Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord St John of Fawsley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 64 to 66C inclusive, by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

My Lords, in this new atmosphere of sweetness and light created by the shade of Matthew Arnold, perhaps I may congratulate both the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on their contributions. Let no one accuse the noble and learned Lord of hypocrisy. Let us remember that a degree of humbug and hypocrisy is what has made us a great nation—a degree at any rate.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, to desist from paying me compliments, because they do me no good. If he continues, I shall apply to appear on “Strictly Come Dancing” and make Anne Widdecombe look like a ballerina—beware. I thank the noble Lord anyhow for his kindness.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I assure the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, that my comments were not intended in any way to do him harm, but I will desist, as he requests.

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

I feel rather dismayed at the enthusiasm with which my suggestion has been achieved. Do not resist temptation all the time. If I am not offered the post at the Vatican, I guarantee that I will not take up any offer on “Strictly Come Dancing”.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend and to express my own gratitude for the atmosphere that is prevailing in the Committee today. What a difference a decent lunch can make.

My noble friend made a very powerful case. I know that there are people on all sides of the Committee who believe that there is a powerful case for a 10 per cent rather than a 5 per cent limit. Perhaps I may provide the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, with an answer to his question about constituencies. Roughly 69 per cent of constituencies that exist at the moment could still exist with a 10 per cent limit; only 36 per cent of them could exist with a 5 per cent limit. Enormous disruption could be avoided if we put 10 per cent into the argument.

We have to think of the origin of the views on size expressed by the Benches opposite in the early stages of the Bill to understand what has gone wrong. I think that the Conservative Party saw on the one hand—I do not blame it for doing so—that constituencies were very unequal, which they are. It saw on the other hand that the electoral system was biased against it, which it is. But in the mind these two became conflated, which I can quite understand, as cause and effect: that unequal constituency size caused the bias in the system.

This is a matter on which a huge volume of work has been done by psephologists. I suppose that I am the only person in this House whose favourite bedside reading is psephology, rather than, for example, Agatha Christie, Dick Francis and the rest. I have gone through, for example, John Curtice’s and others’ annex to the British General Election of 2010, the work of Lewis Baston and so on. It is perfectly clear from those that size is barely the cause of the bias that exists in the system. Bias there is: the Conservatives need a 3.3 per cent lead over Labour just to get the same number of seats. I do not defend that, and there are other ways than those set out in this Bill to deal with it. The bias in the system has varied a good deal over time, but I am very pleased to say that it was sharply diminished at the last general election. It was still considerable and still unacceptable, but it was considerably diminished.

However, the bias is not due to size of seats. In fact, the average Labour seat is only 2,000 electors smaller than the average Conservative seat. In England, the difference is roughly half that. It is not size that makes the big difference. One factor, for example, is Welsh representation, which we shall come back to. The main reason for the bias is differential turnout. In Conservative seats, the turnout is 68.4 per cent; in Liberal Democrat seats, it is 67.3 per cent; in Labour seats, it is 61.2 per cent. That means that it takes many fewer electors to elect each Labour MP than it takes to elect each Conservative MP.

Another factor is that voters in seats where neither Labour nor Conservative candidates can win, an awful lot more Tory votes count for nothing in electing an MP than Labour votes—there are 400,000 more of them. Finally, there is the greater willingness of Labour voters to vote tactically, which costs the Tories a number of seats.

I do not want to gild the lily by going on and boring the Committee into the sleep that I enjoy most nights on reading this stuff, but I say to noble Lords that the Bill’s proposal to equalise seat size should be taken on its merits. To me, the inequality in the size of seats is also indefensible, but that is not because it biases the system against the Conservatives. It is indefensible because it leads to too great an inequality between voters. It therefore becomes a matter of the degree to which we want to permit that for other sorts of reasons, such as avoiding crossing traditional boundaries, such as the Tamar, and the desire to keep the Isle of Wight separate, and all the things that we know about.

However, there is not any magic about 5 per cent. There is no difference between 5 per cent and 10 per cent in the results of the general election that was held. So let us consider it on its merits; that is, the principled case of maximum equality achievable against the practical case that a little bit of flexibility in the system should be allowed so as to preserve traditional loyalties and to avoid having too great a swing in seats between one general election and another.

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies and Regions) Order 2010

Lord St John of Fawsley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I had considered whether, in speaking today, I should declare an interest. Not only am I a Member of this House but for a short while longer I shall be a Member of the Scottish Parliament. However, I shall not be standing again for the Scottish Parliament, which has delighted a lot of people, and I shall concentrate my efforts, such as they are, in this Chamber, which has upset a lot of people opposite. Therefore, as these boundaries will not affect me, I do not think that declaring an interest is necessary.

It is a great pleasure to see here so many noble Lords from Scotland and I hope that they will participate in the debate today. Many of them were in the other place and served with distinction, and others were in local government. Indeed, there are some who served on the other side in the other place for a long time and I still call them my noble friends. I hope that they will participate, because some very important implications arise from what is being proposed.

As the Advocate-General said, these boundaries have been proposed by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, which has undergone a long and detailed procedure. It has been the procedure for considering boundaries north and south of the border for generations, if not centuries. It is well worn, well trued, well tested and well tried, and it involves the local communities. Proposals have been put forward, submissions have been taken by the Boundary Commission and hearings have taken place, and in many cases substantial revisions have been undertaken to take account of the representations made. Account has been taken of community cohesion and of local views on local authority boundaries. The Advocate-General said that they are not wards but he will concede that all the proposals take account of existing local authority boundaries. Throughout the time that I have been involved in these boundary reviews, community cohesion has been a very important part but unfortunately the equivalence of numbers now seems to be the only criterion that really matters. If that is the case in the future, it will be very worrying for local communities.

Let us compare that procedure, which has brought these proposals to us today, with what is now being proposed and has been considered in another place. I cannot remember the Long Title of the Bill but for simplification I call it the “gerrymandering Bill”, because that is what it is. It reduces the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom by 50—a totally arbitrary number. You might as well say that the MPs’ responsibilities have increased so greatly that the number should be increased, rather than reduced, by 50, but that would be equally arbitrary. I repeat: the proposal that is being put forward is totally arbitrary.

That is bad enough in itself but the really disgraceful part is that the whole democratic procedure, which, as I said, has existed for generations, is to be scrapped and set aside to rush these boundary changes through in time for the next general election. That is a total negation of democracy and is absolutely unbelievable. No account will be taken of community cohesion. No account will be taken of representation. No account will be taken even of local authority boundaries. The new constituencies, in some cases mega-constituencies, will not necessarily take account of local authority boundaries, unless, of course, you are one of the chosen few who—I say looking directly at the Advocate-General—come from Orkney or Shetland or the Western Isles; or happen to be Charlie Kennedy and represent a huge mega-constituency; or, in other words, who happen to be a Liberal Democrat. Maybe there is one SNP in this group just to cover it up, but basically, if you are Liberal, protection will be provided for you. That is the extent of the gerrymandering that is taking place.

I plead with the Advocate-General to go back to his colleagues in government and to ask them to think again about what we are considering here today. I have seen so many changes. I even remember that the late John Smith, the greatest Prime Minister we never had—his widow was here with us earlier, listening to our proceedings—considered that making representations to tribunals was so important that he was in Airdrie town hall the day before he died. All the extra effort might, sadly, have helped to bring on his death. That was how important he considered these democratic hearings.

It really would be outrageous if this gerrymandering Bill were to go ahead. We would then end up with the anomaly of having a democratic procedure for the Scottish Parliament—the Boundary Commission for Scotland would still have hearings, still consider representations, still consider community interest, still take account of local authority boundaries—while all that would have been swept aside for the House of Commons. So in the same United Kingdom we would have two completely different systems: one which continues to be democratic and involves the community and the other which would be a total gerrymander.

I urge the Minister to think again. The Bill will soon come to the House of Lords. I have no authority to warn the Government, but my gut feeling is that, even among Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers, there will be some for whom doing away with this democratic procedure will be so abhorrent that they will speak, and I hope vote, against it.

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As he glared at me benevolently earlier I imagined that he was paying me some sort of tribute. Would not it be a much better policy to stop pouring Members into this House, where we have neither the room nor the facilities for them? They impede the progress of our business and we do not need them. We have plenty of people who come here day after day and frequently cannot get into a debate because there are so many of these—I will not call them the nouveau riche since that would hardly apply as our allowances have virtually disappeared—nouveau pauvre, who haven’t even the excuse of coming here for the money.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am extremely glad that I glanced—I did not glare—in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord St John. Those of us who were in the House of Commons at the time will recall with great affection that he was one of the great revolutionaries, if I may use that word, or revisionists, or revisers. I am trying to get the term right. Those on the other side will not understand the subtlety of these terms as far as the Left is concerned. I have the right term at last: he was one of the great reformers of the House of Commons and instituted the proceedings of Select Committees. He is absolutely right. We now have 777 Members. If noble Lords, as I do, come in after prayers to try to find a seat, it is very difficult—especially when you are my size—to find a place to sit down.

Let us take the point made by the noble Lord. The rumour is now that we are to get 100 more nominations to this House, particularly from the other side. That is astonishing. So for every elected MP that we are getting rid of, we are getting two more nominated Peers. That seems totally daft, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for intervening. I hope that the Advocate-General will pay even more attention to someone now very much on his own side than to me.

I want to make two last brief points. One is about by-elections. One of the problems with the electoral system—I made this point in a Question the other day—is that it is astonishing that if I were to retire tomorrow, there would not be a by-election, the person who was second on the list would take over. Tomorrow, if Margo MacDonald retired, there will be no one to take over because she is an independent Member. Tomorrow, if Jack McConnell was to retire, there would be a by-election and, from what we heard from the Advocate-General, on the old constituency boundaries, which could create problems in future for representation. That creates a problem.

I have one other point before I come to a conclusion. The boundaries will come in for either a general election or an extraordinary general election. I think that it is within the power of the Presiding Officer to change the date of elections to the Scottish Parliament. It has been suggested that the date in 2015 would coincide with the date of the general election for the United Kingdom which—in my view, and, I think, that of a lot of people—would have unfortunate consequences. It would be useful to know from the Advocate-General whether the Presiding Officer could take up the suggestion from Professor John Curtis that Scottish Government elections could move to early September rather than be held in May to avoid that clash. That is an interesting thought.

However, those two points are minor. My main point is that we welcome the recommendations. Several noble Lords have expressed individual concerns, as the Advocate-General said, but they represent a proper democratic process. I fear that, if the gerrymandering Bill gets through this House and through Parliament, we will never again have the democratic process for looking at boundaries for the House of Commons. That would be a real loss to our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

In some cases that might not be difficult, but I take exactly the point that the noble Lord has made.

In summary, it is easy for those looking on the proceedings of these Houses of Parliament to assume that we are all in it for number crunching and for our own nefarious purposes. However, people feel passionately about the places that they represent. If they do not, they should not even conceive of seeking to represent them in the other place.

The Advocate-General is a balanced and reasonable man. As a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, he will delight in pointing out how the procedures surrounding election to the Scottish Parliament are superior to that proposed for the future election of Members to the House of Commons. I hope that he will take back the strong views of my noble friends on this side of the House about separating the hearings system from the ability to set boundaries for the other place.

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

The provision rules that a Member may intervene twice in a Committee debate in order to explain his position. I did not have the noble Baroness in mind in the slightest. I merely say to her to clarify my position that she is the exception who proves the rule. To make it even clearer, I will lapse into my native Latin and say to her: “O si sic omnes”.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on a more localised point involving a bit of history. In 1975, the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen, as well as Cambuslang and Halfway, were incorporated into Glasgow District Council under local government reform. This met with great resistance locally at the time. I am a Rutherglonian born and bred and I make it plain immediately that the traditional saying, “Many of my best friends are Glaswegians”, applies. I have nothing against Glaswegians, but we are a more localised community and that is the way we like it.

The legislation was produced under a Conservative Government in 1973 and the incorporation took place in 1975. In 1995, under a more enlightened Conservative Government—I remember fondly the former Minister, Allan Stewart—we managed to achieve a more localised council. Our areas were incorporated into South Lanarkshire in the county of Lanarkshire, where we had been for 800 years, and that is where we want to remain.

I know that the Advocate-General is here to put before us the independent commission’s report, which we cannot alter or reject. However, there are two points on that which are relevant to my community. The constituency of Rutherglen, despite local representations from our own Labour and Co-op MSP, James Kelly, has, under these proposals, been incorporated into the City of Glasgow regional seat, with all the other areas in South Lanarkshire elsewhere. Our MSP campaigned for Rutherglen to be incorporated in the Central Scotland seat, along with other Lanarkshire seats. The local Labour Party channelled its point of view through James Kelly, which was fine, but we were undermined by the Liberal list MSP for the area, who campaigned that we should stay in Glasgow. Despite campaigning for years that Rutherglen should be separate, this Liberal list MSP campaigned against the wishes of the local community.

My noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock has dealt with the thrust of the injustice and inadequacies of the Bill going through the other place and has explained how the local boundaries will be set for these reduced Westminster parliamentary constituencies. However, the Bill deals only in numbers and there is no capacity for local inquiries. The Explanatory Memorandum shows that a range of consultations took place—even the Scotland Office was consulted—to try to achieve a resolution of local concerns. However, given what is happening in another place, there will be no local inquiries and the issue will be dealt with only through numbers.

I can guarantee that any local political party in our area that campaigns for a Bill that deals only in straightforward numbers and involves Rutherglen being carved up and put in with Glasgow, with Cambuslang and Halfway being put elsewhere and other bits going to East Kilbride, will pay a terrible price, as will anyone who wishes to represent us locally in any form if they go along with the process. What is happening in the Bill is quite wrong.

My noble friend Lady Liddell has mentioned how strongly people feel; I epitomise that in spades. When we campaigned for a smaller council in 1995, every community council, tenants association, residents association and church joined the campaign. There were more than 1,100 people at the meeting in Rutherglen Old Parish Church campaigning for a more localised council. The Bill in another place will remove that at a stroke, which is undemocratic.

While I am quite harsh verbally about some Liberals, I cannot believe that Liberal Members of this House feel that this is right and justified. I cannot believe that of the majority of Cross-Benchers either. To be fair and accurate, a lot of Conservative Members do not like what is happening. To remove local representation at a stroke is undemocratic and illiberal.

I join my noble friend Lord Foulkes in appealing to the Advocate-General, even at this late stage, to use what influence he has to indicate that the removal of local inquiries is undemocratic, illiberal and unacceptable. If he has any doubts, I can organise a meeting in Rutherglen for him. While we will not erect the gallows before he comes, once he preaches that Rutherglen should be carved up he might find himself going up the steps to the gallows.