European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I thank the noble Lord for enlightening us on that point. We need transparency in all of this. We need to know who is making the rules and under what criteria they are being made. If the Clerks are going to cite financial privilege in a case such as this, it can be cited for almost every policy change that we suggest which will incur a minimal cost.

It could be argued that the powers of this Chamber, the role of which is to make the Government think again on policy issues, are severely restricted, particularly in relation to electoral issues, where the other Chamber has a very clear vested interest. It is a shame that this issue has now become involved in a wider constitutional debate on financial privilege, but we hope Peers will still assess the merits of this case on the substance of the amendment. We believe that 16 and 17 year-olds are and can be responsible participants in our democracy. We believe that this is their one-off opportunity—a once-in-a-generation vote on the profoundly important issue of whether we should remain a member of the EU. I urge fellow Peers to support us on this issue, and to give these young people the respect and the voice that they deserve. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, in an otherwise very careful speech, the Minister implied that this was simply, but only, a once-in-a-generation decision. That is not what the Prime Minister said in his Chatham House speech on 13 November, when he said that the EU referendum,

“is a huge decision for our country … And it will be the final decision”.

The Minister referred to disappointed voters; the people who will be most disappointed by this decision will be those who are excluded from it when it is their one and only chance to influence a vital decision for our country.

For the sake of brevity, I shall not rehearse all the arguments that I have so often used in this Chamber on the merits of extending the franchise for this vote. I endorse absolutely what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, said. It would be surprising if I did not; my colleagues and I have supported this increase in the franchise for young people for many years. It would be very inconsistent if we did not do so now. Instead, I want to highlight two wider issues that have been gently referred to already but have perhaps even greater salience for our House.

One of the oldest tricks in the Whips’ trade—I used to be a Whip—when you are losing an argument is to change the subject. That is, effectively, what the Government are now doing. They have moved from trying to defend the inconsistency of the franchise for the Scottish independence referendum compared to that for the forthcoming European referendum to insisting that a clear majority of your Lordships’ House should be ignored on the grounds that we voted in a way that will cost money.

In their letter to us on Friday, Ministers told us, and were at pains to emphasise, that what they termed the Government’s formal reason for disagreeing with the Lords amendment was because,

“it would involve a charge on public funds”.

The Motion and the Minister’s speech this afternoon confirm this statement. That suggestion—that they had no alternative—is simply specious. Elsewhere in the letter, they say:

“It is our view that should this significant change to the franchise be made, it should be debated seriously as part of a wide debate on the franchise, not done piecemeal for a one off electoral event”.

The Minister has already made that statement again in this afternoon’s debate. That has been a constant and respected theme of Ministers at all stages of the debate in both Houses, and indeed from their party’s supporters throughout all stages of the Bill. But it could have been perfectly well incorporated in an amendment in lieu in the other place in last week’s debate. That is what they could and should have done; that would express what is, apparently, the view of the Government. They did not do it. Instead, Ministers deliberately chose to trigger the financial privilege threat. Why?

We are now faced with yet another attempt to restrict the role, responsibility and sheer relevance of this House of Parliament. This time it is the franchise. What next? If in future we amend a Bill in any way that could incur additional expense—a “charge on public funds” as the Minister put it—the Government could use this as a precedent. Next time it could be international development, childcare, legal aid or NHS priorities. That is what they are trying to do—to clip the wings of your Lordships’ House. We should be under no illusion. This is not just a casual, minimalist tweak of the relationship between the two Houses. This is part of a much more insidious exercise to dilute our role—some would say to completely neuter your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks as though this is a new departure and something that has not been done before. In fact, it has been in existence for generations and has been frequently used.

