Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “but do propose Amendment 1D as an amendment to Commons Amendment 1C in lieu”:
“Line 11, at end insert—
“(5) The estimate of the turnout in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland published under sub-paragraph (3)(a) shall be made available before any order is made under section 8 implementing the result of the referendum; and if the total turnout in the four parts of the United Kingdom is less than 40% of the total electorate of the United Kingdom, the result of the referendum shall not be binding.”
Lord Rooker
My Lords, in short I am proposing to add to the government amendment a sub-paragraph (5). When I saw the Government’s amendment a few hours ago I thought, because I am weak, that I saw some movement. Sadly, that is not the case. I said earlier today that the issue of substance is not the figure, although I have used the same one. The issue of substance is that this will be a binding referendum for the first time in the UK. The Government are still refusing to address that issue; it is being glossed over. In the talk about previous referendums, not once has anybody addressed the issue of this being the first binding referendum. That is still the case, which is why I do not apologise for continuing to raise the issue.
I had thought of adding to the government amendment—because I thought I saw a bit of movement—some words to the effect that the Electoral Commission report should be done properly, which I do not think it will be. By properly I mean that it should meet the issues that government Ministers have spoken about at the Box—that is, take off the electoral register the dead, the foreigners, the students, the hundreds of thousands with two addresses and all those with two homes. That would mean the commission had to go to every electoral register—not every constituency but every register—and double-check to get an accurate measure. That is what I would expect the Electoral Commission to do as a result of the Government’s amendment but I fear that it will not be the case. However, I would like that report to be put to Parliament and properly debated before a Clause 8 order, assuming that there is a yes vote.
I have seen no evidence. I sat in the Commons Gallery during the debate earlier this evening. The real issue was not addressed in the Commons, and the government Minister hardly spoke to the amendment that he was moving. He did not explain it. I thought, “He hasn’t got that much to say about it. It can’t be worth a great deal”. When Sir Gerald Kaufman and others indicated that from their experience, before the coalition, it was possible to get agreement on various aspects of Bills going through the House, they were shouted down.
In the years that I was a Minister in your Lordships’ House, I was in four departments and responsible for many Bills, including Bills that started here. I cannot recall a single Bill that I was ever in charge of as a Minister on which I did not offer change following debates in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, twice I made the policy at the Box and went back to the department to say to the policy Minister, “This is what you have to accept. This is the will of the Lords. If not, your Bill will be in shreds”. That is what I did because I took heed of the voices in this place who had tried to make the legislation better. However, I have not seen any attempt to do that on this Bill. On two occasions the Leader offered a “package of concessions” a week apart. I have to assume that he did that with authority. All I can say is that—I choose my words carefully—I will know what to think the next time I hear the phrase “package of concessions”.
The Government have refused to listen from day one of this Bill. They have rammed it through both Houses under a guillotine—that happened again tonight—and people who wanted to speak did not have the opportunity to do so. Reputations have been damaged all round save for that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I do not wish to embarrass him. I am just giving my view; I do not speak for anybody else. I therefore offer the House and the Government a last chance, if you like, according to what the Leader said, to break the precedent that they are creating. They can waffle all they like about previous referendums and thresholds but this threshold does not damage the introduction of AV, as I have said repeatedly. They refuse to accept that this is the first time that the people of this country have been given a referendum where the result—whatever the turnout and the majority—will be the order of the day. That has never happened before. It is no good praying in aid the euro referendum or the Scottish referendum as they were not binding referendums. Legislation followed but they were not binding, so it is no good praying those in aid. There is no precedent for what the Government are about to do. Sadly, no Minister has addressed that central issue of substance.
In some ways, I do not look forward to the morning after the count as I do not want to be proved right. I hope that there will be a successful referendum with a huge turnout and a clear vote one way or the other. That is my desire and that is what I will encourage. I do not have a problem with that. However, if that is not the case, we will be bound by the result. It will be impossible to get out of the mess and the people will find out what Parliament was doing. They will ask, “Why did you not think about this and give yourself a lifeboat? Why did you not think about what might happen? You have done it in the past with all the other referendums, so why did you not do it with this one?”. As I say, I do not look forward to the morning after the count for that reason; but many others will, because they might be proved right. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
The original Question was that Motion A be agreed to, since when Motion A1 has been moved as an amendment thereto. The Question now is that Motion A1 be agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the referendum taking place in Wales on 3 March, on which there is no threshold and for which no threshold was requested, is for a poll which is binding on this Parliament. I know that noble Lords will say, as my noble friend and others have, that this is a binding referendum, so let me be entirely clear about my answer. Referendums are a constitutional device; they are rarely used but they are used occasionally to ask the people their view on a specific issue. I believe that it would not be right to offer the people a referendum where Parliament has explicitly laid out what the effects of that referendum would be and yet say that we might not give them what they vote for. A threshold, even in the more nuanced form proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is unnecessary and, we believe, wrong.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I shall not detain the House. I shall certainly not comment on that excuse about the concessions. That was not in the context of the two offers from that Dispatch Box about the defeats that the Government have suffered. It was not said in that context. It was about wholly different subjects, none of which has materialised. I think we have heard enough and people have been delayed long enough on this last day before the Recess. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Is it not ironic that we joined the European Union without a referendum, but that the referendum was on whether we should stay in? The major change took place without a referendum, but the referendum actually backed the status quo.
Lord Rooker
Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the then Government had the courage to hold a referendum on a separate day—on 5 June.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am not able to support my noble friend Lady Hayter’s amendment simply because my approach throughout, as on other constitutional issues, is that the House of Commons is the House of Commons, it consists of single-Member constituencies and every Member of Parliament elected to sit in the House of Commons is there with the same rights and the same duties and with the same authority which derives from their election on the basis of first past the post. To the extent that the amendment detracts from that, it is not one that I can support. However, my noble friend has done the House a very good service in that she has reminded the Government, who do not seem to be in the mood to listen, that time and again, in responding to amendments, the Government have walked up one of two blind alleys.
One blind alley is their absolute commitment to a referendum next May, which is presenting them with difficulty after difficulty; not silly difficulties, not trivial difficulties, but very substantial difficulties indeed. If they decided now not to reverse the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker that was carried, they would save themselves an awful lot of problems. It is not my job to be a consultant to the Government and should they think of asking me I am afraid the answer would be no, but they made a huge mistake by putting themselves in that time lock.
The second blind alley is best illustrated by my noble friend's amendment. The Government are committed to this being a legislative referendum, not an indicative referendum. If this were an indicative referendum where the results were sensibly considered and analysed by Parliament and the Government after the figures had come in, there would be absolutely no need for my noble friend's amendment even to be considered. Precisely those types of arguments would come up in the post-referendum debate that should be held about the significance of the public’s decision. Clearly, it would be a matter of concern to almost anyone if strong votes against changing the voting system from the electors of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were trumped by a strong vote in favour from the electorate in England. Whatever were the numbers when you added them all up, I should have thought that that would be a matter of real concern and something that any prudent Government would want to take into account in deciding what to do next.
Am I the only one who so dislikes Clause 8(1)? That this is not an indicative referendum is encapsulated in this one line:
“The Minister must make an order bringing into force”.
Why bother the Minister? Why not press a button? There is no decision to make. The Minister presumably just stamps whatever referendum result comes for him or her to consider. He should not draw much of a salary for that part of his activities when he is told by an Act of Parliament what he must decide to do. I appreciate why my noble friend has tabled the amendment, but it is not one that I can support.
I say to those of us who were here sleepless the other night that it is not my intention to press my Amendment 44B on a 50 per cent threshold, but as thresholds have been mentioned I want to make one point very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who has been assiduous in attendance here is not with us today, but he made a point that was worthy of consideration in opposing a 50 per cent threshold. He simply asked the House whether it would not be very unjust if, with a turnout threshold, 49 per cent of the electorate voted in favour of a constitutional change. That would mean that 98 per cent of those who voted were in favour of constitutional change. I wish a bookie would let me have a bet on that not happening. The noble Lord was proposing that 49 per cent might vote yes, and if no one voted no—or 0.5 per cent voted no—that would not carry.
Of course the answer to that has already been given in an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and the Leader of the House. If we had an outcome threshold and the outcome was 25 per cent, surely even the most fervent supporter of changing the electoral system could not object to such a threshold. All we would be asking is for one in four of the public to be in favour of change. That would also deal with the point about abstentions. Deliberate abstentions would not matter provided that the 25 per cent of the electorate who we keep being told are enthusiastic for change turned up and voted. The decision would carry.
Obviously we will need to come back to the threshold argument on Report, but I would be very happy with that. That might be a first for me, but I am a moderniser. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I could have a discussion about whether the sensible thing to do would be to table an amendment for an outcome threshold of 25 per cent. That would solve his sleepless nights worrying about what would happen if there were 49 per cent of the electorate voting for a change in the voting system which could not carry because of a turnout threshold. We would both be happy and my aim in life is to make people happy.
Lord Rooker
There is a snag there. One of the reasons why I did not move Amendment 43A is that there is a legal contractual arrangement between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats not to do that. Even before they introduced the Bill, they had a contractual arrangement that they would not consider that kind of threshold. So we are stuffed before we start. If that is not the case, we will receive advice on it, but, as far as I know, the so-called coalition agreement rules that out.
Lord Grocott
If my noble friend is right—and he has been right on far more things over the years than he has been wrong—we really are wasting our time on this Committee stage. It has felt like that from this side of the Chamber throughout. It is unlike pretty well any other Committee stage I can think of, when the normal response from a Minister to anything other than a completely ludicrous amendment would be to say, “Well, we don’t really like this amendment much, but there is something in it worth considering, so I am quite happy to discuss it”.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, what a most unusual debate we have just had. We had a fascinating history lesson from my noble friend Lord Lawson; I will come back to that. We had a disagreement between my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about what was said in the House of Commons and what was meant by what was said, and different bits being prayed in aid. We had a slight disagreement about the grouping; I slightly lost track of it, but I will go with the mood of the House, whatever it is. I am very happy to speak to all the numerical thresholds, but not to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and not to the noble Baroness’s other amendment about separate nations of the United Kingdom having different thresholds.
It is most unusual, because while this House often disagrees with another place, I cannot think of a time—I am sure that someone will find one—where another place voted so overwhelmingly in one way, and where the tone of this debate has been the other way. My noble friend Lord Tyler was right to remind us about what happened in the House of Commons; when it was asked to vote on thresholds, it voted 549 to 31. It was an astonishing, astounding majority. Chris Bryant, speaking for the Labour Party, said that he did not think that it is appropriate to bring in a threshold. I am genuinely confused by the position of the noble and learned Lord’s party as to whether or not they are in favour of a threshold. I think he said that he was; the Labour Party next door was clearly not. They may have changed their minds, or it may be something else. The noble and learned Lord cracked on about 19 per cent and how dreadful that would be, yet in 2005 the Labour Government were elected with 21.6 per cent of the electorate—derisory for a referendum on 19 per cent, but jolly good for the Labour Party on 21.6 per cent. We can make of that what we want.
In 1997, this House debated these issues. What did the Labour Party say in 1997? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is sadly not in his place tonight, was the Minister. He said:
“The threshold, as we have demonstrated, is one of the most dangerous introductions into the democratic process that has been engineered”.—[Official Report, 7/7/97; col. 467.]
That was the Labour Party then. Tonight, the Labour Party is doing what it used to accuse the Liberal Democrats of doing—of saying one thing in one place and another in another, and changing their minds as the debate went on. We will have to see how this continues over the next few days.
