Scotland

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote the benefits of Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, this Government firmly believe that Scotland is, and will always remain, better off within the United Kingdom. In June, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a programme of cross-government work to inform and support the debate on Scotland’s future. This work will report from early 2013 and will produce detailed evidence and analysis to assess the benefits of Scotland remaining in the UK to both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and welcome the content of his Answer. Does he agree that the campaign for remaining within the union, which the Labour Party supports fully, needs to be a positive case put to the Scottish people, emphasising the social and economic benefits of remaining within the United Kingdom, and not a negative case as that would be counterproductive? Will he accept my assurance that the Labour Party will stand four-square with all unionist parties in Scotland in this referendum campaign?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, those are very welcome words from the noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party. I think it is well understood in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom that while political parties may have many differences on many different issues, we are completely united in our belief that the United Kingdom is the best way to preserve peace and prosperity for all the people of these islands. The noble Lord is also entirely correct when he says that this campaign needs to be a positive one. It should be. There is a very positive case for keeping the United Kingdom together in terms of our position in the world, the protection of our citizens and the economic benefits to all the people of the UK.

Scotland: Referendum

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in the House of Commons. As my honourable friend Margaret Curran has stated in that place, this is indeed an historic day for Scotland. We—the Labour Party—welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached and we can now start to get beyond the process. Nevertheless, there are a number of matters on which this House would like more information. These relate particularly to the franchise, the campaign finance and the wording of the question.

If votes at 16 and 17 are to be introduced, legislation should be introduced across the UK for every election so that proper scrutiny can be given to such a process, not just a one-off referendum. There are awful practical difficulties in this. Scottish Labour has estimated that as many as 54,000 16 year-olds could miss out on being able to vote, so we need clarification on how these arrangements will be made to ensure that those qualified to vote actually get the chance to vote. Has any advice been sought from the Electoral Commission on the fairness and practicality of allowing this change to be made?

On campaign finance, the Scottish Government cannot be the referee and the player. The deal is clear: the Electoral Commission will act as an independent overseer of the process, including finance and the wording of the question. No Government have overruled the Electoral Commission; the First Minister should not start. We need independent, external oversight of campaign finance from the Electoral Commission to ensure fair play. It should also be borne in mind that the Scottish Government are retaining the £1 million paid-for army of spin doctors throughout the campaign. What guarantees have the UK Government received from the Scottish Government that Electoral Commission limits and the fair rules of the UK Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act will be followed?

It is right and proper that Scotland’s trade unions and businesses should be able to have a say on an issue of this importance to our nation’s future. How does the agreement ensure that they will be given a fair chance to have their say and support the campaigns? There is another question on which many of us have been approached. Will Scots living in the rest of the UK, who will not have a vote, be able to support the campaign?

On the referendum question, we want a clear and unambiguous question that provides a fair choice for the Scottish people. Any questions should be thoroughly tested by the Electoral Commission. The agreement that has been reached by the Scottish and UK Governments allows for the Scottish Parliament to set the question in consultation with the Electoral Commission. As we all know, how a question is put can play a great part in how people respond to it, so we are looking for the UK Government, in these discussions with the Scottish Government, to seek and get these guarantees. There is a lot of discussion about detail to be entered into from the UK Government’s point of view.

Having experience in Scottish politics—as has the noble Lord, who at the very least has been an observer—I believe that we need to ensure that what is actually said on behalf of the First Minister or by the First Minister is thoroughly scrutinised and checked to make sure that what he says is what he actually means. This is clearly the most important issue facing the Scottish people. We in the Labour Party believe that our place in Scotland is within the United Kingdom, as the Minister has said, both for Scotland’s sake and for the United Kingdom’s sake. We in the Labour Party hope that the Government are competent enough to handle these negotiations and we will play our part in trying to convince the Scottish people that their future and the UK’s future are better with Scotland as part of the United Kingdom.

Scotland: Referendum

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions the Prime Minister has had with the First Minister of Scotland regarding a referendum on Scottish independence since the Scottish Parliamentary elections.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has had discussions with the First Minister of Scotland on a range of issues.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his Answer—I think. Does he agree with me that one thing is now certain; there will be a referendum in Scotland on the issue of separation at some point in the future? The Government seem lost for a definitive policy on this issue. Does he agree that it is essential that such a referendum on separation be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, with everyone entitled to put their point of view without being attacked for holding a point of view? Finally, does he also agree that it was totally reprehensible for a First Minister of Scotland to use public resources to attempt to undermine an eminent professor who had expressed doubts about the principle of separation?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I understand that the First Minister of Scotland had to apologise to the Scottish Parliament last week for making that error. More fully, I totally agree with the noble Lord that if there were to be a referendum it should be fair and impartial. To that I would add another word—clarity. There is no purpose in having a referendum in Scotland unless the question is very clearly understood by the people of Scotland so that the result can equally be interpreted with clarity.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale]

I rise to support the amendment and, pace the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I have never had anything to do in a representational capacity in a constituency in Scotland, since I am not an ex-Member of another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will I know be very well aware of the crucial role that the Scottish Constitutional Convention played in the preparations for everything to do with the Scottish Parliament, although other noble Lords in this House are possibly much less aware of the convention and its very important role. The convention worked for some 10 years. It began in March 1989 and wound up very happily in a very celebratory meeting in 1999, when it wound itself up before the opening of the Scottish Parliament.

The convention hammered out a blueprint for the Scottish Parliament that was almost wholly incorporated into the White Paper and the Scotland Bill. The convention consisted of the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party and the Scottish Labour Party, as well as nearly all local authorities, trade unions and churches in Scotland—in fact, almost the whole of civil society in Scotland except the Scottish Conservative Party, unfortunately, and the Scottish National Party. I declare an interest here, of which I am very proud. I shared with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, the honour to be one of the final two co-chairs of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. In 1995, the convention launched a document entitled, Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right, in which it laid out its blueprint for how a Scottish Parliament should be set up and should from then on proceed once the legislation passed through the Westminster Parliament.

On the electoral system—and this is where it is very relevant to this amendment—the convention said that there should be a new method of electing Members of the Parliament. It said that the Scottish Parliament should have 129 Members, 73 elected by the first past the post system in the existing Westminster boundary areas and 56 additional Members elected from a larger geographical area through lists prepared by political parties and other organisations. The additional Members would be elected to reflect a degree of proportional representation depending on the votes cast for each list. Those additional 56 Members were to include seven Members for each of the eight European regional constituencies.

I hope that, in paying attention to what that establishes as the system for choosing the Scottish MSPs and allying it to what my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock said about the complexity of the whole system in Scotland, noble Lords will agree that because of this system—which is unique in the United Kingdom—it is crucially important that the Boundary Commission for Scotland may take into account the constituency boundaries of the Scottish Parliament. In a way, it makes the situation quite different from the rest of the United Kingdom. I support the amendment.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I suspect that not for the last time in the debates this evening I take a different point of view from my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. The relevance of that is to do with her comments on the record of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. She says that it is relevant to what we are discussing now because it has been quoted as an example or a way of working or because the information that came from it is relevant. I do not wear quite the same rose-tinted glasses in relation to that organisation. I did not intend to speak, but as usual I failed to resist my annoyance—no, that is too strong a word and I would not say it, or not in your Lordships' House—or my reaction to the jibe from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the time that noble Lords are taking to revise and review the legislation. I hope that nobody on any side of the House is intimidated by these continual jibes. We are here to revise and, I hope, to improve the legislation.

I bring myself to the relevance of the Scottish convention’s record, to which my noble friend referred. Once again we had a situation where the great and the good got together and where everybody was all caught up in an atmosphere of being nice to each other and trying to work together for Scotland. I do not criticise that, as it was with the best of intentions, but in doing so they allowed the Liberals to sucker them because the Liberals gained more out of that system than anybody else. They gained an infamous list system—infamous is the right word—of electing MSPs in Scotland. It is not even just about electing them. These list MSPs, especially the Liberals, wander all over the Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies, plucking the cases that suit them for political purposes and ignoring the rest. Also, instead of concentrating on the regions which they supposedly represent, lo and behold, guess where they seem to spend most of their time? Again, this is especially the Liberals. It is in the constituency where they stood as a first past the post candidate. We should not let anyone get carried away, in my opinion, by the eloquent words of my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale because it is just not right.

I also tell my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock that I am still not quite sure about the primacy that his amendment would seek to give the Boundary Commission—advice or guidance on taking more account—because the Westminster constituencies are the true measures of how the commission should go about its work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, made a relevant point. There are indeed many communities, or more communities than one, in a Westminster constituency. The one that I know best, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, has about five or six with the three core ones being, as I have said before, Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway. I have to tell my noble friend that I am not convinced that the Scottish parliamentary constituencies are the real thing to take account of here. I remain to be convinced. I may come back in again once I hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, with the benefit of his experience, and my own Front Bench but at this stage I certainly reserve my position regarding my noble friend's amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, this amendment, put down by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, proposes that:

“The Boundary Commission for Scotland may take into account the boundaries of constituencies of the Scottish Parliament”.