[Lord Tyler]

Yes, but it is done now in a deliberate attempt to try to prevent us pursuing a very important issue. I suggest to your Lordships that we should be very careful of any attempt to do that, particularly in those circumstances. Look at the wider context. Taken with this House’s effective exclusion from discussions on English votes for English laws, which is now going on—we were not allowed in—and with the Strathclyde review, we will have only ourselves to blame if we fail to note the way the wind is blowing. Please observe the words of Mr Stewart Jackson, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Peterborough, in last week’s debate:

“In conclusion, it is a constitutional outrage that the superannuated, unelected, unaccountable panjandrums in the House of Lords have told us what the elected House should be doing even though we have a settled view on this. They should learn their place. They must be subservient to the elected House, and it is high time that we had House of Lords reform”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/15; col. 880.]

Amen to the last one. That is what is behind this: it is not to give new influence to this House, but to take away what little influence we have.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I want to ask the noble Lord a practical question. We are discussing a Bill, not an order. The elected House will always have the last say under the Parliament Acts. I ask him to be more practical about this: given that the Commons has sent this back without an in lieu amendment, if this House carries this amendment and it goes back to the Commons, we would be put in the position of not being able to provide another in lieu amendment. Next week we will have the same reason back—financial privilege. What will he do then?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, let us wait and see. If the House of Commons and the Government do not take this House seriously, why are we here? That is the question we have to ask ourselves.

I take up in particular this issue of the elected House having a right to bulldoze through what they think is right for election law. I have been a Member of the other House. I have to tell your Lordships that it is not unknown for Members of Parliament to have a particular interest in the electoral arrangements that got them there. I reject utterly the idea that somehow your Lordships’ House is not allowed to have a view on electoral law. I have been here some time now—more than 10 years. I have been involved in revision of electoral law many times. No Government have ever sought to stop us.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord did not think that we should be here. Indeed, he certainly does not think that I should be here.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, if that is the noble Viscount’s view, perhaps he will not want to whip the vote this afternoon.

In the very last minute of his speech in the Commons debate last Tuesday, the Minister suddenly introduced this financial privilege issue. However, he did not even mention the estimate figure that the Government were playing with. Perhaps he could not bring himself to give credence to the incredible. During previous debates there and through all stages of the Bill in your Lordships’ House, no Minister has ever advanced the argument that forecasted cost was a substantial reason for opposing this change to the franchise for this specific vote. The figure of £6 million has not even been hinted at at any stage in either House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

We seem to be failing to understand the point which the Minister put very clearly. The identification of extra expenditure was not done by the Government. The noble Lord should know, as he and I were both in the other place for long enough, that it was a technical exercise, done by the Clerks, who reported the matter to the Speaker. With respect to the Lord Speaker in this House, the Speaker’s law carries much more weight in terms of how procedure will be observed. I understand that the Government could have chosen to waive financial privilege, but that is an entirely different matter. The noble Lord has said that the Government are trying to bulldoze through their view of electoral law and that that is an outrage to this House. Who is actually trying to change the law at the moment and who is trying to sustain the present position?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am afraid that that sequence is not quite correct. I think the noble Lord will accept this, but if we have a difference of opinion, we can discuss it afterwards. The critical point about the process is that it is for the Government, first and foremost, to decide whether they want to table an amendment in lieu or simply reject the views of this House. That was the Government’s decision, not the Speaker’s. Whether there is advice or not, it is the Government’s decision that they wish not to pursue the idea of a more general review of the franchise. They simply wanted to reject the view of the House of Lords. They then triggered the issue of financial privilege and it is indeed correct that neither the Clerks nor the Speaker could then gainsay them. However, this figure has now got common currency and it is thought that that somehow justifies this process. If your Lordships’ House was only proposing a little baby, they might have let it through; but they thought it was a big baby and they produced it in the way they did to try and scare us. This rabbit has been inflated by Ministers for their own political ends. We should be told exactly what the calculation is; what, realistically, it is as a proportion of the total referendum budget; and who now endorses this figure.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

The noble Lord keeps on talking about the Government doing this. Surely, however, the House of Commons has already rejected this policy four times, by an average of 50 votes.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, that is not absolutely true. First, it has not specifically rejected the amendment proposed by your Lordships’ House. Secondly, as I thought I had just explained, the issue of an amendment in lieu means that it is no longer necessary. If the Government had decided on such an amendment to express their apparent view that a general review is required, and that it should not be in this one Bill, financial privilege would not have been triggered in any way. That is the process that should have been undertaken.