My noble friend Lord Lamont spoke beautifully, as he does. I very much accept his view—although rather less so—that imposing a threshold might initially appear attractive; on the surface it may seem to offer an extra layer of reassurance and of legitimacy, particularly if the change being put to the vote is one that you personally do not favour. It is the Government’s view, however, that if people want change, and if the majority of those who turn out to vote want change, we cannot deny them this by imposing artificial barriers. People should know that if the majority of people vote for AV in the referendum, they will get AV. We must let people have their say, otherwise we will not help to restore people’s faith in politics.
That is why I was so fascinated by my noble friend Lord Lawson. I am sorry that there are not more colleagues here from those days. I was probably too young to vote in the referendum in 1978, but I accept that the Conservative Party voted for the threshold. I do not remember it being an issue of deepest principle. I think it was low-down cunning politics—and quite rightly, because the Labour Party was divided on the issue. It was trying to stop the nationalists by introducing devolution, and the Conservative Opposition quite rightly saw a great opportunity to try and ensure that the referendum would not be won, and that that would so destabilise the Labour Government that an election would be forced, and we would have the great years of rule. So my noble friend Lord Lawson was quite right in voting for it.
Lord Rooker
I have kept out of this debate, but I will give the Leader of the House the reason. It was the result of one of the finest speeches that I heard in 25 years in the House of Commons. The place was packed and I suspect that half the people in there did not know at the beginning how they were going to vote. George Cunningham turned the House around. I say that in all sincerity; he is no personal mate of mine. It was an absolutely magnificent speech. That was a big factor, along with the bit of low cunning that people saw as a consequence as well.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
If I may, while my noble friend is having a well earned rest, let me say that it was not a whipped vote on the Conservative side. It was a free vote and we were influenced in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described. As an indication that it was a completely free vote, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the Prime Minister at that time, did not take part in the Division. She did not vote—or did she? I do not recall.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
He is senior management, but not top management. Perhaps he should bring back a Bill that said, “Let’s have a single electoral system for the United Kingdom”. He can attack the Labour Government if he wants; I would not agree with him on that, although I will on this issue. We have tried all these other systems. They all have serious failures. Is anyone going to challenge me on that on the systems that we have actually seen and observed? They all have serious failures. They do not end the debate. If any Scottish colleague wants to suggest to me that there are no longer any discussions in Scotland about the merits of the additional member system—
Lord Rooker
Here is where my noble friend and I part. The additional member system in Scotland gave, for the first time in years, Conservative representation to Conservative voters. So there is a discussion: that is, that it works. That was the problem. My noble friend was defending first past the post at very high levels during our time in government. Can he explain how, during the 13 years while the iron curtain was collapsing and democracy was starting to flourish in eastern Europe, we could not export first past the post to a single country? Add to that South Africa, eastern Europe. There was not one. We could not export the system that we had in 1997, so it is quite right that we tried other systems, because they proved to be wholly beneficial.
Baroness Adams of Craigielea
I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the additional member system does not work. We may have Conservatives representing not Conservative voters but Conservative Party policy and cherry picking issues because they do not represent any particular constituents. We have a system in which those directly elected by the local people have up to eight members following them around from the additional list, picking off issues and raising them in policies. I am sorry; it does not work.
Lord Tyler
That is not true, because in other parts of the country the turnout was not 83 per cent. It was 83 per cent in my constituency because the contest was seen to be very close. When I had a majority of 9,000 plus, down it went. Because it was not so interesting and the votes were not going to be so important, it dropped to 63 per cent. There is a direct correlation between safer seats and turnout. Nobody can deny that. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is agreeing with me. Where constituents feel that there is not a real chance of change—whether they fear it or hope for it is immaterial—they do not register on the same level and they do not turn out. For example, in May 2010 the lowest turnout—well under 50 per cent in Birmingham Ladywood, Manchester Central and Leeds Central—was in seats where the electors knew there was very little chance of change, whether they wanted it or not. On the other hand, in Westmorland and Lonsdale and in Richmond Park, where there was clearly going to be a very close result, up went the turnout to 77 per cent. People vote and register to vote when they think that their votes are going to be important in terms of the outcome. That is surely the most important lesson we should all learn.
Short of compulsion, which we discussed earlier, the most effective incentive for people to vote is because they think their vote will make a difference and that is the case for AV. I have never pretended—I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves—that somehow this is the magic solution and everybody is going to turn out and will inevitably go for a first preference. It does not necessarily mean that everybody will have a majority. But look at the alternatives; look at first past the post. It is a staggering fact that there is not a single Member of the other place who can put their hand on their heart after the May 2010 election and say, “I am supported by more than half the people who could vote in my constituency”. Not one can say they have more than 50 per cent of those registered to vote in their constituency. Not one. If we are saying that AV is not perfect, first past the post is much less perfect.
Lord Rooker
I missed the first part of the debate on Clause 1 and I regret that. The noble Lord gave the example of the second defect, which my noble friend Lord Grocott did not address—not so much the argument about everybody getting 50 per cent but the second porky that it does away with tactical voting. We heard that today from the people who launched the pro-AV campaign. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has just said it will be their second preference. That is what will get them out to vote. That is where the tactical voting comes in. What we need on the record, like we had from the Leader earlier on, is a definitive statement from the Government that it is not true that every MP will get elected by 50 per cent. We also need on the record that AV does not do away with tactical voting because the tactical vote is on the second preference, not on the first vote. It would be quite useful if this debate could get that on the record because all our words will be used in leaflets next year, I can assure noble Lords.
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, because he has pre-empted the question that I was about to ask. I am assuming, from what he has just said, that he will support—not just not vote against—the motion that Clause 1 stand part, because what he has said implies that he will do so. If we had known that an hour or so ago, this debate might have been rather shorter.
It is true that the previous Labour Government twice committed itself to this precise form of words for putting the issue to the people. I believe, as Churchill said, that we should trust the people on this issue. I am quite prepared to debate in any television studio with the noble Lord—
Lord Rooker
Churchill did not want AV. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, told us, Churchill is on record as doing the best rubbishing job on AV that anyone has done.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am quite sure that the Reading Clerk will therefore go to the Welsh question and wonder what it is about the electoral system for God that we are now seeking to deal with. I did not know about this point. Had we known about it, we would have put down probing amendments in order to get it. I think it is quite an important point.
The next detailed point is that this is being dealt with at unseemly speed. We sought to deal with that through the amendment that this House agreed on Monday giving the Government the opportunity to bring the referendum forward between May and October. I have to tell noble Lords that this has caused the Electoral Commission much upset. It has asked the Government to please get Parliament to make up its mind quickly about the position. I shall read what the chair of the Electoral Commission has written to the right honourable Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, at the Cabinet Office at 70 Whitehall:
“Given the importance of clarity about the rules on how the referendum will be conducted so that the commission and others can successfully deliver their responsibilities and campaigners can plan properly to put their arguments to voters, I urge you to set out how the Government intends to proceed to ensure Parliament can specify the date of the proposed referendum as soon as possible”.
As I understand it, the Electoral Commission is asking the Government to ensure that Parliament can specify the date of the proposed referendum as soon as possible.
Lord Rooker
When I saw the note from the Electoral Commission, which it copied to many of us moving the amendments, I wrote back briefly, saying:
“I am sure high quality lawyers will see a route forward and grab the chance of flexibility. Why don’t you recommend an order making power in the Bill. Make a draft order with May 5th while maintaining the fall back of … 31 October in the Bill”.
It is very simple. We all say that the target date is 5 May. The way to do it is to put an order-making power in the Bill and put a draft order before the House while the Bill is going through so that the public sector, the private sector and everybody knows that that is the target date. The Bill itself—the Act of Parliament—will have “before 31 October” so if something goes wrong, it is possible to change the order. It is simple.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I think it is pretty clear that the Electoral Commission is very dissatisfied with the way that we have behaved in relation to this and have amended the Bill because it wants clarity as quickly as possible. It wants to ensure that Parliament can specify the date of the proposed referendum as soon as possible. Could the Minister indicate what the Government’s position in relation to that is?
My noble friend Lord Rooker puts forward a sensible solution. I would have thought that the solution is even simpler than what he said. There is nothing wrong with the Government saying that they intend to have the referendum on 5 May, but if they cannot, they will have it on a date when they can have it.
There is another significant point. The timing is presumably a pressure only if the referendum is on 5 May. I think it is very hard to understand that you would need clarity about the date if the referendum was to be later in the year. Therefore, I assume that this letter from the Electoral Commission applies only if the referendum is to be on or about 5 May. If it is to be in June, July, September or October, I do not see why you would need the date to be fixed now, but perhaps the Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong on that.
I have a letter from Mr Mark Harper MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, 70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS. He writes:
“We will therefore seek to ensure that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill includes provision for that date”.
Perhaps the Minister can indicate what he has in mind to achieve that course of action. So, on the question of date, is it too fast? We are happy with the approach that has been adopted by this House. What is the Government’s position on that?
Secondly, we wanted it to be indicative, not compulsory, so that Parliament could subsequently debate, if there was a yes vote in relation to alternative votes, what the right method of alternative vote systems would be. Thirdly, we did not want it to be combined with other elections. Again, I would ask the Government to set out their position in relation to that. I assume that their position remains as set out in Clause 4. Those are the four significant points.
We have made it clear that we support in principle the idea of a referendum on AV, but I should like to hear the Government’s justification on the three points of principle. Should there be a referendum at all? Why choose this sort of AV? Why not go for other opportunities? I would also like to hear the Government’s position on whether this is too fast, whether it is indicative, not compulsory and whether it should not be combined.
Lord Rooker
Does the noble Lord genuinely mean that? I regret losing my vote, but I agree more with the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Hamilton, than with the Front Bench. Why make the concession? If you are going to keep the Bill narrow, clean and tidy, whereby it relates purely to the electoral system for the other place, we are entitled to scrutinise the Bill; so there is no argument about that. There is no justification for giving Members of this place a role in choosing the voting system for the other place. If you are logical about it and you want to keep the Bill clean and simple, why make that concession in the first place?
Lord McNally
It is because we judge that to be a fair and logical approach. As I said, whichever way we had done it, amendments would have been tabled. Perhaps the noble Lord wants to table an amendment for Report to take out Peers’ votes? See how that goes.
Lord Rooker
My name is not on the other amendment. This amendment is to remove part of Clause 2. I shall leave it now; it is time enough.
Lord McNally
There will be other times. Now is not the right place for this debate. I understand why the issue has been raised, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will not press his amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 25. In moving this amendment, I need to step back, without in any way wishing to delay the House, to remind the House and those unable to be present last week that the central argument in the case for many of us is that the Government have picked the wrong system in the referendum question. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I both support electoral reform, but we oppose the multioptional preferential voting system as set out in the legislation. The problem is that the Government failed to do their homework when deciding upon a system. They had three systems from which they could select. First is the classic AV federal system that is operated in Australia. Secondly, there is the multioptional preferential system—the one that they have selected in the Bill. Thirdly, there is the supplementary vote, otherwise known as the London alternative vote.
The Government picked the system in a rush against a background of frantic coalition negotiations. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in his speech the day before yesterday, it seems that they had in mind when they selected the scheme the fact that the Labour Government had picked a similar scheme when we presented our Bill earlier this year.
My view, and that of many of my colleagues, is that the system that has been selected is nonsense and riddled with flaws. That is why I argue for an inquiry in Amendment 22. I am convinced that whenever more than two or three are gathered together to consider AV systems, they invariably end up with the supplementary vote or London AV, which is the basis for Amendment 25. This amendment would modify the question in Clause 1 where it states:
“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?”.
I simply delete the word “the” alternative vote, and change it to read “an” alternative vote system.
