Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the basis that, if the boundaries are to be reviewed, the numbers should be as accurate as possible. First, however, I did not agree with what my own Government did in relation to changing the arrangements for registering for elections. I thought the head of the household system was far better than individual registration, and far more likely to ensure that more people were registered. I am worried about the effect that it will have when we move on to individual registration. I think that 17 or 18 year-olds are less likely to fill in forms, whereas the head of the household could ensure that all of the people of voting age were registered. I think it is a pity that we have moved in that direction.

However, the introduction of the rolling register, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, has significantly improved the situation. More and more people are registering now instead of having to wait for one particular date to register. That has been a great improvement.

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said that the numbers could be more accurate if an effort was made—I want to come to that point—to make sure that people are registered. He mentioned that two of the areas in which there was the lowest registration were Lambeth and Glasgow—he mentioned Glasgow in particular. I draw to the attention of the House what happened in Glasgow over the few months up to the end of November. Because the problems of under-registration were causing concern to MPs in Glasgow, they asked the leader of the council, Councillor Gordon Matheson, to carry out an exercise of going around the city to see if people were not registered who ought to be. During the course of just a few months, nearly 36,000 extra voters were registered. That is an astonishing number. If that was carried out in every constituency, in every city, and in every county, then we would get a much more accurate picture of those people who are not now registered and who ought to be.

I have raised this in the context of other areas, and I have been told that it is too late now to get registered if the timetable in this Bill is adhered to. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is the case and whether we could ask each council to undertake the kind of exercise that was carried out in Glasgow.

If it is too late, then we need to consider alternatives, but if it is not, we should be getting MPs to encourage councils to carry out this kind of exercise. Before my noble friend Lord Rooker raised it, I, too, had written down the question of the census. That is another opportunity to gather a more accurate picture of those who are eligible to vote. It would be helpful if, in his reply, the Minister would indicate whether it is possible to get the census enumerators, as they go around, to ask an additional question, about registration —the names of the people in the household over 18 or those who will attain the age of 18 by a particular date. They could hand forms out when they are going around, or leaflets. That is my order of preference—to get them registered and take a note of it, then to give them a form and, failing that, to give them a leaflet. That would help.

I do not want to hold back the House unduly regarding this, but one of the things that has been noticed, and this has been said by some other colleagues in previous debates, is that it is funny seeing the two former Chancellors on the Benches opposite. It is a bit like the characters in the gallery on “The Muppets”, sitting there commenting on events.

[Lord McAvoy]

Waldorf and Statler.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Waldorf and Statler, my noble friend says. I should say that they are distinguished ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer. As they have been around a great deal longer than I have, they will recall—I saw this when we were in opposition in the House of Commons, even when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, and I saw it again when Labour was in power and Tony Blair was Prime Minister—that, as one of my noble friends said earlier, when we went through these kinds of debates in Committee, week in, week out, the Minister would say, “That’s a very good point; I’ll take that away and look at it and come back on Report”. On this Bill, we have had one occasion when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said that—one miserable occasion. Even then, he did not say that he agreed; he said that he would take it back and have a look at it without any guarantee, sympathy or consideration.

I think that we could make even better progress through the Bill if, day after day and week after week, the Minister were to say, “That’s a good point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has made a good point on this”, or, “The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has made an excellent point on that; I’ll take it away and look at it and see what can be done about it”. So far, though, one such response in six sessions is a very low batting average. It makes the English cricket team look good in comparison. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, whom I have known for a very long time, will recognise the validity of the argument that if you are to have a fair election and fair boundaries, you need to ensure that everyone over the age of 18 is taken account of in drawing up those boundaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McAvoy]

Does my noble friend agree with my findings, not on a scientific basis, that during and after the poll tax fiasco the importance of people wanting to be on the register was undermined because a whole strata of people found there was a financial advantage not to be registered and somehow there was something lost in the community about the importance of wanting to register? No matter how allegedly better the registers are now, there must be a residual effect of the poll tax. So it may be better but there is residual damage.

