spine. The Electoral Commission’s interim report blamed poor planning, unsuitable buildings, contingency arrangements that were not triggered in time or proved ineffective and, incidentally, restrictive legislation that stopped those queuing getting ballot papers, even though they were in the polling station on time.

Planning for the referendum is in one sense at least perhaps more difficult than planning for a general election. Yes, we should all love to see a turnout for the referendum at least as great as that in the general election, but I do not think that many psephological experts think that is terribly likely. It really is terribly difficult to predict what turnout will be. You can imagine that the campaign starts with a poll showing a great gap between the various sides, and therefore fewer and fewer people plan to vote because they do not think their vote will make a difference. As it gets closer to polling day, it may be that polls start to narrow, and a whole load of people decide that they will after all go to the polls. By then, electoral officers will have made their dispositions and decided how many staff to have, how many polling stations and so on. In this case, the Leader of the House’s technique for deciding what the turnout will be—the same technique that he used for the number of seats—by choosing a nice round number out of the air is not that much worse than any other technique. There is a danger that the accommodation will not be sufficient for the number of people who turn out to vote on the day.

The Library tells me that we are still awaiting the final report from the Electoral Commission on last May’s debacle, but bits of it have leaked out. The Government’s response has left a nasty sniff in the air. The Times reported, even before the report came out on 11 November, that Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, had turned down the proposal in the commission’s interim report for a change in the legislation so that those who turn up before 10 o’clock can vote, even if they have not cast their vote by 10 o’clock. He said that the answer to poor organisation was not to reach for the statute book. Of course it is not, but it seems sensible to have two barrels to your shotgun: to try to deal with the poor organisation and to change the legislation that inadvertently caused this problem. I am therefore a little sorry and a little surprised that this legislation—absent the amendment I am now proposing—does not seem to do anything about that shortcoming.

Whenever I propose an amendment of this kind, somebody stands up and asks whether I have consulted the Electoral Commission about it, and I always retort no, because we are in Committee and it is not the duty of a Member of this House to consult the Electoral Commission on every proposal he puts forward at this stage in a Bill. I am, and should be, slightly surprised that the Government have not consulted it. I am disappointed that I have not seen, although it may exist, any kind of response to such a consultation. This was a serious problem. It is not a joke. If it is repeated, it will cast permanent doubt on our electoral arrangements, and it is therefore absolutely essential that we make sure that there will be no repetition of this on 5 May.

I should have said earlier that there is one other reason why there could be a repetition. If the referendum goes ahead on 5 May, and it remains to be seen whether that will be possible, it will be quite a complicated election. At the polling station, they will be dishing out one set of papers for the election of Governments in Scotland and Wales and another set of papers for the referendum, and people will be coming up saying “Please sir, what do I do with that?”; “I don’t know that”; “I didn’t know I was going to get that”; and all that sort of thing. It would be quite easy to imagine circumstances in which the staff at the polling stations became overwhelmed by the sheer volume of queries.

I shall not try to have a vote on this tonight. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Rennard]

The noble Lord might be reassured that I am not going to ask him the question that he feared about whether he had consulted the Electoral Commission on this issue. Rather, does he not think, in view of the potential problems he was just outlining, that his amendment could add to those problems? His amendment would apply to the issue of ballot papers for the referendum only. The effect of his amendment will be that different laws would apply for the issue of ballot papers for the referendum from those that would apply for the issue of ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and local elections. That would further add to the confusion. For those of us who agree that there is a problem with this matter and that it might be better dealt with by legislation, the legislation should be comprehensive for all elections and referendums and not just the referendum on 5 May.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. The trouble is that we have got before us the parliamentary voting Bill and I cannot change the whole of electoral law in a clause within it. If the noble Lord can prevail on Ministers to change the electoral law more generally as soon as possible, then that would be great. I would rather that on 5 May people were able to vote in the referendum, even if a cock-up occurred that stopped them voting in the local elections, than that they went all the way to the polling station and could not cast a ballot on anything. That would be much worse. While the anomaly that the noble Lord points to does exist, I think it preferable to the disaster that could occur if my amendment, or something like it, is not adopted.

As I say, I am not going to force a vote, partly because the Government may know more about the final report of the Electoral Commission than I do. I hope, however, that the Minister will be very responsive to the points made in this House and will see some merit in what I am saying. I hope I can look forward to him coming forward with proposals to deal with the matter on Report. If he does not—and I am not predicting this—the danger is that on 5 May we will get less a verdict on the electoral system and more some very cross voters indeed. That would be something that nobody in this House would wish to see.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, first, I support the principle behind the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has moved. The arrangements as set out in the schedule are somewhat ambiguous. His amendment is one way, at least, of clarifying that. There may be other, better ways, for all I know, but certainly these arrangements need to be clarified. I strongly support the view behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—that the situation in the last election, where people who came and were there before 10 pm could not, because of the law, be given ballot papers, was absolutely disgraceful. Whatever the reason, on the night the lady from the Electoral Commission who spoke did not appear to me to have grasped exactly what the situation was. She said that it had given clear instructions that the ballot papers were not to be handed out after 10 pm. It suggests to me—and I do not know what the right answer to it is—that some flexibility is required to deal with special circumstances. The people who are running the different polling stations may not necessarily be the top brass of the arrangements, but some kind of discretion must be given, because that kind of thing can happen. I do not expect for a minute that anybody realised exactly what was happening until it was really too late, and then they had this terrific sledgehammer of “You cannot issue a ballot paper after 10 pm”; witness what the Electoral Commission had said. In a sense it made the matter worse. I do not say that the people in the polling booth could have given them out after 10 pm, although I think if I was in a polling booth and in charge as a clerk I would have had a shot at that.

It is important that this matter should be sorted out one way or another. If the Government do not think that the Electoral Commission solution is the best, then let us have one. We need a solution. I agree, of course, that it needs to be a solution that applies to all elections—not just the referendum—although, unfortunately, I do not think that that could be done in this Bill. We are trying to do enough already. We cannot sort the whole thing out, but it is certainly important to sort it out. A very short Bill that would not take the time that this one has taken could go through both Houses and sort this out in good time for 5 May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not think that is how it would work. Reasonable expenditure will be reimbursed by the Government. If the expenditure was unreasonable and extravagant and went beyond anything that could be considered reasonable, there should not be an obligation on the Government to reimburse. I can reassure the noble Lord that reasonable expenditure for the purposes set out in paragraph 10(1) and 10(2) would be reimbursed. The noble Lord has put forward a serious hypothetical situation, but anyone would accept that running a registration campaign was a reasonable thing to do. If someone went about it in an extravagant way—which I cannot begin to think of at the moment—that would be deemed unreasonable by most sensible people and it would not be reasonable that taxpayers’ money should reimburse it. However, with a straightforward, reasonable campaign, the Government would reimburse.

On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, the Scottish parliamentary elections will be counted first, ahead of the referendum. The selection of the First Minister does not normally follow the election anyway. I recall that in 2003 we did not get down to negotiations about establishing a coalition until the Monday after the election. Nevertheless, the point remains that the Scottish election count will take precedence over the referendum count.

There is a link between this amendment and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, which relates to the role of the chief counting officer and the powers available to her. Sentiments have been expressed in the debate, as on other occasions, that democratic people were profoundly perturbed by the scenes they saw on the night of the last general election when people were not allowed to exercise their democratic rights. Paragraph 10(1) of the schedule states:

“The Chief Counting Officer must take whatever steps the officer considers appropriate to encourage participation in the referendum”.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, would provide that:

“These steps shall include measures to ensure that all those wishing to vote and arriving at the polling station within the appointed hours are able to do so”.

Clearly, the amendment is intended to address the scenes and situations we experienced in May last year.

I can assure the Committee that we take very seriously the problems that arose at certain polling stations. The Government have been considering the Electoral Commission’s report on the issue and, in particular, the recommendation that the law be changed to allow people who have not been issued with a ballot paper but are in the queues at 10 pm to vote. We are not convinced or satisfied that the amendment would enable the chief counting officer to direct that ballot papers are issued after 10 pm—if, indeed, that is the intention of the amendment. As the noble Lord indicated in his speech when he spoke to the amendment, the Electoral Commission report noted that that was not possible because it would not comply with the law. Clearly, the chief counting officer cannot issue a direction that contravenes the existing law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicated, that is possibly not something that could be done in the context of this legislation for a referendum alone.

I will try to deal with the other point in a bit more detail. It is important to note that in most cases where the problems occurred in May last year, the Electoral Commission has found that the common factor was inadequate planning processes and contingency arrangements—or, more to the point, that such arrangements were not in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, quoted my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He quoted him accurately, but perhaps I should just quote a little more of what he said. At Question Time in the other place on 10 November, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“I happen to think that, in this instance, simply passing a law will not deal with the problem, which was a lack of resources and poor organisation by the returning officer, who acknowledged as much”

—he was specifically talking about Sheffield, where his own constituency is—

“… That is what we need to address; we should not always simply reach for the statute book”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/10; col. 285.]

Officials have met the Electoral Commission, and indeed electoral administrators, to discuss the issue of managing queues at polling stations. It is clear that there are divergent views on the effectiveness of any legislative change, and a significant number of administrators are not in favour of it. Again, that is a reflection of the fact that the problems in that particular case in May last year were because of planning failures and the lack of effective contingency planning.