Amendment 25 would enable Parliament to select an alternative voting system out of the three variants of AV available, to which I have referred. The Bill preselects an AV system which many of us reject, as indeed an overwhelming majority of the House would probably do on a free vote. An affirmative vote in a referendum would lead to an inquiry being established to recommend an electoral system to the House, and that inquiry would be able to select from the three systems. It deals with the distinction alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on Second Reading on 15 November—at col. 569 of Hansard—when he drew a distinction between pre-legislative referendums procedure as proposed by the Labour Government during the Scots and Welsh referendums: in other words, a referendum decision first and legislative detail after; as against the post-legislative referendum as set out in the Bill, which means legislative detail first followed by a referendum.
The question is simple: why cannot we have a referendum that simply seeks approval for the introduction of an AV system in principle? Parliament could then carry out a timetabled inquiry—perhaps even an independent commission of inquiry—to do the work. The Government could then introduce an order following a debate in Parliament, and at least then the merits of the various forms of AV would be debated. We would then have a system that might prove more acceptable to the voting public. My amendment would secure that pre-legislative referendum, which clearly preoccupies the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and many of his colleagues on those Benches. It would mean that the building block of an electoral system, which I want to see in place—the supplementary vote, or London AV as it is otherwise known—would be on the agenda for consideration in an inquiry.
Amendment 25—the second of my amendments in this block—is the supplementary vote amendment. This would substitute the alternative vote proposal in the Bill in the referendum question with the supplementary vote, which is a tried and tested system in the United Kingdom. It is a variant of the alternative vote. The system has been the subject of substantial international debate among academics who specialise in electoral systems. It has been the subject of critical and supportive review in both its theory and its practice by academics in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Holland, Australia and Belgium. It is the system which supporters of AV have consistently sought to rubbish, as it exposes the flaws in AV. It is simpler to use, is more easily understood by the electors and is invariably supported when subjected to rigorous debate. It is opposed by the Liberal Democrat element in the coalition because Liberal Democrats, and only they, believe that it would not deliver for them the windfall gains which they believe are available to them under the optional preferential system of the Bill.
The supplementary vote is the system that is used to elect the United Kingdom's 13 elected mayors, including Boris Johnson. The coalition hopes to create a further 12 directly elected mayors—which many of us support—presumably under the same, successful system which is now being used and supported by millions of voters in more than 30 mayoral election contests nationally in London, Bedford, Doncaster, Hartlepool, Hackney, Lewisham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Mansfield, Middlesbrough, Northside, Torbay and Watford.
It is curious to note that when a noticeable number of advocates in the United Kingdom of AV or even full proportional representation are commenting on electoral systems, they studiously avoid reference to the supplementary vote. It is the system that the Government adopted when they were forced to choose between AV and SV in 1998. How does it work? With the supplementary vote, there are two columns on the ballot paper: one for the first choice and one for the second. Voters can mark an X in each column if they so wish. All the first preferences are counted. If a candidate has more than 50 per cent of the votes, they are elected. If no candidate receives 50 per cent, the top two remain and the rest are eliminated. The second preference votes of the eliminated are added to the votes of the top two candidates and counted. The candidate with most first and second preferences is the winner: simple and fair. I say to the Conservative end of the coalition that when we first presented that in 1989—it is 21 years since it was first presented in Parliament—there was support on their Benches in the Commons for that system.
I have been promoting the supplementary vote since 1989. It arose after a dinner in the Commons where there had been argument over a number of weeks about proportional representation and a system that would be acceptable to Parliament. At the end of the conversation at the last dinner, I announced to my colleagues that I would go away to research a new system, drawing on the experience of others in different parts of the world, which I believed would be favourably treated if it was fairly debated in Westminster. I spent nine months researching that system. I brought in Professor Patrick Dunleavy from the London School of Economics, who gave the work academic substance by testing the system using a whole series of electoral scenarios and subjecting it to the rigour of academic examination under his close supervision. We named the new system “supplementary” over a dinner in my constituency, and followed it up with a number of articles in the press and other journals in 1990. It has been the subject of a large number of reviews over all those years.
Soon after, the Labour Party established the Plant commission, which examined electoral systems including AV over four months, again in great detail. It produced the Plant report. The Plant commission, while not completely rejecting AV, came down in favour of a single-member constituency system in recognition of the desire of MPs of all parties in the Commons to retain single-member constituencies. In its comprehensive canter around the course of electoral systems, it came down strongly in favour of the supplementary vote with the following words:
“While other systems provide scope for variation from time to time, according to fashion or political whim, SV is relatively immutable; although it could be abolished (or turned into AV), there is little scope for altering the formula by which it operates. Hence, it is more likely to be durable in an unchanged form, and therefore to acquire legitimacy.
Secondly:
“Although it does not entail ‘proportional representation’ (in the sense of a direct link between votes cast nationally or regionally for a party, and the number of seats allocated to that party), it is possible that it would go some way to limit the imbalance between votes and seats that has characterised many election results ... While it would reduce the likelihood of any one party gaining an overall majority on the basis of much less than an overall majority of votes, it would not make single-party overall majorities impossible. Landslide victories, firmly establishing a major party in government without minor party support, would still be possible … In sum, the Supplementary Vote appears to have the advantages that it is a reform which, although possibly far reaching in its consequences, would nevertheless be practical, straightforward, comparatively modest, and would generally be perceived to be fair. However, it emerged that, while there was a clear majority in favour of some form of change from the present system, there was also a clear majority in favour of a single-member constituency majoritarian system. Both the Alternative Vote and the Supplementary Vote would represent a change retaining these features. Between the two, there was, though, a clear preference for the Supplementary Vote; and, accordingly, this is the majority recommendation of the Working Party”.
However, what should be of interest to the Liberal Democrats is the comments of the minority on Plant who favoured first past the post. Its view was that:
“The Supplementary Vote would be likely to increase the representation of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons—and so be more likely to produce hung parliaments and thus the possibility of coalition or minority government”.
That is why I simply cannot understand the scale of their opposition. In some ways, I hope that that comment deals with remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, at our team meeting the other week in Room 3A when he put it to the meeting that it was some sort of Labour Party stitch-up. It was never a Labour Party stitch-up; it was a very neutrally-based system.
The problem with the whole AV/SV debate is that the benefits of SV are often attributed by proponents of AV to the alternative vote, more often than not out of ignorance or a failure to subject both systems to detailed examination. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill likened the system to AV when it stated in paragraph 14:
“This voting system”—
AV—
“is not currently used for any other public election in the United Kingdom, although a similar system, the Supplementary Vote, is used for mayoral elections in London and elsewhere”.
It is similar, but it is very different in operation and in how the votes are counted. For a start, under SV, bottom-placed candidates’ additional preferences do not have priority over the additional preferences cast for other candidates other than those cast for the top two. This avoids results where extremes, such as the BNP, can determine the results of elections, which can happen under the AV system in the Bill.
Also under SV, third and fourth-placed candidates cannot leapfrog into first place, undermining the credibility of election results. I understand that leapfrogging is the reason why the Liberal Democrats support AV—because it does precisely that—but that is a two-edged sword. They may wish to consider what would happen if there was an election tomorrow under the AV system in the Bill. They should remember that they are part of a coalition that is having to take some very unpopular and difficult decisions. As Plant put it:
“The main disadvantages of AV are as follows … it is possible for low ranked candidates actually to break through and be elected so that the most weakly preferred candidate could gain a majority … Following from the fact that the winning candidate has to get”
—at that stage he thought that was the case—
“50 per cent of the vote plus one might seem to be a less compelling principle, if that absolute majority involves weak preferences being counted”.
However, that was under the Australian system, which we are not even considering. Only under the Australian system do you have to get more than 50 per cent of the vote.
The other day I referred to the work of Professor Rawlings and Professor Thrasher at length, and I do not want to repeat what I said, except to say that, following their research into voting behaviour in Queensland, Australia, which uses the same optional preference AV system as proposed in the Bill, they concluded that,
“the most likely scenario over time is that many voters will treat an AV election just like ‘first past the post’, and not cast multiple preferences. Incredibly, under this very same AV system, in Queensland in 2009, fully 63 per cent of those who turned out in the state elections voted for just one candidate”.
Their comments on the operation of optional preferential AV completely undermine the justification for AV in this Bill whereby you give the electorate the opportunity to cast multiple preferences.
Rawlings and Thrasher argue that not everyone uses their additional preferences, whereas under SV they are more likely to do so. On 10 November 2010, in an article, they stated:
“At the three London mayoral elections in 2000, 2004 and 2008”,
under SV only, 20 per cent of,
“voters either voted just once or cast both their available votes for a single party candidate”.
In other words, 80 per cent voted for more. I would add that the complication in that early SV election arose from the way in which the question was tabled on the ballot paper.
I argue that SV is simple, easily understood, well tried, internationally recognised, more likely to lead to the casting of additional preference votes and easy to count. I have not even dealt with the problems that arise over counting—perhaps I can do that on Report. In replying to this debate, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us whether it is proposed under their system to count the votes manually or electronically, which is significant. Unless they are counted electronically it will not be possible to work out how effective this system is. That view is expressed by returning officers in Scotland, with whom our people have spoken over the past few days. It reduces the influence of the extremes. Finally, it concentrates the mind of the voter on the need not to waste votes. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker
I support my noble friend in this amendment. I do not want to repeat what I have said in previous debates, but we are given an opportunity here to deploy once again—certainly, it will be deployed if and when a referendum takes place—the fact that the proposal in the Bill is fraught with difficulties. What is more, untruths are told about it. It will be the case that every time someone appears on a platform or a television station and says, “Oh, they have got to get more than 50 per cent to win”, someone will pop up and say, “Not true”. It is not true under the system in this Bill that every MP will be elected with more than 50 per cent of the votes. It cannot happen with an open system. It is impossible. Every time it is said, whether by the Deputy Prime Minister or anyone else, it is not the case. The public are being misled.
We have to look at which system of AV is being used. I know that it is the case—it was the case with the previous Cabinet and will be with this one—that there has been no proper discussion in the Government. There has been no seminar in the Cabinet Room for Cabinet Ministers to say, “There are three ways of doing AV. Which one do you want in the Bill?”. There has been no discussion at all. That is why we have a Bill based on ignorance. I am not saying that people are personally ignorant; I am saying that there is ignorance of the system.
It would not be so bad if the Government were offering up the system and telling the whole truth about it or if they said, “Well, this is the system we have got. It is not perfect, but none of them is. Most MPs will be elected with more than 50 per cent of the vote, but some of them won’t be. So we won’t make the claim that they all will be”. But the Government are not saying that, because they cannot say it under this system. They must know that by now because their advisers must have told them about it. As I have said, there is ignorance and lack of party discussion. It was the same with the last lot—no one was ever consulted and it just turned up in the Bill earlier in the year. Part of the reason why there has been no discussion is that there are never any discussions because the Government never meet. The public think that they do, of course, but they do not. That is a difficulty and it is where the Government face a problem.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, a question. Under the supplementary system, would it be possible for a candidate who had no first preferences to be elected?
Lord Rooker
No, as my noble friend explained in even greater detail. However many candidates there are on the list, noble Lords should envisage the current ballot paper but with two columns. Voters put an X in the first column and an X in the second column—obviously for different people—and the contest is then between those two candidates only. One person could get elected, of course, with more than 50 per cent in the first column, as is the case with AV now, and that would be great. However, it would not be possible for the least popular candidate to leapfrog the popular candidate, as can happen with AV.
Lord Greaves
This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill. I apologise that I did not speak at Second Reading and I do not expect to speak very often in Committee, which will please my noble friends.
I rise to speak because the debate is about the supplementary vote, which I consider to be an awful voting system. I want to explain why. Before I do, however, in response to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I should explain that it is not possible under AV for a candidate who gets no first preference votes to be elected. It is possible, but highly unlikely, under STV in a multimember seat; it is not possible under AV. That is a red herring.