[Lord Lipsey]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. Indeed it is not just the poll tax; there are a number of factors the whole time that cause people to avoid anything that identifies them as individuals and which they think the authorities could catch up with. It may be for bad reasons: they may perhaps be illegally in the country or fear they are here illegally; or good reasons: that they fall for some of the liberal myths about the nature of the modern state and think that they may all end up in prison if they are identified. I do not take it by any means for granted that the improvement in the electoral register will continue over time.

It is rather like opinion polls. Opinion polls measure less and less because fewer and fewer people are willing to answer the questions because they are frightened that they may be held to task for the answers they give. There is therefore a serious risk of the deterioration of the electoral registers, which makes it all the more wrong that this Bill should have the exact number on the electoral register and the exact number of people in each constituency as its target and also makes it right that, in so far as we can improve these things at all, the amendment moved by my noble friend should be adopted to make them as good as they can be. But that will never be very good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McAvoy]

My noble and learned friend complimented the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, on being open and on making the figures available. He did not quite make them available; he produced them only after a Parliamentary Question was put down. He did not for the sake of being helpful to all concerned put down figures for the whole of the UK by country. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton requested the figures for England; I have asked in a Written Question for the same figures for Scotland, so that I may make the same comparisons. The fact that the Government have not exactly rushed forward with the figures suggests not that they were hiding them but that they were not contributing to a wholly informed debate on people missing from the register.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I had not spotted that the figures did not include Scotland; we had the information for Wales. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was not asked about Scotland, which is why he produced figures only for England and Wales. He is in his place, but does not tell us. I do not know why he did not produce figures for Scotland. It would obviously be worth while to see them. I am sure, knowing the noble Lord as the Committee does, that he would be very willing to produce the Scottish figures. I am not sure whether the Front Bench are nodding or shaking their head. It would be good to see the Scottish figures. No doubt they will be produced in answer to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have to say to my very good and noble friend Lord Lipsey that I am totally and unconditionally opposed to this amendment. It completely undermines the intention behind those who are pursuing this legislation and indeed this system. It defeats the objective. If all the elector has to do is put a cross on the ballot paper, under this system it will invite precisely what has happened in Australia, which was referred to in that article by Rallings and Thrasher which I drew to the attention of the House a couple of weeks ago. They talk in Australia about people plumping. If you allow people just to use an X on the ballot paper, as my noble friend has said, canvassers—in particular Liberal Democrat canvassers, who are always masters of tactical voting—will go from door to door saying, “Don’t worry, don’t bother, we know it’s complicated. All you have got to do is put an X against the candidate you want”, completely undermining the system. I am surprised my noble friend did not see this problem inherent in the system when he decided to move this amendment. I do hope that the Government do not fall for this one, because if they do and then say that they have started to be flexible by giving way on amendments, that is not the kind of flexibility—

[Lord McAvoy]

Does my noble friend not realize that he has a problem with the language he is using? He spoke about “allowing” the voters to put an X. “Allowing” is strange language to use. They are going to force voters to vote a certain way or somehow they are invalid, undemocratic or they just do not count. “Allowing the voters” is strange to me.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Behind my noble friend’s intervention is his support for my noble friend Lord Lipsey. That is what he is arguing when he argues about the word “allow”. My noble friend will want to put his case to the House in support of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I hope the Government will not accept this amendment or anything resembling it.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I support my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The elegant speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, was a powerful argument in favour of the amendment. I was not convinced by the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and of some people who from a sedentary position said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is unnecessary. At all the counts that I have been to, where an X was not used—perhaps a 1, a tick or a signature was used—the votes are counted as doubtful. The candidates and the agents gather round as the returning officer goes through the count of the doubtful votes saying, “Yes, that is accepted” or “No, that is rejected”, and so on. Does that sound familiar to those others who have been candidates? It was certainly my experience.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is making it absolutely clear that if in this election an X is put on the ballot paper, it should count. It is then beyond peradventure or doubt. It is a clear indication of preference. I might have suggested some other indications of preference, such as a tick or some other indication that the candidate who has the mark next to their name—it could be a cross, a tick or another positive mark, as well as a 1—is the person chosen. I have the greatest admiration for my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He and I have been friends since we were elected together all those years ago and we have worked closely together. I say to him that I do not think it would be the Liberal Democrats but the Tories and us who would go around saying, “Put an X next to our man”, or, as an old friend of mine used to say, “Just put a kiss next to the guy you like”. That is a little old fashioned, although I see the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, likes the thought of it, which gives me some encouragement. I would certainly support it. This reminds me of the old story about people who would come in and sign an X when you said, “Would you sign here?”. I knew someone who put two Xs. I said, “Wait a minute. What’s the second X for?”. He said, “Oh, that’s my PhD”.