Given the divergence of views that exist on the specific recommendation of the Electoral Commission and given that there is the general consensus that the problems largely arose from poor planning, we believe there is a need for significant additional discussion before any change to legislation should be proposed, if indeed that is eventually deemed appropriate. There needs to be buy-in from all those who would be involved in administering elections.

Under the Bill, we consider that the chief counting officer already has the necessary powers to provide appropriate guidance, training and support to the regional counting officers, as well as to counting officers themselves, to help address the issues that arose in May 2010. I am aware that some of the contingency arrangements have already changed the ratio of polling clerks to the number of voters at each polling place. We think there is certainly a need for more discussion as to all the potential consequences of any legislative amendment before a change to the principles underlying the existing electoral rules is considered. In these circumstances there is some benefit to having the certainty of the present rules, admittedly with the back-up role that the chief counting officer has the authority to play in giving the necessary guidance, training and support.

[Lord Lipsey]

Perhaps two things are getting confused here. My amendment would not deal with the strict legislative problem that the Electoral Commission originally identified. That is still under discussion and I agree this is not the appropriate time to put that right. However, my amendment would convey to returning officers the extreme importance that Parliament attaches to tackling these problems. Yes, it would be a declaratory piece of legislation, but that is not without force in this world. The noble and learned Lord might like to reflect on the point that, if he rejects this proposal, it will seem as if the Government are not really taking on board the depth and importance of the problems that arose and the reactions of electors to them. I do not think that is good for the Government and I do not think it is good for government, as a matter of fact.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I cannot accept the second part of what the noble Lord has said, because the Government accept that what happened in May last year was serious. There is no doubt about that. Anyone reading this debate would realise that the view on all sides of the Committee is that the situation was serious. I hope to reassure the noble Lord—who accepts that his amendment would not change the legislative basis for that—that there is a distinction to be made, given that it was accepted that in the cases last year the common factor was one of poor planning. In this case, there will be a chief counting officer, who will have a responsibility and already be aware—not least because of the dual role with the Electoral Commission—about the importance of this issue. I am sure the chief counting officer will be well aware of the sentiments expressed and the important and serious points made in this debate. If the noble Lord’s aim was to get a message across, his amendment has provided a very helpful forum and opportunity to get that message across. She has the powers, we believe, to provide the appropriate guidance, the appropriate training and the appropriate support so that these issues will be addressed and the kind of situation that we saw in May 2010 will not arise again.

Against that background, I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

100: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Assistant Commissioners’ report
(1) The Commission shall appoint Assistant Commissioners to report on and make recommendations emerging from the written representations submitted for each separate area that provisional recommendations have been published for.
(2) The report of each Assistant Commissioner shall be published by the Commission along with copies of all the representations received, before the Commission either publishes its revised recommendation for the area or confirms its provisional recommendations.”

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, first, I apologise for the fact that I arrived back in the Chamber seconds too late to move Amendment 99ZA. I do not think that anything catastrophic has been lost thereby, because Amendments 99ZA and 99A were in effect accepted by the Minister. We will see the drafting on Report. If I might be permitted to say it, Amendments 99B and 99C are purely technical and if the Minister or his officials would correspond with me about their substance, we might avoid having to return to the subject on Report.

Amendment 100, however, has fine breeding because it is another from the stable of the British Academy, whose thoroughbreds have been praised throughout these debates. It relates to the discussion that we have just had because it is perfectly clear that the commissions have a big task on their hands to complete the work before them by 2013. In particular, the English commission faces a tough task. It would be very regrettable if there was any slippage in the timetable, because it leaves only 18 months for parties to choose their candidates and for those candidates to bed themselves in. That is even without the possibility, which must still exist even under the Government’s fixed-term Parliament legislation, of an earlier general election. It really is crucial that the Boundary Commissions do not get behind with the task.

The Government have been comforting throughout on the question of the resources that will be made available to the Boundary Commissions. That is important, but the British Academy study argues that an additional weapon in the commissions’ armoury would be the appointment of assistant commissioners. This amendment, as I understand it, in effect repeats the provision of the 1986 Act in that regard by providing for the appointment of assistant commissioners. That may, it occurs to me, also have a part to play when the Government bring forward their detailed proposals for implementing the spirit of the amendment spoken to earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, in providing for oral hearings in some form or another. I hope that this modest, technical proposal—it is of course not saying that the commissions have to appoint assistant commissioners—sourced as it is from the true experts of the British Academy study, will find favour with the Minister. I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

In light of the Government’s agreement that provision shall after all be made for public inquiries with oral hearings, would my noble friend wish to modify the terms of his amendment when we return on Report?

[Lord Lipsey]

I am so sorry if I was unclear. I explained that I thought that that new provision might increase the necessity for assistant commissioners and therefore be incorporated into the Government’s proposals.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I want to make a couple of brief points in support of this proposed new clause. I think there is general agreement in the Committee that the engagement of the public in this process is desirable. There has been a great deal of discussion about what format that could take, but that principle is generally accepted by everybody and this proposed new clause goes to the heart of that agreement.

When the previous Government looked at a whole range of methods of engaging the public in policy formation—of which this would be a part—we came to the very clear view that fundamental to all forms of consultation was the need for the public to know what had happened to their contributions to the debate. That was crucial for the credibility of the process and it avoided cynicism creeping in about what had happened. I think that this new clause is entirely consistent with that principle. I understand that it might be thought unnecessary to put such a provision into the Bill, but it might also be thought to be a sound principle that could be relied upon and about which the Boundary Commission could be relied upon to make a judgment. Putting it into the Bill in the way that my noble friend proposes with this new clause would signify the importance of such feedback, and I very much hope that the Minister will look favourably on it. I do not think that it fundamentally compromises the Government’s objectives in the Bill and it could play an important part in building public support for the process.

Finally, I notice that my noble friend has used the generic term “published”. I do not think that any amendment to the clause is needed but, if the Minister is prepared to look at the proposal favourably, as I hope he will, I should be grateful if he could make it clear that all forms of publication should be used. Obviously, the web should be deployed but we should also bear it in mind that, even today and despite the best efforts of the previous Government, large sections of the population are excluded from the web. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could make it clear that he would expect the Boundary Commission to use all forms of publication.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by taking up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made about the earlier amendments. I shall certainly try to ensure that he has a response on that. I think that they are very much tied up with the amendment which we debated last Wednesday and to which we have already indicated there will be a government response with an appropriate amendment on Report.

The new clause proposed in Amendment 100 requires two things from the Boundary Commission as it consults the public on any proposed changes to constituency boundaries: it must publish all the representations that it receives on provisional recommendations relating to an area, as well as publish a formal response written by assistant commissioners which is very much focused on those written representations.

It has usually been the commissioners’ practice to appoint assistant commissioners to manage the process of local inquiries, and the noble Lord seeks to apply this practice to the consultations under the provisions of the Bill. As I indicated earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, and as I think has been touched upon by a number of contributors to this debate, the Government propose a public hearing process enabling an opportunity for the public and parties to express their views. We need to consider how best to achieve that so as to ensure that the timetable for completion of the Boundary Commission’s reviews by October 2013 is met. It is fair to say that in order to do so we will need to consider all the existing provisions concerning consultation in the round, and I hope that that gives some reassurance. The Government have committed to further action on how consultation is undertaken by the commissions not only in terms of public hearings but in terms of counter-proposal provisions as well. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Lipsey]

Coming so soon after the progress that we have made this afternoon, I obviously entirely accept what the Minister has said. Not all the “t”s can be crossed and the “i”s dotted but I am sure that they will be by the time we get to Report. With that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 100 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

100A: Clause 14, page 14, line 34, at end insert “by the affirmative resolution procedure”

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has moved an amendment that seeks to apply additional parliamentary procedures to the delegated powers in this Bill. The amendment would subject all delegated powers conferred by the Bill to the affirmative resolution procedure. As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, will not move her amendment proposing the super-affirmative resolution procedure, so I shall confine my remarks to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.

There is no doubt that the Government recognise the value of parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, that is why, in both Houses, we have sought to ensure that Members have had adequate time to debate the provisions of this Bill in detail. I cannot accept the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, that somehow or other the proceedings in the other place were perfunctory. I cannot remember offhand how many days were spent in Committee of the Whole House or on Report, but I know that every effort was made by the Government to ensure that those provisions in the Bill that were not subject to more detailed consideration in Committee were the ones with which the Report stage started. I think that I am right in saying that the only substantive clause that was not debated in the other place was that on which we have just had a brief clause stand part debate on the breaking of the link between the parliamentary constituencies in Wales and the constituencies of the National Assembly for Wales. That is not an unimportant matter, but I do not think that it is the most controversial part of the Bill.

None the less, we do not believe that it is necessary to apply additional parliamentary procedures, as suggested in the amendment, to those powers in the Bill that are not already subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Moreover, it is worth noting that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not recommended that any such procedure should apply to these order-making powers. Like our predecessors, we attach considerable importance to what that committee says and, indeed, to what it does not say.