I normally expect the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to speak a great deal of sense and to put forward sensible proposals, even when I am not allowed to support them. Nevertheless, I am astonished that he thinks that the supplementary vote is a good system. However, as he said, he was in at the genesis of the system, which was put together at a dinner party when people were talking around the table. It was something like that, anyway; it is a nice story. The noble Lord also said that it is tried and tested—as, indeed, it is—and that many people seek to rubbish it. That may be because it is a rubbish system. It is inefficient—I shall explain why in a moment—and it results in people being cheated. They think that they are voting and expect their vote to be counted, but it is not counted.
As the noble Lord said, the system is used in 12 mayoral elections for councils and for the election of the Mayor of London, so there is, indeed, a great deal of experience. However, on the evidence that we have, it is not particularly beneficial to any of the political parties. It often seems beneficial to candidates of weird and wonderful varieties but, at the moment, of the 12 mayors, three are Labour, two are Conservative, two are Liberal Democrat, four are independent and one is an English Democrat. People ought to at least ask questions about any system that allows the election of an English Democrat, as the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, against AV included the suggestion that that system might lead to influence for BNP voters.
Lord Rooker
The Leader of the House is deploying arguments that he has not used so far in this debate. He is to be congratulated for the exposition that he has just given. It naturally follows from what he has just said that it would be completely misleading for members of the Government to persist in claiming that the proposed system will mean that MPs will be elected with more than 50 per cent of the vote. That has got to stop. If he said that that will stop, that would knock one of the misleading issues off the agenda so far as the public are concerned.
Lord Strathclyde
I like to think that I have made an authoritative statement from the Dispatch Box as to what the Government believe to be the case. However, as the noble Lord knows, we will not be controlling the campaign—different people will make their different views known as to the merits or demerits of AV. However, the noble Lord is right. I have agreed with him, and I thank him for his earlier words about this case.
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
With respect to Amendment 24, in view of the clarity of the Leader’s speech this afternoon, as a reward and to avoid further embarrassment to the Liberal Democrats, I will not move Amendment 24.
Lord Grenfell
I wish to express my support for the amendment of my noble friend, Lord Snape. This may be an esoteric point but reference has been made to elections in other parts of Europe. Over the years, I have witnessed many elections in France and it is not just tradition that demands that they be held at a weekend; there are also some practical reasons and I shall cite just one. It may sound a little bit like French Cartesian logic gone mad, but it is much easier to get people to the polls at a weekend than on a weekday. Where there are still many one-car families, as there are in France, on the weekend the car will be at home and not at the office. That is one example of the kind of thinking in France and it is the kind of thinking that we might want to apply here to see what kind of practical advantages there are as regards weekend elections as opposed to elections on a Thursday.
Lord Rooker
I was not going to speak on the amendment but perhaps I could add to the debate by referring to the next amendment. Everything short of compulsory voting should be tried to raise the turnout. I am dead against compulsory voting. In my view, that is quite preposterous in a democracy. However, the barriers to increased turnout, such as the hours of polling, or the days of voting, are all things that could be addressed. There is a lot more as well. All these things should be in play. I realise that the Leader of the House is going to ask what on earth this has to do with this Bill, but one has to look for a peg to hang these things on. The localism Bill will probably be another one—it is exactly the same. I have been disabused of the history this afternoon. I always thought that it was a Thursday—and I have repeated this at meetings—because in the old days, that was the day the squires went to market and bought and sold constituencies. It seems as though I may have been wrong.
Lord Rooker
This raises an interesting issue for Part 2 of the Bill. If, as I have always understood, it is legally compulsory to register to vote, surely the other side of the coin is that there ought to be a legal obligation on the Government to ensure that every citizen is registered to vote, especially given that those numbers will be instrumental in determining the size of constituencies and all the other matters that come under Part 2. That opens up the possibility of some interesting amendments to Part 2 on compulsory registration to ensure that both those sides of the coin are dealt with. There must be a clear obligation on the Government to ensure that citizens obey the law, so that the millions of people who are allegedly missed off are not missed off before the constituency boundaries are redrawn.
Lord Bach
I agree with my noble friend that this is an important point. Various answers have been given over the past months that have suggested that registration is not compulsory in this country. I am not pressing the Leader of the House to answer on that today; a Written Answer would be satisfactory. However, the issue is relevant to Part 2, as my noble friend said. However, Amendment 29 is on compulsory voting, on which I look forward to hearing what the Leader of the House has to say.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
My Lords, when I first tabled this little group of amendments, I included one that was along the lines of a side-title to it: “the people’s choice”. That is what this group is about. At the moment, nobody has asked the people. Nobody has asked anybody whether they want to change the voting system. This group of amendments splits the question into two parts. It is fairly self-explanatory, although it is not as easy to see when they are split up on the Marshalled List. The first question is in Amendment 21 and would ask people:
“Do you wish to change the voting system?”.
People are not being asked this. It was implied by Amendment 16. People were not asked whether they wanted change; it said that it had been agreed to change the voting system. I want to ask people whether they want to do so.
The second part, if there are yes and no answers to that first question, is in Amendment 27:
“If a majority vote for a change in the voting system, which of the alternatives”—
I call them families—
“would you prefer?”.
There are four there; it is a little package. I will not labour the point. I did not invent this. It is a replica, although not exactly, of what happened in New Zealand nearly 20 years ago. New Zealand had first past the post, a very modern democracy and votes for women 30 years before this country did, so we should not lecture anyone there about democracy and parliamentary systems. It had first past the post and there was pressure for change. I shall not deploy all the documentation and so on but a referendum was held in New Zealand in two parts. The people were asked, first, “Do you wish to change the system? Yes or no?”, and then below that on the paper was the second question, “If the yes vote wins, which one of the following do you want?”. The options given were in families—I use that term because of the debates that we have had—rather than in detail. Parliament took it away, worked on it to make it a practical reality and then a year later, in 1993, there was a second binding referendum between first past the post and the alternative, which won the vote and was turned into a practical system. It worked. I do not know how many times it has been used—probably at least four or five—but in New Zealand the people were asked before a change was made.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend what the turnout was in the referendum. Is there anything that we can learn from that level of turnout?
Lord Rooker
I regret to say that I have not brought my New Zealand file with me. I could not get away from the Chamber and my file is across the road, so I do not know. It was a hot issue and I have copies of the information that at the time was distributed to people by the equivalent of the Electoral Commission to explain the systems and what was going on, together with copies of the ballot papers.
I am not going to spend this debate deploying the whys and wherefores of the system. The principle is clear: first, we should ask the people, “Do you want to change the system?”. I can make the case for that but the change, when it occurs, has to be cemented, and that is my anxiety about what is being proposed. This is not intended to be a cemented change, because it is clear that, assuming it is carried, the Liberal Democrats will come back later for a move to PR. Were I in favour of PR, I would go straight to PR, but that is not the point that I am making here.
Lord Sewel
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. As I understand his argument, he wants to have an initial decision on whether to change from first past the post. If there is a majority in favour of change, that becomes a trigger for a list of alternatives, which, according to the first decision, excludes the retention of first past the post. Would it not be possible to have, say, 45 per cent of the people voting for first past the post and then, when you come to the alternatives, to have any one of the alternatives securing less than 45 per cent of the support of the electorate? What would happen then?
Lord Rooker
Amendment 30 takes care of that. I know that I shall be criticised for Amendment 30 but, if you are going to have multi-choice answers, you have to be able to rank them so that there is a clear winner. What I have here are two questions that are intended to be on one ballot paper: “Do you want to change the system? Yes or no?”. If the yes vote wins, which will not be known until the papers are counted, then the second question comes in: “Which family would you choose?”. In New Zealand, there was a year’s gap between the two referendums. The first referendum was not binding but the second one was. It was do or die between one system or another. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, the second referendum required a yes or no answer and so was absolutely clear.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Can my noble friend confirm that first past the post was not an option in the second referendum?
Lord Rooker
Yes it was. First past the post was mentioned in both referendums even though when people were asked in the first referendum, “Do you want to change from first past the post? Yes or no?”, the yes vote won. They then chose what I call, in shorthand, the additional member system as the preferred option from the family. A year later, there was a run-off between a detailed additional member system and the status quo, the first past the post. You could not complain if you were a first past the poster that you did not get a fair crack of the whip in New Zealand, because there were two opportunities. That is what cemented the change, because on two occasions first past the post lost. It lost on the indicative referendum to start with, when the choice came; and then it lost on the binding referendum. So, on the second referendum, first past the post was back. It was incredibly sophisticated, modern and democratic, and this was 1992-93. The system worked, and it is one on which I wanted to model this kind of operation.
They did it and it works, so there is somewhere in the world that we can point to—somewhere that is English-speaking, first past the post, democratic. We are scratching around because no one can find a place where the type of alternative vote proposed in the Bill actually works in reality. I was going to use Canada as an example, but it was not a national election when they used it there, when it all went dramatically wrong for lots of people. It was always in the provinces. If you google Canada and the alternative vote you will come up with a textbook of how to smash the alternative vote. It was not a national election, however, so I am not going to use it.
It was a two-stage question and a two-stage referendum, but my amendments do not cover the second stage. I just wanted to deploy the case and give at least a positive push—or a nudge, in the language—to the effect that it can work, because it did work and there is a classic example for it.
There are a couple of points I did not speak on in the last debate—I showed enormous restraint, as I said to the Leader of the House—because I have got nothing new to add to what I am not going to say now. One of the reasons that I never joined the Electoral Reform Society after I became a convert just over 20 years ago was this issue about STV. That is why I never joined. I have worked very happily with lots of people on joint platforms and would be happy to do so again, but I will never join because it has this thing whereby if you join, people will say, “Oh, he is in favour of STV”. It is the one system I do not like because it forces party people to fight against each other. I do not think that is a clever system. It was also dissected by the Plant commission, which I will come to in a moment, which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant back in the 1990s.
On AV, you have to ask yourself what you are trying to do. Are you trying to elect the most popular person for a constituency and then as a by-product get a popular Government, because it is slightly more proportionate? The question that should be asked on this referendum is: do you want a majoritarian system or a proportional system? That is the question to ask. First past the post and AV are both majoritarian systems; there is no argument about that. They are not remotely proportional, so they are in the majoritarian family. But if you want to elect the most popular person, AV will not do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised an issue which I have covered later in Amendment 52, so I will not go into it in detail now, about what you do with those preferences for the bottom candidates. It is unfair; there is no question about that. The sixth candidate gets chucked out. That second preference is worth exactly the same as the first vote for the first candidate or the second preference for the second candidate. It is very unfair that someone’s vote should have that value. Amendment 52 gets us round that. But there is not a system that will deliver the most popular candidate.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave us a seminar on the last election. I want to read a bit from page 66 of the Plant report, which was a long time ago, about how to get the most popular person elected. You certainly cannot do it by ranking and kicking people out; that does not work. For example, as I tried to explain in a previous debate, the supporters of the first three candidates in a list might all hate each other equally, but each of the supporters of the first three would vote for the fourth. That is what is known as the Condorcet winner—which is defined as the option that beats every other in an exhaustive series of pair-wise contests.
I raised this with some academics upstairs and they gave me a good example of someone who would have been a Condorcet winner, although it did not happen because of the system that was used. Noble Lords will remember the French election when Chirac ran up against Le Pen and Jospin came third. Jospin was the Condorcet winner because, in a run-off with Chirac, he would have beaten Chirac and in a run off with Le Pen, he would have beaten Le Pen, but because he was third he got knocked out. He would have been the Condorcet winner in that case, but he was not because of the way the system worked with the two-round ballot, so the most popular person did not win. That is a good example from recent history and we all know what happened in the French election.
