Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Lipsey and Lord Soley

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey]

To fill the silence for a minute, my noble friend is of course right on his first point that this could lead to a small rise in the number of constituencies—I said half a dozen to a dozen. However, if the Government do not like that, since we are in Committee and these are exploratory proposals, they could remove rule 1 from my amendment and apply the other three rules as the exception. They would then need to change the formula, for reasons which will be evident, but they might have to change that anyway. On my noble friend’s second point, it is inconceivable in view of the guidance given to the Boundary Commission in the Bill on its general rules, that it would consider crossing a national boundary. What he describes is a perfectly fair theoretical possibility and if the Committee wished to nitpick, it could draw the Bill accordingly to prevent that in law. I do not think it would make any practical difference to his very good point.

[Lord Soley]

Briefly, I support my noble friend on this amendment. I agree entirely that it would be better if the Government chose to go for the 10 per cent rule option, which would take a lot of the sting out of this Bill and reduce the dangers of long-term gerrymandering. One of the things that constantly troubles me about the Bill is that, although we might not like the amount of time it is taking, it is allowing a situation where, after every Parliament, a Government come in and change the rules on boundaries and numbers in the House of Commons in a way that suits their party-political advantage. Down that road lies gerrymandering and I really do not recommend it. They really need to think again but, if they are not going to move on the 10 per cent rule, the proposal being put forward by my noble friend is a good one.

I have a couple of points on this amendment. First, last night I raised the issue of “may” in paragraph 5 of the proposed new schedule in Clause 11 as opposed to “shall” which, as the Committee will know, has a much stronger legal meaning. It would therefore state that,

“the Boundary Commission shall take into account”,

instead of “may”. That was on an amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. Unfortunately, the Minister replying at that time was not able to respond because he was rather sadly taken ill, as we know. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, tried to deal with it in passing but if we were to have that in, along with my noble friend’s amendment today, it would give the Boundary Commission not only greater flexibility but the strength to say that there are certain geographical or other factors, as listed in paragraph 5, that would allow it to override the rules in the four points of the allocation method.

I do not want to spend too much time on it, but I draw attention to this; the Committee has heard quite a bit, over the past day or so, of the problem of large, rural areas and the drawing of their boundaries. I really do not want to go into the details of my previous constituency, or others, but at times—and this would have applied to my constituency and to many other inner-city ones too—the Boundary Commission is faced with particularly difficult situations on areas which have suffered as a result of a development there which has divided the community in some way. It might be a major road, a shopping site or whatever. The Boundary Commission needs to have the ability to take that into account. That is why I would prefer the stronger wording in paragraph 5 to allow the Boundary Commission to say, “We regard this as being of such importance that it must override the four points otherwise”.

There are many examples; the geographical ones are probably the best, inasmuch as they deal with both rural and urban areas where the geography changes significantly. For example, the building of the Westway in London divided communities very significantly, which had a big effect on my constituency. Obviously, in rural areas it would be mountains, rivers, estuaries or whatever. That geography example is very important. To put the Boundary Commission into a position where it is, in my noble friend’s words, tied in to such a degree that it cannot be flexible is a big mistake. The same applies to headings (b), (c) and (d) in paragraph 5(1). All of those will come up from time to time and the Boundary Commission will be faced with that decision.

As I indicated yesterday, I would prefer a situation where we change the wording in the proposed new Schedule 2 to read “shall” not “may” and, at the same time, to accept my noble friend’s amendment. The better alternative is to accept the 10 per cent rule but the Government seem thoroughly dug in on that, for many wrong reasons. It is one of the things giving us so much trouble on this Bill, because of its long-term implications for the political structure of our Parliament. The Minister is always very thoughtful on these things. I appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could not answer the point about “shall” and “may” last night but perhaps the Minister could bear this in mind when he sums up: my noble friend’s amendment, combined with the use of “shall” instead of “may”, which therefore gives the Boundary Commission greater authority and strength in its decisions, would benefit the Bill. It would be a small step forward and I recommend it to the Government.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Lipsey and Lord Soley

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Lipsey and Lord Soley

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

I think that my noble friend should arrange a special showing of that election broadcast in the House; I would like to see what I missed. On a more serious note, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. He has hit on an important point. It is worth remembering that there are different electoral systems within the UK for different elections, so it needs to be made clear that we are separating out the referendum from the party-political agenda. The second amendment is particularly important in this respect. I would have thought that there was a strong case for the Government simply to accept that amendment, although they may want to reword it. I hope that in due course they will say that the principle that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench is putting forward is right and ought to be protected.