The issue before your Lordships’ House today is no longer simply whether the electorate for the EU referendum should or should not be expanded, important though that is. I have given a lot of time and effort to trying to make sure that this referendum is one that we can be proud of because it has the same electorate as the one that was so successful in Scotland on a similar issue of the future of that generation. However, this matter has now been deliberately escalated by Ministers into an insidious attempt to undermine the constitutional role and responsibilities of your Lordships’ House. We must stand firm, pass Amendment A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and reject this attack.

[Lord Cormack]

We have heard a frankly terrible speech from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. How does he have the brass nerve to lecture your Lordships’ House, coming, as he does, from the most grossly overrepresented party, which, moreover, allegedly believes in proportions and proportional representation and most of whose members, including the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would, like Samson, like to bring this Chamber down about their ears? Indeed, I heard a noble Lord from those Benches say only recently, “It does not matter what we do so long as we destroy the House of Lords and replace it with an elected House”. However, those of us who do not believe in an elected second Chamber and believe passionately in the supremacy of the elected Chamber at the other end of the corridor, believe that what we are now embarking on is an extremely dangerous course of action. If we accept the supremacy of the elected Chamber and accept that your Lordships’ House, of course, has the right to invite the elected Chamber to think again, but, if the elected Chamber, by a majority far in excess of that enjoyed by the Conservative Government, says no, who are we to persist, particularly in a matter concerning the franchise?

Many noble Lords on the Labour Benches do believe in this House and believe that an unelected and appointed House, with its accumulation of experience and expertise, adds value to the constitution without challenging the unambiguous elected authority of the other place. I appeal to those Members on the Labour Benches, many of whom I am privileged to count as personal friends, not to play this game and not to go along with the destructionists on the Liberal Democrat Benches, most of whom do not believe in this place and would use almost any spurious and specious reason and excuse to damage it.

We have exercised our right and a number of my Conservative colleagues voted for votes at 16. I did not, but a number of them did. I respected their integrity but now the time has come to say, “You haven’t decided to think again. We must move on”. I urge all your Lordships to recognise that we have reached the limit. We should not seek once more to overturn the mandate of an elected House with a majority of 50. As I said earlier, that is far larger than the 12 that the Government nominally enjoy.

Noble Lords may have a brief moment of euphoria if the Government are defeated tonight, but it will be followed by the danger of a real constitutional crisis arising between our two Chambers that could do enormous damage to the standing of Parliament in general, and of this House in particular.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

Yes, indeed: she thought that was inconsistent, and I agreed with her; of course it was. I do not think that one needs to prolong this argument. We should be getting the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that we will have a referendum in which I will be able to campaign for membership of the European Union by the middle of next year. This thing is dragging on far too long. We should look separately at the question of the franchise and the question of maturity and decide whether we have got it right.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 3, in common with not only the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, but Members on the Conservative Benches and Cross-Benchers. It is genuinely across the House that we now feel that this moment has arrived. Having deployed the argument for this extension of the franchise so often in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, so kindly said, I can be very brief. I certainly do not need to repeat the noble Baroness’s excellent exposition of the advice we have now had from the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators about the practicalities.

In Committee, I thought that the most persuasive contribution of many was from the Conservative Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who said:

“So the question I am struggling with is: how can it be right to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in a referendum on Scotland but not in a referendum on Europe? There has to be some sort of consistency”.

We are back there again, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has so admirably emphasised. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, went on to rubbish the official explanation that somehow the extension of the franchise in the Scottish independence referendum did not originate with Conservative Ministers. He said,

“although the coalition Government and the Prime Minister did not specifically approve votes for 16 year-olds, they did acquiesce in votes for 16 year-olds”.—[Official Report, 28/10/15; cols.1227-8.]