[Lord McAvoy]

I rise briefly to support my noble friend’s amendment. X has been around for a long time—not just in current elections or the past century’s elections. The amendment means that if we allowed people to put an X and everyone knew that, the various people who put ticks, 1s, kisses, sweethearts and all that sort of thing would then know that putting an X is a recognised way of voting. My noble friend is absolutely right about people not being able to read and write. I have my grandfather’s wedding certificate—or his wedding lines, as they are called in Scotland. It says, “Bernard McAvoy: his mark here”. The mark is an X. If it was good enough for him, it will be good enough for me and my noble friend.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, which is entirely appropriate. I do not quite follow the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Presumably a candidate could just go around inviting supporters to put a 1 beside their name and leave it at that. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is being a modern-day Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whom I remember opposing amendments that had been introduced for the avoidance of doubt on the grounds that there was no doubt to be avoided in the first place. However, in this case the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has raised an appropriate doubt that reflects people’s experiences. The amendment would be extremely valuable for that purpose. There is one other point. Particularly if it is a transitional period, many voters who have not got used to the new system might put an X against a name. If there are a large number of those, it would undermine the legitimacy of the system if all those votes were then discarded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In response to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has indicated that I might send him home happy. I hope that in the spirit of the remarks I am about to make he will still go to his Christmas retreat a happy man. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the amendment as drafted would not necessarily meet the point, but I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and other noble Lords who have supported him, some clear reassurance.

The amendment is unnecessary because in Schedule 10 to the Bill, on page 294—which I hope we will get to one day—it is stated at paragraph 6(2C) that under rule 47:

“A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which … is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but … is not a number (or is a number written otherwise than as an arabic numeral), shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number (written as an arabic numeral) had been marked instead”.

I hope that that addresses the issue. If there is one X, it will be very clear.

The important point is that the returning officer has discretion to make a judgment as to whether a clear intention has been made. That is why two Xs would not demonstrate a clear intention. I believe that one X would demonstrate a clear intention and that is provided for in the rules.

[Lord McAvoy]

In the past, I have seen a cross on someone’s name, which has been interpreted as, “We don’t want this one, and I am ruling them out”. Perhaps the situation is not quite as clear as the noble and learned Lord genuinely thinks.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is a matter for the returning officers to determine ultimately whether they believe an intention has been indicated.

--- Later in debate ---

My suggestion does not affect the Bill, the date or any preparations for the referendum, it does not affect the day; it affects only the way you count the votes. That is all. In that case, it might take a little bit longer. I know someone is going to say, “Oh, we can’t have decimal points on the vote”. Why not? We can count. People understand decimal points. Talking about voters not understanding things, I had people who could not write, but they could fill in a full perm on a football coupon though, and the women could read a knitting pattern, so do not talk to me about people not understanding. They understand the value whether it has a decimal point or not. It is either worth more or worth less. It is fair and very simple, and I offer it at this point in time—23.17. I do not mind when it comes into play. I would like to have some really good arguments about why we should not do this because basically, as is known, I prefer a PR system However, I am trying to make this present system, if this is what is going to be driven through by Parliament—I do not say that pejoratively—fairer to the voter and easier to explain in those television studios when you are on the third degree. I can say one thing for sure: this referendum will not be as popular in the television studios as Mr Clegg was in those first question and answer sessions. The heat will be on and they will be taking apart the system, looking at the nitty-gritty, looking at all the contradictions about what can happen with an optional AV system, which we have explored here over the past six days. The central criticism is the one about the second preference for the least-popular candidate, so let us not give them a full vote. Let us give them the vote where they came on the ballot paper. I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the past seven minutes have illustrated to me that people who are obsessed by systems really twist themselves into all sorts of knots because they have a flair for it. My noble friend Lord Rooker certainly has a flair: a flair for hard work, a flair for mastering systems and a flair for coming up with solutions to other people’s systems. Quite frankly, I understood about one-tenth or one-twentieth of what was said, and I cannot fill in a three cross treble line pool or a betting line or whatever it is. I am just not able to do it.