One exception to that was that the DPRR committee recommended that the power to make a transitional or saving provision in Clause 8(4) should be subject to the negative procedure. However, as we indicated when the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised an amendment on that matter, the Government have made it clear that they intend to deal with this point by removing the power and instead making explicit provision to deal with the only scenario in which we would anticipate the power being necessary: namely, to ensure that, where a parliamentary by-election is called after the AV provisions are implemented—were they to be implemented—but before the first general election, that by-election would be held under first past the post.

There are a number of reasons why the amendment is not appropriate. Noble Lords may find it helpful if I briefly set out why I think that the increased scrutiny that the amendment seeks is unnecessary in relation to the delegated powers contained in the Bill that are not already subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

First, it is not appropriate to make the order implementing or repealing the alternative vote provisions following the referendum subject to additional parliamentary debate. I think that we had some debate around this when we considered Clause 8, which was probably before Christmas. The relevant provisions in Clause 8 do not give Ministers wide-ranging powers about when the provisions can be brought into force or repealed; quite the opposite, they impose a number of clear, binding duties. The effect is that Ministers must bring certain provisions into force—or, indeed, repeal those provisions—depending on the outcome of the referendum. Furthermore, if there is a yes vote, the provisions will already have been debated in full during the passage of this Bill and the order would simply implement the will of the public as expressed in the referendum.

Fundamentally, subjecting the order-making powers in Clauses 8(1) and 8(2) to the affirmative procedure would change the nature of the referendum. As we also debated when we considered Clause 8, the referendum would become indicative rather than binding, since the order giving effect to the referendum result could subsequently be prevented from taking effect if the order was voted down. The Government believe that voting reform is a significant constitutional reform on which the people should have their say. Once they have had their say, this should not be thwarted by further procedural process.

Another key power on which the amendment seeks to impose an additional parliamentary procedure is that in paragraph 20 of Schedule 1, which provides for an order to be made to determine the maximum expenses recoverable by regional counting officers. That power replicates an existing power in the Representation of the People Act 1983 for parliamentary elections, which is similarly not subject to any parliamentary procedure because it is purely of an administrative nature.

By contrast, I think that it is sensible for the Bill to provide—as it already does in Clause 9—that the power to amend legislation in order to make purely consequential further changes to implement AV should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

On those grounds, I hope that your Lordships will agree that an additional parliamentary procedure for orders that are not already subject to the affirmative procedure in the Bill is neither necessary nor appropriate. No doubt we will return to the important points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and I would propose to deal with these points then. In the mean time, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I cannot claim to be absolutely convinced by every word that the Minister has just said. In particular, my antennae started twitching when he started talking about an indicative referendum on AV. Many of my friends believe that the AV referendum should have been indicative in the first place. I would not necessarily go that far, but I accept that if, on the day, the only two people who turn up at the polling station are the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and myself, both of us voting yes, there might be a small problem with the legitimacy of proceeding in those circumstances, to which a political solution will have to be found.

However, the Minister gave a reasonably comprehensible reply. I will study it and, if necessary, return to the matter at Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 100A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Those words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, himself a former Leader of the House of Commons, who always sought to calm troubled waters in that capacity and did so very successfully, should certainly be heeded. I add my appreciation for the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, and the Cross Benchers who, in tabling this amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, did earlier in the day, have sought to steer our proceedings into calmer waters, recognising that in Part 2 there are some intensely controversial and very major constitutional issues that are not best resolved in a spirit of hot and angry political contest.

In any case, even if the mood of the Committee had been as placid and as genial in the previous 14 days as it has been today, it would still have taken time to consider properly and for us to be able to reach agreed conclusions that are in the interests of all our people and in the interest of sensible, constructive reform of the constitution, not animated by party political considerations but by real concern to reform and advance the constitution so that it better serves our people.

I very much welcome, therefore, what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has suggested. He offers a way in which we can resolve some of these very difficult and important issues in a calmer fashion and on a sensible timescale. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will respond in a similar spirit.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, just to make the bait on the hook of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, even more appetising, there is a point to be made. Earlier on the point was made that the problem with the reduction to 600 is that it increases the size of the Executive relative to the Back Bench. That point was taken on board by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. He said he did not think the legislation should be altered but he wanted to think about it. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, provides an excellent opportunity for a structured way in which we could look at that very important question and come up with a solution without amending the Bill. That should also commend it to the Government who have already endorsed the point that lies behind it.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for having introduced this amendment, which he did with characteristic modesty as this was his idea. As he was speaking, I could tell that he had struck a chord in the House and it was no surprise that my noble friend Lord Newton rose to support him. I was going to say that within this amendment there is a germ of an idea, but that belittles it too much. I thought maybe a seed, but really it is a sapling of an idea that we would like to work on.

I must refute the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord that this part of the Bill is fundamentally partisan. It is not designed to be and I know that he accepts that. I can understand why some Members of another place might think that it is, but it is not. The amendment provides that the new rules for drawing up constituency boundaries would not come into force upon Royal Assent, as the Bill provides, but that a boundary review would still be conducted on the basis of the new rules. The new boundary provisions would be commenced only once the Boundary Commissions had reported and following a debate in both Houses. The intention could be that Parliament could consider how the commissions had applied the new rules in drawing up constituencies and then consider whether the boundary reforms should be made. The existing legislation, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, would remain in force in the mean time, and Parliament would then effectively have the choice of commencing the new rules or retaining the 1986 Act rules.

While I understand that the amendment has been brought forward in a creative and helpful spirit, I am going to explain in a moment why the Government cannot accept it as it is, not as a knee-jerk reaction, but for two principal reasons. The first reason is that it would break the linkage in the Bill between the entry into force of the new boundaries following the review and the commencement of the provisions on the alternative vote in the event that there is a yes vote in the referendum. We have debated that linkage at length, and I understand that there are different views across the House. However, the Government have set out their stall on the matter, and we believe that the current position in the Bill is the right one.

The second reason is arguably even more important as we are concerned at the implications of the Boundary Commission conducting a review with the rules for doing so as if it were on probation. This is the point that my noble friend Lord Rennard made. It is one thing to ask this House and the other place to consider objectively the rules to which the commission should work when setting new boundaries; it is quite another for Members of Parliament, many of whom have a party-political interest in the outcome of such changes, to be shown the practical results of the application of a set of rules which would potentially be applied at a forthcoming election and then be asked to evaluate the merits of the proposals and to consider which set of rules they prefer.

The effect of the amendment would be that shortly after October 2013, when we expect the commissioners to report, Parliament and, in particular, the other place would be asked to vote on two alternative maps: one with 650 constituencies and one with 600. For me, that is a serious change in the nature of the scrutiny role that the House as a whole undertakes when the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions are put before it, and I have strong reservations about taking such a step. In addition, if the recommendations were rejected, constituencies would remain as they currently are until the next review, by which time, in England at least, they would be 20 years out of date. There is also the question of whether we should provide for considerable time and resource, not least that of the general public who contribute to these reviews, to be expended on a review that would have no guarantee of ever being implemented.

Having said that, I understand the issues that have been raised in debates about whether the size of the House of Commons set by this Bill at 600 MPs is the right one. I can see that this amendment, perhaps in part, is a response to that since it would ask Parliament to let the review proceed and put off the decision on whether to accept the new rules until after it has had a chance to see the resulting constituency map.

I have set out why the Government consider that approach goes too far. The Government have also been clear that the proposed size for the House of Commons set in the Bill is the right one. However, we would be open to bringing forward a provision on Report for a review under independent supervision after implementation of the new constituencies of the impact of 600 seats and requiring that that begins in a timescale determined in the Bill.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, finds that a helpful suggestion on going forward, and I am sure that he will reflect on it. Moreover, we would be extremely happy to discuss it with him further. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

102C: Schedule 1, page 16, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) The minimum period between the passing of this Act and the date of the referendum shall be three months.”

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, towards the end of a long speakers list in a debate in this House, someone stands up and says, “Everything there is to be said on this topic has been said, but not everyone has yet said it”. That usually raises a laugh, as it has today; good jokes, like wine, improve with age. Here I have invented a variant on the old saw for Committee stage: “Everything possible has been said on this amendment but it has not been said everywhere. The matter can be raised on the Bill”. That is what a harsh critic would say.

I want to say why my amendment is different from earlier amendments which laid down that the referendum should not take place on 5 May. In our earlier debates, the arguments that we concentrated on for not having it on 5 May were that it clashed with the Welsh Assembly elections, the Scottish Parliament elections and the local authority elections, that this would lead to a lot of political noise—particularly as Liberal Democrat and Labour candidates fought each other—and that that would not be an atmosphere in which there could be sensible consideration of this issue. Those arguments are all valid. My amendment is compatible, I admit, with 5 May as a referendum date. It is three months after Royal Assent. We have only to give the Bill Royal Assent on Thursday night. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be delighted if we achieve that timetable. Stranger things have happened in these Houses of Parliament, so it would be possible to have it on those days. All that the amendment lays down is that there must be three months between Royal Assent and the referendum to consider the matter. That is three months for information, persuasion and contemplation before decision.

Let us consider the present state of public opinion. I am taking a large poll done by YouGov in September last year. It asked first whether people had heard of AV and knew what it was. Roughly one-third said yes, they had heard of it and knew a bit about what it was. Of that one-third, I bet that half were lying—they did not know what it was, though they may have heard of it. One-third said that they had heard of it but they did not have a clue what it meant, and one-third had neither heard of it nor had a clue what it meant. That is the information backlog that we face as we run up to the referendum on this issue. There is a huge job of basic education to be done before we even get to the arguments for and against. Those arguments, which anyone studying the House’s proceedings on Part 1 of the Bill will have heard quite often, are difficult and balanced and need the most careful consideration. The electorate must think very hard about what they are doing.