He and others, notably now an increasing number of Conservative MPs, have warned that we simply cannot pretend that Scottish young people are somehow more mature, well-informed, responsible or capable of exercising common sense than their English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts. Several colleagues from this side of the House have challenged anybody from the other side to produce that argument, without any success.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to the United Kingdom. He is right: in the long term, we have to address the consistency of the franchise, the bedrock of our representative democracy across the United Kingdom, but we have a particular issue at the moment. We have a Bill. We have a referendum coming. It is on that issue that we need specific consistency. That was very much the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and he had no problem whatever with my quoting his contribution in Committee. As an avid fan of both versions of his “House of Cards”, I am very disappointed that he is not able to be here today. I do not know whether I am being as cynical or conspiratorial as some of the characters in those great productions, but I wonder whether there has been some encouragement for him not to be here today. I wonder whether the Government Whips may have encouraged him to stay away, reassuring him that nothing controversial was to be discussed or decided.

One of the key lessons of the Scottish referendum was that the 16 and 17 year-old age group registered—well over 100,000 of them—and voted in larger numbers than those aged 18 to 24. Why? It is very interesting. The reason why that has been identified is that the younger cohort were often still at school and in their local, family environment, where they had much more encouragement to take the issues seriously. When they got away from home to their first job or further or higher education, they lost touch with some of the issues and concerns that might otherwise been part of their consideration.

There is hard evidence—looked at very carefully by Bite the Ballot and others—that there is a good case for a direct link between citizenship courses and electoral registration. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, there has been a successful pilot in Northern Ireland in that regard.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On the numbers, it is certainly true that 75% of 16 year-olds voted—of course, it was a novelty—but that is not very different from the figure for 25 to 34 year-olds, which was 72%. It is true that there was a fall-off for voters aged between 18 and 24, but then a lot of those people had gone off to university and were not able to vote. So there is no evidence whatever that somehow or other, this increases participation in elections.

[Lord Tyler]

That is simply not true. I have worked with the Electoral Commission over the years and there is good evidence that, once you start voting, you tend to continue to vote. The cohort that is missing out at the moment is very much the 18 to 24 year-olds. The turnout for them was down to 54%—it dropped dramatically. Therefore, the noble Lord is simply wrong on that point.

I wonder whether the Minister has come armed with the same wholly inadequate response that was employed in Committee, when I moved a similar amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, then extracted a very short quote from the advice given by the Electoral Commission:

“The Commission’s view is that any changes to the franchise for the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union should be clear in sufficient time to enable all those who are eligible, to register and participate in the referendum”.

Today we have some additional advice from the Electoral Commission:

“Recent media reports have indicated that the Commission believes there must be 12 months between legislation passing through Parliament to change the franchise and the first electoral event to which this applies. This is not the case”.

It then says, in heavy type:

“The Commission has been consistently clear that a change to the franchise is a matter for Parliament, and that we will advise on the practical implications of any such change”.

I hope that the Minister will not now pray in aid the commission.

I have worked with the Electoral Commission for some years, and it is very careful in the words that it uses in advising Parliament. It is responsible to us—to Parliament, not to government—and its advice is to Parliament. It is a statutory commission, with very considerable responsibility. Noble Lords should note that clarity of intention is what it is worrying about, not whether Royal Assent has actually been granted. It can start preparing for this change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned earlier. In other words, this is an argument not for doing nothing with this change to the franchise, but for getting on with it as soon as possible.