Three specific points emerge from this amendment. First, it is worth while to look at the experience of the Boundary Commission for Scotland in dealing with the drawing of the boundaries for the Scottish Parliament. The experience of those involved in public inquiries was that the rules were “too rigid”. The rules, although much more rigid than previously, are less rigid than the current rules.

Sheriff Principal Kerr, who conducted a public inquiry into the West of Scotland constituencies, said that the Act,

“introduced a rigidity which had not previously existed”,

and, in the foreword to his report, said:

“Too little attention has been paid in my view to local authority boundaries, to geographical considerations, to inconveniences resulting from proposed constituency changes and to the sundering of local ties; and too much emphasis has been laid on the requirement (although qualified by the other rules)”—

which is not the position here—

“of Rule 2 that numerical proximity to the electoral quota be achieved. This consequence”,

the Sheriff Principal said,

“came out very clearly in the present inquiry and it is I think necessary to remedy it so far as reasonable, at least for the West of Scotland, in order to avoid the continuance of a sense of grievance which appears to be widely or even universally felt in some quarters”.

Point number one: the effect of too rigid rules is, in the view of Sheriff Principal Kerr, to create a sense of grievance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, that was a very full reply. I am learning that, if I speak briefly, listen to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and do not listen to my noble friend Lord McAvoy, I make progress. In light of that, I will not say any more, but, if I bring the amendment back again, I will bring it back in the form suggested most helpfully by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in his contribution.

[Lord McAvoy]

Before my noble friend sits down—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord McAvoy]

Is this more intimidation? Will my noble friend take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to act as his diary secretary?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful to my noble friend, but on the basis of previous advice, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Knight reminds us that this is day 13 of the Bill. During the dinner break, one of my colleagues told me that the Second Reading of the 1832 Reform Bill took five days alone, so perhaps we are making some progress. I was deeply impressed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who made a powerful argument about Cornwall. He made the point also that Cornwall, like Wales, is a Celtic nation with Celtic people. Indeed, at some time in the past, Cornwall was considered to be in west Wales. Indeed, the region of Strathclyde was occupied by the Welsh as well and was considered to be north Wales. We have no such ambitions at present, I assure the noble Lord.

I rise to support the amendment and am therefore at the opposite end of the argument to my Welsh colleagues sitting on the other Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts of Conwy. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made some very important points about the links between Ynys Môn and mainland north Wales. In my previous incarnation as Wales Minister, we had this novel idea called prelegislative scrutiny. I regularly came to your Lordships' House to talk to your Lordships about proposals that we had for Bills effecting Wales. The noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts, who bring extensive experience from their time as Ministers in the Wales Office, contributed to those discussions. I believe that at the end of the day we made better law as a result of prelegislative scrutiny than we are seeing at present.

The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly makes the point that Ynys Môn is separated from north Wales by the Menai Strait—not by a sea, as is the Isle of Wight, although I am sure that like me he would not really fancy trying to swim the Menai Strait, which is quite a turbulent channel. Ynys Môn—Mam Cymru, or the mother of Wales—has been a parliamentary constituency since 1535 and it is the largest Welsh island, at 720 square kilometres. It is the fifth largest island in offshore Britain and the largest island in the Irish Sea. Its economy depends very much upon agriculture, as the noble Lord mentioned, and upon tourism. Indeed, when I was Wales Minister I went there to promote tourism as I understand that about 2 million people from the Republic of Ireland pass through Ynys Môn every year on holidays. The trouble was getting them to stop and spend some money. To my mind, the only way that we are going to get the Irish to do that in north Wales is to have a good golf course and some good saints. I am not sure whether the tourist board took up that suggestion, but I did make it generally.

The people of Ynys Môn have seen themselves as separated from the mainland not just by the Menai Strait but by having a fiercely protective local culture. Sixty per cent of the people of Ynys Môn are Welsh speakers. Our decision on the Isle of Wight means that it is the only island constituency in the United Kingdom which is not protected. That is wrong. As I say, the constituency has existed since 1535 and is coterminous with the local government area—the county council area of Ynys Môn. It enjoys the unique distinction of being, I think, the only seat to have had MPs from four parties in the past 50 years. It was once a Liberal stronghold; the Conservatives captured Ynys Môn from Labour in 1979, following the retirement of the late Lord Cledwyn; they lost it eight years later, when Keith Best stood down and Plaid Cymru then emerged as the successful party to represent the constituency in Westminster. When its leader stepped down, it was regained by Labour’s Albert Owen.

I want to emphasise that the Bill has not been the subject of a Green Paper, a White Paper, any consultation or any pre-legislative scrutiny. If it had been, then I have no doubt that my points and those of other noble Lords—indeed, the very valid points made by the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts—would have figured in that kind of pre-legislative scrutiny. The only answer, in order to make sure we get the best result for the people of Ynys Môn and the people right across the country, is for the Government to agree that there should be local public inquiries. The points made by my fellow countrymen—the quite valid points from the opposite Benches and those made on these Benches—would be properly considered by an independent body, which would then make a decision in the best interests of the community concerned.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I suppose that, as one of the Peers from Scotland, I am duty bound to speak up for the Argyll and Bute council area. However, there was quite an extensive outline of the very justified case for Argyll and Bute in a previous debate and it would be wrong to repeat that. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his speech and I have certainly been impressed tonight by the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts, who were outstanding in displaying their local knowledge. However, I make the point that when Labour or, I think, Cross-Bench Peers were making speeches of that nature we were getting accused of having a filibuster. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was keeping an eye on the Door in case the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, came in and moved for closure but, fortunately, he did not appear. That emphasises that we are now getting a bit of balance in the Committee in that it seems that, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, people are now being allowed to make the case for their local area without being accused of filibustering. It is a legitimate thing to do.

The breadth of knowledge coming from all sides of the House is deeply impressive, although I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, shuddered a wee bit at being part called part of a Celtic nation, with a hard “C”. He should really think himself quite lucky that he was not called part of a Celtic nation, with a soft “C”. Then he would really have had something to get upset about.

I welcome the change in attitude in the Committee. The display was terrific. I support this amendment with, at this stage, a small caveat over Orkney and Shetland, because I want to reserve my position regarding the amendment that will be moved at some point this evening. However, coming from Scotland, I think that the case for Argyll and Bute has certainly been made.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, what a fascinating debate we have had on these amendments—rather more interesting than I was expecting. It went around the House and people spoke from their different experience and knowledge. I was particularly pleased to get the support of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, which is always welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McAvoy]

79B: Clause 11, page 10, leave out lines 25 to 27

[Lord McAvoy]

This amendment deletes the constituency of Orkney and Shetland from the preserved list. I hope a Liberal Democrat Minister will reply. The amendment contradicts the previous amendment moved by my Front Bench to keep Orkney and Shetland on the preserved list, and I shall explain the thinking behind what I am doing. First, I state that I support the aim of equalisation. The disparity between electorates in different seats has long been an anomaly, and I have always thought that some effort should be made to tackle it because the principle is right. The aim is right, but the methodology in this Bill to achieve that aim is too prescriptive and too tightly drawn. It does not take any real cognisance of communities, which is where I am coming from and how I approach this Bill.

My party supported the principle of having a referendum on AV, as did I. I think it is right that the people should speak. To my recollection we did not specify a date, and that is causing problems, but they are not insurmountable. I think it is important that I state that as part of the background to this amendment because a myth has built up that I and others are determined to stop this Bill, and I have never stated that that is the case. I hope that by stating my position vis-à-vis equalisation and support for an AV referendum, we can stop the spinners from the various newspapers saying otherwise.

The idea is surely to revise and improve, and that is what we are looking for in the Bill. In moving this amendment, I am trying to help the Liberal Democrats. Believe it or not, my name is Tommy and I am here to help. I can say that to our Liberal colleagues. The twists and turns that are going on to try and arrange the geographical condition and the natural state of the highland seats for Charles Kennedy, who is a first-class Member of Parliament, Danny Alexander and other northern Liberal MPs are quite unedifying. The position being taken on Orkney and Shetland is all right for us, but the rest of you will need to bend to this, and the contortions that are going on in the highlands do no good to the reputation of the Liberal Democrats. I say to my Liberal Democrat colleagues—or Peers, if they object to me calling them colleagues—that they are bringing an air of chicanery to their party, especially in Scotland, because every time boundaries or voting systems are discussed, the Liberals use their position as part of any set-up to argue for PR, list MSPs or not reducing MSP seats when the Scotland Act called for it—the so-called settled will of the Scottish people, except when it came to reducing MSP seats.

I am here to help the Liberals. By moving the amendment I am giving them the opportunity to justify on the Floor of the House why Orkney and Shetlands should still continue to exist, in contrast with Argyll and Bute, which has the best case in Scotland, even when compared with the highlands. As I said, Charles Kennedy is admired by nearly all of us on this side of the House—he is a first-class MP—but, of course, he comes from social democratic rather than Liberal roots, which makes a difference.