[Lord Lipsey]

I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s amendment. The need for it reflects in part the baleful effects of the Government’s plan to have the referendum on the same day as other elections, because inevitably there will be a cluster of party-political broadcasts as part of the campaigns. That means that a ban of this kind is all the more essential because there will be a temptation at times for various parties to include the referendum in those broadcasts. Of course, it is possible that the referendum will not take place on 5 May—we shall see—but the circumstances in which it took place later could mean that the ability to use a party-political broadcast to campaign for or against AV could considerably prejudice the result of that referendum.

Let us take a case whereby the referendum is held at a time when the coalition has broken up, which seems a more likely prospect today than it would have done about a fortnight ago. In that circumstance, the Conservatives would no longer have any inhibition about campaigning flat out for what they believe in, which is that AV is a bad thing, and they could well wish to devote a party-political broadcast—or party-political broadcasts, come to that—to smashing into AV, if only in the hope of defeating their erstwhile friends in the Liberal Democrats on something that they greatly want.

The idea of party-political broadcasts, although they are propagandist things, is that they are balanced; everyone gets a go at one, so they cancel each other out. Within a referendum campaign, however, to allow for party-political broadcasts arguing one side of the case where it is a matter of chance whether or not there is a party-political broadcast arguing the other seems to be an extremely unfair way to conduct the campaign. I therefore support my noble and learned friend’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley]

I do not want to continue the discussions that we have had other than to close them down. This is all the fault of my old and noble friend Lord Gilbert, with whom I had the great pleasure to be an international observer at the first free elections in Mongolia, which was quite an experience for both of us—and an even bigger experience for the Mongolians. I should say, in case I misled the House or the Minister, that I did not intend to imply—and I do not think that I implied—that the Electoral Commission was passive, which was the word that he used. I simply tried to describe the dilemma facing organisations such as the Electoral Commission as to whether Parliament should make more detailed rules, or whether they should make them and keep things on a very simple basis. That is a very important debate, but it is one that we get to under Clause 9.

[Lord Lipsey]

In the same spirit, I think that I misrepresented Schedule 1, and therefore the Minister, because there is a proposal in there on which it would be possible to hang a discussion about a possible leaflet—namely, the public information measures. I apologise for that and ask the Minister to confirm that it would be fully in order for the House to have a proper debate about the very important issues raised about the leaflet when we get to Schedule 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lipsey]

Perhaps I might make a helpful suggestion to the Minister to move things on, because we are getting into other waters. He said something incredibly helpful just now: that this is intended to give part of the powers to be exercised by a Secretary of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Wales—by a territorial Minister; that is what the noble Lord said, as he will find when he checks in Hansard—and part of them to be exercised by the Lord President. That is perfectly sensible and a very good description. All he therefore needs to do is to agree to introduce at the next stage of the Bill an amendment that makes that clear and we can move on.

[Lord Soley]

I would not have intervened again, except for the way that the Minister addressed his last comment. That was not helpful. It is where he actually makes matters worse. My noble friend Lord Rooker is exactly right. The noble Lord talked about his vast experience but I know of many experiences of both kinds of Government increasing a Bill by piling in extra clauses that then come before this House. It does not help to try and score a party-political point. The other side of the argument is that on the last occasion we debated this—I forget which day that was—I quoted from a Conservative MP’s letter, which stated very clearly that he had only five minutes to discuss an issue of great importance and did not have time to speak at all on the main debate for it. There were members of the Minister’s Government complaining about lack of time.

My advice to the Minister is not to get into this party-political knockabout. A Bill like this, which is very important to the Government but very complex, will inevitably expand over time if it is hurried through in the way that the Government are doing. That is what has happened and that is why all those extra clauses, to which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred, have been added. It also explains why some people on the Minister’s own side who were opposed to certain aspects of it complained about the lack of time in the House of Commons. I simply say: for heaven’s sake, drop this idea that it is all one party’s fault. That is nonsense.