This is what happens when the pro-systems people think that changing the system is the answer to all democracy’s problems. They will twist and turn, go up blind alleys and around corners and all the rest of it. It sounds absolutely brilliant, but despite what my noble friend says, I do not think the average person will understand it.

I have never understood the obsession with PR or AV. The system of first past the post, with whatever imperfections people like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours can show in it, is tried, trusted and people understand it. Once you get into different systems, you have unforeseen consequences. It is okay for folk to say “We’ll legislate for that the next time” or “We’ll iron out that glitch in the system”, but all they do is twist themselves into further knots. The elections to the Scottish Parliament had unforeseen consequences because we had the Leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, wangling away, despite the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, being present, I think, is some sort of administrative role. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.

Alex Salmond was allowed to put himself at the top of each ballot paper—“Alex Salmond for First Minister”. The situation in Scotland was that the SNP did not win the election. Thanks to the daft list system, it finished up with one MSP more than the Labour Party, which allowed it to claim under a convoluted and twisted voting system that it had somehow won the right for Mr Salmond to be First Minister. Not satisfied with that, in the 2004 election the Labour Party made the mistake of indulging its Liberal partners in the coalition—what was a genuine coalition in Scotland, not a collaboration like we have at the moment. They were on opposite sides of the Chamber. But the Labour Party allowed itself to be blackmailed, cajoled—call it what you like. Almost within hours of the election result, the Labour Party at Holyrood had caved in and given the Liberals PR for local government.

They have still got that system until it is changed. The candidates are listed in alphabetical order. My understanding of it is tangled because I kept back from Holyrood. I did not particularly want to get involved in MSP matters, but it affected the political party I am committed to. As far as I can recall—again the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will correct me if I am wrong—the Liberals and others, mainly the SNP, blocked the situation whereby there was a suggestion that the political candidates should be put into alphabetical order within party blocks on the ballot paper. I accept that I am vague on this but I blame the Liberals for everything else so I might as well blame them for this. Folk looked at the paper and said, “There is the Labour candidate and that is the Liberal candidate, so that is who I am going to vote for”, instead of starting at the top alphabetically. The debacle of 2007 was confusing. It was caused by exactly the same proponents of systems rather than democracy and appealing to people.

There was a situation in Rutherglen and Hamilton West where a candidate had been a councillor for four years. She was an outstanding candidate, but she had the unfortunate handicap that her surname began with the letter “O”. She was at the bottom of the ballot paper and she lost her seat. Even the local Liberals felt guilty, which was quite an unusual occurrence. They said to her that they were sorry that she was the one to lose out to the system. What happened was that the Labour Party won two of the three seats in that ward. The Labour candidate who won was a new candidate in the area, a good councillor in his former area, and he is now a good councillor in his current area. But he ended up with almost double the votes that the poor candidate with the surname starting with “O” got, and therefore she lost out to, I think, the SNP candidate, who has also turned out to be a good ward councillor.

What happened there was an unforeseen consequence of this fanatical obsession for tinkering with systems. I shall not persuade anyone who is PR or AV-obsessed, in the same way as they will not convince me, and that is fine, but, given the convoluted nature of my noble friend’s amendment—it is like a Gordian knot—I hope the public will copy Alexander and put a sword through it.

I say to your Lordships’ House—not in a partisan sense but because I genuinely feel it—that these systems do no service to the public: they confuse people; they are for the anoraks. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not win but, when the anoraks start to win and the amendments come forward for AV and for trying to make AV work, you end up in a mess. I am totally opposed to my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has a powerful point, which I shall attempt to put into two sentences. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, is not right; this is not complicated. It may be complicated for the people who count the votes—a point which I expect the Minister to comment on—but it is not complicated for the voter. It is the same as it would have been under the system put forward by the Government—you just put your preferences.