The alternative vote system will not give you the most popular candidate. I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, earlier—that would be far beyond my pay grade—but he repeated the canard about the winner securing 50 per cent plus of the votes. It is not true; it cannot happen under the system in this Bill. In order for it to happen every voter would have to use every single preference on the ballot paper and that will not happen because of what I said last week. I can guarantee that some Liberal Democrat candidates will go around the country saying to their supporters, “Don’t vote and use your second preference because they will work out what might happen if that second preference all goes wrong”. People will not be encouraged to use all their preferences.
There are some problems with the system. I digress because I wanted to point out that every system has its defects; nothing is perfect. You can make an electoral system do exactly what you want it to do. You can put constraints on turnout; you can put constraints on the additional Member system; and you could say to a party, “You cannot have a top-up candidate unless you have won at least one constituency”. I was accused of being antidemocratic when I said that. You do not need a percentage turnout. If you cannot win a constituency, you are not entitled to a top-up. They said, “All that is bad for the Greens”. I said, “Let them go and win a seat”, and they have done that now, so they would qualify. You can do all those things; it is all techie.
I refuse to let my eyes glaze over, but when I am faced with the situation presented in this Bill, it makes me so angry because, at the end of the day, I will have to vote for first past the post, which really sticks in my throat. I am being forced to vote for first past the post because of what is in the Bill: the preference system, the turnout and all the issues which we discussed last week on which we can go into detail when we come to other amendments. Those matters make the situation more perverse and worse than the present system. That is a change I am not prepared to vote for. I am not prepared to vote for something on the basis of, “Vote for this and if we get it right at the next election, we will come back and get a bit of PR, AV+”. Give me AV+ and I will vote for it.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, would vote for AV+ but he cannot get the person sitting next to him in the Cabinet to support him. That is a bit like the Labour Cabinet. We were presented with exactly the same in the Bill that came to the House in March. People were not asked if they wanted to change. It was put together by a Cabinet, most of whose members did not want change at any price; they just stuffed AV in and thought they could get away with it because it is so close to first past the post. There were the same problems and I made the same speech when sitting on the Bench opposite.
I am annoyed because, at the end of the day, unless there is a major change to the Bill, I will have to vote for first past the post, which I do not think is very good. Also I think people will be misled during the referendum. Perhaps I can give an example: somewhere in the world it worked in a mature democracy and I think it could work here if we asked the people. I wish we were brave enough to do that.
I realise this was all cobbled together in a rush in the six days after the election. I understand that the pressures to get a deal were enormous. I will support the fixed-term Parliament, although I think four years is better than five but I will settle for five years. I accept that the only deal in town was the deal I am looking at now, but that means we should be mature enough to say, “Look, if there is something intrinsically wrong with the system, let us put the case to the people and ask them if they want a change”.
Think of the mandate you would have from that Front Bench, if you could persuade people that, yes, there is demand for a change. The first-past-the-posters would be run out of town and we could get to work on getting a change that people would accept and it might last for the 132 years that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, keeps saying that first past the post has lasted for.
I freely admit that you can all go home because I do not intend to push any of this to a vote, but I wanted to put it on the record that there is an alternative way of doing this. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to come in.
Lord Strathclyde
The question was this. Why did we propose a referendum on AV? It was not whether we supported AV or not, but whether we supported a referendum or not. The difference is that on this side of the House we can agree to disagree on whether we are in favour of AV, but what unites us is that we believe it should be the people's choice. The Labour Party denies that.
There are a number of ways in which the amendments proposed would get in the way of that clarity. Splitting the question in this way would risk making it unclear to people what they are really being asked to vote on. If someone was to vote no to the first question for example, why would they wish to answer the second question? Would their votes to the second question still count if they had said no to the first? As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, pointed out, there is another disadvantage. The amendment allows for the possibility that people might vote yes to the first question but then not want any of the options presented in the second question, which would lead to uncertainty in interpreting the results as to what the voters really wanted.
Another drafting issue with the amendment is that it does not make it clear that it is a voting system for the UK parliamentary elections to the House of Commons. There is also no indication in these amendments about how any of the other voting systems would work. As I said earlier on, one attraction of the approach taken in our Bill is that, for all the arguments that might take place about how AV works, our Bill sets that out in Clause 9 and Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works can be resolved by looking at the Bill.
In its report on the referendum question, the Electoral Commission noted that there was a great deal of uncertainty among the public about what the different voting systems were. The Electoral Commission will publish information on the different systems to address that. It is realistic to think that the commission will be able to address this sort of issue where there are two voting systems at stake. But in the context of the commission’s observations, it is not realistic to think the same where five proposed systems are referred to in the question.
A referendum on AV replacing the existing system will give a clear choice to the electorate with the ability for people to express a clear view. Offering more than one choice could lead to an indecisive result and confusion over the interpretation of the results. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rooker
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. I freely admit that this amendment comes from the anorak side of me. This was the most difficult part when I went through the Bill. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, when I read the Bill looking for what I wanted to do, this was the one clause I had most difficulty with. I wanted to raise the issue, but I could not do that in a way that was clear and precise in terms of deploying the argument for a second referendum and how the people had a choice. I could not do that. For 11 years, all my amendments have been drafted for me and I admit to being slightly rusty, but I am learning fast. I then left it alone. All the rest of the stuff in my name is like the other two amendments—very precise and clear so that everybody knows exactly what the issue is. I hope that they were clear tonight. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
My Lords, this is my second offer of a lifeboat to the coalition. Last week, I offered one on the indicative aspect, and today I offer “before 31 October”. It does not alter the Bill in any way or force any change. The coalition can still meet their intention to have the referendum on 5 May, even if they accept my amendment. It is now 6 December. We are five months away from that date, or 20-odd weeks. Royal Assent is some time away. The Bill has to go back to the Commons in any event because there are government amendments to the Bill in your Lordships' House. They were in addition to the 286 government amendments put in the Bill in the other place, which doubled its length from 150 pages to 300 pages. Even then, they could not get it right, because they have come to this House and have already tabled amendments. It is all rush, rush, rush. They must ask themselves, “Can we do it?”. I have to say that it shows a level of faith in local government, the Electoral Commission, the weather and the parliamentary process which, in the words of “Yes Minister” is “brave”. There are 20 weeks to go, and we are on only the second day in Committee in your Lordships' House.
Do the Government have a risk analysis of this process? If not, they are not conducting public administration in the same way that most of the public bodies they are trying to abolish already do. On that assumption, I assume they have a risk analysis, and I ask them to share it with the House, perhaps in the speech that answers this amendment.
My amendment is a contingency measure. I will not argue about the referendum question; that is not the issue and we will come to that later. However, I want to make it clear, as I did last week, that this amendment does not stop the referendum taking place on 5 May. If all the things are in place, fine. The question we must ask is: what happens if they are not? What a disaster it will be if we get a bit close to the date and the Electoral Commission says: “Ten weeks to go and we have not quite got this ready”. We also have to ask ourselves about the administrative procedures that have to be gone through as issues are raised about some of the other processes of local government and the Electoral Commission. Let us leave all those aside for the minute: they are mechanical and administrative. What about the voters? How are the voters going to be dealt with at the last minute in this rush, rush, rush? There is never time to educate the public until such time as they are forced to make a decision. People want to get on with their lives—their work and their families—and they are not interested until the deadline comes. Then it will be: “Oh, I have not heard about this. What does all this mean? Does this mean that Parliament is going to change? What effect will it have? What about the misconceptions about the voting system?”. Time might well be needed by the Government to have a decent information campaign.
It is already known, following a series of YouGov polls commissioned by the Constitution Society a few months ago, that there are considerable problems about this idea. Most respondents do not understand AV. Its summary says that the yes and no votes are evenly balanced, but that exposure to information about AV increases the no votes. Perhaps that is the reason for the rush, rush, rush—because polling evidence indicates that the more people know about it, the more they are inclined to vote no. However, it has to be their choice and they must choose in a free way.
The polls also found that there are a number of widespread misconceptions about AV. Well, there are, and I think a few of those will be deployed in the coming days. The polls also indicated that the same arguments are commonly used to justify votes both for and against AV. In other words, I have only gone through half of the findings in summary form and it is clear that there is a hell of a job to do to explain to the public what all this is about. If it can not be done well before 5 May, that would be an absolute disgrace, because the Government could have plenty of opportunity to avoid having that problem if they accept my amendment.
Before 1997, some of us junior shadow Ministers were sent off to Templeton College, Oxford, for a bit of training. Needless to say, the generals did not go. Two things have always stuck in my mind from those sessions we had with ex-Ministers and ex-permanent secretaries. One was: “Always pilot a change”. That is something that would be well taken by everybody. The other one—and I cannot remember who said this without going back to my notes—was: “It is never too late to avoid making a bad decision”. I once said that to one of our Prime Ministers, by the way. The response I got across the table was: “This is not a bad decision”. The fact of the matter is that I was reminded about that. I am not saying that having a referendum is a bad decision, because if we are going to change the voting system, we have to have a referendum. I am not arguing about that. I am arguing here about the timing of it; 5 May is entrenched in the Bill. There is no get-out from that and we do not want a shambles. The Electoral Commission has already warned the other place and the Deputy Prime Minister has told a Select Committee there, though he did not give any details, about the factors that might cause a problem. However, it would be quite useful to have those teased out because we need to show the public, in case things do start to go wrong or even if it is a success, that these things were thought about beforehand.
Come the referendum, whatever the take of each side on this, that would not be any good. With the public’s misconceptions, there is evidence that we will need a decent education campaign because of what will be thrown on both sides of the argument. We cannot do that until the Bill has Royal Assent. After Second Reading, I realised that certain amounts of public expenditure can be used. Once the Government have secured a Second Reading, certain changes are triggered. But it is only after Royal Assent that the treasurers and accounting officers in local government and other institutions can say, “Hang on, this is really on”.
Lord Rooker
I never once referred to combined elections. That is not the issue as far as my amendment is concerned; I know that others in the group are concerned with this. My question is this: what were the relevant dates for that legislation? I know the referendum the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers to was for London only and not national, but how close to the referendum did the legislation start through the two Houses? That is the point that I am raising. I am not arguing against 5 May; I am just saying that if something goes wrong between now and then, my amendment is a lifeboat and we can still have the referendum.
Lord Tyler
I can answer the noble Lord, as it happens, because I have very good brief. That Bill started its progress through the House of Commons on 28 October 1997 and was not completed until well into 1998, so it is a very similar situation to the present one. I go a step further, which is why I hope we are going to get a contribution from the opposition Front Bench. Amendment 12 specifies that this referendum should take place on the same day as the mayoral and Assembly elections in London in 2012. What is right for the goose is surely right for the gander. How can we possibly argue, as Members opposite did for hours the other night—it seemed interminable—that somehow the Scots are not capable of taking this decision on the same day when London has done so in the past, and there is a proposal, which has been supported by at least some Members opposite, to do so again in 2012? I stand up for the Scots as a fellow Celt. I think they are quite capable of taking this decision on the same day, and I hope your Lordships’ House will take the same view.
Lord Strathclyde
There will be no elections in the areas that I did not mention. The noble Lord may feel that Londoners will be uninterested, but I have complete faith that the campaigns for yes and no will be able to get Londoners out on this important issue.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, without being personal in any way, can I say that I am really looking forward to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, answering one of these debates? His name is on the Bill, but he has not really played much of a part as the leading member of the coalition here.
Lord Strathclyde
It is a long Bill, and an awful lot of noble Lords on the other side want to ask us questions. My noble friend and I, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have divided up the Bill and will speak at later stages.