The suggestion that this can be done in less than three months is not right. Yes, in that time a referendum can be held—the Electoral Commission can do its work, the ballot papers can be printed and so on—but we will not get a properly valid answer. I say that whether it is the answer that I want, a yes, or the one that many noble Lords want, a no. It will not be properly valid because the people will not have had long enough to contemplate the proposition put before them.

If the verdict seems invalid, that will have consequences for legitimacy. The side that loses will be able to stand up almost immediately and say, “It was fixed. It was cooked. This referendum is not the considered view of the British people. It’s a referendum held at a time to suit a political timetable”. Why on earth the Liberal Democrats want the referendum on 5 May continues to escape me, but they clearly do. That would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the verdict.

It is also true, of course, that had the House made faster progress on the Bill—I do not attribute blame on all this; I am delighted that we are now belatedly making progress—the Bill might by now have been law and the campaigning able to be started, so there would have been time to inform the public. However, the passage of time has meant that the time available for contemplating the actual issue in the referendum has been squeezed. My amendment says that it must be squeezed no further. There should be a three-month period between Royal Assent and the referendum. I hope that this is a common-sense proposition in a common-sense amendment and that therefore it will become a consensual amendment around the House. That just shows that I am a very hopeful sort of a chap. However, it should be understood that the argument is as I have set it out. If the Government reject it, it will be for reasons quite other, and arguably less reputable, than the House and the country have reason to deserve.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I intervene briefly and again address my remarks to the Liberal Democrats. They know from previous debates that I support the referendum and am in favour of electoral reform and a version of AV. Therefore, what happens in the polling booth is of great interest to me, as indeed it should be to them. The question is, in what circumstances is it more likely that the AV referendum will be won? I put to them two distinctly different scenarios: one where a person walks into a polling station, having heard a campaign, and votes for it deliberately, in circumstances where it is highly likely that those who are opposed to it will not bother going to the polls. The advantage of having a referendum day on its own is that it would concentrate the minds of those who were in favour of change to go and vote, whereas those who were against change would, more likely than not, simply stay away. The danger of holding a referendum on the same day as an election is that everybody will go to the polling booth and they will all vote. Those who are opposed, who otherwise would not turn up at the polling booth, will then go and vote against electoral reform. The Liberal Democrats will regret what they have done during the course of this Bill. The referendum will be lost for the reason I have given and they will bear the responsibility for that as they will have set the electoral reform agenda back decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

I think the bodies that will need to spend money as a result of the Bill can do so once Second Reading has taken place in the first House. I will check that for the noble Lord but, under these circumstances, I do not think that there is any problem with the Electoral Commission spending money. For those reasons, we think the campaigns are well prepared. A lot of organisation has continued and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lipsey]

This has been a trip down memory lane to the early days of the debate on the Bill. I thought we might still be here for some hours to come but that is not so. I am afraid that the Minister has not convinced me. First, he said that practical arrangements could be made by 5 May and I said precisely the same thing myself. That was never in question. The question is whether a legitimate debate can take place in so short a period. The only argument which I think I heard him use against that was the argument from Scottish and Welsh devolution. He did not say what the exact timetable on those Bills was but that the referendums were carried out quickly. That is true, but there is no analogy between the two. The issues of Scottish and Welsh devolution had been matters of the most intense debate in Scotland and Wales. There had been a failed attempt with a referendum about 10 years before the critical referendum took place. There was not a moment when this was not in the public eye in Scotland and Wales, with one political party having a change to the Government’s arrangements as its central and single objective.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

[Lord Lipsey]

I shall follow directly on from what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, and I shall be extremely brief, so my noble friend will not be kept waiting long. In one way, I shall go further than the noble Lord did and say that many of the principles incorporated in the amendments are already present in the Bill in the rules under Clause 11. For example, it states, more explicitly than the present rules, that

“local government boundaries as they exist”,

on the most recent council elections, should be a special factor that the Boundary Commission can take into account. It states that a special factor that the Boundary Commission can take into account is local ties. County boundaries, as we know, most famously in the case of Cornwall, are exactly the sort of local tie that it can take explicit regard of. So those principles are in the Bill. The trouble is that they do not amount to a row of beans because of the 5 per cent limit. That is the problem. Otherwise we would not face this difficulty.

[Lord Tyler]

The impression seems to be given by Members opposite that somehow the existing situation is that a constituency never crosses a county boundary. That is of course not true. In the historic case of Lancashire and Yorkshire—I can think of no part of the country where counties have a more historic rivalry—the constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth crosses the county boundary.

[Lord Lipsey]

I cannot think what it was in my remarks—because no doubt the noble Lord intervened on me seeking clarification—which contravened what he just said. When he makes his speech in a minute, no doubt he will be able to develop his point, but I do not think that it arises from my remarks to the House, with great respect.

[Lord Snape]

Before my noble friend moves on, I put to him the point that I sought to put to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, but he declined it. The House of Commons committee to which I referred states that,

“many more constituencies than at present would cross local authority boundaries”.

It is referring, as my noble friend implies, to the 5 per cent limit.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am not in favour of any absolutes—that is my point—but I am in favour of greater flexibility, which would enable most of the principles in the amendments to be respected. Perhaps I may take an example that came up earlier. Under the Bill, of the 46 counties of England, in only nine cases can the boundaries be respected. How does that reflect reality? However, if we had a different rule—a 10 per cent rule, for example—those boundaries could be respected in all but two cases, and these specific exceptions would not need to be brought into effect. Of course I give way to my noble friend.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Perhaps I may take my noble friend back to the very interesting and constructive contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I am being very serious when I say that because what he suggested might, in some ways, influence any negotiations that take place. He placed greater emphasis on the numerical calculation than on the area of the amendment with which we are dealing. I ask my noble friend to press the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, perhaps to intervene more, not only on the Floor of the House but with his colleagues, because that is the way forward on the Bill.

[Lord Lipsey]

I have probably known the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, even longer than I have known my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and no one has ever accused him of being as ineffective behind the scenes as he is effective on the public stage. I rose immediately after he spoke in order to agree with him and to show that here we are finding common ground, which is desirable for the conduct of the negotiations that are now to take place and will help the Committee out of the current impasse, so accurately described earlier in our proceedings by the Leader of the House.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, once upon a time there was a place known as the Royal Borough of Sutton Coldfield, just to the north of Birmingham. In the local government boundary changes under the 1970-74 Tory Government, it was added to Birmingham in 1974. The external boundaries of Sutton Coldfield have remained exactly the same but it has simply been added to the north of Birmingham. I declare an interest, as part of the northern boundary was part of my old constituency of Perry Barr. Earlier today I bumped into the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who thanked his noble friends for the support that he got last week, and we had a chat about our joint boundary, which was always a bit of a bone of contention come the Boundary Commission review.

In my 27 years as an MP I think there were two parliamentary boundary changes and probably three local authority ward changes, but this boundary remained exactly the same. I have just looked at a map again because it is a few years since I represented the area. The historical boundary of the Royal Borough of Sutton Coldfield was built almost on the watershed but was gradually developed. When you look at a map of the area, you say to yourself, “What’s that dotted line that goes across the back gardens and up the alleyways and at one point splits a cul de sac in half?”. This is an urban constituency, and this boundary happens to form the line between the B73 and B44 postcodes. There is no question but that in parts of the country postcodes affect property values. It has already been mentioned, including by me, that wards are building blocks, and the average ward throughout England has about 1,400 constituents. Some of them are really tiny but the average ward in London has about 6,000 constituents. However, once you get out into less populated areas, the wards are tiny. As building blocks they are great because you can add in 100 here or 200 there in order to make the boundaries come right. However, when you have a ward of 18,000, 19,000 or, in some cases such as the old Sutton wards, more than 20,000 constituents, what do you do?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

I feel rather dismayed at the enthusiasm with which my suggestion has been achieved. Do not resist temptation all the time. If I am not offered the post at the Vatican, I guarantee that I will not take up any offer on “Strictly Come Dancing”.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend and to express my own gratitude for the atmosphere that is prevailing in the Committee today. What a difference a decent lunch can make.

My noble friend made a very powerful case. I know that there are people on all sides of the Committee who believe that there is a powerful case for a 10 per cent rather than a 5 per cent limit. Perhaps I may provide the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, with an answer to his question about constituencies. Roughly 69 per cent of constituencies that exist at the moment could still exist with a 10 per cent limit; only 36 per cent of them could exist with a 5 per cent limit. Enormous disruption could be avoided if we put 10 per cent into the argument.

We have to think of the origin of the views on size expressed by the Benches opposite in the early stages of the Bill to understand what has gone wrong. I think that the Conservative Party saw on the one hand—I do not blame it for doing so—that constituencies were very unequal, which they are. It saw on the other hand that the electoral system was biased against it, which it is. But in the mind these two became conflated, which I can quite understand, as cause and effect: that unequal constituency size caused the bias in the system.