The noble Lord said that when the votes are counted they will be given a weighting. This goes to the heart of what is wrong with AV. It is completely wrong that the winner of an election may be determined—and he used the quote from Churchill that I used—by the least worthwhile votes of the least worthwhile candidate. They may well be votes for the BNP or for an extremist party, but it is wrong that in some cases the outcome should be determined by the second preferences of the bottom candidate. The system put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for addressing this by weighting the votes according to where they come on the list seems a logical answer. Whether it would be workable, I do not know—no doubt we will be told that it would be too complicated for the counting officer, and that may be so—but it illustrates what is so grotesque and ridiculous about the system that is put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

One of the advantages of the Leader of the House effectively throwing the Companion to the Standing Orders out of the window is that we have this extra time to contemplate voting systems. My understanding has always been that you think what outcome you would prefer and then choose a voting system to get that outcome. That is why the Liberals have always campaigned and pushed for PR and the single transferable vote, because they want to have more power and influence.

While my colleagues have been talking about the theory, I have been looking at what might happen in practice if we had an election for the leader of the group of Labour Peers on this side of the House. There are five candidates, Campbell-Savours, Falconer, Foulkes, McAvoy, and Rooker. Those were the only five candidates put forward. Alphabetically, Campbell-Savours is number one, Falconer is number two, Foulkes number three, McAvoy number four and Rooker number five. There are 40 electors. Some of them are not here tonight. They are around somewhere and will come in if necessary. If we were to carry out this election under first past the post, the result might be Campbell-Savours 10, Falconer nine, Foulkes eight, McAvoy seven and Rooker six. In that case, Campbell-Savours would be elected and would be our leader. That is the system that we all know. Campbell-Savours would be welcome and we would accept him as our leader and worship him and follow his every lead. He would carry out that leadership with his usual kindness, wisdom and grace.

However, we could have accepted one form of the alternative vote, which from my recollection of what my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Rooker said in previous speeches, is the Australian federal system in which everyone has to vote one, two, three, four, five. Then we might get this result: 10, nine, eight, seven, six on the first vote. Then Rooker is eliminated and all of his votes would naturally go to Falconer. Noble Lords have seen that in the debates that have taken place. Falconer would now be leading with 15 votes. Campbell-Savours would have 10, Foulkes would have 8 and McAvoy would have seven.

[Lord McAvoy]

Does my noble friend realise that he is starting to give me a bigger headache than my noble friend Lord Rooker?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

It will all become clear.

McAvoy is now eliminated. His seven votes are distributed. Four go to Falconer and three go to Foulkes because he cannot quite make up his mind. He is hedging his bets and sees the way the wind is blowing. That leaves 10 to Campbell-Savours—he has not attracted any more votes—19 to Falconer and 11 to Foulkes. But supporters of Campbell-Savours, who is a Foulkes fan, give all their votes to Foulkes, who gets 21 and Falconer only 19. The person who was the third preference is elected. That is the sort of thing that can happen with the alternative vote, as my noble friend Lord Rooker has pointed out on previous occasions.

So my noble friend Lord Rooker has come up with the most imaginative suggestion. It may be complicated for the counters, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said. We do not need to worry about the counters, because that will all be done electronically—and we all know how efficient computer systems are at producing election results. Go back to the Scottish elections of 2007 and you will know how really efficient they are. So we do not have to worry about that. We do not really have to worry about having to explain it to the electorate, because they will just vote in the same way—one, two, three, four, five. It is a much more logical system. I agree with my noble friends who have supported my noble friend Lord Rooker—your second preference should not have the same weight as your first preference, and your fourth or fifth preference should certainly not have the same weight as the first preference. On the basis of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker, he would certainly never get elected on my five choices. I have not had the time yet to work out who would get elected on the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker, but later on—today or tomorrow—I shall be able to give noble Lords the outcome in relation to that.