Lord Rooker
I really appreciate the fact that the Leader of the House is taking a detailed role in the passage of the Bill. That being so, he has more clout than the others and therefore could have asked for better briefing. Where is the list of risks? Do not tell me that there is no group of Ministers or civil servants assessing the risks of this measure. If there is not, there will be one hell of a row, because every other public body has a risk assessment of things that can go wrong. It is implicit that in the conduct of public administration there should be an assessment of the risks, but there is no mention of that. There is a fixation on certainty instead. I do not mind that; I am just offering the Government a degree of flexibility on the practicalities. I deliberately did not refer to any of the other amendments on the dates. I do not want to get involved in this debate about the combination of referendums, elections and other dates. I would settle for 5 May, no problem, but is it practical?
In paragraph 24 of the Constitution Committee report, to which my noble friend referred briefly, the Electoral Commission said:
“Provided the Bill receives Royal Assent in time to allow a referendum period of at least 10 weeks, there will be adequate time for the Commission to register campaigners and designate”,
lead campaigners.
My point is that until Royal Assent, not a lot of money can be spent, in the education process, to cover the problems that the public might have. That recent poll was not undertaken 100 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard said; it was undertaken by YouGov for the Constitution Society in only August/September this year. The issue is that 10 weeks before 5 May takes us to 24 February, and this House is in recess on that day. We rise on 16 February and are not back until 28 February, so we have lost even more. We are back after Christmas for fewer than six weeks until 16 February.
All I am saying is that we should consider the risk of uncertainties. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned foot-and-mouth disease, and I was involved in some of the meetings at which there were big debates about what to do about the general election. Everyone knew that local elections and general elections were supposed to happen but there were hot discussions in the Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about them. We had a degree of flexibility, but the fact is that no one had planned for foot and mouth. We did not plan for the one in 2007, which was completely self-inflicted. We could have a problem and all I am saying is that, leaving aside some of the issues raised by colleagues, we ought to build in flexibility.
I shall not go through all the debates, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. It is not a sneaky amendment; it is seductive, if you like—I prefer seductive. If she wants sneaky, there is one much further on in the Bill; it came out of last week’s debate and I fully accept that it could be classed as sneaky. I am trying to give the Government the opportunity to have flexibility. All Governments want it; local government wants it. It was in my mind that 31 October had been referred to somewhere. I had forgotten that it was in the Constitutional Reform Bill. The previous Government introduced a Bill without a date—they said that it should be before 31 October.
I have not talked to anyone in the Electoral Commission, although I went to a meeting the other week at which it could not answer some of the questions put by noble Lords. However, this amendment could not possibly cause the Electoral Commission one iota of concern. The date of 5 May is still a runner. That is the Government’s intention, Parliament’s assumption and the assumption that we want everyone outside to make. There is a degree of certainty. No one will say that it is deliberate, but things can happen outside the control of local government, the private sector and central government. It does not really matter; one can think these things up, which is why I am sad to say that we have not had the list from the risk committee that has been discussed in government. I cannot believe that this has not been dealt with somewhere.
We have not had a good response. I have no intention of pushing this, as there are other issues that I want to talk about, but on this amendment I will test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, before putting Amendment 5, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to, or indeed if Amendment 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 7 to 12 inclusive due to pre-emption.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
I add my voice to concerns about the lack of consultation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. These bodies have been set up for over 10 years and the present Secretary of State makes a huge play of her wish to work with the Welsh Assembly in Wales. If this is a precursor of how the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are to be treated in future; if this is the result of hurried legislation; if the Leader of the House sees that he has no duty to apologise, not personally but on behalf of the Government, it augurs pretty badly for the relationship in the future.
Lord Rooker
Perhaps I can add to that. I was not going to intervene in this debate but I was struck by the Leader of the House’s use of the word confidentiality. I have the privilege outside this House of chairing the board of a non-ministerial department—I give a new flavour to the coalition, in some ways, on a UK-wide body. We are responsible and accountable to the four separate Governments. The issue of confidentiality, lack of trust and not being able to be frank and open with Ministers—who are themselves very widely in coalition in the UK—has, in my experience, never arisen. The devolved Administrations are not the enemy. I am not certain but I have a feeling that some Ministers in Whitehall, or the infrastructure in Whitehall, are new to dealing with devolved Administrations who have genuine power—it was new to all of us—and they look on them as the enemy. But they are not.
Lord Strathclyde
I certainly do not think that they are the enemy either. The point I was making was that the correct announcement was to make a single national statement, which is precisely what we did. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, says that nobody understands what AV is. That, of course, will be up to the campaigns and the Electoral Commission to explain. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her issues about knocking-up, again, this is a campaigning issue and it will be up to the campaigns to decide how best to get people to vote yes or no during the course of the campaign.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I wish to oppose the inclusion of Amendment 16 in the Bill and to do so as a strong supporter of electoral reform. I actually joined the Electoral Reform Society some 35 years ago at the age of 15. Unlike some supporters of the alternative vote, I remain strongly committed to the principles of proportional representation, and to the merits of the single transferable vote system in particular. However, I share the opposition to closed lists of noble Lords who propose this amendment, whether they be lists of 10 people or just one, as in the current first past the post system. Above all, I am committed to making progress that will allow the voters themselves to have a say in how their representatives are chosen.
I am sure we wish the noble Lord, Lord Owen, well in his recovery. I note from his recent correspondence with the Electoral Reform Society that he has been referring to the alliance commission in the early 1980s, which, on behalf of the Liberal Party and the SDP, looked at electoral systems. He notes that that commission found in favour of STV rather than the alternative vote system, but I ask him when he looks at his Hansard to consider that report again in some detail because it also said that in parts of the country where perhaps it was appropriate to have only a single member—such as in the far-flung rural parts of the country—it was appropriate to use the alternative vote system.
I also draw his attention, and that of some of his noble friends, to the system that operated for choosing single candidates within the SDP—of which he was a member between 1981 and 1988—and in the party that he led between 1988 and 1990. The system chosen for choosing a single person, be it a leader, a president or a candidate, was in fact the alternative vote system.
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 Rooker
I want to make it clear that my noble friend is speaking for Scotland. I am an English person, who, by the way, would like the Scottish system. The only reason why he was elected for Lothian in the top-up system is because there were tens of thousands of Labour voters in that region without a constituency representative. That is the point. That is why he was elected. That this system did not leave hundreds of square miles with Labour voters without any direct representation is a bonus. It is a plus that my noble friend was elected to the Scottish Parliament, not a minus.
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.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has done your Lordships a great favour by introducing the amendment so early in our consideration of the Bill. He has brought it to our minds that the problem of proportional representation is that people tend to say, “I am in favour of proportional representation”, and only afterwards, when you inquire what kind of proportional representation, does the argument begin.
I suggest, in a non-party-political way, that most of us recognise that AV came into the political discussion because it was hit upon by the previous Government as the form of proportional representation least likely to do them harm and most likely to do them good. I am not criticising them for that: after all, it is the first step that people normally take when they consider an alternative to the first past the post system. They say to themselves, “Which would do me best?”. Then they choose the system—and some have to choose a most complicated and peculiar system in order to land more votes for themselves. What is odd about this proposition is that it was put forward by two coalition parties, neither of whom thinks that it will be best for them. It is a remarkable achievement. They have taken on the proposal that the previous Government made because it would be best for them and proposed it to the House on the basis that it would not be best for either of them. I cannot remember a single occasion on which such a proposition has been true.
I admit that I am opposed to proportional representation of any kind. I am very simple about it: the first past the post system is the right one. I would rather see somebody elected who is favoured by the majority of people than somebody who is the least unfavoured: I have always found this a better thing. I also believe that there is no convincing argument that proportional representation is fairer. One has only to look to Germany to find that the Free Democrats have taken part in more Governments than they ought to have taken part in. A Free Democrat vote is much more valuable than almost any other vote. Therefore, I am against proportional representation; but I am particularly against the way that we have discussed it. This is a very serious matter—the way in which our Government and representatives are elected is vitally important.
I am not in favour of the amendment. I want AV on the ballot paper because I want the least satisfactory form of proportional representation that can be presented so that I can defeat it. I am absolutely straight about that: I do not want any of this fiddling about. However, those of us who have views on the matter should be honest. We should say that it is difficult enough to get people to vote—and difficult enough to get people to vote in a way that indicates their preference—under the present system. Some noble Lords have not been elected. I was elected many times and sat in the other place for more than 30 years. What always amazed me was the number of people who found it extremely difficult to follow the idea that you put a cross—or some obvious mark—against the person you wanted. It was quite hard to get everybody to do that. The idea that people will make a choice between the British National Party and Welsh nationalist candidates at number 14 and 15 on a long list is frankly barmy—they will not.
I am sure that, like me, other noble Lords have been asked to vote in an election for a trustees’ group under such a system. By the time you have voted for the ones you have heard of, you find it very difficult to know how to distinguish between those of whom you have not heard, those you do not think much of and those you do not know whether you think a little less of than you do of others.
This is the most ridiculous proposal that could possibly be put before us. I worry about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The more people that take it seriously, the worse the situation will be. If we really are having that kind of argument down at 14 and 15 in the list, I do not know how I would campaign. I do not understand what I am supposed to say. I know what I would do; I would say, “Don’t waste your vote by voting for anybody else—vote for me”. In that sense, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is perfectly right.
The difficulty for the House is to know how best to save the coalition Government from their position. I have a difficulty because I have never voted for a referendum—and I have no intention of voting for a referendum on this occasion. I think referenda are thoroughly unacceptable in all circumstances. I believe in parliamentary democracy and it is a principle one has to uphold; I have upheld it whether I thought we might win the referendum or whether I thought we might lose. I have always thought it wrong. It was a position my father convinced me of when he pointed out that in 1938—I think it was 1938—11 million people signed the peace pledge, and by 1939 you could not find one of them. The problem with the referendum is that nobody is responsible. I have a difficulty with them; but no doubt people will vote in favour of having a referendum, which will help the coalition on that point.
I would like to help the coalition further by keeping AV in this by opposing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours; if we are to have a referendum, it is one that needs to be lost.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I support the demands of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I want to put this on the record in view of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, this afternoon. It is quite clear that if the Liberals are not going to participate in the debates in this House, then it is on their head; they will have no cause for complaint about it. My noble friend’s amendment accepts the alternative vote; it does not seek to change it. We have amendments later for PR, and I personally guarantee an opportunity for the Lib Dems to vote for STV, whatever time of day it is, as long as I can find another teller. At some time, I will give them the chance to vote for what I know they really want.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, started off by saying exactly what I have said: those who start the journey from first past the post to something else inevitably stop off at AV. I did it myself. The first time I got more than 50 per cent of the vote was in the fourth election in 1983; I started to wonder. In 1987, again with more than 50 per cent, it felt different. It made me think that there has to be a better system of elections. I was converted to PR by the geographer’s book from Sheffield A Nation Dividing? That is where I am coming from.
The first time I ever saw the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was at the referendum meeting in what was later to become my constituency of Perry Bar—1972, I think—when he was supporting the then Conservative Member of Parliament during the campaign. I am not making a point about referendums, or referendum campaigning or participating in them. Whether he voted for it, I do not know.
We have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that just because we are going to raise issues, it does not mean that we are trying to scupper the Bill, trying to be nasty or trying to be unconstitutional. At any time, he can get up and make his case. If he does not, then it is on his head. Come the referendum—and maybe come the election that follows—questions will be asked. First, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has said, the claim, which has been made by the leader of his own party, that this does away with tactical voting is simply not true. All the tactical voting goes on to the other preferences. I guarantee that if this Bill becomes an Act and we have an election, there will be some Lib Dem candidate somewhere in the country—and we will be watching—who will put out a leaflet saying “only vote one”. It will happen—and it will happen with Labour and Conservatives as well—but it is the Lib Dems making the claim.