I am not demeaning anything that the Liberals are doing or how they are behaving, but their case lacks justification compared with the highland seats. Charles once told me that it takes him five hours to drive from one end of his constituency and back again, so he has made that case, but what is happening with the seat of Argyll and Bute is nonsense. I am not arguing a political interest in this matter because we have never won the seat. However, going back to my schooldays and early teens, John Maclay—who ended up here as a very distinguished Peer—stood for Parliament and was elected as a National Liberal, if I remember correctly. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for confirming that. There is perhaps a lesson here for the Liberals—and maybe a threat—because we know that history shows that members of parties who enter into a coalition with the Conservative Party end up, in effect, as Conservative Members of Parliament.

I am not arguing from a party political point of view. If there is a case for Orkney and Shetlands and a case for the highlands, the case for Argyll and Bute at least equals those. If Orkney and Shetlands is to be preserved, so should Argyll and Bute.

The Leader of the House mentioned fair votes and made calculations.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

I remind my noble friend that the Argyll and Bute constituency is a political construct from the previous Conservative Government. I well remember in 1994 pleading with the then Minister of State, Allan Stewart, “Do not take Helensburgh and put it into Argyll and Bute”. The people of Helensburgh had a difference with their representatives at the time, the Labour councillors, and rightly so, but they had a short-term interest in doing that. I represented the Helensburgh seat. Now, less than 10 years later, the Helensburgh people are saying, “It was wrong for us to go into Argyll and Bute”. The lesson is that if you carry out exercises in this House with politicians and do not include the Boundary Commission and the local element, you will get artificial constructs. That is the history of Argyll and Bute.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am grateful to my noble friend for sharing that local knowledge, because it is surely relevant when discussing amendments on Bills such as this one.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, calculated how much one vote was worth when compared with another. How does the calculation compare Orkney and Shetland, which has an electorate of just over 32,000, with, say, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, which has an electorate of 77,000? I am not having a go at the people in Orkney and Shetland; I am making the point—I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is no longer in his place—that a party and its supporters are taking the benefits of the toleration and support of people who quite rightly see the case for Orkney and Shetland, but those same people and the areas that benefit from that tolerance and consideration do not give an inch to other areas. The case of Argyll and Bute gets to me in particular. It is a case of “I’m all right Jack”, or “I’m all right Jim, but the rest of you have to suffer”.

The thing about this Bill and the various amendments is that a bit of a legend is being put about that I am the leader of the gang that is out to destroy this Bill. That is absolutely wrong. It is about time. I hope that the Cross-Benchers listen to what we are saying.

[Noble Lords]

No Cross-Benchers are here.

[Lord McAvoy]

I know. I was not being sarcastic. I hope that other Members listen as well because I have been speaking to Peers on all sides of the House over the past week or so. People have not been unfriendly. They have gone out of their way to speak to me and take me to tea. That was great, especially as they were paying, but the legend is that somehow I/we were being completely obstructive by trying to stop, damage and finish the Bill rather than get some concessions.

No concessions have come from the Government at all. The justified case for the Isle of Wight had to be pressed by a coalition of various Peers who tried to get common sense on that, but nothing has been gained. The noble Lord can disabuse me of that later if he can persuade me, but the Government are in a straitjacket. The straitjacket is the agreement that they reached behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms with the Liberals. They extracted their price and the Government are quite willing to extract theirs, which does not seem to allow any room for reasonable compromise to come from the Government towards the Opposition.

Some points of view are held by many Peers in the House. For instance, the amendment that has the most support from noble Lords around the House is the extension of the variation from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. That would not destroy the Bill—it would be pointless to do that—but it would make a difference. I am told by a number of more experienced Peers than me that it would tackle a lot of the anomalies and many of the injustices in the Bill. It would not be a cure-all, but it would be a gesture towards recognising that there is a problem.

We would like local inquiries as per what has happened in the past and what is normal. If there were a gesture to indicate that there should be some form of restricted local inquiries, which could be the subject of discussion between the usual channels, a whole host of recommendations might go through on the nod. Folk would see the point and logic of them. A limited number of restricted local inquiries—a comparatively small number compared with the 600-odd—perhaps to clear a huddle before a local inquiry to allow local people and organisations to have a say, is the sort of compromise and concession that could come from the Government without destroying the Bill.

A number was plucked out of the air for seats. I will not go on about that, but is it so set in stone that it cannot be eased just a little for the sake of getting some kind of agreement in this House? A better attitude could ease the crisis that seems to have developed towards the conventions of the House. There are two sides to every story, but some concession from the Government along the lines that I mentioned would help.

Another item that I and others would like to see—

[Lord Rennard]

Before the noble Lord sits down—I assume that he must be reaching a conclusion after 14 minutes—perhaps he would explain something to help us. If he is so strongly opposed, as he is in this amendment, to the preservation of a separate constituency for Orkney and Shetland, why did he support in the other place the Labour Government’s Scotland Act 1998, which provided for separate constituencies for the Orkney and Shetland in the Scottish Parliament and in particular preserved the specific identity for Orkney and Shetland constituency in the Westminster Parliament? Also, does he have any fears after 15 minutes that an impartial observer of his previous contribution might fear that this is another frivolous filibuster in this debate?

[Lord McAvoy]

The noble Lord has given me half a minute to answer about four questions. If the mood of the House is that I should sit down, I will. If the mood is that I briefly answer the noble Lord, I will. I will try to answer. That seems to be okay, but if someone objects I will sit down—do not worry about that. The noble Lord objects?

[Lord Rennard]

I think, speaking for most Lords present, that we would be happy if we dealt seriously with the debate under business.

[Lord McAvoy]

That is fine. I will answer the question. Let me make it clear that I have no intention of putting this to the vote. It is a probing amendment to find out why Orkney and Shetland is given this preferential treatment and Argyll and Bute is not. I will mention the Scottish convention briefly, because I am sure it will come up. The whole attitude at the time of the Scottish convention was to get consensus. In that mood of consensus, there was recognition of the need to get everyone on board with Orkney and Shetland getting two seats. Internally, I disagreed, but I am a democrat. I played my part within my own party to alter that and did not win. Overwhelmingly, folk were in favour of it. I know the noble Lord was not listening to that answer, but that is the answer, and I can justify it at any time. I am a democrat and will play my part within my own party. I am not one of life’s natural rebels, so I am not inclined to rebel. I would rather not encourage the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale]

I must tell my noble friend Lord McAvoy, for whom I usually have a great respect and affection, that on this occasion I cannot support his amendment. I mentioned the Scottish Constitutional Convention earlier this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows well, the convention considered the issue of Orkney and Shetland for a long time. It was considered for separate parliamentary representation in well debated and well considered discussions. The decision was to accord separate parliamentary representation in the Scottish Parliament for both Orkney and Shetland.

I do not pretend to know Orkney and Shetland well. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, knows—although he is not in his place—that I have had the enormous pleasure of visiting both Orkney and Shetland with my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane and his family, and with the late First Minister of Scotland the right honourable Donald Dewar, when the noble and learned Lord and his wife accompanied us on an enjoyable, informative and educational political working holiday. To visit both these areas is to appreciate at once how different they are from one another and from mainland Scotland geographically, topographically, in flora and fauna, in history and socially. They are in effect two different countries, and neither of them is like Scotland as we know it. Indeed, without going too much into the historical detail, most noble Lords are aware that Norway was the mother country in the past.

That is why, allied to the physical difficulties in connections between these two, the convention was persuaded that they should have two separate seats in the Scottish Parliament. As I explained to the House earlier this afternoon, the convention worked for 10 years on hammering out a blueprint for the Scottish Parliament—one that was almost wholly incorporated into the government White Paper and then into the Scotland Act.

The question of Orkney and Shetland was considered very carefully. Everyone in the convention was aware that there were important implications for other parts of Scotland by allowing special status for Orkney and Shetland. Such a major departure from what had been the Westminster practice of treating them as one constituency was serious but, in the end, that was agreed. In fact, when it came to the White Paper and then the drafting of the Scotland Bill, all the arguments had been so well rehearsed that there were no problems in agreeing to it. Surely that has to be an important lesson for this Government. Instead of the careful, painstaking, wide consultation that the convention provided, the Government are trying to rush this Bill through with no pretence at consulting the people of Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord may point, but I have not been speaking for 20 minutes. That is the length of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

It says so much about the House of Lords that I thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness was the only Orkney and Shetland expert here, but there speaks my noble friend Lord Lamont, who has real personal knowledge of Orkney and has very helpfully contributed that information. I agree with what he said.

If my noble and learned friend had been here, he would have reminded us of the practicalities involved in getting between Orkney and London. The Government are not thinking here about the travel convenience of Members of Parliament; rather, we believe that it would not be practicable for constituents to have a Member of Parliament whose base is a 12-hour ferry ride away, as would be the case if Shetland was required to be combined with the mainland.

