Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Am I not right in thinking that the Duchy of Cornwall is based upon the fact that in times long past Cornwall was almost a kingdom of its own? Does it not have a language and is it not the only Celtic part of England? Are these not further strings to his already overladen bow?

[Lord Myners]

I was about to bring my address to a close, but I now feel that I have been given an opportunity to expand on the virtues of Cornwall. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is correct. More than 300 people now speak the Cornish language. It is taught in 12 primary schools and an increasing number of secondary schools. There is a deep and long history in Cornwall that sees Cornwall as a separate nation, based, indeed, upon the Duchy. I tread with some caution because earlier the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who represented a Cornish constituency with great aplomb and skill for many years, rose to speak when I pointed out that at one stage Cornwall had 44 Members of Parliament, compared to the current six. I suggested that this was due to the tin mining industry and its prosperity and importance. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggested that it was due to other factors. I have since checked AL Rowse’s Tudor Cornwall and I find that my original observation that it was largely a reflection of the prosperity of the Cornish tin industry is the same conclusion that AL Rowse reached.

Of course, the tin mining industry explains the flag of St Piran, the national flag of Cornwall. We do not talk about it as the county flag, but as the national flag, because we regard Cornwall in many respects as a nation. That is reflected in the views of many people in Cornwall who deny the status of Cornwall as a part of England, who deny that Cornwall is a county and continue to believe that the Duchy of Cornwall affords special constitutional privileges which are not presently recognised by this Parliament.

I spoke about challenges, but there is hope in Cornwall. There are a number of extraordinary people who are turning Cornwall around; an inspiring leader in the chief executive of Cornwall County Council, the new unitary authority for Cornwall, Mr Kevin Lavery; Alan Livingston of the Combined Universities; Lady Mary Holborow, the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall; and Sir Richard Carew Pole, who has done so much for the arts and culture in Cornwall. Those, together with the young people who are now coming to Cornwall to study at the Combined Universities, are turning the corner in Cornwall, enthusing people with their identity and passion for the county of Cornwall.

At the last election, Cornwall was allocated an additional seat by the Boundary Commission. Cornwall had previously had five seats. Noble Lords will remember that that number compared with the 44 or so MPs that Cornwall had from the mid 16th century until 1832, but the number of seats in Cornwall was raised from five to six by the Boundary Commission. How did the Boundary Commission come to the conclusion that Cornwall needed an additional Member of Parliament? By sensitively listening to representations from the people of Cornwall on the nature of local communities, how people defined themselves and how local organisations worked—clear and distinct communities. Even within that, of course, in creating an additional constituency there needs to be movement. So, for instance, Truro, having previously been part of St Austell, has now become part of the Falmouth constituency.

There was recognition, however, that there were key focal points of community living and cultural identity in Cornwall that should be recognised in parliamentary constituencies. That is the Boundary Commission doing its work in a proper and sensitive way, having regard to local opinions, customs and practice. Instead, in the Bill we are being told to support an arithmetic division of the country into 600 constituencies of equal size, with a modest flexibility of 5 per cent either side of the—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I visited Cornwall for many years. More recently, I became a resident there. Unsurprisingly, I get involved quite a lot in transport issues there. I agree with all noble Lords who said how important it is to keep Cornwall separate. I look on Cornwall as an island. Only six miles of land separate Devon and Cornwall on the north side. The river Tamar is the frontier. Crossing the Tamar on a bridge has always been difficult. There are not many road bridges, and many were fearsome in the past. There is one railway bridge. The roads are so bad that about the only railway in the area apart from the main line that was preserved by Dr Beeching was the interesting line that goes up to Gunnislake—which involved reversing in the middle of nowhere—because the local residents rightly argued that that was the only way in which they could get out in the winter when it was snowy. The line is still running very well.

I therefore compare Cornwall, as a semi-island, with some of the Scottish islands, which, as we have heard, have already been granted what you might call their own constituency status. I see how the Scottish ferries operate extremely effectively and efficiently, subsidised and supported by the Scottish Government, and I compare that with what happens in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. We have two very good ports in Cornwall in the shape of Foy and Falmouth. I am pleased to be a harbour commissioner in the port of Foy.

Penzance, at the end of the railway, is where the ferry goes to the Scillies. As we have heard, about 2,000 people live on the Scillies who maintain a very nice existence—I go there often—but it is very dependent on tourism. The dear old “Scillonian”, which is a passenger and freight ferry, is about 40 years old. It has basically been condemned by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The service has been given a stay of execution for another year or two, provided that a new ferry is procured. It operates daily in the season with passengers and freight. It needs upgrading because the facilities in the quays are not good. The fear is that one of these days there will be an accident and a piece of cargo will hit a passenger. That could happen at either end, so rightly it has been insisted that the service be improved.