This is a matter on which a huge volume of work has been done by psephologists. I suppose that I am the only person in this House whose favourite bedside reading is psephology, rather than, for example, Agatha Christie, Dick Francis and the rest. I have gone through, for example, John Curtice’s and others’ annex to the British General Election of 2010, the work of Lewis Baston and so on. It is perfectly clear from those that size is barely the cause of the bias that exists in the system. Bias there is: the Conservatives need a 3.3 per cent lead over Labour just to get the same number of seats. I do not defend that, and there are other ways than those set out in this Bill to deal with it. The bias in the system has varied a good deal over time, but I am very pleased to say that it was sharply diminished at the last general election. It was still considerable and still unacceptable, but it was considerably diminished.

However, the bias is not due to size of seats. In fact, the average Labour seat is only 2,000 electors smaller than the average Conservative seat. In England, the difference is roughly half that. It is not size that makes the big difference. One factor, for example, is Welsh representation, which we shall come back to. The main reason for the bias is differential turnout. In Conservative seats, the turnout is 68.4 per cent; in Liberal Democrat seats, it is 67.3 per cent; in Labour seats, it is 61.2 per cent. That means that it takes many fewer electors to elect each Labour MP than it takes to elect each Conservative MP.

Another factor is that voters in seats where neither Labour nor Conservative candidates can win, an awful lot more Tory votes count for nothing in electing an MP than Labour votes—there are 400,000 more of them. Finally, there is the greater willingness of Labour voters to vote tactically, which costs the Tories a number of seats.

I do not want to gild the lily by going on and boring the Committee into the sleep that I enjoy most nights on reading this stuff, but I say to noble Lords that the Bill’s proposal to equalise seat size should be taken on its merits. To me, the inequality in the size of seats is also indefensible, but that is not because it biases the system against the Conservatives. It is indefensible because it leads to too great an inequality between voters. It therefore becomes a matter of the degree to which we want to permit that for other sorts of reasons, such as avoiding crossing traditional boundaries, such as the Tamar, and the desire to keep the Isle of Wight separate, and all the things that we know about.

However, there is not any magic about 5 per cent. There is no difference between 5 per cent and 10 per cent in the results of the general election that was held. So let us consider it on its merits; that is, the principled case of maximum equality achievable against the practical case that a little bit of flexibility in the system should be allowed so as to preserve traditional loyalties and to avoid having too great a swing in seats between one general election and another.

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, I must apologise for not being in the Chamber when the noble and learned Lord began this debate. I was detained by a call I had to take from overseas, but I hope that the House will allow me to intervene at this stage because I have a related amendment on the Marshalled List. It would be much more sensible for me to deal with the points that I would have made on that amendment later on this amendment and to comment on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.

I approach this whole issue by looking at the situation in Wales. When I saw a proposed set of possible constituencies presented to a committee of the other place, it struck me that we might avoid some of the obvious difficulties by going to 10 per cent rather than 5 per cent. There are similarities between the Welsh situation and the Scottish mainland situation. I am not suggesting that we go down the solution that exists in Scotland—that is, two very large constituencies with a very small electorate. But in both cases there is a concentration of population in an industrial belt, which is surrounded by large, thinly populated, rural areas.

When I looked at the suggestions of what constituencies might be like, I observed at once that it seemed probable that one would have to detach a small part of my former constituency in Pembroke and put it into Carmarthen; a perhaps rather larger bit of Powys and put it into Ceredigion; and, in the valleys, possibly detaching or placing in neighbouring valleys some parts of constituencies that would be better not separated. I immediately came to the conclusion that a lot of these difficulties could be avoided if we went to 10 per cent rather than 5 per cent.

It was not until I received the interesting paper from Democratic Audit and the points made by Lewis Baston that I really turned my attention to the English situation. It seems to me that that paper makes a very powerful case. It points out that with a 5 per cent variation, there would be serious difficulties with the crossing of county boundaries and so on, and that under a 10 per cent variation there would be much less crossing of county boundaries, much less splitting of wards, fewer and less disruptive boundary changes in future and closer concordance with community identities. Surely, we all want that.

Lewis Baston points out that for a county to avoid sharing one or more seats with another county, it needs to meet a number of criteria. He tells us that very few counties could meet these criteria in England with a 5 per cent limit. A 10 per cent tolerance of variation would transform this chaotic picture. No counties fail outright, other than the Isle of Wight, which we will debate on a separate occasion, although in practice, some might be close enough to the edge to make pairings necessary. None the less, it was found that only two relatively natural pairings—Wiltshire and Dorset, and West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire—would arise under a revised plan based on 10 per cent.

It is also probably impossible to implement a 5 per cent rule without splitting wards in constituencies. Again, that difficulty would be largely overcome. The final positive benefit would mean fewer and less disruptive boundary changes in future. Surely, that is of great significance for the political parties and candidates. As we heard from the noble Lord who is an expert on these subjects, and see from the democratic audit paper, the conclusion has to be that there are no significant differences between 5 per cent and 10 per cent equalisation as regards their partisan effect.

I am then faced with the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord and the group of amendments led off by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. On balance, I prefer the simpler, later amendment. I am not sure why we need something that on the face of it appears slightly complicated and obscure but, to a layman and non-lawyer, appears to put slightly tougher criteria on to the shoulders of the Boundary Commission. Here is an opportunity, while meeting all the Government’s main objectives, to improve the Bill. I have not heard their response and there may be obstacles that I do not know about. I shall listen carefully and hope that, on this occasion, the Government will say, “Yes, we can accept it”. There may be flaws in the amendment and the Government could bring their own forward on Report. I hope, entirely in the interests of the political parties, the candidates and those who care about local links, that the Government will consider the arguments. I will support any of the solutions that they say better fit in with the proper drafting of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

64: Clause 11, page 9, line 21, leave out “95%” and insert “90%”

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I would not like your Lordships to think that I have not been sufficiently assiduous in my preparation to deliver a long speech this afternoon. Who knows, it might have been different if it had been delivered in the middle of last night. However, I think that almost everything that needs and ought to be said on this subject has been said in the debate we have just had. I want to make only two brief points.

I listened with great attention to the admirable response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. We ought to be aware that at the moment the discrepancy in constituency size is absolutely enormous. It is not 5 per cent on each side, and not 10 per cent. The smallest seat is 31.7 per cent of the average seat, while the largest seat, that of the Isle of Wight, is 156.7 per cent of the average. So it is possible to go a long way towards reducing the disparity without transgressing the line drawn by the Minister.

The other point I want to make in preparation for the discussions I hope we will have is this. There is not just one thing you can change here; there are two. There is the limit of 5 per cent, 10 per cent or whatever turns out to be the right figure, but there is also the degree of attention that the Boundary Commissions are asked to give to their rules as to the circumstances in which they can allow exceptions. I agree with the Minister that, on the whole, the Boundary Commission has perhaps been too slack and paid too much attention to the rules on observing local boundaries and so on compared with its standing instructions on size. This is something on which it will take its instructions from Parliament, and something on which, with the co-operation of the Minister, I am quite sure a number of us can bottom out. I hope most of all, and this is a perfectly genuine remark, that, at the end of what has been a testing period for this House, we can achieve what in my 10 years’ experience here has so often been achieved—that is, we can give the Government their legislation in a form that makes it still better than the form in which it was conceived.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am not sure whether I can still intervene on my noble friend before he sits down, but I put the point to him: he is right to have said that there needs to be a proper emphasis on numerical equality, and we have to get the question of local boundaries into the right perspective but not jeopardise the highly desirable objectives that the Government have of achieving numerical equality. However, does my noble friend think it acceptable that the tolerances should be so tight around the norm that the system will mean that county boundaries and even ward boundaries are routinely crossed?

[Lord Lipsey]

Absolutely not. Indeed, the 10 per cent rule does not entirely avoid the contravening of county boundaries; there are two cases in which county boundaries would have to be contravened even then.

All this is a matter of getting the right balance in the rules and tolerances to achieve equality of size without trampling over local loyalties. That is what I believe a group of people from this House—and from elsewhere, if necessary—sitting down with good will could readily and easily achieve, to the great benefit of this legislation and of the country.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I should like to bring to light some of the facts that should come to bear on this decision. I do not think that anybody on the government side has yet spelled out a very good reason for thinking that 600 is the magic number and that 650 is the wrong number. That is a subject on which a judgment can be reached only in the light of all the facts about what is going on and what is likely to happen if we do not do anything about it.

One of the underlying assumptions made by the Government in all their speeches on prior clauses of the Bill is that there has been a tendency for the number of Members of Parliament to increase. Let us look at the facts. Yes, it is true that if you choose as your base date 1950 there has been a small increase from 625 Members of the Commons then to 650 today. It is an increase. But why take 1950? You might, for example, take 1983, which is, after all, more than a quarter of a century ago. Since 1983, the number of Members of the House of Commons has not changed; it has remained at 650. Alternatively, and this is a historically-minded House, one might go back to 1918, when the number of Members of the House of Commons was 707. I readily accept that there are explanations both for the increases and decreases, to some of which I shall come shortly, but this is a case not of an upwards trend ad infinitum but of fluctuations based on various things. One of those things which has tended to force the number perhaps to be higher than might be essential is Welsh representation—we shall come to that later in the Bill; I think that the proposal to cut it from 40 to 30 is too draconian, but, equally, 40 may be rather too many and there might be a saving to be made there.