I am pretty convinced that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, knows and understands these arguments. I hope that he feels that he has had a fair hearing and that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I do not know about a fair hearing, because some mean-spirited attitudes have been shown on the Liberal Benches—not from the noble Lord. I of course accept the practical difficulties of Orkney and Shetland. I have made it plain that the amendment was a device—I make no apology for that because it was a quite proper device—to enable me to hear from a Liberal why a Liberal area should get preferential treatment over the Isle of Bute. I was robbed of that pleasure and had to listen to the noble Lord.

I laid out a number of issues where I thought that movement could be made without anything being sacrificed and I made a genuine attempt to inject into the debate an atmosphere of agreement. I was near enough mugged by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who said that I was mischief-making. That does not augur well for future negotiations and attempts to get this Bill through with some improvements. This Bill can be improved. I hope that, as people go away from here and take off their political party war helmets, they will perhaps realise that there are the bones of something in the amendment. I hope that Cross-Benchers and other Members who do not have closed minds will find the suggestions that I have put forward worthy of consideration. This is not all about obstruction and defeating this Bill; it is about trying to improve it. I have put forward some ideas which I hope will take seed somewhere. On the basis that I certainly accept that Orkney and Shetland should be a separate constituency, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 79B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McAvoy]

83: Clause 11, page 10, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) 3 constituencies in the South Lanarkshire council area”

[Lord McAvoy]

I will speak very briefly on this amendment because I have spoken quite a few times about the Rutherglen area. There are two amendments in this group. One proposes that the three present constituencies contained within South Lanarkshire should be the three constituencies there. There would be a small addition in the sense that the southernmost part of South Lanarkshire council area is in another constituency. The three constituencies—East Kilbride, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, and Lanark and Hamilton East—all have around 76,000 to 77,000 electors. That is near enough the quota that we are talking about. I was prepared to make a number of points, but I have already made the point about that.

I will speak only for two or three minutes on this issue and say why we fear this boundary redistribution. If the boundary redistribution starts at the border with England, according to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, there will be seven fewer seats in Scotland. That is a worry for us. However, a bigger worry for those in the Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway area is that if the boundary redistribution starts at the border with England and moves north, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, clearly said, they are heading for a situation where local communities do not matter. They will simply be blocks on a map. A few people have done an exercise for me—I have done it myself—by just moving blocks of 75,000 on a map, coming from the south of Scotland. It can go east or west. However, the danger for us in my local area is that a block of 75,000 stops at Cambuslang and Halfway. As for the next 75,000, the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen will almost certainly get put into a Glasgow parliamentary seat.

We have been a royal burgh since the year 1126 when King David I gave us a royal charter, renewed by Robert the Bruce; and we have the Robert the Bruce renewal charter in which he refers to his great-grandfather, King David I. We have had that tradition since 1126. I have already made reference to this, so I will mention it briefly. In 1973-74, the Heath Government put the towns of Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway into Glasgow District. In 1994-95, we achieved success in getting back out of Glasgow and back into Lanarkshire. That is not hostility to Glasgow or to the people of Glasgow; there is no big barrier of the River Tyne or the River Tees. However, we believe in a smaller community and we believe that we have something special in Rutherglen. We have recovered and renewed our community roots since the advent of South Lanarkshire council and the formation of a parliamentary constituency that is entirely within Lanarkshire and nothing to do with Glasgow. This is a dagger in our heart, moving us back into a Glasgow parliamentary constituency, with ramifications, at a later stage, for any local government reformation, redistribution and formation of new boundaries. The push would then be for the town of Rutherglen to stay within the Glasgow local authority. That is a big, big issue in our local community.

There are the local Liberal Democrats. I know that I must seem obsessed about the Liberals, and I probably am, but too many Focus leaflets are pushed through the door, although they have dried up recently. We have a local Liberal Democrat party and a local Liberal Democrat personality that campaign with the slogan “Rutherglen for Rutherglonians”. Now we have a Liberal Democrat coalition with the Conservatives, which is a danger to Rutherglen. I am trying to expose the danger to my community of that redistribution. I hope that the Liberal influence there, that is supposed to support a separate Rutherglen, will end up supporting us in that fight. It is a very limited amendment. I do not see us spending much time on it, and I have cut it down a lot because I have spoken about it previously. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Amendment 83 would guarantee that there will always be three constituencies in the South Lanarkshire council area, irrespective of whether they respect the 5 per cent above or below the electoral parity rule. Amendment 84A requires a specific number of named areas to be included, including a constituency called Rutherglen and Hamilton West, which is the name of the constituency that the noble Lord had the privilege to represent over a number of years. These named areas are already contained in the South Lanarkshire council area and, if read together, Amendment 84A appears to be a more detailed requirement to specify that at least one of the constituencies of the three referred to in Amendment 83 should be called Rutherglen and Hamilton West, preserving that constituency as it currently stands—or one very similar to it.

I heard the noble Lord speak about this and have heard him speak about it on other occasions. I know Rutherglen and I know the pride that exists in it. There has always been that tension over whether it was part of Glasgow or not. But as the Committee is aware, the principle of the Bill is one of fairness, so that a vote across one part of the United Kingdom has one value. For something as important as one’s right to choose the Government of the day, I believe that equality and fairness are key principles. The two named exceptions to the principle in the Bill are there for a very clear and tightly defined set of reasons. Both have small populations and a very dispersed geography. Even with the wildest imagination, one could not say that South Lanarkshire fits into the pattern of being very remote and having a much dispersed geography. That is why distinctions are made there and not in the case of South Lanarkshire.

I have heard on more than one occasion in this Committee the noble Lord regret the fact, to put it mildly, that Hamilton, which itself has a long history, has been a divided place with regard to Boundary Commissions. At the moment it is divided east and west, but I recall an earlier boundary change that made Hamilton North and Bellshill and Hamilton South. It has been divided in other ways, too. Who knows—it is not for this House to be prescriptive of the Boundary Commission—it may even be that Hamilton comes together again as a result of these proposals. I am sure that would be greatly to the noble Lord’s satisfaction.

We are confident that in South Lanarkshire it will be possible for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to draw new boundaries, which will allow equality of votes among the constituencies within 5 per cent either side of the electoral quota and, at the same time, fit together logically and meaningfully for the electors in that area. This amendment would tie the commission’s hands unreasonably and, perhaps—almost inevitably—force it to produce a less coherent set of boundaries than otherwise would be the case. While I understand the motivation behind it, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McAvoy]

I have heard what the Minister said. It is not just about remoteness. I understand totally that remoteness is a criterion that can apply to other areas, but I have not mentioned remoteness because it does not apply here. It is community that I am arguing for in respect of my former constituency, because the community is such that after the damage done 30 years ago we have only begun to get it together again in the past five, 10 or 15 years. We are getting it back to the old Rutherglen, and we would be damaged if we got put in with Glasgow again. It was not on remoteness that I was arguing the case; it is about community. The Minister refers to the straitjacket into which the Boundary Commission would be put. There is no guarantee about any Boundary Commission, but it lessens our chances, because the whole essence of the Bill seems to be about blocks of 75,000 or 76,000, and that is a danger to us. It would have been remiss of me not to make the case for Rutherglen in this situation, and I had no hesitation in doing that. However, above all else I am a realist. I shall not push this to a vote and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 83 withdrawn.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. The most succinct way in which to put this issue is as follows. The Boundary Commission, charged with its very delicate task, as we know from debates this evening and from our own experience of determining a fair pattern of electoral districts and constituencies in this country, has to manage three variables. They include acceptability, which is very important and which means the degree to which the parliamentary constituency boundaries correspond to local people’s feelings of self-identity and community and perhaps how much they coincide with local government boundaries and boundaries involving other health authorities, travel to work areas and economic and social factors of that kind.

That acceptability has always been a major consideration in the mind of the Boundary Commission, which has always made great efforts to ensure that its recommendations are accepted as far as possible. That is part of making a democracy legitimate and accepted and therefore work happily, and that is why the commission has always placed great emphasis on the opportunity to have public inquiries on its recommendations. It has not run away from that at all. As I am sure the Leader of the House will remind me if I go on any further, that is a subject of further amendments, so we will have other opportunities to discuss that very important matter. The Boundary Commission has always recognised that acceptability is a very important aspect of their work.

The second issue is the extent of the uniformity of numbers. The Boundary Commission has always felt that, other things being equal, it was always desirable that constituencies should have the same numbers. Other things are not always equal, and so it has often made recommendations that do not involve very equal numbers in constituencies. Nevertheless, that has always been a principle at which it wanted to aim.

There is a third criterion, which the Government are introducing now—the actual number of seats that emerge. We all know that there is a trade-off between these things, and that if you have greater acceptability you will have greater variation in numbers because the commission will be more elastic in accommodating local susceptibilities, but at the expense of having some constituencies that have different numbers of electors than other constituencies. Equally, if you enforce a particular ceiling such as 600, you very much restrict the ability of the commission to achieve either of the other two purposes—uniformity of numbers or acceptability. There are three variables, and there is a trade-off between the three. That is inevitable; any system that you had would involve a trade-off between the three. The question is whether you honestly recognise those trade-offs or whether you do not.