The partnership that is trying, with the aid of European, county council and Department for Transport money, to develop and finance extensions to the quays at both ends—at St Mary's and Penzance—and a new passenger and freight combined ferry, has had the most appalling trouble getting a project together. Alternatives have been produced and everyone is agreed on the best alternative. It has had planning problems because it had to extend the quay slightly at Penzance. Someone objected at the public inquiry that the quay could not be extended because it would go on to sacred ground. When the inspector asked where was the evidence was that the ground was sacred, he wastold, “Come and look at the footprints of Jesus at low tide”.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I hope the noble Lord will not be upset by my question, but I have completely lost the drift of his argument vis-à-vis Cornwall as a separate entity.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

That is right. It is not just Labour Members in the other place but Conservative Members too who wrote to us asking us to cover these matters in our debates in the House of Lords, because they were not covered in the House of Commons as they should be.

I end with a quote from Vince Cable, who, in an eavesdropped conversation—and in my view the journalists have something to answer for, but it is out so it must be said—stated that there was a real danger of the Government becoming Maoist in their tendencies. That is right. There is a foolish rush of power—perhaps of power to the head—which is driving them forward.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for giving way. I perfectly understand the legitimacy of arguments about the proper way in which one should reduce or not reduce the number of MPs. Where I do not follow him—and what seems an illegitimate argument—is for him to say, as he has said a number of times, that this is being done as a gerrymander, in effect. I put it to him that there is no evidence for that. What is the purpose of the Boundary Commission if it is not to ensure that any change in constituencies is fairly effected?

[Lord Soley]

Nobody has moved the word “gerrymandering”, myself included. But let us be very clear what was being said, and not just in Andrew Tyrie’s document. He says that the current numbers are unfair as they overrepresent the Labour Party and that the Conservative Party is underrepresented. He does not use those last words, but it is there throughout. In a number of the speeches, comments and articles written in newspapers, which I have going back over that period, it is repeated on numerous occasions by Conservatives that the Labour Party has too many seats. What he is basing that on—although I do not want to go over my last speech—is the number of the electors. But of course it rules out the underregistration problem and the social and economic factors that we referred to, so it is not appropriate. What matters is that with those figures, he has worked out, quite rightly—although I know there are arguments about this—that the Conservatives would win more of those seats. The argument gets a big convoluted if you put in the alternative vote, when it becomes more difficult to predict. But there is not much doubt that in the mind of the Conservative Party since 2004 there has been the view that the Labour Party has too many seats in Parliament and that the Tory Party should have more.

Peers

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, appointments are entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, but the coalition agreement indicated that, pending long-term reform of the House, we would gradually move towards appointments made more in proportion to the political parties in the House of Commons.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, after the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, reports on retirement arrangements, what does my noble friend think should be done, if anything, about those Peers who do not take the enticement but do not speak, do not vote, do not serve on committees and often do not attend?

[Lord Strathclyde]

That is exactly why I will await the final report of my noble friend: to see whether or not he raises any of those issues.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To be frank, I do not understand that either. However, I asked that question and I understand that it is because of the way that votes are counted manually. One returning officer in a seat in Scotland told us that he had different buckets into which he placed different votes and, as the tellers went from count to count, they moved the votes from one bucket to another. Perhaps that has something to do with how they count the additional preferences. As I said, I have not been able to trace that information up to now.

As I said, remember that we are dealing with what are normally STV local authority arrangements where there are by-elections in individual seats. Let me take six seats that were up for single-member election. In Glasgow Ballieston, of those who voted: 100 per cent —obviously—used their first preference vote; 51 per cent did not use their second preference vote; 68 per cent did not use their third preference vote; 84 per cent did not use their fourth preference vote; 91 per cent did not use their fifth preference vote; 92 per cent did not use their sixth preference; and 93 per cent did not use their seventh preference. At another Glasgow Ballieston by-election, of those who voted: 47 per cent did not use their second preference vote; 74 per cent did not use their third preference vote; 83 per cent did not use their fourth preference vote; 92 per cent did not use their fifth preference vote; 93 per cent did not use their sixth preference vote; 94 per cent did not use their seventh preference vote; 94 per cent did not use their eighth preference vote; and 95 per cent did not use their ninth preference. What a system. People are not using their additional preferences.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am slightly perplexed by that argument, which seems to point in the direction of second and further preferences being purposive. One of the noble Lord’s earlier arguments was that they were inconsequential.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Sorry, I missed what the noble Lord said.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The argument that the noble Lord is advancing suggests that the use of second and further preferences is purposive—that is, the voters are exercising a real choice. If voters are indifferent to some candidates, they may not use their other preferences at all. That is surely right and good, but it works against his earlier argument.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord is correct and has hit the point right on the head. Voters often use their second preferences. That is why we go back to the supplementary vote. Under the supplementary vote system, all the second preferences for all the other candidates are transferred to the top two, whereas under the AV system, that is not the case.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