The reason the form of AV needs looking at is that the alternative vote has not been used in any public election in the UK, except in the London Assembly elections, where it is a hybrid and quite different. We have never had a public election with AV. We have had public elections with STV—Northern Ireland has used them, while Wales and Scotland are using additional member system. So we have actual experience of these in the UK. No public election in the UK has used this form of the alternative vote.
The second claim, which the leader of the Liberal Democrats made in front of a Select Committee, is that everyone elected will get more than 50 per cent of the vote. Well, it is simply not true. It cannot be true. Fifty per cent of what? Fifty per cent of those who voted in the first part of the election’s first preferences, or 50 per cent of those who arrive at the other end after the other preferences have been knocked out? The figures are different. If people choose not to use a preference, so that their vote comes out of the system before the count is finished, how can you get 50 per cent? It is clearly impossible. Only in the Australian federal system, where there is compulsory voting and a compulsion to use all the preferences, can you come remotely near to the promise and commitment of having more than 50 per cent of the vote.
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
My Lords, unlike the debate we have just had, this is a very narrow, targeted debate. My basic submission is that a binding referendum on virtually any issue, let alone an issue without consultation, is not the British way of doing things. We do not do it. I was told that there has been one case of a binding referendum. An indicative or consultative referendum is the normal way we operate in the UK and frankly it fits the bill in this case. There are many people who would take that view. It will preserve parliamentary sovereignty in a formal way, whereas the way the Bill is drafted it certainly does not. I think that is important. It allows for some thought on the result and the turnout. In my view, it would obviate the need for thresholds. I have not looked at the complete list of amendments. I do not know whether there are amendments about turnout or majority thresholds. With an indicative referendum you would not need to put into the Bill anything to do with thresholds because it would allow time for reflection afterwards and Parliament would decide, having listened to and taken the views of the people. I think the processes and consequences are important.
There has been an example—it is important to give examples—of where the processes have been used. When New Zealand changed its voting system from first past the post in 1992 it had a consultative referendum. That resulted a year later in a binding referendum so everyone was absolutely clear. However, initially Parliament was able to take a view about what the public had actually decided.
As the Bill stands—I stand to be corrected by the Ministers who know more about the detail—it does not matter what the turnout is or what the level of a yes majority vote is. The change will happen. That is set out, I think, in Clause 8. So what are we saying? I am not going to give high-falutin’ examples. Let us say that we get a respectable turnout—50 to 60 per cent. I think it would be a very respectable turnout, a general election turnout. That is tens of millions of people voting. Let us say that the majority of the yes votes over the no votes is 1,000. Do we really then proceed with such a major change, without let or hindrance, because that is what the legislation actually says? It could be 10,000 but we are talking of something like 30 million people participating in the vote.
Let us think about what we are doing. We are binding ourselves before we start. Parliament has never done that and we should not do it on this occasion. I do not need to speculate. Frankly, my amendment is a lifeboat for both the coalition and Parliament. It does not alter the rest of the Bill. I would almost settle for this amendment and almost not bother with the rest of them because I think that would be so important in constitutional terms. It would be a lifeboat for Parliament and certainly a lifeboat for the coalition. Without such a lifeboat it is inevitable that we will have debates about thresholds on the turnout and the majority in order to trigger the operation of Clause 8. Why should we do that? It may come as a surprise, but for the vast majority of people in this country, voting is the only political activity they ever do. We are all anoraks. Some of us have been in the other place, but we are all here for a reason. For the vast majority of people their only action is voting. To make a change of such importance and significance we have to have the demonstrable consent of the public to a change of the status quo. That is absolutely clear. First we have to listen to the public and then Parliament can take a decision.
This is not some executive decision such as the level of taxation or the granting of a planning application. This is a major fundamental change in the way we elect our Parliament. It is of supreme voter and constitutional significance and it should be embedded for a goodly amount of time. It will not be if the scenario I have just given as an example comes about. We will end up with chaos unless we are prepared to say that we will listen to the public, fight the referendum and Parliament will then decide the way forward having listened and consulted. By and large, Parliament has taken a view on consultation in the past. It would be a lot easier to decide in principle and practice to have an indicative referendum than try to decide thresholds. It would be a nightmare to get involved in threshold debates. I have thought about it. It would be an absolute nightmare. It is so unpredictable, so personal and subjective. To say we will have an indicative referendum to consult will be pretty important.
I am going to pray in aid only one Member of the House. Earlier today we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I think we will all read his speech tomorrow. He gave several examples of what had been said before the election as a reason for doing it after the election. I disagreed with my own side on AV and made my position absolutely clear on 24 March, but that is not the issue now. I just want the referendum to be indicative so that Parliament has the final decision. It would be on the same date with the same question, the lot, but it would be consultative. As I said, I made my position clear on 24 March and I am saying the same things on this side of the House as I said on the other side. My challenge is for others to do the same. I quote from Hansard:
“On the other hand, a consultative referendum early in the next Parliament would assist rather than hinder deliberations and would not fall foul of the strictures from the Select Committee that we are producing change without scrutiny”.—[Official Report, 24/3/10; col. 971.]
Those are the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I rest my case.
Lord Tyler
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, very kindly referred to me in the previous debate and challenged me to contribute to the debate on this amendment. I certainly intend to do so, though I hope very briefly.
Frankly, I am mystified. I totally understand where the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is coming from. What I do not yet understand is whether he is going to be supported from his own Front Bench because of course his party—I know he was a rebel on this and I respect him for it—was absolutely explicit in putting its case to the country just a few months ago. In its manifesto his party said:
“To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons”.
There is no mention of ifs and buts about consultative, confirmatory or indicative. It said “we will hold a referendum”. It may be that I misunderstood the Labour manifesto but that seems to be an absolutely clear commitment. Indeed, Mr Jack Straw, who is a very distinguished colleague of those on the other side who take a different view, set out in the debates on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill just a few weeks before the election precisely where the Labour Party was and gave an opportunity for people in the country to understand where it was. This business that there has been no discussion about it is not true. There has been lots of discussion. Maybe it is only anoraks such as myself and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who were discussing the relative merits of these issues but the fact is that it was out in the open because Mr Straw said in the House of Commons that,
“all of us here must do all that we can to restore trust in politics … part of that process must involve consideration of which electoral system can best serve the people of this country and asking them to make a decision. Our response is to put in place a credible alternative that would go with the grain of what the British people value in our system, and allow them to express their clear view in a referendum”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/10; col. 799.]
That was a specific proposal—put before Parliament weeks before the election and as clear as anything ever is from a ministerial statement—to insert into that Bill the specific proposal that we are now debating. It is simply untrue that this has never previously come before Parliament. What is true—I have to say—is that the Labour Party was absolutely explicit that it would not be a consultative, indicative or confirmatory referendum. It would be a decisive referendum. I rest my case.
Lord McNally
We have already seen the Labour Party retreat on AV. I will leave it at that for today. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has destroyed an absolutely breathtaking peroration. I will leave him to face the resentment of his colleagues, who were warming to my theme, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, at the beginning of the debate on the Bill—I do not mean this in a personal, patronising way—I have not been impressed with the two responses to the debates that we have had. This is serious work. I want reform, but this reform forces me into the first past the post camp. I led the Labour campaign for electoral reform for five years. I took the issue to the party conference four times to force a referendum on the voting system, which the Labour Party never delivered on. My commitment is there. When I moved from first past the post to PR, I began to engage with all kinds of people whom I had not talked much to before. I engaged at the time with a lot of Liberals and discovered that they did not know much about electoral systems, because they had been born into a party that went for STV and never discussed anything else, such as the minutiae of how you make a system work—because you can make any system do what you want and no one claims that there is a perfect system.
In my opening words, I said that this was a very narrow amendment. It does not destroy the Bill or the system. I almost implied that if the amendment were accepted, I would walk away from my other amendments, because this goes to the heart of what we are trying to do. It will be a lifeboat for the Government and for Parliament to say, “Let us make this consultative”. It will not diminish anything: the argument will still take place. All other referendums have been consultative and we can recognise a victory when we see one. I will never use the example of a low turnout: it undermines my case. I used the example of a 50 to 60 per cent turnout, which is respectable. I then used the example of a 1,000-vote majority for yes. Would anybody say that that was satisfactory for what we are attempting to do? I said that the only political thing that most people do is to vote.
I will make another personal point to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. All my notes and amendments are my own. I have no researcher. Half of my amendments will be opposed by my noble friends. I am doing this because the Bill could be better. I want reform: in that respect I am with the noble Lord. However, it would be better if we said to the people, “We want to hear what you say. We want to have a battle. We want to hear the arguments”. Let those who wish put the case for reform that will end up in the Bill, and let others put the case against, with all the toing and froing in which the media will take an interest. We will listen to what is said, and woe betide Parliament if we do not take cognisance of it. The scenario could be a very tight result. In those circumstances, Parliament should be allowed to look at the result and make dispositions accordingly. There may be nuances and changes, but why bind ourselves into a legal straitjacket when there is no need to do so? We could test the will of the Committee tonight and say that we will come back on Report, but this will not go away. This is a lifeboat. We should all get in it quickly in the Division Lobbies. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Yes, I thank my noble friend very much; I did not know that he was a fan of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
It is a very difficult campaigning concept. I was speaking earlier about the Liberal Democrats going campaigning and using loudspeakers to say, “Vote for our miserable little compromise”. It will be even more difficult if you have a loudspeaker car saying, “Vote Conservative. Vote No”. Wait a minute—do you want us to vote for you, or do you not? It confuses the electorate. They are two different things.
I am trying not to use my usual humorous manner, because it is a serious matter that will confuse people. I worked with David McLetchie, who was the Conservative leader in the Scottish Parliament, for the “Yes” campaign for the European referendum; I think my noble friend Lord McAvoy was on the other side of the argument on that occasion. The essence of referendum campaigning is cross-party campaigning and building up as strong a campaign as you can. That is very different from the tribalism of the party campaign. It will really confuse people.
The second area of confusion is voting. When the voter goes into the voting booth, there will already be two ballot papers: one for the constituency and one for the regional list. That is enough to comprehend; I am not saying that Scottish or Welsh voters are any less intelligent than English voters or any others. Then you get a third ballot paper for the referendum. That is okay as far as it goes, but the problem with putting a referendum in with a Scottish election is that the two franchises are substantially different. For the referendum it is the parliamentary franchise, and for the Scottish Parliament election it is the local government franchise. The difference is that Peers are currently on the local election franchise but not the parliamentary election franchise. This Bill takes account of that, but does not deal with the other differences. Overseas voters are on the parliamentary franchise but not on the local government franchise. Citizens of European countries living in the United Kingdom are on the local government franchise but not on the parliamentary franchise. Taking Scotland as an example, we will have all the Polish, German and French people—people from all European countries—living and working in Scotland going to the polling booth and being able to vote in the election but not in the referendum. That is confusion.
The Bill is one of the most complicated that I have ever seen, with its formulae and everything else. One of the particular complications is how the presiding officer records who has voted and how. The option is there for the polling officer to have one register or two. If there is one register, he or she must make a note next to the name of every voter of whether they got two or three ballot papers. On the other hand, if they have two registers, they must move from one to the other. That will take twice, maybe three or four times, as long as at present.