My own view is that of these three criteria, two are recognisable general principles. Acceptability is a general principle. It is something that we can all say is right in theory and principle. We want to aim towards it; it is part of the good in our constitution, not part of the bad or dysfunctional. Equally, it is very desirable that we should as far as possible have constituencies of equal numbers, so that everyone has the same weight in terms of their representation in Parliament. Again, that is a general principle. It is part of the good in a constitution, not part of the bad or the dysfunctional. I put it to the Committee that a particular number is not a general principle. Six hundred or 650 is not a general principle, and neither is 525 or 535—whatever the Liberal number was. These are just pragmatics and incidentals. They are the result, or should be, of achieving the optimum trade-off or reconciliation between the two general principles.

My noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Lipsey have actually helped the Government, because they have provided a way by which they could achieve what the Government really want—what all of us really want: a system that is as acceptable as possible and that as far as possible involves constituencies of equal numbers. We could do it by leaving it to the Boundary Commission to come, as it always did, to the consequential conclusion as to what numbers of seats should emerge. If necessary—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Soley here—we could set an absolute maximum and give it some parameters. Fine; I would not object to that, as long as the parameters are wide enough for it to do its job without undue distortion and thereby to achieve, as far as possible, the implementation of those general principles to which all of us in this House must ultimately attach the greatest weight and importance.

[Lord McAvoy]

I wish to speak to my noble friend Lord Soley’s amendment, but before doing so I shall briefly draw attention to the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones—he is, unfortunately, not in his place. The noble Lord comes down from the mountains bearing great prophecies of doom because of alleged filibustering on this side of the House. Before I start on the detail of the amendment, perhaps I might give some detail from an answer obtained from the House of Lords Library by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark on the time spent on Bills in the last Parliament between May 2005 and April 2010. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill had 19 days, the Coroners and Justice Bill had 16 days, the Identity Cards Bill had 16 days, and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill had 15 days. It really is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, is not here—

[Lord Strathclyde]

Can the noble Lord tell us—

[Lord McAvoy]

Are we bringing House of Commons habits here?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us how many of those were Bills of 18 clauses.

[Lord McAvoy]

I cannot say off the top of my head, so I give that one immediately to the noble Lord. The point is that there are 300 pages here on the second part of the Bill, which is constitutional. Surely that must be recognised. That brings me to the point. Now I am being subjected to House of Commons tactics and bullying. I thought that I had escaped all that, but I will try to survive. Let us get to the context, which is that this is a constitutional Bill. I have mentioned this before but I still have a slight sense of disorientation, because when I came here I was told that this was a place of revising—a place where you take your time to study things, make points and get on with things—and that the conventions were there.

Let me say right away—and I can speak only for myself—that the difficulty I have found is that I have come through here at a time of great constitutional upheaval because of this Bill. The normal conventions have not been applied and are still not being applied because the Government are riding roughshod over that process, which is causing problems. Many Members opposite, and, I think, Cross-Bench colleagues, have made the point that people have not been obeying conventions. I have reviewed my conduct and watched what I have been saying and doing. That pressure is not allowing people like me to learn to adapt to the normal pace of events in your Lordships’ House.

In reviewing how I have conducted myself, I have certainly modified my behaviour because I do not intervene now on Ministers or on other Members, because I know full well and have realised that it is counterproductive. It does not work and the House does not like it. I have had to learn that in a compressed sense of rivalry and animosity, in many ways, particularly because the Government are riding roughshod over the House of Lords on a constitutional Bill. That is the only thing that I recognise.

An independent commission would certainly be far better than what we are getting now. I have a lot of time for my noble friend’s amendment, but it seems not to be accepted because I find that there is an element, especially from the Liberals, of, “We are the masters now”. It is like Hartley Shawcross after the Second World War. We now have an illiberal, authoritarian streak not from Conservative Ministers but from Liberal Ministers and Liberal Back-Benchers who are being dictatorial in their approach to any opposition. Before Liberal Lords fall about laughing too much, I remind them that Mr Adrian Sanders has called Danny Alexander a cuckoo in the nest because he is more Tory than the Tories now, so let them laugh at that as well.

Look at where we are. This is illiberal and authoritarian. I take the point of view that consensus, which has always been my way, is the best way forward, especially on constitutional and electoral matters. I shall give an example of why there should be consensus, and I think an independent commission would have a better chance of getting consensus. It is what happened in the Scottish devolution negotiations between the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. I very much regret the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, because he was a beneficiary of that consensus. Orkney and Shetland got two places; Orkney got one place in the Scottish Parliament and Shetland got another. Between them, they have about 33,000 voters. I went along with that consensus because it is a way of trying to get agreement. You look at situations, and there is good will there. I will tell your Lordships' House that there is very little good will and consensus for the Liberals in my heart, especially after the deal that they have got there. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wants to defend his Liberal colleagues—

[Lord Strathclyde]

Does the noble Lord think it would have helped the distribution of seats in the Scottish Parliament if there had been an independent commission or indeed a Speaker’s Conference on it?

[Lord McAvoy]

With the benefit of hindsight, yes, I think it would—if the noble Baroness allows me to answer because I am having a conversation here. We are reviewing the legislation and discussing, which is what I always thought the House of Lords was supposed to be like. With the benefit of hindsight, I think that would have been better because, quite frankly, my late right honourable friend Donald Dewar made a deal with the then Jim Wallace, but we have lived to see the same people who were beneficiaries of that consensus and that deal taking a completely hard line and an authoritarian attitude towards people who have got problems with their constituencies.

I have an amendment for a later stage, and I will be interested to know why Orkney and Shetland is a reserved constituency compared to my old constituency of Rutherglen. The Scottish Parliament negotiations are a clear example of why an independent commission should go ahead. Take the Isle of Wight, for instance. I think that an independent commission would give great weight to the Isle of Wight case. We have had appeals from Mr Andrew Turner, the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight, and a consensual letter from all the political figures in the Isle of Wight Council. That is very impressive: consensus works. I think an independent commission would have a better chance, and it would certainly look free.

I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford. I do not think anybody seriously thinks that there are corrupt people sitting on the Front Bench over there who have corrupted the boundaries. I do not think that. If I thought it, I would say it, but I do not think it. However, matters like this have to be not only pure but seen to be pure, and I do not think that is the case when you get political interference with the political composition of the House of Lords. I am very conscious. I have said what I have got to say. I have said what I wanted to say. I am glad the noble—the mocking and the abuse and the verbal talk when people are supposed to be speaking is nothing less than bullying and intimidation and it really should stop. I am not used to it. [Laughter.] Well, perhaps I should say that I am not used to receiving it.

[Lord Rennard]

Perhaps the noble Lord is an expert in intimidation from his experience as a Whip in the other place. I have just been doing a little maths on this subject, and I think this is now the 19th day that Parliament has debated this Bill. There have been 19 days so far. When the noble Lord was a Whip in the other place on the then Labour Government’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005, a total of 56 hours, 45 minutes was spent deliberating on that Bill.

[Lord McAvoy]

I did not realise how busy I was in the other place. I am impressed that the noble Lord has an impression of my workload there. I do not agree with the grounds for saying that what we are doing on this Bill is not correct and proper, although I agree that there are grounds for saying that we are talking too much. However, this side of the House is subjecting the Bill to scrutiny; that side of the House is not.

[Lord Radice]

My Lords, I support the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Lipsey, although I also think there is a lot of merit in the proposal of my noble friend Lord Soley. I am attracted by the idea of a Speaker’s Conference, partly because I sat on one. I am not sure that many Members of this House have been on one. I was a very junior Member of the House of Commons when I served on the Speaker’s Conference of 1977-78 under Speaker Thomas. It was set up to consider and make recommendations on the number of parliamentary constituencies that there should be in Northern Ireland. It had a cross-party membership. For the Conservatives there was Sir David Renton and the late Ian Gow. The Ulster Unionists were represented by Enoch Powell and Mr James Molyneaux—now the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. The Liberals were represented by Clement Freud. I have not mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, who was also there for the Conservatives.

It carried out its deliberations very quickly. It took written representations. Nine papers were received from political parties and six from individuals. You can have far more than that but that is what we had. It was a contentious issue that we had to solve. We took oral evidence from the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths in Northern Ireland. The key issue was the population increase in Northern Ireland, which justified further seats for Northern Ireland. This had been resisted by different Governments. We also received evidence from the deputy chairman and secretary of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland and the Lord President of the Council.

We had eight meetings and resolved, by 18 votes to four, that there should be an increase in the number of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland, and by 22 votes to one that the figure should be 17. We also decided—this is a matter of interest—that the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland should be given a degree of flexibility to overcome any practical difficulties. We then agreed, by 22 votes to one, to the final recommendation that the number of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland should be 17, but that the Boundary Commission should be given power to vary that number, subject to a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 18.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Billingham]

My Lords, I should like to speak about something slightly different, but I am pleased to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady McDonagh.