I do not believe in apologising when I am not fully aware of the facts.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Will my noble friend comment on the fact that there are many other legislatures where elections, referendums and plebiscites are held simultaneously and the people of those countries do not seem to be incorrigibly undermined in their decisions as a result? Secondly, will he comment on the fact that paragraphs 9 and 10 of the first schedule to the Bill set out a very stringent duty on the Electoral Commission and the various election officers to inform the public? As I understand it, the Electoral Commission intends to circulate to every household in the land a plain English guide to the issues about which the referendum is to be held.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful to my noble friend for rushing to my defence in a distinguished and helpful way—I was going to say gallant, but that is the wrong way round. What I was arguing, as my noble friend said, is that we need to take account of these things when we are looking at this amendment and any changes in the election to the House Commons, the first Chamber. If the Lords is the revising Chamber and is not forming the Government, there is an argument for it being elected by first past the post because then you have a different system balancing what the House of Commons and what the Government are putting to Parliament.

As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—or perhaps it was my noble friend—rightly said, this would mean that you would have to carefully define the powers of both the Commons and the Lords. That is why I believe that we are moving towards needing some kind of written constitution with devolved parliamentary assemblies and parliaments, with a separate Supreme Court and with the possibility and the proposal to elect the second Chamber. Everything needs to be much more clearly defined. That is why it would be madness—and this is where I come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, which was moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Owen—to rush into this kind of referendum, or any kind of referendum, to change the system for the House of Commons. There are enough other changes taking place with the proposed reform of the House of Lords; we should learn from the changes that have taken place in Scotland, although it has not been a happy experience. We should not rush into something that has unexpected consequences just because the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, apparently puts a convincing case. Just because the noble Lord has spent 35 years arguing the case for proportional representation, we should not move in that direction. What is best for the Labour Party and the country is to stick to first past the post, which has provided election to the House of Commons with some degree of stability over a long period.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I will make some practical points in saying why I am in favour of neither this amendment nor the one to be spoken to later by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which is not dissimilar. Frankly, if one were dealing in the theory of referenda and the reform of electoral systems at this time, I would find a great deal to favour particularly in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I will be frank—I have fought and lost five parliamentary elections. The first was for Labour in 1970. At that time, I confess, I did not think twice about electoral systems. I knew, as all Labour and Tory Members know, that the first past the post system was deeply in their favour. One of the problems of discussing reform here or in the other place is that we are all parti pris. We are all conflicted. Nobody can look at this complex but profound issue without party affiliation coming into play.

However, it is also fair to say—the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, expressed it very well—that, before and above that, we are concerned about Parliament: its respect in the country, its effectiveness and its health. I do not think anybody sitting here tonight believes that our Parliament, in 2010, is in good fettle. I do not for one second suggest that the lack of democratic adherence to it is, by any means, solely down to the electoral system. However, I maintain that it is one of the principal reasons why so many of our fellow countrymen do not even bother to vote—to use the precious vote that our forefathers fought so hard for. Four out of 10 do not vote and—I heard this statistic the other night—of those aged under 30, only around two out of six voted in the last election. One principal reason is that unless you are a Tory or Labour supporter your vote is apt to count for nothing. I think as much of the Greens and, indeed, UKIP as I do of the Liberal Democrat Party.

The other thing I know, which deeply affects my feeling about this amendment, is that we have been going round and round this mulberry bush my entire political life. There is always not just one but 10 reasons why we should not have reform now, and why we should wait until we have decided whether there is to be election to the House of Lords, and so on. There are always several reasons. My noble friend Lord Rennard gave, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, kindly admitted, an extremely clear and persuasive history of electoral reform—or rather the failure to have electoral reform—in this country. It is perfectly clear that many organisations and all the parties in this House use AV now. It has no deep defect. What is absolutely unavoidable is that the consequences of bringing in AV at this juncture will profoundly affect all parties in this country.

I come to my last point, which is to admit that the Liberal Democrats are plainly the party that is keenest on AV for electoral purposes. It is in our self-interest—of course it is. However, we also believe—I hope noble Lords will accept my sincerity—that it is also in the public interest, for the reasons I have briefly touched on, to give many more people a stake in government and a useful vote. Incidentally, if any non-Lib Dem was to go around with a Lib Dem on the doorsteps, my goodness, they would hear about electoral reform then. I am not surprised that you do not hear about it if you are a Conservative or Labour supporter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If it could be shown that by changing the electoral system in favour of STV or AV, turnout did not rise, would that in any way influence how the noble Lord thinks about the proposition on the table?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Yes, of course it would, but the noble Lord cannot demonstrate that until we have tried it. It is no good telling us about Ireland or Iceland.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If it could be shown that in Scotland turnout did not rise, would that influence the noble Lord?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

It would influence me to some extent but I would want to know a great deal more about it before I admitted anything more than that here and now.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I hope the noble Lord is able to attend our future debates on this issue.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

All I can say—

[Baroness McDonagh]

Taking Wales as an example, why does the noble Lord believe that more people turn out to vote in first past the post elections than under other systems there?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Noble Lords are now asking me a series of questions at large that need very detailed consideration to be commented on sensibly. All I will say is that I am convinced that, because in many constituencies a Liberal vote, a Green vote or a vote for anything but the prevailing party is a waste of time, common sense says that people will not be engaged with the election in that constituency in the way that they would if they had a vote that counted.