On the evening before the day in Committee to which I referred, the Minister’s ministerial colleague systematically rubbished the Electoral Commission and all the advice given to us, in the context of the Government’s acceleration of the electoral registration change. We should be absolutely clear now that there is no practical objection to this extension of the franchise, assuming that the referendum is not held before June 2016. For all the other reasons that have already been explained in Committee and today, it is very unlikely that the Government would contemplate a referendum before that date. Six months is acknowledged to be an adequate minimum period for the preparatory work, based on the Scottish experience. So for Ministers to drag their feet while so many in both Houses are urging them to recognise the strength of the case would be irresponsible, frankly. Indeed, trying to postpone it for as long as possible in the hope that that will make the change more problematic would be a failure of good governance.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

What the noble Lord is saying, as others have said, is that the decision to reduce the voting age for the Scottish referendum is a precedent that has to be followed for all elections of all kinds. That makes it a very important matter indeed, which clearly the Westminster Parliament as a whole needs to pronounce on. Can he remind us by what majority the Westminster Parliament decided that this should happen in Scotland?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, it did not—but I quoted specifically the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who identified precisely that the Cabinet of the previous Government actually agreed with that change.

I am not arguing today for the extension of the franchise in all parts of our electoral system. That is not what is on the Order Paper. What we are debating is very specific. I have an expert witness—I will come to him in a moment—who says that this is an exceptional circumstance in which it should be done.

I simply do not understand on what basis the Government, without a principled or practical objection, are continuing to resist—assuming that they are.

[Viscount Ridley]

The noble Lord said that the Electoral Commission’s advice is based on the experience of Scotland. Does he accept that when the franchise was extended to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland, we still had household registration without the requirement, as I said earlier, for national insurance numbers and so on, and that the process would be much more complex now?

[Lord Tyler]

I have had that discussion with the Electoral Commission. It does not regard that as a particular obstacle in this case. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for helping me in that respect.

Any reference to the disadvantages of piecemeal constitutional change is frankly absurd, particularly from that side of the House. When female suffrage was extended, that is exactly what we had: piecemeal changes. I used to be a historian. It was Disraeli who started this process. The Conservatives have been at it ever since. They always tell us that they want change on an incremental basis. That is constantly what we are told. It was the same with female suffrage. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who said that he heard some of the arguments we have been hearing today before, at the time of the extension of female suffrage. My wife and I went to see the excellent film about that subject, and there were occasions when I thought I was listening to the present-day House of Lords.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

I have been reflecting on this issue and the piecemeal way it has been done. Presumably when David Cameron decided that he wanted to make sure that people aged between 16 and 18 did not have a vote, it must have been because he considered, or feared, that most of them would vote to leave.

[Lord Tyler]

I do not follow that because I do not think that at this stage the Conservative Party has collectively made up its mind. It will be very interesting to see what happens, because a large number of Conservative Members take the view that this is an inevitable change. That was reflected in the contributions of a number of Conservative Members in the Bill Committee.

The evolution of our constitution has always been piecemeal. Indeed, down the other end, the Government are currently changing the constitution, through English votes for English laws—EVEL, or evil, as some would prefer it— on a piecemeal basis. It may be that before Christmas, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will come forward with another piecemeal change to our constitution. Are noble Lords going to be against that? Some may be, but I do not think that others will be. It is frankly absurd to argue that we cannot make a change because it is piecemeal and ad hoc.

I have a great deal of sympathy with those who say that we should in the longer term have a constitutional convention. I have no problem with that—I have always thought that—but here and now we have a Bill before your Lordships’ House, and we have to deal with the franchise. We have already agreed some changes to the franchise, not least to include your Lordships in the electorate for this referendum.

I do not understand the argument that somehow, it is not the right time. That was what they said about female suffrage before the First World War, and some went on saying it after the First World War. We have a Bill before us and a big decision for the citizens of this country to take in the near future. Those young people who will be so affected by the outcome—just like their colleagues and compatriots were in Scotland a year ago—should be given the opportunity to participate in the choice about their future.

I was challenged earlier about why this situation is exceptional. I have an expert witness. Last week, David Cameron described this vote as,

“a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision”.

That is the strongest argument I have heard for extending the franchise to this particular group. The Prime Minister is absolutely right, and it must surely follow that this group of our fellow citizens cannot be denied a say in that decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Baroness is right in the sense that we do not assess mental capacity before deciding whether somebody might vote. That is correct. However, when we take the difficult decision on where to draw the line—on whether the voting age should be 18, 16 or 21—we are entitled to inform ourselves generally about individuals’ state of development to see generally what a typical adolescent might be like.