I do not think that we need to worry about how complicated it is for the counters—

[Lord McAvoy]

I do not want to sound like an intellectual anorak, although I am probably not in any danger of that, but it does not gel with me when people say that the electorate do not need to know. Surely there is an intellectual and principled basis that the public should own, have knowledge of and fully understand all aspects of any system that elects a political representative.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Absolutely. That is why I do not support this system. The reason I support the amendment is because it makes the alternative vote system look so ridiculous that we come back to first past the post.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I can understand the case that my noble friend Lord Beecham is making and it is seductive. However, it removes some of the most desirable features of the AV system, which is designed to produce a much wider choice for voters. That includes, for example, the possibility of voting for a party that really has no chance and which you know will come bottom of the polls, without at the same time wasting your vote. There might be, for example, a local campaigner with a specific goal which you strongly support, but you do not necessarily want to waste your vote entirely by supporting that candidate if there is a danger that it will be eliminated. The amendment means that it is less likely, rather than not likely, that the winning candidate will get 51 per cent of the vote. As we know, under the present system, only a third of Members of the House of Commons received as much as half of their electorate’s votes. We do not have an exact figure as to what that would increase to under AV, but if you said 86 per cent or 90 per cent, you would probably be right. The amendment would reduce that back down again nearer to the present third. For those reasons, I cannot support my noble friend in his well meant amendment.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham but only in the context of where we are with that system. I believe very strongly that the first past the post system should stay and I do not want anyone to say—although, of course, I cannot stop anyone saying it—that supporting the amendment in the context of where we are necessarily means that I am deserting my support for first past the post.

This is a modest amendment. On the other hand, romantic candidates, Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidates and the “independent with a cause” candidate can all sound okay but, in a serious parliamentary democracy, is it right that such a small proportion of the vote should be used elsewhere? We are running serious elections for serious and responsible elected positions and, although having the freedom to stand for election and to campaign and so on is an absolute right, I do not think that that type of candidate who polls less than 5 per cent of the vote should be allowed to distort the electoral system and the democratic process. Then again, I keep asking myself why people get involved in that kind of party when it is all a lot of nonsense. Nevertheless, speaking as a realistic politician, I have to say that the amendment is before us and it needs to be discussed. However, if anyone wishes to use their charms on me, I am still willing to be convinced by an objection to my noble friend’s amendment.

My noble friend Lord Lipsey is great to listen to and I admire him. He is a formidable person but I do not think that he came up with any reason why the amendment should be opposed. He came up with an intellectual reason, and it is right and proper that that is aired. However, we have to take the real world into account and I do not think it is right for a party with a small percentage of the vote to distort the vote. In the context of what we are discussing, I have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham basically says that, if a candidate gets 5 per cent or less of the vote, the second preference votes for that candidate are not reallocated. I do not think that it necessarily follows that, if you get a low vote, your second preference votes should be any less valid than if you get a higher percentage of the vote. In certain circumstances, one can imagine Green Party candidates, for example, getting a very low vote—well below 5 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, in regarding Green Party candidates as more worthy than those of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, is effectively making a value judgment about parties based only on the number of votes that they receive. It seems to me that it is very difficult to see a logical or intellectual basis for saying that 5 per cent or below is not an acceptable figure. Is there a political argument that says that 5 per cent or less is the sort of figure that extremist parties get? Possibly there is but, again, I believe that in relation to an electoral system it is dangerous to start characterising people whom you do not like as “extremist”. Of course, we all regard the BNP as extremist but there are other parties that some of us would regard as extremist and others would not. Therefore, although I understand the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment, I do not think that it stacks up, so I am afraid we will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