[Baroness McDonagh]

I am sorry but the noble Lord is saying that if we have a different form of voting system, more people will vote. That clearly has not happened in Scotland and Wales. Will he now change his opinion?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I certainly will not. I can speak of this country, where I have fought five parliamentary elections. I know how people in this country—those who are not of the dominant party in the constituency concerned—think about the voting system. It seems blazingly obvious that if you are not of the prevailing party, the tendency not to vote is very strong and has led to the present facts. Please take note of the declining turnout among young voters. They are increasingly disenchanted with the hegemony of our system.

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Will noble Lords allow me quickly to conclude my speech? The noble Baroness has intervened twice already.

For us on these Benches, it is now or never. It is AV or nothing. We believe AV to be an improvement, and an improvement in the public interest. For those reasons I will not, I am afraid, be tempted to vote for either the amendment we are discussing or those that bear upon it.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I was going to intervene briefly in any case, but the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has given me so much material that I cannot guarantee that it will be as brief as I thought. His whole contribution was as though absolutely nothing had happened in the way of electoral reform during the last 15 years. A host of different electoral systems have been introduced. I have not as yet written my memoirs about the period of the Labour Government, but I can reveal to the House this little bit of information. Every time the word went round that we were suggesting there should be a change in the electoral system for Europe, local government, Scotland, Wales or wherever, I always did my best within government to try and prevent that happening. There is a chapter in my memoirs that I shall call “I told you so”. Before the European proportional representation system was introduced, people like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, although I cannot speak for the noble Lord, and my noble friend Lord Rooker—for on this matter we have not always agreed—predicted with absolute confidence: “Look at all the wasted Labour votes in Surrey and Sussex. Look at all the wasted Conservative votes in the north-east. They will start flocking to the polls as soon as we have a proportional system and their votes won’t be wasted any longer”. It has not happened. That is not me in a seminar saying that. It has not happened.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful for the noble Lord for giving way. We are talking about Westminster elections—not a proportional Euro-election, but Westminster elections.

[Lord Grocott]

But why on earth, if the noble Lord’s argument does not apply in Europe—and empirically I can show him that it does not apply—why would it suddenly start applying in Westminster elections? I just cannot understand the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, that was a fantastically revealing debate. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, delivered an extremely good speech that was rational, reasonable and sensible. It basically said that, if we are going to have a debate about constitutional reform, let everyone have a reasonable choice. Unfortunately—this is no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—he has absolutely no understanding of what is going on in relation to the proposal for constitutional reform that is being advanced.

For the past 13, maybe 20, years, our approach to constitutional reform as a nation has been that this House has the role at least of producing as good a constitutional reform as we can. The work of the Cook-Maclennan report, which had lots of years behind it, was to produce the best constitutional reform. Extraordinarily, this constitutional reform, unlike any other constitutional reform I can remember, is being conducted without Parliament having a view on it. Individual parliamentarians like the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who delivered an excellent speech, have a view on constitutional reform, but neither Parliament, nor indeed the Government, has a view on this reform. They had a view on devolution in 1997, and Parliament had a view on the Common Market in 1975, but this is a process, not support for constitutional reform.

The perfectly reasonable amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, therefore meets a car crash. The first part of the car crash is the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who, with eyes popping with sincerity, tells us that he is strongly in favour of AV, having never supported AV before. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, then gets up and says that he has been talking about constitutional reform since he was 15—I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when he says “poor Lord Rennard”, whom we greatly admire in this House—and he says that he supports the alternative vote system. This lot on the Liberal Democrat Benches are therefore standing on their heads. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has the nerve to say that they are doing this to restore the people’s trust in our parliamentary representatives by adopting a system that the Liberal Democrats have opposed for so long and which, as has often been said, is described by Mr Nicholas Clegg as “a miserable little compromise”. The public think that they are doing this to get more seats, not because they are sincere, so they are eroding public support. Sensibly, the party opposite has remained completely silent throughout this debate in relation to whether there should be a change to the electoral system. Members opposite looked patronisingly on the Liberal Democrats for being so easily gulled into behaving in a way that brings the whole system into contempt.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, in an embittered little speech, had the nerve to say, “I have been privileged to listen to a seminar on electoral reform from the Labour Party”. Yes he has, and he is lucky to have done so because no one else in the whole country appears to be debating what the right system is. Surely the least the public could expect is Parliament debating what the best system is, because no other debate is going on. In answer to the noble Lord’s question about how to bring all the strands together, I have great sympathy for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. There are problems with it. It is pretty eccentric to choose an electoral system on AV when you are asking the public to determine whether they like AV best. I understand why that is being done—it is a rational way of doing it—but I am afraid he is wasting his time because this constitutional reform is motivated not by what the best constitutional reform is but by a grubby deal that was done that had no reference to what was best for the public.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The noble and learned Lord has made a rather passionate attack on my position. I am not standing on my head and I have not argued anything other than that I believe that this referendum should be held on an AV system, and I have explained why.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Does the noble and learned Lord not think that a merely consultative referendum could depress the turnout, because many people would say, “This is just asking us what we think and they will go back and do what they want”?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