It has to be accepted that, in the previous rules of the Boundary Commission, which have to be put right, there has been a contradiction which has caused some small change in the rise in the number of Members of the House of Commons. As I understand it, rule 1 requires that the House of Commons does not grow in total size, and rule 5 requires indivisible units—for example, counties—to be allocated the number of seats which makes each constituency as near as possible to the desired quota. This, in technical language, requires rounding-off at the harmonic mean, which is always beyond the arithmetic mean. If anyone wants me to go into that in more detail, I can guarantee to take up all day and all night in doing so, but I very much doubt that it would greatly be for the elucidation of the Committee. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench would suggest that I do not do any such thing since it would cut across our desire to give this Bill the correct scrutiny in the minimum time that is necessary. Without going into those conflicts in the rules, I suggest that it would be possible to amend the rules in a quite a minor way to reduce that inflating factor in so far as it exists.

I have said that the number of MPs has not increased much. What has indisputably and hugely increased is the number of electors each MP has to service. Let us take 1950, which is the basis for comparison that is most favourable to the Government’s case. As my noble and learned friend said, the number of MPs is up 3 per cent and the electorate is up 25 per cent. If my schoolboy arithmetic is correct, electorate per MP is up 22 per cent. Let us again, because this is a historic House, take the longer perspective. In 1918, the average MP represented 30,000 electors. In 1950, the number was 55,000 electors. In 1983, it was 65,000 and, in 2005, it was 68,000. Under this Bill, that will go up to 75,000 electors. That is an increase two-and-a-half times over. It is possible that that is not right, but it seems a pretty big increase, the last bit of which is entirely due to the reduction brought about by this Bill.

That of course is electors per MP. However, the MP’s workload—and there are many former Members of another place who will no doubt give the House the benefit of their own experience—does not just depend on the number of electors, it depends on how many people live in their constituency. There are some very large discrepancies between the number of people and the number of electors. I have not been able to find, given the truncated timetable we are working to, an actual figure of number of people per electorate since 1918, but I can absolutely guarantee, I think, that it will have grown faster than the number of electors per MP, with immigration and the lack of people registering as a result. It is population that is the generator of workload.

Then, workload per person in your electorate has increased. Last time I spoke on a related matter in this House I mentioned that when I started work for Tony Crosland back in 1972 we got 30 letters a week from his Grimsby constituents and they could all be happily dealt with by an excellent part-time secretary in consultation with the local party. The situation today is nothing like that. It is not just numbers—the 300 letters my noble friend cited—but it is the sheer complexity of the cases. The complexity of an immigration case is enormous, which is of course why the cost to the Commons has gone up. It is not that there are more MPs—that has been a trivial factor. In order to perform the services that the people of this country expect them to perform, MPs need far more caseworkers to help them with constituency cases.

There is another factor which is much less remarked on but I think is quite important. The psephological evidence, until reasonably recently, was unambiguous. It did not matter how hard an MP worked or how lazy he was; there was practically no incumbent effect on subsequent general elections. Whether you won or not depended nearly entirely on the popularity of your party and not on how good a job you did. I hate saying it because I know it might offend some people who were MPs many years ago when that was so. However, I am afraid that the psephological evidence is unambiguous. That evidence has now changed. I will not go into the full detail—I would advise noble Lords that they can read the Curtice appendix to the Cowley and Kavanagh book on the 2010 general election. You will find that even MPs who had been at the heart of expenses scandals did better than new candidates who had not been in the House before. It is absolutely unambiguous evidence. I do not think that anybody in this Chamber would doubt for a minute that the great majority, even near to saying all, Members of Parliament, whatever their other faults and virtues, are deeply assiduous in servicing the needs of their constituencies and constituents. It is a plus factor for me that they get a bit of appreciation for that. I have known Members who lost their seats who were deeply upset for years afterwards because they thought their constituents had not shown them the gratitude they felt they had earned. Well now, their constituents are starting to show gratitude and that is a great thing.

Then there is the question of workload other than constituency work. There are 240 places now to be filled on departmental Select Committees—they did not exist really when I started in business—and 227 other places in committees. There is the sheer volume of legislation, I admit often guillotined down the other end, but you have to read the thing if you are going to take any part. The size of Bills has increased exponentially, largely as a result of the demise of the typewriter and the growth of the word processor which means there is no incentive whatever for draftsmen to cut anything out and every incentive to put things in because nothing has to be retyped. There is the huge effort of looking after our demanding press. There is the huge effort of dealing with the new profession of public affairs consultants, all of whom have good reason to come and see you about matters of one kind of another. The average MP today works far, far harder than the average MP did in the past. That is not going to change and it is the reason why most MPs today have to be full-time Members of Parliament. It makes me wonder whether it is a good idea to cut their numbers when they are having to work very much harder.

Then there is the question, which was again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maples, of the ratio of members of the Government to Back-Benchers. This measure would make that ratio worse at a stroke. At the moment, the number of Ministers and Whips in the lower House is roughly just over a third of the number of Back-Benchers. This legislation would change that to 40 per cent. Among the remaining Back-Benchers there are some who are essentially the equivalent of Ministers, in the sense that they will do whatever the Government ask, however awful, in the hope of getting promotion out of the Prime Minister. Therefore, the number of independent Back-Benchers in another place, on whom we rely so much to hold the Government to account, is going to diminish. We have heard airy words that perhaps Prime Ministers in future will appoint fewer Ministers. I have been hearing them for 25 years too and of course it never happens because by appointing somebody a Minister a Prime Minister can bind them to him. On top of that there is the increased number of victims these days of sexual scandal or alleged blunder of one kind or another appearing in the newspapers. There is a greater turnover of Ministers as a result and, in my opinion, the Prime Minister will continue to appoint just as many. Whether all of them have full jobs to do is another matter, but there are good reasons to do it. He also has to maintain party balance and now, coalition balance, because some of the most fed up people with the emergence of this coalition Government are those people, mostly in the Tory party, who thought before they would get jobs and now find themselves on the Back Benches. Disgruntled does not begin to describe their mood. So there will not be fewer Ministers; it is a pity therefore that there will be fewer Back-Benchers. It also reduces what Professor Anthony King in a notable phrase has called the “gene pool” that is available. The fewer Back-Benchers available to promote the less possibility there is of new and excellent talent emerging to replace talent that is exhausted, talent that has destroyed itself and so on. That is another cost of the diminution.

Finally, we come back to the last argument which is extant of those who say that there is an evident case for reducing the number of MPs—and that is money. They say they will save money by doing it. That is not obvious to me because if the work has still to be done, it has still to be paid for. You may have fewer MPs but you are going to have more constituency workers per MP. You must do in order for them to cope with the sheer volume of correspondence and so on. The only saving I can see is that there will be the saving of 50 MPs’ salaries—that comes to a little over £3 million a year. Of that, £1 million will be lost in income tax so that is about £2 million. You could raise that by a decent tax on one banker’s bonus. This makes me feel that the money argument is really just a populist argument, as indeed is the whole argument for reducing the number of MPs. It is not based on fact, it is not based on analysis, it was pulled out of a hat in an attempt to satisfy a popular anti-MP mood, and it is your Lordships’ duty, and a duty in which we should take pleasure, to say hold on, let us look at the facts, let us see whether this decrease is really justified. If it is not, we are entitled to ask the House of Commons to think again.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Is there not a danger that if the workload remains the same and the number of MPs is reduced there will be an increase in the number of Members’ staff, which will in itself almost certainly lead to less of a direct contact between the Member and those he seeks to represent, which cannot be a good thing for democracy.

[Lord Lipsey]

My noble friend is absolutely right about that. It will also mean that the queue of people waiting to become MPs will be even longer since in my experience most of these MPs’ staff are waiting only for the moment when they can jump into the shoes of the man whom they so loyally serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I want to contribute only very briefly. I echo what my noble friend Lord Baker said earlier about the experience that some of us had some years ago. I do not go back as far as he does in parliamentary experience, but when I was elected in 1974 there was very limited support for the Back-Bench Member. I remember that well.

What has been interesting about this debate is that a number of colleagues—from both sides of the House, as it happens—have contributed on the basis of their experience of the other place. With the exception, I think, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, every one of the speakers has spoken with that experience and authority.

[Lord Lipsey]

May I correct the noble Lord? I was never in another place.

[Lord Tyler]

I am so apologetic. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness made this point earlier: we have all experienced the noble Lord’s considerable contribution so we have all assumed that he must have had such influence in the other place behind the scenes that he was, in effect, an ex officio Member.

My point is that over the past two hours and 46 minutes I have taken the opportunity to read the Third Reading debate in the other place. These are the real, live witnesses of the experiences of current Members of Parliament, and they have been able directly to influence the Bill, taking up the big issues, as they see them, on the basis of their practical experience. They did not spend two hours and 46 minutes discussing the reduction—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

55: Clause 10, page 8, line 14, leave out “2013” and insert “2015”

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, with this amendment, we pick up some of the debates that we were having on Monday night—I fear that we must have done something on Monday night that made noble Lords feel that they did not wish to remain in the Chamber for the whole of the subsequent debate.