Before I came into this House, I had the great privilege of being a Member of the European Parliament. That gives me an insight into what it is like to represent a constituency because I represented not only one constituency—as most people here will have done or will have associated themselves with—but seven Westminster constituencies. It just so happens that, before I was elected MEP, each of those constituencies in Northamptonshire and part of Leicestershire were held by men, and each of those men were Conservatives. It was a shock to all of us, including me, that I was elected then—I promise noble Lords that I have never asked for a recount—but that gave me an opportunity of working with those constituencies which, although they were side by side, were unique in themselves.

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of those constituencies: Northampton North, Northampton South, Wellingborough, Kettering, Daventry, Corby and part of Leicestershire known as Blaby. I can assure noble Lords that, when I spoke in Northamptonshire, I always referred to my constituency as Northamptonshire and Blaby, but it will come as no surprise to anyone that, when I was speaking in Blaby, I called it Blaby and Northamptonshire. I learnt so much working with all those constituencies. Those were places that have developed over the years and over generations. They are not areas from which people move away, as people tend to stay in rural and middle-England areas such as Northamptonshire. Generation after generation can be traced back in those villages. I would urge enormous care to be taken on making too many radical changes in such constituencies.

Each of those constituencies had political divisions within them, but they also had things that united them. If there was ever a threat of a hospital closure, you can be assured that people would all be out on the streets together. In other ways, too, traditional industries were represented quite separately in those seven constituencies—one need only think of Northamptonshire’s old boot and shoe industry. Within a decade, we lost 22,000 jobs. One of my roles in those constituencies was to try to get the European Parliament to provide further support, which we achieved very successfully.

Noble Lords will also remember that Corby was a steel town that had more than its share of misfortune. The whole of that industry was wiped out in the 1980s, but you will recall that the people who arrived in the 1930s to work in the steelworks came down from Ravenscraig in Scotland. I could take you tomorrow to primary schools in Corby where you would not believe that you were not still in Ravenscraig, because the accents are still so strong. The constituencies were unique and the boundaries really mattered.

[Lord McAvoy]

On Corby, I agree with and understand my noble friend’s point about Scotland. Is she aware that there is even a Rangers FC supporters’ club in Corby?

[Baroness Billingham]

I most certainly am aware of that. On a Friday night, if you asked anyone in Corby, “What are you doing at the weekend?”, they would say, “We are going home”. I would say, “But you have lived here for the past 50 years”. Coaches were lined up in the high street for the supporters—some to watch Celtic and some to watch Rangers. Traditions died hard in Corby.

What I am trying to say is that we should not upset the apple cart by making radical changes. The development of the composition of constituencies and the way in which they function is important, not only politically but to the organisations that strive to make their constituencies better.

Finally, let me say that I had a great opportunity in 2000 to look even more closely at the constituency, when I was asked to chair an urban regeneration company in Corby. For five years we rebuilt the town: we built a new city centre, new schools, new roads and 22,000 new homes. One would have thought that the surrounding constituencies would have been jealous, but not a bit of it. The villages worked together in the county council because people knew that the need in Corby was extremely great. They supported the planning applications and the funding, and the result is there for all to see.

We should look very carefully before we tear up historic and important places where people not only want to live and work but enjoy living and working, and where they want their children to live and work and to have some sense of history. We should be aware of what we have at our disposal and of the jewels that are already in our hands.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am a believer in the United Kingdom and I think that the noble Lord is also. I am sure that he will be generous enough to acknowledge that the results of elections in which that has occurred have been beneficent for the country as a whole.

The amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter is an ingenious way to introduce another version of a threshold, which is that there would have to be a majority in each constituent part of the United Kingdom. I would like there to be a threshold, but I do not think that this is the right way to introduce it.

[Lord McAvoy]

I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayter for moving the amendment, because it raises as a serious issue—I hope that it is treated by the House accordingly—the cohesiveness of the United Kingdom. Speaking as a former Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency, I would not claim any great authority but I was representative for the area that I came from and embody in this place a particular opinion about Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, which we value a lot. To move to a semi-federal system where one nation imposed its will on another on a constitutional matter would raise issues and give manna from heaven to the nationalists and separatists who would divide up the United Kingdom.

Naturally, there have been a lot of contributions about referenda and thresholds. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, mentioned the 1975 referendum and how he voted one way and then changed his mind some years later. He voted yes in 1975, he tells us, and says that he has changed his mind since. I voted no in 1975 and I am still not yet totally convinced that I was wrong, so there is a twist in that as well.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

Does the noble Baroness recognise that the problem with thresholds for turnout is that not voting is turned into a no vote? Has she had the opportunity of examining carefully the persuasive argument of Mr Christopher Bryant, to whom reference was made earlier at some length, on 2 November, when he not only argued conclusively on behalf of the Labour Party against thresholds of this sort but was also most effective in securing a massive vote against them: 549 against 31. Has the noble Baroness had the opportunity of examining the arguments of Mr Christopher Bryant and, indeed, those of her colleagues who all went into the Lobby to vote against such thresholds?

[Lord McAvoy]

Before my noble friend answers the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, perhaps she could consider, in doing so, asking him about the advice offered by Mr Nick Clegg that AV was a “miserable little compromise”.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I shall make one or two points briefly. My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton mentioned the number of speakers of Welsh and who is monoglot and who is not monoglot. In referring to Wales, he specifically mentioned that he had drawn his figures from the census. My point is not so much about numbers but about proportions. The Scottish Gaelic world is concentrated in the Western Isles and the western part of Scotland, so the proportion of people affected is quite considerable, although the numbers and proportion in the whole of Scotland are certainly less than in Wales. That is why it should be recognised, not only in symbolism but in reality.

Symbolism is important. It should be remembered that, particularly after April 1746, there was a campaign against the culture of that world. The communities were destroyed; they were persecuted by the UK Government, driven into corners and discriminated against, not only for their activities between August 1745 and April 1746, but because of their culture and the communities they represented, so there is a bit of a siege mentality in that world.

That world is not only represented by the Western Isles but by the county of Argyll. Argyllshire comes into it as well. When I was on Strathclyde regional council—Argyll was part of the regional council’s area—we went to great lengths to preserve and encourage the Gaelic language, not only in schools within the region’s remit but because of the Gaelic population in the west of Scotland, particularly in the city of Glasgow. It could have been argued that a disproportionate amount of money was spent on this, but we thought it important and it was much appreciated by the Gaelic community. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock has already mentioned, Liberal Members of this House should support this, but there seemed to be some surprise at that point of view.

Argyll is relevant to what I am going to say next. My very good friend, with whom I shared a lot in common, was the late Lady Michie—Ray Michie—a tremendous person: a Bannerman who represented the Bannerman family. She once said to me that that was because her family carried the banner of Scotland and its many battles, particularly against our now English friends. I remember Ray and I down at Tilbury Docks, along with the noble Lord, Lord Martin. The local council down there was commemorating the centenary of the Jacobite prisoners at Tilbury Docks. That was a war crime if there ever was one. The proportion of the Jacobites who died in those prison holes was quite shocking. That day there was a procession; the noble Lord, Lord Martin, played the bagpipes, followed by the late Ray Michie, me and Andrew Mackinlay, who was then MP for Thurrock. In my opinion, Lady Michie would have been a firm supporter of this amendment. I have no doubt at all about that. There is a lot of principle involved.

An amendment like this would be of relevant use to people in the Western Isles, where, again, the proportion is striking. To its credit, the Scottish Parliament has taken great steps to try and look after the Gaelic language. That is absolutely right. This is a revising Chamber and this amendment could and should be accepted by the Government without any great principle being at stake and without involving any attack on the Bill. It surprises me that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should behave in such a House of Commons manner by trying to inject a note of controversy by questioning my noble friend Lord Browne. It was really quite shocking and hurtful to see. I hope that he will get away from that House of Commons attitude—a hope that he himself has expressed so many times—and accept the amendment.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Indeed, I suppose it would be surprising if I did not, having my roots in north-west Sutherland, the heart of the Gaeltacht of Scotland. Most of my education was in the Isle of Lewis and the Isle of Skye a long time ago. In those days Gaelic was taught, sadly, as a foreign language. I was given a choice, because at the age of 11 one had to make decisions. My parents thought that they might like me to do medicine, so Latin was prescribed for me. Those who had a hankering for divinity were required to learn Greek. If you wanted to do Latin or Greek, you could not study Gaelic. That was part of the education system as it then existed in Scotland. My Gaelic is extremely rudimentary. My father was a native Gaelic speaker and my mother could not speak it, so, sadly, I never became fluent in it.

Things have improved and changed in Scotland, certainly since devolution. There are many Gaelic-medium schools now in Scotland, and they are extremely successful. We have the BBC ALBA channel, which is very successful and which will shortly, I hope, be available on Freeview so that many more can have access to it. However, there is still pressure in Scotland and the view that, because everyone can speak English fluently and read English, there is no need for Gaelic. That is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We hear this all the time about road signs and railway signs in Gaelic; “it’s a waste of money”. No, it is not a waste of money. There is still suspicion in the Highlands, among Gaels, that the establishment and the Civil Service still have anti-Gaelic sentiment running through them. We should dispel that; we can dispel it tonight if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can accept this amendment or indicate that similar wording will be put into the Act, as is the case for Welsh.