No I do not, and what happened in the Scottish and Welsh referendums indicates that that is wrong. It is a question of being clear that the referendum is intended to be a precursor to legislative change, as it was in relation to the 1997 referendums in Scotland and Wales. The noble Lord is wrong.

For the two reasons that I have given—namely, that an indicative referendum avoids the need for thresholds and allows for a proper debate on AV—I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Will the noble Lord put us out of our misery and tell us whether he is going to call a vote?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

If the noble Lord had sat through all the debate—I know he was in for some of it—he would understand my dilemma. My noble friend Lord O’Neill argued strongly that I should press this amendment to a vote because we have such an overwhelming argument. My noble friend Lord Liddle mentioned the Yes to Europe referendum that he and I took part in. I see some of the Liberals opposite were on the same side as me in that campaign. I campaigned alongside Roy Jenkins and other great Europeans, and we got a wonderful yes vote, a good turnout and a fantastic result. As my noble friend said, it would be important for the great debate to be clear of party politics.

My noble friend Lord Browne then argued the case I tried to put earlier, far more eloquently and convincingly than me, and said that I should press this to a vote. He made the point that I had not made about four public holidays. During the coming campaign, we will have the Easter holidays, the May Day holiday, and now a separate holiday for the royal wedding. As my noble friend Lady Liddell pointed out, royal weddings hit the headlines rather more than referendums. From the point of view of the Liberal Democrats, it will not be very clever for this referendum, which they have put so much store by, to compete with a royal wedding.

I am keen to push this to a vote because the Liberal Democrats might come along with us, now that they realise the force of the argument on the problems of holding the referendum on that day. However the Liberals and the Tories are very strange on this. When my noble friend Lord Bach said that this had been a useful debate, there was cackling, even giggling, from the Liberal Benches. None of them stepped into the breach, with the noble exception of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who is brave. It reminded me of “Yes Minister”—the Minister was told, when he was going to do something foolish, “Yes, that’s a courageous decision, Minister”. Apart from him, the Liberals sat there listening to everything, like a jury waiting to give the verdict in the Division Lobbies.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Perhaps I may say that the unspoken interventions of my noble friend Lord Dubs are more powerful than the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. What is the effect of removing 7.7 per cent—some 50—of the total of MPs? According to Professor King, the respected psephologist, the average constituency size will go up from 66,000, which it was at the end of the Second World War, to around 105,000 by the time of the next election.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Does the noble and learned Lord appreciate that the figure given by Professor King was not of electors but of the total population?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I appreciate that. The reason why I refer to that figure is because that is the group of people that the MP has to deal with. If someone comes in and says, “I want some help”, I do not think that you say, “Can you prove to me that you are a voter?”.

MPs provide the pool from which Ministers are chosen. That pool would be reduced. The removal of 50 MPs would reduce at a stroke the number of MPs available to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account. Professor King said:

“The House of Commons, compared with other national legislatures, is already a feeble affair. The present proposal would enfeeble it further”.

I hope that, in the five days that it cobbled together this agreement, the coalition thought about what effect this number—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, “a nice round number”—would have on our democracy.

Why does the coalition propose the reduction? The Deputy Prime Minister, whom I mentioned earlier, said that it was because the legislation underpinning reviews had meant that the number of MPs had crept up. That is what he said in the House of Commons, but it is not so. The number of MPs is lower than it was a decade ago and no higher than it was 20 years ago. It is virtually impossible to discern any principle underlying the proposal to reduce the number of MPs. We will oppose the reduction and we will in any event make any reduction conditional on a proportionate reduction in the number of Ministers in the Commons.