In that debate, we were discussing the timetable for the re-warding of constituencies. The word that was used for the Government’s timetable, which means that this will be done by 2013, was “achievable”. I agree with that; that timetable is achievable. I have checked with experts in the matter and there is no doubt that, if the right resources are applied to the Boundary Commission, it can be achieved. However, I understand from reading the newspapers that a man recently achieved the feat of rolling a marble up a 12,000-foot mountain with his nose, so that feat is achievable too, but it does not make it sensible or a very good way to climb mountains. In the same way, I am going to argue that 2013 is not a sensible date by which to seek to conclude the first boundary review.

We have to understand that there is a toxic blend of two elements in this first review. The first is well understood—the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600. We will come back to whether that is a good or bad move later, but that is the Government’s policy and it is part of what has to be dealt with in the boundary review. The second element in the toxic blend going forward is the five-yearly review, which means that reviews are going to happen every five years and cause upheaval.

However, what has to be understood is that this first re-warding is going to create greater upheaval than any review before because it will have the whole of the 50-seat reduction as well as having to adhere to the 5 per cent margin. It is hard to exaggerate how radical this review is going to be and how much upheaval it is going to cause. Just to take one example from the many that I could go into, Democratic Audit, an independent think tank, calculates that if these provisions on 600 seats and 5 per cent tolerance go through, there will be only nine counties out of the 46 in England where county boundaries are still respected in the drawing of constituencies. If my arithmetic is right, that means that there are 37 counties where county boundaries will cease to exist. That applies again for local authority ward boundaries. This is a complete redrawing of the electoral map, yet it has to be done not in five years, which will be the timetable for subsequent reviews, but in just over two years. This extraordinary upheaval has to be crammed into two years.

This decision has not been made out of a desire to get the task done well or anything like that; it has been made, quite frankly, because the Tories believe that they will win more seats under this disposition. The really peculiar thing, which I find almost impossible to believe, is that no independent person who has looked at it thinks that this is likely to be true. For example, Democratic Audit, which has done the most detailed analysis, says that of the 50 seats lost under the Bill, 17 will be Tory and 18 will be Labour. There will not be much difference and that is well within the margin of error. On seeing the 300 pages of legislation before the House, I think that that is an awful lot of trouble to go to to win one extra seat. Still, politicians will be politicians.

One has to think also of the side effects. For example, in order to get this job done in just over two years, public inquiries are to be abolished. We will come to the case for and against public inquiries later in our debate, but this seems a curious reason to abolish public inquiries—not because they are good or bad things, or because they contribute or do not contribute, or whatever, but in order to get to an arbitrary, politically imposed timetable for the new boundaries to be placed. When you take into account the fact that the political advantage is illusory, the proposal beggars belief.

Therefore, I propose the year 2015 for the completion of the first review under this Bill. It would allow a less hurried approach and, should the House decide so to rule later, would mean that public inquiries could be restored and that we would get more sensible boundaries at the end of the process. My amendment would not change what will happen; it would just change the time at which it will happen. I believe that I am proposing a more sensible pace for what is a fundamental reform.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I think that this clause is deeply suspect. I support the amendment of my noble friend and I should happily vote for other amendments giving slightly more time for a Boundary Commission to undertake its task. It is quite extraordinary that it is now felt responsible to compress the time available for a Boundary Commission to undertake its work into about the half the time that it traditionally takes, while imposing on it quite unprecedented constraints—the need at the same time to achieve the maximum 5 per cent limit and to reduce the total number of MPs by the arbitrary figure of 50.

If you have a contractor or several contractors bidding for your business and one says that he can build your house, motorway, piece of machinery, factory or whatever in half the time that it has always taken in the past, and in half the time that the competitors say that they need, you would be sensible to be alert at least to the possibility that serious corners are being cut. It is clear that serious corners, including any sense of public inquiries or appeals, are being cut.

Such inquiries are essential in the democratic process. I have given evidence in a public inquiry on a Boundary Commission report. We did not carry the day, but I and those who supported the same point of view all felt at the end of the process that we had had a thorough and fair hearing and that it was an essential part of democracy that such a debate should take place in public about proposed new constituency boundaries. That is the only way in which the public can be reassured that nothing surreptitious is going on and that there is no hanky-panky on the part of the Government covertly trying to influence the result of what should be obviously an entirely objective non-party-political process. Those things are terribly important. All those safeguards are going out of the window.

If I was a member of the Boundary Commission, I should like to have the mechanism of the public inquiry and the appeal process preserved. I would feel it much more likely that I did a good and proper job if there was that check and balance in the system. I should welcome the opportunity to listen openly and frankly to the expression of other views on a particular determination that I might make and to think again in the light of that. I should feel that I was doing a much better job having had that opportunity and that there was much less of a possibility that there might be some angle or consideration that had been neglected.

I do not think that it is a matter of dispute that a corner is being cut in this case and I do not think that it can really be a matter of dispute that this is a very serious corner that is being cut. It is more than a corner because it is something quite fundamental to the process and to public confidence in it. What is being cut out is, if you like, the dialogue between the bureaucracy, or the agency in the form of the Boundary Commission, on the one side and the general public on the other. It is a serious matter.

I have listened to a lot of the debates, although I have not contributed before, but I have yet to hear from the government side a cogent reason as to why this has to take place. The only answer that we get is that it has to happen by the time of the next election. That takes us back to the gerrymandering issue that has been raised on many occasions. Why does it have to happen by the next election? We are trying to get the electoral process right, so if we are going to make substantial changes let us go through the process carefully and thoroughly so as to make sure that we take the public with us. We should make sure that we have something that is valid not just for the next election but for generations to come. We cannot keep coming back to this matter.

Frankly, the haste is unworthy of the democratic process and unworthy of the way that constitutional changes should be carefully deliberated in this place. I intend to support amendments along the lines of those put forward by my noble friends that would extend the time available to the Boundary Commissions to complete the deeply delicate task with which they are now going to be confronted if this Bill gets on to the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his full answer to the amendment, but I am puzzled. It is wonderful that here is an attempted partisan redrawing of boundaries, which alas has been botched, so it will not have the effect that the party dealing with the changes in the boundaries intends. The noble and learned Lord says that that shows it was never intending the partisan effect in the first place. Others will no doubt decide whether that is an objectively sustainable claim.

More seriously, the problem is not really with getting up-to-date electorates. We would all be in favour of that, but the trouble is that it is being brought forward not only for that reason but for the others I have mentioned, including a believed partisan effect. It is the combined effect of trying to get a more recent database with a 5 per cent tolerance that is being introduced that my noble friends have been pointing out. Some of these changes are very delicate and they will be particularly so if they are happening everywhere. The 5 per cent means that nearly every constituency in the land has to be redrawn and nearly every ward will have its boundaries crossed, involving all the problems with the names of constituencies. That is why it will not prove a successful, speedy attempt.

I shall not seek the opinion of the House. It will be easier to take a view on this amendment, as on the others before it, when we have seen the whole picture in this Committee stage on the whole of this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

57: Clause 10, page 8, line 15, leave out “fifth” and insert “seventh”

[Lord Lipsey]

Goodness, you hardly get to sit down before you have to stand up again.

I am not sure that this amendment is right. It suggests a seven-year periodicity of reviews instead of five years. I am not sure whether seven years is the right answer. At the moment we have reviews broadly every 10 years, which is broadly every two elections. Seven years would not sustain that, although there is a case that it should be sustained. I am sure, however, that five years is daft. It is strange coming from a coalition Government led by a Conservative Party, but five years is a recipe for permanent revolution. It will mean much upheaval; you will hardly have finished with one review of boundaries before settling into another. It means that there will be no stability in the system and many people will only just have discovered who their MP is when it changes, not as a result of their decision at a general election but a Boundary Commission decision. That is the result of a combination, which I believe is toxic, of the 5 per cent variance in the size of constituencies and the five-yearly reviews of constituency boundaries.

Stability matters tremendously to MPs. Under this system, they will hardly get back into the other end before they will be wondering which seat to look to represent next time. Will your present seat continue to exist or, if its population is growing, is it about to be dismembered and replaced by another constituency? Every Member of another place will, under this system, be carrying a permanent carpet bag, ready to find himself or herself a new seat.

I do not think that that is a good recipe for anything, including the good governance of this country. If you are thinking the whole time about where your seat is going to be, you are not going to be thinking the whole time about what policy should be. Some of us believe that there has been a dangerous development in our politics, whereby the sheer degree of constituency issues which every MP must consider—I defer to those who have been Members of another place; I may be quite wrong about this—and the sheer weight of constituency work which they face, make it extremely hard to give attention to the wider national issues for which, in a sense, they are elected.

That has been a substantial change over the years. If you read the biography of Gladstone by Roy Jenkins, you will find that he hopped constituencies every few years and had no constituency work or contact at all. Nowadays, any MP has to be deeply embedded in their constituency—a bit like bishops. The ones who are doing a good job really know their areas, their patch, and their people. They will not get embedded in that way if, at the next general election, they know that their patch and their people may be completely changed and that they may be starting again on fresh turf, as Gladstone did. Gladstone ran the Midlothian campaign, but I did not hear of him running many campaigns for the repair of drains in the constituencies that he represented.