We hear a great deal about Ulster Scots and Irish and parity of esteem. Indeed, we hear a lot about this, certainly in Written Questions, in this House. If we have parity of esteem between Ulster Scots and Irish in the Belfast agreement, and Welsh is already embedded in this Bill, we must indeed have Gaelic as well, because there must be parity of esteem for Scottish Gaelic.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I agree with the noble Baroness and wish to emphasise the fact that changing the system of election does away with a system that we have had for hundreds of years. The Bill proposes to sweep that all aside on the same day as holding local elections. It is an outrageous suggestion. Changing the electoral system is a one-off instrument that will change voting in this country forever. Yet we will be asked to have a discussion of this huge constitutional change in the midst of local elections.

I was a member of a county borough council for 18 years and leader of it for a number of years. We treated our elections seriously. We spent months preparing a manifesto for the elections and went out and fought the elections on the basis of the manifestos. We in the Labour Party, and in the Conservative Party, argued our case. We went around canvassing for our policies. We spoke through loudspeakers on corners of streets to convey our message to the electorate—although I do not think that they do that now. What will we do if, first of all, we have to convince electors that they should vote for our policies—whichever our party—and, at the same time, ask them to make a decision about a vital and profound alteration to our electoral system?

As I have said before, this is an outrageous proposal which treats the electorate with contempt. The electorate are being asked to change something that they have had for 100 years. They understand the system and have got used to it. In times gone by—certainly something has happened since—the electorate were producing electoral decisions based on a very high turnout, sometimes 75 or 80 per cent. Here we are asking them to change the system without a proper discussion. This system is complex—it is a change that people will not easily understand. People deserve to be informed of exactly what results will appertain from the change and be told exactly how it will work before they can make a decision. That cannot be mixed up with local elections.

I cannot understand why the coalition is bringing this forward. It has time to make a change. Although I do not agree with the AV system, it would probably do better if it had a separate referendum at a different time so that people could be asked to understand what is being proposed. If the Government are unable to change their mind on holding the referendum at the same time as other local and regional elections, they will regret it very much. I urge them to change their minds.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. It gives me, and others, another chance to state yet again that, apart from the occasional speech, I do not find any great resistance among the Labour ranks to the actual fact of holding a referendum. There will be people who are very principled against it and I respect that. However, it has to be judged against the majority. I do not think that my noble friend’s amendment is a destructive or wrecking amendment, designed to defeat the Bill and bring the Government into chaos—although it would not take much, right enough. However, that is another story. The timing of the Bill in relation to other matters this week might split this collaboration Government. Supporting this amendment does not necessarily mean being against the referendum. I would look forward to a referendum and would participate strongly against AV. That is everybody’s right if and when it happens. I make it clear again, especially for the benefit of the Liberal Benches, that I am not against the referendum. Let the people speak and I will do my best to influence them.

Mention has been made of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, yet again aggressively mentioned what happened in Scotland. Frankly, you would need to have been there to see the shambles. It has been indicated that this is a simple thing. There was a sly reference, suggesting that, by expressing doubt about the efficacy of the referendum, we are somehow casting aspersions on our own people. The Scots are pretty good at insulting other people; we are not too bad at insulting our own as well, but do not let anybody else insult us. One had to be there in May 2007. I spoke about this last week so I will not go into too much detail about it.

I find myself being tempted down the road of dealing with the Liberals again so I will spend just a minute on them. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, uses the word “internal” about this debate. My God, this is only a very early stage. Last week, when we discussed the first group of amendments, the only Liberal who spoke was the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The Liberal Benches were otherwise silent. There was no participation, scrutiny or involvement and there were no interventions—nothing. Is that what this House is here for? There might have been an occasional intervention but they were so fleeting that I do not remember them. I see the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, indicating disagreement. I did not hear or see much involvement from the Liberal Benches last week. I think there was one intervention from the Conservative Benches from the only noble Lord who happened to be there at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. If this House is a revising Chamber, as I strongly believe it is, where was the participation? The Liberal Peers should look to their own house on that.

There was no consultation with the devolved Assemblies on holding the referendum on the same day. Before I am accused of repetition, that cannot be said often enough or sincerely enough to get across to the Government just how insulting that is held to be in Scotland. There was no consideration, no consultation and no involvement. Scotland was somehow tagged on as though it was a type of poodle at the end of Westminster. I say that although I am no Scot nat. It has been badly handled and it indicates what has been disregarded in the rush.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made some points; frankly, they could be telling. I do not dismiss in any way what he said. They are relevant matters, worth discussing. However, they are made inoperable in this sense. I have here the business and minutes of proceedings for this House. The forward business for Monday 20 December of this year—not next year—says that it is expected that the Committee stage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will conclude. That is the rush to judgment, referred to by several of my noble friends, which we could all collectively regret, although I hope not. I do not want to cite the Dangerous Dogs Act, which many noble Lords will recall. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, the rush to judgment is dangerous and it should not continue.

My noble friend Lord Rooker has mentioned the lifeboat syndrome, and that is right, because this amendment would give the Government a chance to think again. I keep coming up against a brick wall in the sense that the logical, rational side of me cannot grasp why there is this rush to legislate—a 300-page Bill being rammed through the House of Lords in a matter of weeks. Then the politician in me asks, “Why? There’s got to be a reason”. And once again we come up against the reason: the reason is political expediency. The Conservative side of the collaboration Government are desperate to get their boundaries Bill, and the Liberal part of the collaboration Government are desperate to get a referendum Bill to save their party from destroying itself even more than it is going to do this week. That is political expediency and it is to be regretted. I hope there is a legitimate response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rooker.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I would like briefly to follow up the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, when she asked the question: how important is this? It seems to me that the time taken for debate is a reflection of how important we think this issue is—although I dare say she and I would have perhaps agreed a generation or two ago on behalf of the suffragettes, had our predecessors moved more quickly to give them the vote. It seems to me that, on this issue, we need a thorough discussion about systems of voting and a consideration of how important this is with regard, for example, to elected police commissioners. I am unsure exactly what—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rennard]

It was the system that is proposed in this Bill and which was proposed by the then Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill put forward earlier this year and voted for overwhelmingly by Members in another place. I ask those in your Lordships’ House who are members of the major parties, and who are considering tonight and on many other days the merits or otherwise of the alternative vote system, to consider how it is that within their own parties—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, and for that matter the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru or the Greens—when it comes to electing a single person, be it a leader, a president or a candidate, it is the alternative vote system, as generally known, that is always used.

In 1996-97, I was the joint secretary of the committee between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats that looked at proposals for constitutional reform in the event that the Conservative Party lost the 1997 general election. I served under the late Robin Cook and my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart. We had very high hopes then because it was agreed between the then main opposition parties that as and when there was a general election in 1997, and if the Conservative Party was defeated, there would be a referendum on an alternative proportional voting system. Over the 13 years in which that Government lasted, no such referendum was ever held.

Shortly after the general election of 1997, the late Lord Jenkins chaired the commission that looked at the alternatives; the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was a member of it. I have noted how some of those in support of this amendment are quoting the fact that the Jenkins commission, as it became known in 1998, did not find in favour of AV but in favour of a system known as AV+. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has confirmed in earlier debates, when it came to actually looking at this issue, the great—and I think very wise—Lord Jenkins, actually decided that the best system, in his opinion, was for AV for single-member constituencies in rural areas and for STV in the bigger city areas with multi-Member constituencies.

I note the words of my noble—he called me a little while ago his erstwhile—friend Lord Alton of Liverpool. He said that Lord Jenkins had in the end rejected the AV system. To all those who hold the memory of the late Lord Jenkins in some esteem—I hope there are many in this House—I would say that I know that it was to his great, great regret, in a very long and very distinguished career, that at that period in the late 1990s, when there was the opportunity to implement the AV system, he did not help to seize that opportunity. I believe that we must not let the opportunity of some form of electoral reform go away again.

The Electoral Reform Society, which was formerly known as the Proportional Representation Society, campaigned for PR for more than 100 years. It is urging rejection of these amendments in order to get some progress and to give voters some say on the issue as opposed to none at all. The alternative vote system may not be perfect, but it gives more power to the voter. It would mean, for example, that MPs who considered themselves unfairly deselected by their party could stand again without fear of splitting their party vote, thus giving more power to the voter. It would have meant, for example, that supporters of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, could have stood against the party that became the Liberal Democrats and avoided the split in votes that damaged his cause and split the vote of what had been the alliance in the 1980s. For these reasons, I would say that AV is at least a much more attractive proposition than first past the post, to say nothing of the greater power that it gives to the voter.