Crucial in the Bill is the method for determining new constituency boundaries. With the exception of Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, a new system will apply to all constituencies. The crux of the new system is that the driving factor will be the number of constituents in a constituency. We agree with the need for substantially greater equalisation of constituency size and that there should be a small number of exceptions to the process, but we consider that the constituencies to be treated as exceptions to the system should be identified and chosen in a fair way. Why not choose the Isle of Wight? Why not recognise the importance of keeping Cornish and Devonian constituencies separate from each other? We support the inclusion of the two exceptions that are already there, but we think that there should be more and that their selection should be entrusted to someone other than a politician. Let there be a fair process. If the hybridity route has been rejected by this House, perhaps there should be an inquiry conducted by the boundary commissions, which have proved themselves over very many years to be above politics.

As regional, council and even ward boundaries are crossed in the onward march to perfectly sized constituencies, representation will become more strained and harder to navigate. For instance, the Government’s insistence on only 5 per cent leniency in constituency size would require 385 extra electors to be found for the Forest of Dean and 59 electors to be expelled from Warrington. The prospect is ridiculous.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was a senior Minister in the former Government. They must have debated these issues many times in the build-up to the 2008 White Paper. Of course we have to decide what this House is for and what it will do. The view at the moment is that the House should continue to have the powers that it holds and do the work that it does. We are looking at its composition and how people get here, rather than what they do once they get here. I have hardly started in my speech. I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and then I will get on.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am most grateful but, in the light of all the peculiar circumstances, it is important to know that, when the Bill is brought to the House, it will not be whipped so that there can be a genuinely free debate.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have consistently taken the view over a long period—I am not saying that I will retain that consistency—that whipping a Bill on reform of the House of Lords is a particularly fatuous exercise as I suspect that Peers will make up their own minds, almost whatever the Whips tell them. However, we are a long way from having legislation on which we need to take a view on whether it will need to be whipped.

The coalition agreement, which noble Lords will have seen, envisaged a wholly or mainly elected House with elections on the basis of proportional representation. As the noble Baroness pointed out a moment ago, it also anticipated the transitional arrangement that a “grandfathering” system would be put in place for current Members of the House. I know that noble Lords will be anxious to know what both these things mean. They mean that we as a Government have yet to take a view—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am strongly in favour of reform of this House and I am strongly in favour of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Steel. I hope that, at the end of the proceedings, he will press his Motion because I think it deserves support. It will give an instant impetus to what I would call sensible and organic reform and will stand to the credit of this place. Having said that, I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said at the beginning of the debate when she observed that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I do not think that this House is broke. It needs reform, certainly, but it is not broke. Sometimes I scratch my head and wonder how the other place manages constantly to point at us because if there is a broken House in our Parliament, it is, I fear, the other place.

Before I go on to say why, contrary to my instincts, I am against elections, I would say briefly that I am strongly in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said in opening for the Opposition—that at some point we must have a referendum on the issue of election if it is pressed forward. I spoke to that effect in the debate on the Queen’s Speech and I do not propose to add to it more than to support what she said; she covered most of the key points.

To come back to elections, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, say that he thought that if 20 per cent of the House was retained on an appointed basis, he did not really see how the outcome would be very different from what we have now. I disagree with him radically for these reasons. The 80 per cent elected would, I fear, be beholden to the party members who put them on the list. Those high on the list would be particularly beholden and once in this House they would have, if you like, a powerful partisan obligation to be a great deal more observant of the Whips than Members currently feel they must be. Secondly, those personal party loyalties which are a natural—

[Lord Goodhart]

What does my noble friend think is the difference between that situation and the present situation in which appointments are made by the party leaders? Are they not equally under an obligation?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

They are under an obligation, but a much more fuzzy and weaker one, and they are not constantly having to go back to their constituencies —as an elected Member would have to do—to justify themselves to their members. I have no doubt about that. As I was saying, the personal party loyalties, which are perfectly normal and good in our system, would not—contrary the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Butler—allow many outsiders to appear high on the party list at elections.

In any event, the number of party members in this country is very low and still declining.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Labour Party membership is growing considerably since the election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The noble Lord’s party membership is going up—I am happy to hear it—by three in a month, probably. There are fewer members of all political parties than members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

I do not believe that the kind of people who inhabit this House now would want the rigours of an election. Certainly they would not want the constituency work that would follow from being elected for a regional constituency. The notion that Members could come to this place and devote all their energies to legislation and so on is cloud-cuckoo-land. They would have a massive constituency load and would be prevented from spending the overwhelming part of their energies and imagination on the legislative work for which this House is rightly renowned.

As to the 20 per cent appointed in the mixed, hybrid system—full-time, fully-paid appointed Members—I do not think that many sitting in this House now would contemplate that position. I do not think either that the tenor of this House, which is so important to the enjoyment of Members here, would be retained in a partisan House that was 80 per cent elected and which would swiftly become a shadow of the other place. The appointed Members would be second-class Members; they would not have elective legitimacy and they would be a much older cadre. The Commons might use the fact that 20 per cent of the House was appointed as an excuse for refusing to cede any further powers to this place.