I have tabled the amendment because the Scottish Parliament was deeply concerned and offended by the fact that it was not consulted about the date on which the UK Government intended to hold the referendum on the alternative vote. The Scottish Government felt the same way—I am more concerned about the Parliament than the Government, but their response was the same. Here we are dealing with Schedule 10. In it it is suggested that the Electoral Commission, and no one else, should be consulted. Until recently—a few months ago—there was no one on the Electoral Commission with any experience of either elections or referenda. That situation has been improved with the addition of four members, including my noble friend Lord Kennedy, George Reid and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who is sitting opposite. The commission’s knowledge of elections and referendums has been strengthened; I welcome her and my noble friend’s membership of it. However, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly should be consulted as well. They are packed full of people with experience of elections and referenda and would be able to offer wisdom in addition to that now offered by the Electoral Commission.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment. To one such as me who has been in this House for four or five months, it certainly gives rise to a new experience. It may sound pretentious or boastful, but my instinct tells me that some kind of watershed has been breached tonight, and not for the better. Why are we debating this amendment at this time of night? I do not think that it is the best time to be discussing legislation, and never have done. In the other place, it was one of these things that Oppositions would do to strut their stuff and Governments would do the same. After a decent couple of nights, both sides would behave themselves. Today is unique because we are debating this issue at almost one o’clock in the morning. We have to look at why and how we arrived here. A big chunk of time was taken out today by three Statements. I am not complaining about that, because they were very important, and it was right that the House should have the benefit of listening to Ministers.

As I understand it, there was co-operation, through the usual channels—if I am wrong on this, I am sure I will get pounced upon. Because of the three Statements, and in co-operation with the Government, we waived the right to a fourth Statement. Nobody has pounced upon me yet, so I think that there must be something in it. That shows, in my book, that the usual channels on the Opposition’s side was responsible for saying that as there already going to be a chunk of time taken out of today’s deliberations, therefore it was a reasonable and fair—a much used, or abused word in here at the moment—to waive the right to the fourth Statement. I think it was right that the Statements were heard; I respected the Government for that. They are under pressure to get the Bill through, yet they have still lived up to their responsibilities as a Government and made these three Statements.

I do not know what has happened since then. I am not party, first hand, to what has been said and done tonight, but I know enough about the place, because traditionalists such as my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes have drummed into me the importance of the conventions here and of the conventions being honoured and recognised.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has commented that I have taken to the place like a duck to water, which means that I have supported the conventions up till now; I agreed with them and saw the need for them because this place is special. I know that he was gently making fun of me and that is fine, that is part of the routine. I hope he was—he did not agree when I said that. I assume that it was said in a jocular way and I certainly accept that. If you are going to poke fun, you have to be able to take some fun back.

However, my understanding, again from the usual channels—my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton mentioned this at the Dispatch Box, so I am not breaking any confidences—was that there was an understanding/agreement, that going past 10 o’clock would be fine, but that we would finish at 10.40 pm, which I understand is something called taxi time. I do not know what that means; I take it that that is for the staff. When my noble friend Lord Bassam mentioned that, the Leader of the House just completely ignored him, completely bulldozed him and said we would finish the clause. I do not think that that is right. If there is timetabling to be done—I do not know all the rules in this place, but I will learn over time—would it not have been possible for the Government to have given notice that they wanted extra time so that folk could prepare?

[Lord Rennard]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but after listening to him for the last five minutes or so, could I ask him whether his arguments are for or against the amendment of his noble friend?

[Lord McAvoy]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am trying to explain the context of why we have reached here and why I intend to take time, without repetition, being boring or whatever.

I have left the Liberals alone up till now, but the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, invites me in. How can any Liberal, with their high sense of duty, their superiority complex over the years, looking down at mere politicians, not only of the Labour Party, but of the Tory Party—they are a cut above, intellectually and spiritually pure—endorse, support and even vigorously lead the behaviour tonight? They ought to be ashamed of themselves, because not only have they endorsed it, they have given enthusiastic leadership to it and it is a breach of the conventions of the House.

My noble friend rightly mentioned the Scottish Parliament. In passing, and he did not get pulled up for it, he mentioned how Orkney and Shetland had two seats in the Scottish Parliament. I remember at the time thinking, “That’s okay for them isn’t it?” How anybody can advocate and support that position and maintain a credible reputation is beyond me. Certainly, on this side of the House, it is okay for that part of the world, part of my own country, to get preferential treatment on the basis of two seats in the Scottish Parliament and influence the governance of the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Parliament is there and it is coming to be respected more by the Scottish people. To be treated in a cack-handed, offhand way by the Westminster Government only gives succour to the nationalists and separatists and those who think that independence will carry a crescent of prosperity for Scotland, the Nordic countries and the Republic of Ireland.