Most Members of the Committee will remember that, even during the general election, with one election under the simple system of first past the post, there were queues to vote in Sheffield, no less. Some people lost their vote because of those queues because they could not get into the polling place before 10 o’clock. Imagine how much more difficult it will be when you have three ballots—two for the Scottish Parliament and one for the referendum—and it is then being marked on two registers or one register. All of that complication will ensure that there is confusion at the polling place. Perhaps people will be denied their vote because they cannot get in due to the time that it has taken to carry out this complicated procedure.
Because of a lack of respect, the Scottish Parliament was not consulted. This is what would have happened if it had been consulted: in that debate on 19 November, the Scottish Parliament voted by 90 votes to 30 to petition this Parliament not to have the referendum on the same day as the election. If the coalition presses it through that it should be on the same date, it will be going against the clearly expressed view of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament, passed by a majority of 60, or 3:1. I am sure that the coalition would love to have that kind of overwhelming majority in the Lobbies here tonight or on any other occasion.
I plead with the Government to listen to the Scottish Parliament and its democratically expressed view that these two elections should not be held on the same day. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is replying to this debate, I am sure that he will understand the problems involved, and that this will be the first amendment that the coalition understandably accepts.
Lord Rooker
At about 2 pm I was given notice about degrouping part of this group. Amendment 5 is mine. I was advised that Amendments 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, all of which contain specific dates, would be degrouped. They would come after Amendments 4, 6 and 13 which do not contain dates. I was advised to have the debate on that basis. I apologise for not being early enough in the day to give proper notice of that.
Lord Lipsey
I hope my noble friend Lord Foulkes will forgive me because I am going to say something very shocking—I agree with every word of the speech he has just delivered, although from a different perspective on electoral systems.
There is one thing at least that everybody in this House can agree on. The decision that will be made in the referendum—whenever it comes—is extremely important for our country. It is a small change that will make a big difference, for better or for worse. That has very important implications for how that decision is taken. It is extremely important that the British people are thoroughly engaged and take their decision after due consideration of all the facts. This is important not just to those who agree with me that the system should be changed but also to those who do not want the system changed. If you have a mucky referendum result, the issue will not go away—it will come up year after year and the referendum will not have succeeded, as many of us hope it will, in resolving the issue.
Making electoral change in democracies is very hard. According to research from the politics department at the University of Reading, there have been only six major changes in electoral systems in all the established democracies of the world in the past 25 years. The number of countries involved is only four, since the French went one way and back and the Italians went one way and back. It is very rare that a country chooses to change its electoral system. Winning referendums to change electoral systems is not easy either. I am optimistic that the form I favour will win, but I would not be so if I consulted the international form book.
My amendment, which backs up the amendment of my noble friend Lord Foulkes by leaving it to the Government to put in another date to replace the one which he is trying to get removed, would mean that there would be time for a proper debate. It would remove the debate from, let us face it, a rather small inner circle of people who up to now have been interested in the electoral system, and take it to the people for them to make their considered and revered decision. Most of that is probably common ground.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes talks for Scotland; I will talk for Wales, where I live. This is the political prospect facing Wales in the run-up to this election. We have a referendum in March on the legislative powers of the Welsh Assembly, an issue of great importance to many people in Wales. On 6 May, there will be, simultaneously, the elections for the Welsh Assembly—extremely important elections, closely fought, four parties engaged in much of Wales—plus local elections and, at the same time, you will have the campaign about this issue.
I got a feel for what it was like last Saturday because I went to my local Brecon and Radnorshire constituency Labour Party and spoke for AV. I must have been in reasonable form because I felt that I got a pretty sympathetic reaction. There was only one person opposed. The question came, however, of what they were going to do about it. One lady said, “I am not campaigning with the Lib-Dems”. She hated the Lib-Dem council and she was not going on to the streets—however convincing my words—to campaign. Parties form an informative function in our democracies as well as bringing voters out. People learn from those they know and trust locally as well as from their national newspapers, thank God. This lady will not be giving her take—which I hope would have been the take I gave in my speech—because she is not prepared to be knocking on doors at the same time and on the same side as the local Liberal Democrats, who she hates, who are local representatives of the coalition, which she also hates. This is a recipe for a blurred referendum, an uninformed referendum, a referendum where the people’s verdict will not ring as loudly as it could.
I fail to grasp the arguments that are used in favour of this coincidence of dates. The only one I have heard repeated is about cost. The cost of the referendum is £80 million. The additional cost of having them on separate days is said to be £15 million. Perhaps the Minister will confirm those figures. You would not mock £15 million; it is tempting to say that you cannot put a price on democracy, except I am an economist so I can put a price on democracy and anything else you want. Honestly, £15 million will not run the National Health Service for an hour. To take a fundamental decision about a referendum of this importance, of such fundamental impact on our democracy, on the basis of £15 million sounds most peculiar.
I am not naturally a suspicious man, but I suspect that the Lib-Dems have persuaded themselves they are more likely to win a referendum if it takes place on that date. I have done some work on this. I have consulted some of the leading psephologists in the country. There is no evidence of any kind for that proposition; the evidence is rather the other way. There is, for example, the argument that more people will vote in Scotland because it is being held jointly with the Assembly elections, and that they will be more likely to vote for change. YouGov polls have shown that support for AV in a referendum in Scotland is at precisely the same level as that in the rest of the country. There is no evidence for this motivating belief at all. It is not more likely that AV will win in May; my own judgment is that it is somewhat more likely that it will lose.
I am left with a vacuum. Here is a clear case of a democratic abuse which I am sure those on the Cross Benches will be very quick to pick up. Here is an argument from the Government in favour of what they are doing which, even by the standards of the many Governments of all complexions I have known over the years, seems to me extraordinarily thin.
Tonight we have a chance to break this, and we will have other chances in later amendments to the Bill. I hope your Lordships will do so by voting in favour of the amendments in this group.
House of Lords Reform
Lord Rooker Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, yes, it will deal with transition, which is one of the most important issues. I do not suggest for one moment that the noble Baroness will agree with whatever we propose, although she might. I cannot tell her what it will be because we do not know either at this stage. It is still very early days. However, the Bill will cover that subject, as it must. Once the Joint Committee has completed its work, at the end of the process, it will be for the Government to decide whether to bring forward legislation. I hope that by the time we reach that point, this House will have had the opportunity for input—first into the work of the committee, and then that of the Joint Committee—before we get to a final decision.
Lord Rooker
I seek clarification on this point. Like other Members, I have read all three manifestos, which all talked about the House being mainly or wholly elected. Not one of them raised the issue of what this place is for. At what point will the House get the chance to debate what a Second Chamber is for, what it is to do and what its powers are? Surely, all we are talking about at the moment is its composition, which seems to be the wrong way round.
Lord Rooker
My theme is very much along the lines of my intervention on the Leader of the House earlier. I agreed very much with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Higgins. The Tory, Lib Dem and Labour manifestos and the coalition programme exclusively refer to the words “second Chamber” and deal only with the issue of composition. I do not seek to support the status quo. Giving my maiden speech at that Box some nine years ago, I reminded this House that in 1980 I moved a 10-minute rule Bill in the other place to abolish your Lordships' House. That enabled me to get away with a lot at that Dispatch Box over the years.
The manifesto lines of the parties are obsessed with composition. Not one asked what we are for, what we do and how we do it. The functions and powers of the second Chamber should be known before starting on the composition, if only on the basis that if we are expecting good, honest, professional citizens outside to want to get elected here, they will want to know what their powers and functions are beforehand, not afterwards. There is a real problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has just said. After 27 years in the Commons, the last four as a Minister, I will admit that I was very ignorant about your Lordships' House. Not any more—but as a transferring Minister from one House to the other, fresh from the Commons, in my first seven years in this place, in my four departmental roles as a Minister, I genuinely felt under greater scrutiny than I ever was in the Commons. There is no question about that in my mind and I have thought about that a lot. The scrutiny level here is much greater—and my experience ranges across six departments.
On more than one occasion as a Minister, I found myself in Cabinet committees explaining, not defending, the way in which the Lords works, to be met by the accusation from the senior Cabinet Minister in the chair, “You’ve gone native!”. That was the level of debate. My noble friend Lord Grocott was with me on one occasion when that was said. I am entitled to ask whether the present Deputy Prime Minister is any less ignorant than his shadows in that position beforehand, because so far I have not seen any evidence that he is. Many of your Lordships have served in the other place, but there is only one Member of the other place who has served in this place. So the level of knowledge of this place is incredibly shallow in the other place. You can make a damn good cheap conference platform speech, however, at the expense of your Lordships' House. It will always get a cheer. So there is that shallowness in the debate.
My other point is this—I do not see how we can escape a review of the conventions. If I came in here elected, I would not be interested in conventions, because I would have been elected. Where is the book of powers for the Lords? People have talked about our having fewer powers, but we do not; we have very substantial powers, but we choose not to use them because we are not elected. That is what the conventions report was all about. The refusal to give a Second Reading, the time delay, how we treat secondary legislation and the challenge on financial privilege will all go by the board by elected Members of this House. Why should they obey the conventions? Therefore, if we do not legislate on the conventions on a statutory basis, which means by definition legislating to reduce the powers of the Lords by law, we will suffer the consequences of massive conflict between the two Houses as elected Members here test the powers. If the second Chamber is to get more power, that can come from the Commons alone. We have to appreciate that—there is only one central, finite power, and any more coming here means that some has come from there. So it is make your mind up time. We have to fix the role of the second Chamber, fix the powers and the numbers before we do that—and only then do we start to make a sensible arrangement that will stand the test of time about the composition of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that these aspects will go away when we get to the detail of Bills. It will be an absolute disgrace if the Long Title of any Bill rules out discussion of the powers and functions, if the Bill does not deal with them itself, and we will insist on them being dealt with.
To finish, I want to be a little bit more positive. I have some personal views about how a second Chamber should work, although I cannot go through them in detail here. We should concentrate on revision and scrutiny rather than repetition, which we do so much of. There is far too much repetition in this place and not enough revision and scrutiny. I do not think that Bills should start here and we should be half the size of a much smaller Commons than is planned, with no more than 500. I do not think that Ministers should be here, but we should be able to send for them to come and explain and then scrutinise what they are doing and revise the legislation in the light of what they say. That would be a much better role. We must not be a mirror of the Commons—and we do not want people queuing up to get in here because they could not get into the Commons. I guarantee that that is what will happen.
The upshot of all this—and it has been a theme of many speeches—is that to function on behalf of our fellow citizens, as a second Chamber of Parliament, the powers that we have are not dependent on how people arrive here. I could make a case for an all-elected House or an all-appointed House, but one case that I will never make is for a hybrid House of some elected and some appointed. That is completely and utterly unsustainable and, if any Bill comes forward with that, we will end up wasting months of time, because it will not get anywhere. It is better that those points are taken on board and we have a much wider debate before we are faced with a fait accompli.
Lord Wright of Richmond
I intervene very briefly to remind the House that I am the only surviving Cross-Bench member of the conventions committee. We came under strong pressure from the then Government to make it clear that the conventions as they existed at that time would continue. In response, we made it very clear that under an elected House—
Lord McNally
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is already preparing a book on the whole subject. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when he was a troublemaker at the LSE. He has not changed.
Lord Rooker
With respect, he deserves an answer. The political parties all took legal advice before they drafted their three manifestos as to whether their words would cover them in the event of the Parliament Act being used. That was the case and it is why they are so similarly drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, deserves an answer to his question tonight.
Lord McNally
I am not aware of that. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde said that the Labour Party must have had more money than sense if it was taking legal advice. Look; the fact is that the commitments made in our manifestos have been merged into the coalition agreement. If the Labour Party is saying that it is planning some kind of guerrilla warfare on that basis, while as far as I am concerned the Salisbury convention and the Cunningham conventions will still be operated in this House, we will have to wait and see.