That instability for MPs is not the main problem. Anyone who seeks a sympathy vote for MPs is on a losing wicket these days. The main point is the effect that it can have on constituents. Constituents come in all shapes and sizes. I am sure that every Member of this House who has been a Member of another place had many constituents that they would have been delighted never to see again at their surgery doors, but they built up a relationship with their people and people built up a relationship with their Member.

When I was working as a political journalist, I found, when I had conversations with a Member of another place about the great issues of politics, that I was often not wholly overwhelmed by the breadth of knowledge and vision that they had on world problems, and so on. Where I always learnt from any conversation that I had with a Member of another place was when they turned to the issues in their constituency. That is how I understood the reality of the decline of manufacturing industry. It is there where you understand the dilemmas involved in what services you improve and what services you have to hold back on. That was the whole basis of what they brought to our national government and governance.

We had a wonderful example from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, this afternoon. Could that knowledge be picked up by anyone who happened to be passing through Jarrow on a Sunday afternoon? Would that knowledge be held by the civil servants sitting in Whitehall, or even in the north-east? No, it was detailed constituency knowledge based, as the noble Lord said, on 50 years of living there and representing people there. That is a terrible thing to throw lightly aside, and it is the constituents who will lose. They will not know who to write to; they will not know whether to trust who they write to; they will not know what they are hoping to achieve when they do; and they will not have that intimate relationship that both they and MPs value so much.

It is very noticeable from opinion polling that if you ask people what they think of MPs in general, it is unspeakable. They think that they are nasty, self-seeking men and women on the take. I think they are wrong, mostly, but that is what they think. However, if you ask people what they think about their MP, you get a very different picture of affection and respect that is, in most cases, earned by hard work based on the knowledge that the MP wishes to retain the relationship between him and the constituency he represents for many years ahead. That will go under this Bill, and part of the mechanism by which it will go is the demand that the constituency boundaries be revised every five years.

Whatever we decide on the right variance between constituencies, and we may well make a decision, and whatever we decide about the number of MPs, and we may well make a decision, I hope that between now and the final passage of the Bill, it will not be totally impossible for the Government to think again on this issue and to space the reviews more widely so that this relationship can survive. Not much rope now attaches the people to our politics. It has grown thinner and thinner. The people’s confidence in politics has diminished, as, I fear, has their confidence in Parliament, but it is the constituency relationship and a consistent constituency relationship—

[Lord Tyler]

Before he completes his speech, will the noble Lord explain the rationale behind the selection of seven years for the review? By definition, that would mean that more constituencies would be subject to change than if it was five years. If he went for a longer period, presumably even more constituencies would be subject to change, so all the arguments that he has been advancing, which I entirely endorse as someone who was very proud to represent an interesting part of the country, would fall by the wayside if more constituencies were changed as a result of his proposal.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I have been on my feet in successive speeches, and he must have missed the beginning of my speech when I said that I was not sure that seven years was right. I was simply sure that five years was not right. That is why we have a Committee stage in this place: so that we can explore these things and come to a correct decision when we get to Report. If the decision was made for 10 years, I certainly would see no reason to suppose that it was wrong. I think that five years has a particular defect that seven years avoids, which is that in five years you know exactly the time. If we have fixed-term Parliaments, the chicken run starts two years before each general election, so there are only three years in which it does not start. Seven years would avoid that, so at least you would get another election after you were first elected, and then you would have a period of uncertainty. However, if the noble Lord wished to move an amendment that proposed 10 years, I should be an enthusiastic supporter of it, and it would be good to see him doing it. All I am saying to the House this afternoon, and I am not sure whether he disagrees, is that a five-year permanent revolution under the Conservatives is too short a period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I am interested in the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, put forward in support of his amendment. But there has been an unspoken premise throughout this short debate that the Boundary Commission will inevitably shake the kaleidoscope and the picture that emerges from it will be quite different from before. That will not necessarily be the case. Certainly, as a consequence of the reduction in the number of parliamentary seats that is proposed in the Bill, on the first occasion there will be a considerable change in the shape of constituencies. But once that position has become settled—and I do not imagine that even the most ardent constitutional reformer would anticipate that altering the size of the House of Commons would become a matter of custom—the stability of the total numbers is highly predictable.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, whom I hugely respect on constitutional matters, for giving way. The reason that there will be permanent upheaval is the 5 per cent limit. The reduction of MPs is indeed a one-off effect, but as soon as you go one voter over the 5 per cent, that constituency has to change, which has a knock-on effect on the next constituency, which has a knock-on effect on the next and the next. I know that the noble Lord is an avid reader on the subject and I recommend the work of Democratic Audit, which would explain to him very clearly that what I say may be desirable or undesirable, but it is the factual situation that will result from the Government’s Bill.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I accept that some changes will flow from that. In another place, I went through nine different elections and each time the Boundary Commission reported there were some marginal changes. It is marginal changes that are likely to take effect. These were, in the cases I recall that affected me, changes to enlarge the electorate because I had both the second largest constituency in geography and the second smallest in numbers of electors to begin with. Naturally enough, there was an attempt to increase them.

The thought that the Boundary Commission would be likely to upset the prospects for a sitting Member seems nothing compared to the probability that if we had a fairer electoral system, it would more adequately represent the electors by ensuring that their votes and the numbers of their votes were reflected—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The contributions that we have heard from a number of former Members of Parliament indicate that, notwithstanding what was happening, they continued to apply themselves with considerable and utmost diligence to the task in hand representing the constituents who elected them in the constituency for which they were elected at the previous election. As my noble friend Lord Maclennan said, his constituency was increased by some 25 per cent and he accommodated that. I recall the effort that he made to address the needs of those new constituents. Even under the present system, new boundaries are drawn and come into effect at a general election. Anyone who wishes to see their current MP can readily find out who he or she is if they do not know, and indeed they do so. At an election they will know who the candidates are and will choose how to cast their votes. The two matters are separate for electors. As I indicated, the important principle here is fairness to electors. On that basis, I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, referred to the length of time that has been devoted to scrutinising the Bill. However, the quality of scrutiny does not depend primarily on the amount of time that it takes but on the willingness of the Government to listen and respond to the arguments that are put to them and, where necessary, to facilitate discussions designed to narrow differences between Members of all parties and none, so that, wherever possible—I accept that in many cases this will not be possible—differences are resolved and the Bill that goes forward is improved. Therefore, I do not suggest that the quality of scrutiny depends primarily on the amount of time involved.

[Lord Soley]

The point that my noble friend makes is important but it is profoundly important when you are looking at a constitutional Bill.

[Lord Lipsey]

I totally agree with that point, particularly in relation to a constitutional Bill that, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace—we may or may not accept those reasons—did not receive proper scrutiny before it came into this House or proper analysis by Select Committees and Joint Committees such as a Bill should have.

That brings me directly to the central point that I want to make. The real issue is that five-yearly reviews, although they have advantages, as they constitute a more recent reflection of the electorate, will lead to mighty upheavals. That is a matter of fact. As we do not have the opinion of Joint Committees or Select Committees on this issue, we have to go outside. I have in front of me the excellent report produced by the British Academy, which has been often cited in this debate, as it provides facts on this subject. It states:

“With a quota of just under 70,000, more than one-third of constituencies would almost immediately have been outside any +/-5% constraint”.

That is, as soon as the constituencies were in place, they were immediately, as soon as the new numbers came along, outside the constraint. The report goes on to say that,

“by the time the first election was held using the constituencies … as many as one-half may have been”,

outside the constraint. That refers just to those directly outside the constraint. It does not deal with all the other constituencies that, where you make the appropriate changes, are also outside the constraint.

Therefore, the facts as we know them suggest that there will be a considerable upheaval. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and his officials can produce evidence that this is a greatly exaggerated case, fine—we will accept it. If it does not cause all the difficulties that I suggested, I would be delighted. However, on the facts as we know them, it looks as if the combination—it is the combination that is toxic—of 5 per cent tolerance and five-yearly reviews is a recipe for permanent revolution. I therefore invite the Minister, who has been most patient and considerate in his approach to the Bill, to try to establish the facts before we get to Report stage and to give them to all Members of the House, who can then make a considered judgment as to whether this element of the Bill should remain as it is. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I have two fundamental questions. First, what work have the Government done on calculating how many constituencies might change hands? Obviously the noble and learned Lord cannot answer that with certainty but the Government must have done some work on it. What is the estimate? Secondly, am I right in my construction of the rule, which appears to be inconsistent with the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of the Bill? Thirdly, I invite the Government, if they are serious about the recurring 18 months, to table an amendment to the Bill to allow for a recalibration if there is an election outside whatever the fixed term is under the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Lipsey]

I rise briefly to support my noble and learned friend. His amendment calls attention to something that is implicit in the whole structure of the Bill. It is simply too rigid to be fit for purpose. There is the rigid 5 per cent tolerance, with only two exceptions. However, the real problem is the rigid five-year review timetable. If something gets knocked out of place in this timetable, the whole thing does not work and, as the noble and learned Lord said, one will get boundary reviews with no time for new candidates to be selected for seats. This is not a matter that should be difficult to rectify, and nor should there be much controversy about rectifying it. One simply has to allow the existing Government, when the situation arises, to relax the five-year rule. There is no problem in doing that if the will is there. If it is not, the Government will find that a great many people are cursing, because if there is an early election, as the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill will allow, the whole overrigid structure of the Bill will crumble.

[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.