It was said that the Electoral Commission should be consulted/notified and not the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament was not even consulted about the date of the referendum. That is a complete insult and an offhand way of doing things. It was under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister—a Liberal. There is a situation where a Liberal has played a leading role in insulting the Scottish Parliament.

It is not the best kept secret that my personal position prior to Scottish Labour Party decisions and the position of the relevant constituency Labour Party was of complete, total and utter opposition to the foundation of a Scottish Parliament because we saw it as a slippery road to separation. We are a unionist constituency party and all our representatives are unionists and always have been. Behaviour such as has been indulged in by the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister of this Tory-led Government has shown that they will damage the union.

I can sense from the Scottish non-political public that there is resentment about that. I will be quite honest about this. Scotland is not one homogeneous nation in every single sense of the word. There are different attitudes in each area. I think I am an average west of Scotland person. I would certainly say that I am not Glaswegian. We are a bit contrary in a sense because as an area we might be critical of the Scottish Parliament. We may be critical of some decisions and the way it sometimes behaves. We may even say, “I wish it wasn’t there”. Sometimes the west of Scotland takes that attitude. But any insult slung at the Scottish Parliament from somebody from outside the area, especially from outside Scotland and—without being racist in any way because I am British and Scottish—especially from England, gets the contrary side of the west of Scotland people. They then start defending the Scottish Parliament and take umbrage and exception to the behaviour of any critical comments or attacks on it coming from outside Scotland, especially from England. They give succour to the Scottish Nationalist Party and separatists.

For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, if he is listening, I fully support my noble friend’s amendment. It is right that the Scottish Parliament should be recognised. It has been elected and to me that is above all else. It should be given a place in Scottish public life. Quite clearly, it has not been by this Government and not by the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has invited me to give a description of the working of the Scottish Parliament voting system. I will resist that. I do not think that it is necessary. He came to be elected, I suspect, because more Labour members lost their first past the post seats than he had anticipated in the Lothian region. If he has any queries about the system, it is a system which of course he agreed in the constitutional convention. He was a member of the Government that brought it forward and passed it as indeed that Government proposed in primary legislation separate seats for Orkney and Shetland, which I certainly supported, but it was of course a measure which was brought forward in a Bill from a Labour Government. What we are dealing with—

[Lord McAvoy]

Yes, of course it was agreed at the time, and there were many pressures for it, not least the inducement to the noble and learned Lord—I do not mean illegal or anything improper—as I understand it, made by the leader of the Labour Party, the late Donald Dewar, that Orkney and Shetland would get separate seats; of course that was agreed at the time. But does the Minister still think it fair, in an atmosphere where everything has been quoted as fair, that the area that he used to represent gets special treatment compared to mine?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The previous Labour Government did a wonderful job when they brought forward the proposals for the Scotland Bill, which I was happy to support, and which indeed were endorsed overwhelmingly by the Scottish people in a referendum. But the effect of the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would be that, before any order was made under Clause 9(4), the Minister would be required to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, in addition, of course, to the Electoral Commission. As I indicated in my response to the previous amendment, the kind of changes that are anticipated under this order-making power are for matters such as the information that goes on the polling card; information that would go with a postal voting statement; matters which currently reflect the first past the post system, but obviously would need to be changed with an alternative vote, should that be the will of the electorate in the referendum.

In all fairness, I am not sure that that is high on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly, or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Voting systems for UK parliamentary elections is a reserved matter. It was a matter of common ground in the Act that was put forward by the previous Labour Government, which I was happy to support and was supported by the Scottish people; the Government of Wales Act was supported by the Welsh people in a referendum; likewise for Northern Ireland, where it was agreed that UK parliamentary elections are reserved.

It is not necessary, therefore, for the UK Government to be subject to a statutory requirement to consult the devolved Parliament and Assemblies before making an order, which will be of a technical nature. We are not aware of any similar requirement to consult the devolved Administrations in respect of existing aspects of electoral law relating to UK parliamentary elections.