The statement of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the powers in an elected House would be unchanged from what they are now is surely a certain recipe for not only the constitutional inferiority that we now have, and readily accept, but for a qualitative inferiority. Let us be blunt: who but second-rate Members would want to be elected to this House, with its inferior powers, when they might seek to be elected to the other place?

I refute the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others that election would increase the power and influence of the House for the reasons I have attempted to summarise. The present wonderful complementarity of this House would be shattered in one fell swoop. It would lose both its storehouse of remarkable experience and expertise and its independent spirit by the act of election. In the last four Sessions of this House in the three and a half years up until last November, there were 349 whipped votes; the Government were defeated in 113 of them, or 32 per cent. Over the same period in the Commons, fewer than 1 per cent of the votes led to government defeats; indeed, in the first 10 years of the Blair Government, they lost a single vote.

I feel that we cannot abandon the historic, organic evolution of the powers of this place, and I hope very much that we will support my noble friend Lord Steel in his sensible reforms today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, at this hour of the evening the time for opinions—particularly mine—has passed, so I will stick to simple facts. The first concerns manifesto mandates. Whatever the status of previous manifesto commitments from a succession of Governments, this one is different. All three major parties committed themselves to reform, and that has been reinforced since by the coalition agreement. I have heard the sanctity of the popular mandate quoted so often in your Lordships' House. There is no escaping this one, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it would be preferable if the Government had also spelt out what exactly would be the role of the revised Chamber. That is not a point that can be put to one side, and they should return to it as the proposals develop.

The second fact concerns the primacy of the Commons, which has been referred to on all sides of your Lordships' House today. I remind noble Lords that on 7 March 2007, MPs voted by 375 to 196 against a fully appointed House; by 305 to 267 for an 80 per cent elected House: and by 337 to 224 for a 100 per cent elected House. Incidentally, my honourable and noble friends on Liberal Democrat Benches in both Houses voted for reform by large majorities. It has been suggested this evening that somehow that is out of date as there is a new Parliament. I challenge any Member of your Lordships’ House to tell me that any MP elected on 6 May refused to endorse the manifesto commitment of his or her party on this point. How can we respect the primacy of the Commons if we do so only when it suits our personal prejudices, which would seem to be the position of some Members? I trust that new arrivals here from the other place will be especially protective of their party manifesto commitments and the primacy of the Commons.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Tyler]

Unless my noble friend is going to give me some injury time for his intervention—and I do not believe he can guarantee that—I am not going to give way.

I now turn to facts about the timetable and transition. I am delighted that my noble friends on the Front Bench have already announced that there will be a draft Bill by the end of the calendar year. Continuously throughout these discussions, noble Lords have rightly demanded that we get some proposals for discussion in your Lordships’ House. That will now happen. However, better than that, pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Select Committee will ensure not only that there will be a full parliamentary inquiry but also that there will be evidence from outside the Westminster Parliament. We keep being told that the public have this or that view, and in polls they have continuously said that they want reform of the Lords. This will be a full opportunity for consistent public support to be given meaningful input.

On transition, again, the Government have announced that there will be progress on important developments. I was delighted to hear the Leader of the House say today that there will be a committee of your Lordships’ House—that is appropriate—to examine a dignified and legitimate retirement route. I wish the committee well. I also believe that we now have to look very seriously at the four issues raised by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood. Even if we make good progress on the big Bill, these issues are immediate, particularly with regard to the numbers coming into the House and the possibility that we will be completely swamped by a huge number and that this place will become unmanageable.

I turn also to the way in which your Lordships’ House operates internally, which is just as important in terms of reform. The work done under the auspices of the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Filkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, stimulated by the Lord Speaker with the Strengthening Parliament process, is extremely important—we have to raise our game. This is a parallel exercise to one that is already taking place under the auspices of the new Government in fully implementing the work of the Wright committee in the other place, and not before time. Again, I was pleased that the Leader of our House expressed a positive response to that work—in contrast to the half-hearted reaction from the previous Administration.

Finally, it is absolutely critical that we make it clear to Members of both Houses that improving the way in which we operate and improving the influence that we have is not part of a zero-sum game. I quote the late Robin Cook on this point. Both Houses can improve their game together in holding the Executive to account for both their executive actions and their legislation. It is definitely not a question of one House doing better at the expense of the other. That, too, is explicit in the coalition agreement and it is very welcome.

I appeal to Members of your Lordships’ House to read again the White Paper produced under the auspices of Mr Jack Straw, with representatives of all three major parties, the Bishops and the Cross Benches. A lot of the issues that have been raised tonight were addressed in that White Paper, and even more so, if I may say so with due modesty, in the Bill produced in 2005 in the other place by me, together with Robin Cook, Kenneth Clarke, Tony Wright and George Young, and supported by many Members of your Lordships’ House, as well as many Members of the other place, including five senior members of the present Government.

The facts are that issues such as the excessive numbers during the transition period, the competitive mandates possible between the two Houses and the risk of challenge and deadlock are addressed in the report produced by the Constitution Unit with the five of us for that Bill and, to a large extent, followed through in the 2008 White Paper. We called our report, outlining that Bill, Breaking the Deadlock. At long last, after 99 years, we have a Government who seem to be determined to break that deadlock and we should face the political fact that those with a personal interest in procrastination must not be allowed to derail this process.

Today I have heard so many Members say that they are in favour of reform as long as it does not reform the rationale for their own presence in this Chamber. Frankly, I do not think that is enough to satisfy the public. It was claimed earlier that this House represents the beating heart of democracy in Britain. That level of self-satisfied complacency, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred, does not enhance trust in our House or respect for parliamentary democracy.

Financial Provision for Members

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks an extremely sensible question, one which is not entirely easy to deal with. There is a perception among those outside this House that a few minutes’ attendance reaps the benefits of large sums of money. In my experience, both as a former Chief Whip and as Leader of the House, I regard these abuses to have been exceedingly small; nevertheless, there is that perception. I am also aware that there are some Peers who, because of the nature of their outside work and for other reasons, do not spend a great deal of time in the House. It was felt in the discussions that I had that we should offer an alternative—a lower sum of £150.

Ultimately, it can only be up to the judgment of each individual Peer where and how they make that claim. A Peer may spend only half an hour in the House on a given day but, if they spent the morning reading and preparing for a complicated Committee stage on the next day, how are we to judge whether that time was well spent? In the end, all these claims will be made public. I hope that, with the co-operation of the House Committee and the House authorities, we will be able to make these claims known electronically on a rolling basis so that it will be easy to attach contributions to the amount of money claimed. That will create an internal accountability, which will be useful to Peers and public alike.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I hope that I am correct in understanding my noble friend as having indicated that the new scheme will be wholly divorced from the actual expenses incurred by Members of this House in coming here and undertaking their duties. I think that that is right—the noble Lord is nodding. Therefore, his remarks vis-à-vis taxation assume a more important light. I go back to what he started by saying, which is that this House and, indeed, the other place came under a great deal of unwelcome public scrutiny over the expenses arrangements and that the trust in both Houses was severely dented. Some may think that those wounds are not entirely healed. Would it therefore be acceptable if the noble Lord and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his group were to work on the basis that, whatever arrangements are come to vis-à-vis taxation, we have to accept that the allowance will now leave some Members of this place with substantial remuneration—that is to say, a return well in excess of anything incurred by way of expenses—and that it surely cannot be acceptable that this place, of all places, should expect a privilege in tax terms over any other citizen of this land? For us to say that it is much simpler to claim the entitlement and be done with it is fair enough, but that surely cannot satisfy the test that every other person has to live by, which is that, in terms of the tax charge, they can claim only those expenses actually incurred.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct to point out that the reason why we are even discussing this is because trust has been dented, not just in this House but substantially in another place. Both Houses are, in their own way, trying to find their way through this to come out at the other end with a greater understanding between the public and Parliament, so that we can try to rebuild that trust. My noble friend is also entirely correct to say that this is a move away from the expenses regime. We are not asking Peers to demonstrate what they have spent. In fact, we are not hugely interested in what Peers spend their money on, in where they stay or, indeed, in whom they stay with. What we are interested in is: have they turned up? Have they made a contribution? What should the value of that be?

The SSRB suggested in its report that in due course the expenses regime that it proposed should be taxed. I take no particular view on that. I am not an accountant and it is not a decision for me. It may well be a decision for HMRC and the Treasury to take in due course. My further understanding is that, if tax were payable, that would require legislation and that, if tax were taken off, no doubt many Peers would make the case for some sort of rerating to make an allowance for taxation. These are all issues for another day.

There is another view, which I laid out a few minutes ago. We hope that there will be legislation on a reformed House. If there is a reformed, elected House, those Peers—or senators, or whatever they are—will be paid. There is then the prospect in that legislation for another independent body—perhaps IPSA itself—to look at what the recommendations should be.

House of Lords: Post-legislative Scrutiny

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, is the Minister aware—

[Noble Lords]

Order! Wrong Bench!

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for polluting his bit of the Bench. [Laughter.]

Is the Leader of the House aware of what I think is a military tradition, whereby the top brass who devise strategy are supposed to live with its consequences in practice? Would it not be a good idea if we learnt something from the military and stopped the mad ministerial merry-go-round, whereby Ministers, who are progenitors of legislation in this place, rarely if ever have to face the music?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that we are very much in favour of stopping the ministerial merry-go-round in this House.