[Lord McAvoy]

I have listened very carefully to the lucid contributions of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I totally accept the sincerity of their points of view on their particular systems, but having heard the various explanations and all the rest of it I started to get a headache. Will the noble Lord care to comment on the fact that I served for 28 years as an elected representative and I do not recall a single occasion, at a public meeting or a surgery, on which the issue of so-called electoral reform, proportional representation or whatever name anyone cares to give it was raised? Surely, we are supposed to reflect the public. Where is the public demand for this?

[Lord Rennard]

There are many places in this country with very safe seats, where issues of electoral reform are rarely debated. I accept that people are far more interested in outcomes than they are in processes, but I believe the process by which MPs are chosen is rather important in determining the outcomes. In your Lordships’ House, reference has constantly been made during these debates to the words of the Deputy Prime Minister considering the alternative vote system. Shall we just deal with those words for a moment? The first point is that the alternative vote system that he is now advocating is a compromise. Yes, it is a compromise. If no one party wins a general election, there is a need for compromise. I believe that many people in this country think that compromising is sometimes a good principle, not a bad one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful for that endorsement and argument. My noble friend is a very powerful debater. He has made a good point. It is not all negative, but let me tell you some of the negative points. When we had a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, we were forced to concede STV for local government—I will come to that in a moment. Now we suffer from a minority SNP Government who have only one more seat than the Labour Party. They are so paralysed that they are unable to put any of their legislation through Parliament. That is why I said to my noble friend Lord Howarth that he should come up and see the stalemate that exists when we are not getting legislation properly dealt with.

I raised once before the system of Members retiring in the Scottish Parliament. If I were to retire tomorrow—and some people might like me to—the person who was second in the list would take over automatically without any election at all, with the people having no say whatever. Since my noble friend Lord McConnell represents a constituency—Motherwell and Wishaw—if he were to retire tomorrow, there would be a by-election and the people would have a say. However, if Margo MacDonald—who stood as an independent—were to retire tomorrow, there would be no filling of the vacancy whatever. I say to my noble friend Lord Rooker—a good friend—that this is just one of the many anomalies of the system that we have in the Scottish Parliament.

We ended up with STV. We had the European election system, the Scottish Parliament AMS system and the single transferrable vote in local government. Chaos has led to no overall control in so many authorities.

[Lord McAvoy]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has expressed concern about this list member system as well?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who was one of the architects of the system, has said that, if he had his time again, he would not support the system. I think that a lot of people who were involved would feel the same. So we have those three systems.

We should recognise that, if the coalition policy gets pushed through this House, we will have elections for the second Chamber—with another system of elections and another structure—as well as a change for the Commons. That is why I argue the case against having this referendum—indeed, against any changes for first past the post. I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, did not agree with what he wrote 40 years ago because I am sure that it was right then and I am sure that it is right now.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, I am glad to have another opportunity to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because, as someone who for most her life has had an intense involvement in Scottish politics, I find his arguments rather difficult to follow. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I have a history because in 1979 we were intensely involved in the Scottish Parliament referendum when we were both on the losing side. One of the reasons for that was the complexity of the debate at the time and the fact that there were very few people behind us—in the party that he then supported—who were in favour of what was going on. I suggest that if the noble Lord looks behind him at the moment he will find that the Benches are singularly empty as well.

There is a certain poignancy and irony in the fact that we are having this debate on St Andrew’s Day because the first point I wish to make is that the failure to consult on the date of the referendum did not show the Scottish Government any kind of respect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, knows me well and knows that I hold no brief for the Scottish National Party Administration in the Scottish Parliament, but they still form that Administration and they should have been consulted.

In the midst of the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Browne I had a light bulb moment. I think the Liberal Democrats have been comprehensively conned because holding both the referendum and the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day in Scotland will lead to the referendum being defeated. I say this for two reasons. First, I have many friends who are Liberal Democrats and I believe that they are on a hiding to nothing because the argument that will be used in Scotland—and we are hearing it already—is, “Cut out the middleman. If you want a Tory, just vote Tory”. That will have an impact on the Liberal Democrats. Secondly, I do not believe the Scottish people will respond positively to what looks like a fiddle being worked by putting the referendum and the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day.

My noble friend Lord Browne referred to public holidays. The fact that we will have the massive diversion of a royal wedding in the middle of it all will greatly complicate things. I have a background in newspapers as well as in politics and, frankly, referenda do not sell newspapers; royal weddings do. There is likely to be rather more about who is going to make Miss Middleton’s frock than about the nature of the constitutional debate on how this country should choose its leaders in the future.

I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. He makes a sensible point. I appeal to the Liberal Democrats to think seriously about the hole they are digging themselves into because, frankly, if this referendum is lost, it will be a generation before the issue of proportional representation can be raised again. I see smiles on the Conservative Benches when I say that. This legislation has been cobbled together and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats has it as his special project. It may turn out to be his epitaph.

[Lord McAvoy]

I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. I wish to spend a couple of minutes on one of my favourite subjects—the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats. I can see one noble Lord covering his face in horror, but the best is yet to come.

In setting the background, I shall begin with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, my good friend who expressed such affection for me last week. I am beginning to think that I would rather it was an affection that did not speak its name. The gist of the noble Lord’s contribution was, “If you do not let us put this Bill through, we will do this and that to you”, and he portrays our principled opposition to the Bill as being destructive. He portrays it as being aimed at nothing other than destroying the Bill, with nothing positive in it.

That was followed in even worse terms by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whose contribution was designed to intimidate and bully anyone who opposes the Bill. Those who oppose the Bill would be portrayed as obstructing the House of Lords and ruining its conventions. In my short time here, I have seen more destruction of the conventions of the House coming from the Conservative Government, and yet they accuse us of destroying them. Both the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Strathclyde, have put forward a deliberate strategy that is designed to convince our colleagues on the Cross Benches that we are entirely negative about this. I see a Conservative Peer nodding in agreement. There has been not a word about principled opposition or the excellent points that have been made by my colleagues. They are far better points than I will make, but they have not been listened to. Their strategy is to portray us as obstructive and to destroy our democratic right to revise the legislation and to ask the Government to think again.

I do not look to defeat the elected House of Commons—I never have; at the end of the day, it must have its way. However, I recall that time and again the Conservatives and Liberals defeated the Labour Government on the basis that they asked them to think again. This House normally performs its traditional, conventional duty of revising legislation, suggesting improvements and asking the Government of the day to think again, but that is not happening here. We are not out to defeat the Government—I certainly am not and I do not think anyone else is—but we are asking them to think again, as we have a democratic right so to do. We should not be portrayed as destroying the conventions of the House.

My final comment concerns the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. He waxed lyrical—or not so lyrical—about how explicit the Labour Party was in promising a referendum on AV. If we are going to have a league table, or an exposé, on those who make explicit pledges and promises and then deny them, I do not think we could have a better example than Mr Clegg and every Liberal MP who was elected on a pledge to vote against tuition fees. We should have a bit less of that attitude.

Throughout the debate on the Bill, the perils of legislation such as this, especially on a constitutional matter, being railroaded through without any pre-legislative scrutiny of any kind, have been clear. It should not happen on constitutional matters, but what we have here is the fanatics of proportional representation selling their soul to the Conservatives for the sake of a referendum on AV. I am not personally any great lover of referendums. I seem to be the only one here tonight, among my noble friends, who regarded the referendum result in 1979 as a victory. I think that that was a victory in 1979, but I seem to stand alone on these Benches—there we are; nothing new in that.

My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton indicated the number of votes that were spoiled and quite rightly blamed the systems. I stood at gates throughout the constituency and time after time the staff were not able to do their work. It was a brand-new system to them, they found it confusing, they could not give the right advice or they gave the wrong advice, and people did not know what to do—not all our political activists were au fait with the system and able to give definitive advice and it ended up a mess.

That was compounded in the constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West when we had a by-election in the Cambusland East ward, due to the tragic death of the sitting SNP councillor, who had great respect in the ward. We all turned up for the count that night, stood around for two or three hours, things went wrong and we were told to go home and come back the following morning. We came back the following morning, nobody oversaw the count, the political parties did not oversee the count and we were just told by the chief executive of the council what the result was. That is what happens when change is rushed and people do not have any experience of it.

To have this referendum on the same day—and, as was the case with the Scottish Parliament elections, without consultation of any kind—is quite insulting. To go back to the failure that my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, mentioned, I do not see any sign—and I am honestly willing to listen—of any education or training taking place to take account of and to deal with the mistakes and faults in that system come May and referendum day. I have not heard a single thing and if anyone, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, can come up with specific details of extra training schemes to take account of those lessons, that would be welcome.

What we have with the Bill is rushed legislation driven by the future National Liberal contingent in this Parliament—because they will be exposed as they were in the 1920s and 1930s and we will end up with National Liberals. Look at the Conservative Benches, by far the bigger part of that coalition team. Where are they? They are not here. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is the sole representative. We have a mess here. It is being railroaded through. I am strongly opposed to that and I will continue to oppose it on the basis of revising, improving and asking the Government to think again.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate—