Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with some trepidation because he always speaks with great authority, as those who have often appeared in court appear to do in your Lordships’ House. There is a wider issue here that your Lordships’ House needs to address. I am absolutely certain that the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, has the best of intentions but, as we all know from our early youth, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The effect of delaying Part 2 by separating out that part of the Bill into a separate Bill would be, inevitably, that it would be delayed dramatically. In a way, it reflects the point that the noble Lord has just made, but it should be taken in a different direction. On these Benches—and on all sides of the House—we want to make sure that the boundary revision is fair, workable and sensitive to local conditions. It will take time in your Lordships’ House to decide how to do that.

I recognise that there are differing views about different parts of the Bill on all sides of the House. The problem is that, if we simply discard Part 2, separate it out and take it later, it cannot be implemented with proper consideration of all the local conditions in time for the next general election. There is wide concern on that point. It really would be ridiculous at the early part of this Parliament to delay this process so dramatically that it could not be implemented in time for the next general election. I hope, therefore, that you Lordships will very carefully consider what has happened in the other House on these issues.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Why does the noble Lord aver that this Bill, if properly considered, could not be implemented in time for the next election? It is absurd.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lord, my point is that, if it is held together as one Bill, it can. So the noble Lord is supporting my position. However, if it is separated into two Bills, then, by definition, and, indeed, because of the way in which this has been presented, it is clear that that would be a delaying tactic. That may not be the intention of the noble Baroness but, no doubt, we will hear from noble Lords on the opposition Front Bench. I will be very interested to hear what exactly their position is on this because, for all those who profess to want to make this a careful consideration of important legislation—of very considerable importance to the other place—there seem to be others in this place who think that it is a very good opportunity to delay, divert and derail the acknowledged agreement between the two coalition parties that we want to make progress on both counts. Both are trying to give more power to the individual voter so that in each constituency there is a better chance of having equal value.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has made it clear in this House, at Second Reading and since—privately and publicly—that his position is to try to delay, divert and derail this Bill. What fun it would have been if he had adopted the role of courtroom jester when he was Lord Chancellor. This is an important Bill. Your Lordships’ House could do great damage to its own reputation—and possibly even to its future role in our constitution—if it simply seeks to play games with this Bill. It is a Bill, after all, which almost uniquely deals with the other place. Of course we have to try to improve it but, if we are seen to be simply standing in the way of the other place—where this Bill has been passed as one Bill—then we will be doing great damage.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the House that the previous Administration, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, played a very distinguished part, committed themselves to a referendum on electoral reform way back in 1997. There is no question that that part of the Bill has not been discussed ad nauseam over the past 13 years so we are not rushing into that part of the Bill.

As to more recent commitments, it was of course a last-minute death-bed repentance on this issue, within the context of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, that in the past 12 months permitted and committed the previous Government to having a referendum, and there the commitment was again in the Labour Party’s manifesto just a few short months ago. In those circumstances, if we sought to delay this legislation in a way that is out of character with your Lordships’ House, we would stoke up further irritation that Peers always seem to be devious and seeking to delay and dilute reform when they should be proceeding in a sensible and businesslike way.

If we want to guarantee the fate of most Cross-Benchers, when Peers are seen to be delaying important changes to our House of Commons, passing this Motion is the best way to do it. The political and public pressure for a fully elected senate will increase if your Lordships are seen to be playing games.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I know and fully acknowledge that this is not the other place, but I am slightly alarmed by the sort of threats being made by the noble Lord opposite. When this House comes to deliberate on House of Lords reform, it will do so in due course and with the wisdom and knowledge held by every Member of this House. No Member should be under any threat in terms of the legislation which is about to be debated by this House.

[Lord Tyler]

I understand precisely what the noble Baroness is saying and I understand that that will be the role of your Lordships’ House. All that I am saying is that we have to be extraordinarily careful with this measure which, after all, deals entirely with the other place. It is not relevant to how your Lordships’ House is composed. If it is seen by the public outside that this is simply an attempt to delay and dilute important legislation, and to prevent it reaching the statute book in good time and in good order, we will not be doing anything to improve the reputation of your Lordships’ House.

Interim Report: Leader's Group on Members Leaving the House

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am very tempted to follow my noble friend and try to explain the massive underrepresentation of our party in the past, particularly when the leader of his party refused to make appointments from our Benches. As I understand it, all our new recruits have already committed themselves to vote for substantial radical reform when they come here, which is a step in the right direction.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues, because it is a very good report. It has the advantage of brevity, which is not always the case in your Lordships’ House, and I confess that I have changed my mind as a result of his and his colleagues’ persuasion. I thought that we had a relatively simple issue here, and that as long as we avoided either excessive financial remuneration for those leaving or some enormously bureaucratic IPSA-like machinery, we could find some way through. I am not sure that that is the case.

I also thought that the key issue was the disentangling of the honours system from service in Parliament. I think that that is a critical issue. As the noble Baroness the Convener of the Cross Benches said, we must face up to that as soon as we can. Whether we have to wait for the wholesale reform that I will come to in a minute, I am not so sure, but I am persuaded by the report that the issue is a great deal more complex.

However, I am also persuaded, as is my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, that if we have to wait for the full reform package, which I estimate can come as a Bill—not a draft Bill—only in the Queen’s Speech of May 2012, we must do something earlier than that. There must be an interim solution. That is why the report is so helpful. It has caused me to react in two distinct ways—which are, potentially, I have to say, in conflict.

First, noble Lords may have examined table 3 on page 11. I am staggered that in Session 2009-10, 79 Members of your Lordships' House did not attend on one single day. As I understand it, that does not include those who had taken leave of absence; 79 Members who thought that they still were active Members of the House never attended on a single day. Why should the taxpayer pay for them to continue to stay away? That would be totally illogical. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice has already said, they are not here, so there is no point in paying them to stay away; nor, if we now introduce new qualifications, should we encourage them to come, because that would make the situation even worse.

Why should any taxpayer feel confidence about recompensing those who simply turn up to claim their allowance?

[Lord Desai]

I am somewhat lost. A person who does not come here does not get paid anything and does not cost anything. What is the problem?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has misunderstood me. I was suggesting that it would be wrong to pay them not to come in future, because they are not here anyway. That is all I am saying. I think that the noble Lord made a similar point earlier, and I am very sorry if he misunderstood me.

Why should we now recompense people who, frankly, turn up only to draw that allowance—who do not make a contribution, do not speak, do not ask Questions and perhaps only occasionally vote as the Whips tell them? That is not a real contribution to the work of your Lordships' House. Occasionally, I hear Peers say that we can take credit for being unsalaried. As has already been said, if you are not salaried, surely that precludes any redundancy payment or pension payment, by definition.

I was struck by the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. We should consider very carefully taking a leaf out of the Bishops’ book. The idea of one in, one out, is admirable. Whether the different party groups and the Cross-Benchers would find that acceptable I do not know. As I understand it, when those on the Bishops’ Bench take retirement on an orderly basis, they do not get any golden goodbyes.

Incidentally, it is important to think for a moment about why the Bishops are here. They are not here to be the conscience of the nation; they are here because their ecclesiastical ancestors had to be in the counsels of the monarch of the time because they were hugely important landowners—feudal barons. They were important at Magna Carta. It was important to have them on your side if you wanted to go to war because they had a lot of money.

I am told on good authority that in medieval, feudal times, there were more Lords Spiritual than Lords Temporal, including abbots and abbesses. The first women in the English Parliament were pre-Reformation abbesses. That was nothing to do with the conscience of the nation, and predated the established church. I may be misled; I am a historian rather than a politician really, underneath, but perhaps there is a Henry VIII lesson for us here. If there is a political and practical imperative, that will have to take precedence over every other consideration. That is why my noble friend is so right: we simply cannot wait to have a new solution imposed upon us.

I did not think that I would ever say this, but I have to echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—that is something new for me. I thought he was absolutely right. If I were really devious—and, of course, I am not—I would support the most absurd, ludicrously generous retirement package for those who cannot be tempted to go otherwise because it would undoubtedly increase and harden the public’s support for reform of your Lordships' House, which I believe in. That seems to me to be the right answer. If we want to get this on the road, let us be ludicrously generous because that will increase the public’s support for real reforms, but I do not think that is what is here.

[Earl Ferrers]

My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to say that he agrees with something that I said, but he came to the most astonishing conclusion. Can he tell me how what I said made him come to that stupid conclusion?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, the noble Earl should take credit for persuading me, as he has this afternoon. He said that the public would never wear a really generous package to persuade people to retire. That has been echoed by other noble Lords. I believe he is right, but my view is that if we were to go down that track, it would simply increase pressure for the real reform package that I hope will come in due course.

I come to my conclusion. I believe that we are living in a fool’s paradise if we really think there is a huge reservoir of public enthusiasm for your Lordships' House in its present form, just because the other place is so unpopular. Therefore, we have a risk ahead of us. If we were to introduce such a generous new regime to persuade people to retire in the interim period, it would damage the reputation of this House. If this issue is addressed with the usual mixture—which we have had this week—of self-satisfaction and isolation from public opinion by some Members, the public will say, “Roll on reform” and amen to that.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, can the noble Lord correct what may have led to a misunderstanding on my part? He appeared to be advocating a system of removing people, or people going from your Lordships' House, on the basis of how often they have spoken or intervened at Questions. As a former Whip, it rather filled me with terror to think that those reading it could think that their way of guaranteeing their place in future would be related to how often they spoke from now on. Would he like to correct that quickly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. If I had had a bit more time—and I am conscious that there is a very important debate to follow—I would have said that I had a great deal of sympathy with the point made by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. There is a good case for the one in, one out idea that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn referred to, and there is a good case for the party groups and Cross-Benchers deciding, as was the case with the hereditaries, who should go. That is probably going to be the best way forward. As I hope I have indicated, I think a very generous financial package would be discriminatory, an age would be discriminatory and trying to make the package dependent on a certain level of activity in the House is, for the reasons the noble Baroness said, also going to be most ineffective. I have much more sympathy with my noble friend. That will surprise him too.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, of course I do not say that; nor do I think my remarks were ill-timed or misjudged. I was going to precisely make the case that Mr Goudie QC said that it was arguable that the Bill may be hybrid. Did anyone in the House hear a lawyer say that a case like this was not arguable? And when did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, fight shy of arguing it?

As is well known and understood, I am not a Silk like the noble and learned Lord or his friend Mr Goudie, but I have spent enough time in the countryside to know a sow’s ear when I see it—and I see it in this Motion. On what do I rest my case? Your Lordships have the benefit of the crisp opinion of the Clerks of your Lordships’ House, who have confirmed the view—a view they had taken even before the Bill was introduced—that this Bill is not prima facie hybrid. Indeed, in the opinion of the Clerk of Public and Private Bills, the Bill, “cannot be hybrid”. Had it been, neither the Clerks of this House nor of the other place, having examined it for that specific purpose, would have let it pass. That letter is in the Library.

Furthermore, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern wrote in a letter copied to me, the Leader of the Opposition and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers:

“A hybrid Bill is a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category”.

On that, I am sure that we all agree. He went on to write this short line:

“I can see no ground on which it could be argued that this is a hybrid Bill”.

So what are the facts of the matter? No one’s right to vote is affected. No one’s right to vote is withdrawn. No one’s right to representation is diminished. All that the Bill seeks to do is to ensure that constituency sizes are more equal and that each voter’s voice is more equal. Underneath all the legal argumentation, what shines out from the noble and learned Lord is that equalising constituency sizes upsets the Labour Party. We all know that Labour has long benefited from this system. No one talked about hybridity then and we all know why, don’t we? It seems that the Labour Party is upset that those unique communities in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland are protected under this Bill.

[Lord Tyler]

Can my noble friend confirm that, whenever any legislation has referred to the Orkney and Shetland constituency, although that constituency has never been considered to be part of the United Kingdom as a conventional constituency, the legislation has never been treated as hybrid?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, not only is my noble friend, like my noble friend Lord Rennard, right, but this relates to a Bill on which the former Lord Chancellor advised. The Scotland Act 1998—legislation of a Labour Government—made provision for Orkney and Shetland each to be a separate constituency in the Scottish Parliament and not to be part of any future Boundary Commission review. The noble and learned Lord raised no question of hybridity then. In addition, the same legislation—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, the reason I described the Bill as fresh and new is that with every other constitutional Bill that we have had—the noble Lord knows this—we have had the advantage of a White Paper. We have talked about draft Bills. Pre-legislative scrutiny is something that many noble Lords who sit opposite have spoken about. I do not want to go on any further—the short issue for us is this—

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords—

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

I will finish and give way in a moment, if I may. The short issue for the House is whether or not we think enough has been raised for this matter to be put to the Examiners.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness will recall that she was a member of the Government who brought before your Lordships' House the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which included provisions for the alternative vote but was not given any pre-legislative scrutiny and was not the subject of anything like the discussion that has taken place recently in the other place.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

What a load of nonsense. Of course they could be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. I shall tell the noble Lord what you do. You say, “Let’s have pre-legislative scrutiny first”, as I understand the Government are doing in relation to House of Lords reform. Why could that not have been done in relation to Part 2 of the Bill?

[Lord Tyler]

The noble and learned Lord was a very distinguished member of the previous Administration. Does he recall that it took two years to bring forward any proposals on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill and that, when the Bill came forward, it acquired a completely new clause on AV that had not been subject to any pre-legislative scrutiny? Was that not just the same thing as what he is now suggesting?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, exemplifies the attitude of the Liberal Democrats, who seem to think that the Bill is splendid and marvellous. Look at them. The moment that they have the most important constitutional Bill since 1832, they simply ignore the—if I may say so—entirely admirable approach to which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers. I do not know why he is looking at me. He should be looking at the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

This is an unsatisfactory Bill. As its specific proposals are not to be found in either of the coalition party’s general election manifestos, we must conclude that not only is it an unsatisfactory Bill but, as the noble Lord appeared to be conceding, it has no mandate. This is truly a shame. We on this side of the House support the holding of a referendum on the electoral system for elections to the House of Commons and we approve of the stated intention to bring the size of Westminster constituencies more into line with each other than they are at present, but the way in which the Government articulated their proposals and rammed them through in another place quite hypocritically—as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has demonstrated—was shoddy. Then they say, “We can’t change it because the other House has approved it”. I should say to the noble Lord that this has succeeded in uniting opposition to their plans.

First, on the Liberal Democrat part of the Bill, the AV referendum, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the provisions in Part 1 are not in reality a referendum Bill. The Bill seeks to change our system of voting from first past the post to an alternative vote system, but it makes the introduction of those changes subject to a yes vote in a referendum. The referendum in this Bill is not advisory, as in all previous referendum Bills in this country, but binding. There is a requirement on the Minister to lay the order that will introduce the changes. It is totally unclear from the Bill whether it will be a negative or an affirmative order that will fundamentally change our electoral system. We need therefore to scrutinise very carefully the provisions concerning the new system.

The Bill proposes that the referendum will take place on the same day as elections already scheduled in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and most local authorities in England. The Government have failed to consult with the devolved institutions on the timing of the referendum. The plans have been condemned by the devolved Assemblies, but the Government have arrogantly ploughed ahead regardless and have not explained the magic of this date. We need to ensure that, if there is a referendum, it is one that best addresses the development of the electoral system in our country.

The following are points that we will explore in the next stages of this Bill. First, the referendum should be advisory and not binding. Secondly, the referendum should give voters the opportunity to vote on other systems apart from just first past the post or AV. Thirdly, the date should be moved to a date when there are no other elections. Fourthly, there should be a threshold of yes votes measured against a total number of those who can vote in the referendum.

Part 2 proposes a reduction in the size of the House of Commons by 50 MPs and a redrawing of constituency boundaries that—give or take 5 per cent—will prioritise the equal size of parliamentary seats above all other factors. Considerations of community, local ties, shape and accessibility of constituencies and geographical and natural boundaries are all to be subordinate to achieving the numerical ideal. On this side of the House, first, we ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, where the magic total of 600 constituencies has come from. I apologise for asking that because he has answered that question. He said that it came “from the air”. It certainly does not derive from either of the—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my fellow Cornishman in this debate. He may well know that I am a direct descendant of the great bishop Jonathan Trelawny, about whom he spoke and about whom we sing in our national song. He is, though, technically incorrect: it would have been totally inappropriate to deal with Cornwall under the hybridity issue. It is much more appropriate, as my colleagues in the other place indicated, to deal with it under Clause 11 and revised Schedule 2. It would be quite possible to amend the Bill if that was the wish of your Lordships’ House.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, seemed to have one core message for the House today. What he was really saying was that, because his Government failed in 13 years to make progress on central constitutional reforms, promised to the electorate in their manifestos at a series of general elections, somehow the present Government should therefore proceed more slowly. That seems to come within the definition of “hypocrisy” that he was preaching to us about earlier.

I turn to Part 1 of the Bill. I do not want to spend precious minutes on the merits of AV; that, as has been indicated, is a debate that we will take to the country next year. It seems, though, that the public already see that the first past the post system is no longer fit for purpose. In the 1950s, when I was first interested in politics, that system worked—the two-party system was well represented by first past the post. In the 21st century, though, it patently does not work; the electorate are cheated. When the battle is joined next year, those in the yes campaign can surely robustly challenge the idea that two-thirds of MPs should continue to be elected with only a minority of support in their constituencies. Surely they will challenge the stark fact that, at present, no single Member of the other House could put their hand on their heart and say that they represented more than half of those who could vote for them. That is how we should be approaching the change to our electoral system.

I hope, too, that when the public are given the opportunity, they, not politicians, will enthusiastically sell AV’s potential to strengthen the connection between people and Parliament that was so woefully damaged last year, affecting both Houses; to end the scandalous complacency of safe seats; and to make politics positive again so that elections are about expressing a full preference for those who want to represent you rather than a bald vote against the candidate that you most fear.

That will be the case, and it is a strong one. I am delighted that Ed Miliband, in his speech to his conference, said,

“I support changing our voting system and will vote yes in the referendum on AV”.

Hear, hear to that. I am sure that all those on the opposition Benches who have supported AV during the general election and since in supporting their new leader will support Part 1 of the Bill.

That brings me to Part 2. This is where there will be legitimate and proper concerns that we will need to address carefully in your Lordships’ House. I agree that, by drawing attention to this section of the Bill and making it clear that this is the really controversial part that we have to analyse and scrutinise, the Constitution Committee has given us a great deal of assistance.

I feel confident that your Lordships’ House will not want to challenge the basic principle of Part 2; I think that that was indicated even in the speech from the opposition Front Bench. I hope that we will not challenge the right of the elected House of Commons to give people a say in how MPs are elected, as in Part 1.

The principle in Part 2 is quite simple, as well, as has already been indicated. It is that votes should have an equal value, an equal weight, whether you are in the farthest reaches of rural Cornwall or in the inner cities, and whether you are in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. That is the principle spelt out clearly nearly 200 years ago by the Chartists, from whom Labour claims political descent. Along with their calls for a universal franchise, they recognised that votes for all would be of little use without challenging the rotten boroughs.

Incidentally, I should say to the noble Lord from Cornwall that it was not because of Cornwall’s economic strength that we had so many rotten boroughs there—it was because of the Duchy of Cornwall. As it was a royal possession, it was always possible to promote the Court party by having more Members improperly elected from that part of the country.

So, the Chartists expounded the key idea of constituencies of equal size—or, rather, of equal worth. There would be no seat that could simply be constructed to suit vested interests, and no election could be bought with the votes of a few poor and pliant electors.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The fifth point of William Lovett’s charter was equal-sized constituencies. Whether he meant it literally is another matter; he was applying his mind to the question of Old Sarum having, I think, seven people living in it and one Member of Parliament while Manchester had two MPs. At the same time, of course, along the same avenue of thought—trying to make Members more answerable to the public—the noble Lord will remember what the sixth point was: annual general elections. Thank God it never came to that.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I should not have gone so far into the issue of the Chartists; the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is an expert on everything that can be taken literally. I do not wish to pursue him down that course. Perhaps I should say, though, that I represented North Cornwall, and one of the rotten boroughs in that constituency was Bossiney, of which Sir Francis Drake was the rotten borough Member. I think that here were only two electors, one of whom might have been himself.

We in this House would be incredibly unwise to subscribe to the hubris in the other House about alleged gerrymandering, led ad nauseam—I have followed this both in print and in person—by Mr Chris Bryant. At best this was misplaced and, at worst, deliberately misleading. At present, Mr Bryant has 51,554 constituents. I had over 87,000 constituents when I represented North Cornwall. If ever there was a gerrymander, that is it. That is something to which we must surely attach a principle, and it is justifiable to do so.

Since the Bill is about voters and their relationship with Members of Parliament, though, we need to look in detail at how Part 2 will be implemented. There must be a vital role in your Lordships’ House for revising that. Having represented Cornish constituencies for some 14 years, I know that special connection between MPs and their constituents. For years people campaign in an area, helping constituents or putative constituents and hoping to earn their trust. We must be careful that the Bill ensures that those links, those distinct local ties, are enabled to stay in place. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly wants that. I carefully examined the statements that he gave to the Constitution Committee, and he said that he is seeking only to give primacy to the electoral numbers in each seat, not to completely override the other factors, which he—not I—lists as follows: community relations, community cohesion, history, the character of an area and the disruption that might be caused. So the issue of disruption to existing constituencies and communities is, at the moment, a serious question under the Bill and we will have to look at it carefully. I think that there are Members on all sides of the House who have formally performed that important constituency role and will agree with me that that is a proper role for us to undertake.

The Bill could lead to an electoral map drawn from scratch, with all the ties that constituents and campaigners have made with one another severed at a stroke. However, I do not believe that that is what Ministers or indeed your Lordships want, and we have a vital role in addressing that problem. I look forward to hearing the Minister.

[Lord Wills]

I was interested in the noble Lord’s quote from the Deputy Prime Minister. This is what the Bill says—no matter what the Deputy Prime Minister says—in relation to the factors that the noble Lord just outlined:

“This rule”—

in other words, the effect of community and so on—

“has effect subject to rules 2 and 4”.

It says “subject to”, not “alongside”. The rules about the equalisation of numbers take precedence over all those other considerations. That is what we are so worried about on this side of the House.

[Lord Tyler]

That is precisely the role of your Lordships’ House. When we reach Committee stage, I am sure there will be general agreement on both sides of the House that we need to look carefully at the order of priority of those criteria. That is precisely what I said. I am delighted to have the support of the Minister who was previously responsible for these matters and sadly had so little effect on other, more senior members of the Administration. We would have made more progress on these issues if he had had his way.

As I have already said, I have a special connection to Cornwall. My ancestry is there and my constituency was there. There is strong evidence from the people I have spoken to and heard from—whom I knew over 40 years in public life there—that keeping Cornwall whole, as the campaign is called, is a priority. It may be that it is a higher priority even than the equality of representation. I hope we can do something in this House to meet that demand, as perhaps we might for others with a particularly compelling case, such as the Isle of Wight. However, we should recognise that it is a dilemma. In both cases it may be that the communities concerned are prepared to accept a lower level of representation in exchange for maintaining their identity. That dilemma is one that should be put fairly and squarely to the people concerned.

The Bill is not a panacea. It is not some holy grail in the scripture of political re-engagement, but it is a good start. Again, I say to noble Members opposite: it is a great pity that they did not start this process when they were given such a long opportunity to do so. The Bill says that people, not politicians, should have the final word over the architecture of their voting system. It says that whichever system we use, everyone’s votes should be of roughly equal value. These are good principles from a good Government, and principles that the latter day Chartists on the other side of your Lordships’ House should endorse as well. In short, it is a good Bill and, with some work along the way to improve Part 2, it is a Bill we should all be able to support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, there are other noble Lords who favour a two-horse race between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In an ideal world, I would not favour a two-horse race between AV and first past the post, as many noble Lords will know, but in the practical politics of not having won the general election and having to make compromises, the overarching principle is to allow the voters to have some say in how their representatives are chosen. People have been appalled in recent years that MPs were able to fix effectively the benefits of being in Parliament. A much more important issue is the means by which MPs are chosen and allowing people to have some say on that is of paramount importance. Risking giving them a further choice, which would be my first choice, may mean that they get no say whatever.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. Is he recalling that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House has not only said that there should be,

“a general presumption against the use of voter turnout thresholds and super-majorities”,

but also that,

“the presumption should be in favour of questions posing only two options for voters”?

On both counts, as many Members of your Lordships' House have been quoting the Constitution Committee earlier today, they have stated specifically their advice to the House.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that point.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

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

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

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Tyler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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