[Lord Tyler]

Will the noble Lord tell us whether he has seen the film “Suffragette”? The argument that he has just been advancing was the argument for not giving women the vote until after the First World War and then for not extending it to those under the age of 28. Those arguments were deployed by his contemporaries, as it were, of that period.

[Lord Faulks]

I am afraid that I have not had enough time to see the film, but any argument about where you draw a line could be simply dismissed as one that has been used hitherto in different circumstances. I am concerned about whether giving these particular young people the vote is appropriate.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs]

I would hate to turn the noble Lord’s argument on its head, and I ask him to forgive me if I have encouraged him to do so. I am simply trying to set out some of the practical difficulties. This referendum could be held as early as September of next year, and I believe that this legislation could not be implemented until the early part of next year. It imposes extraordinarily difficult practical problems, and the last thing that any of us wish is an outcome that looks like a mess because of unsatisfactory registration. I ask my noble friend to consider that. If there were a sensible way of ensuring that all British expatriates abroad could be put on the register by the first possible opportunity of September next year, I would very much welcome it.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

Is the noble Lord aware that the Electoral Commission does not anticipate any great difficulty? As a result of the very considerable efforts made before this year’s general election, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has just referred, the arrangements are hugely improved—not least, of course, because of online registration. If the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has information from the Electoral Commission that is adverse to that particular advice that it has given previously, perhaps he will give it to the Committee.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak first to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton before turning to that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. Both amendments deal with the date, which is why there was a rationale for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to remain in this group. He certainly added extra pizzazz to the debate—I am not sure that is a parliamentary word but never mind.

There was a very serious thread in the arguments brought forward by noble Lords; that is, that in considering the date on which the referendum should take place, the Government should take into consideration very firmly fairness and, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, that the Government should not seek to bounce the country into a referendum. That is certainly not what the Government are seeking to do. They seek to find fairness and a level playing field. That has certainly underwritten the way in which the Government addressed the drafting of the Bill, particularly when one looks at some of the technical schedules, to try to achieve that fairness.

As one or two noble Lords have said, it is rather our tradition in this House that on the first group of amendments, whatever they may refer to, somehow we revisit Second Reading. After nine hours of Second Reading, that would be quite a long revisit. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was not able to take part in that debate so I will try to comment on one or two of his points when we reach my responses to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. But listening to some of the interventions, I felt I was hearing the way that noble Lords were going to vote in the referendum even though we have not yet concluded the negotiations, let alone set the date.

Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton would put in place two restrictions on how the referendum date is agreed by Parliament. First, it would require there to be at least 10 weeks between setting the date in regulations and the date of the referendum itself. Secondly, it would require at least 16 weeks between the draft regulation setting the date being laid in Parliament and the referendum. My noble friend quoted in support of his view the statement made by my honourable friend Mr Penrose, the Minister in another place, when he gave a commitment about timing. My honourable friend Mr Penrose said that it would be clear that there will be 16 weeks from regulations to the date of the referendum.

I appreciate that this is a technical Bill—it is straightforward but it is technical—and therefore it is very easy to read one set of regulations against another. In this case, on occasions noble Lords may have been referring to Clause 6(6), which refers of course to the Section 125 PPERA regulations—the so-called statutory purdah—when in fact Clause 1(2) deals with the setting of the date. I think we need to disaggregate that, and we will deal with Clause 6(6) next week when we consider amendments in the names of some of my noble friends, and others.

Some noble Lords put forward the point that it would be right immediately to accept an amendment which put on the face on the Bill a minimum referendum period of 10 weeks. Some indeed might see this amendment at first sight as writing into the Bill a minimum referendum period of 10 weeks, as recently recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I note, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, that the committee says, in paragraph 33:

“We consider that, if the Government intend there to be a minimum of 10 weeks for the referendum period, they cannot rely on the operation of the 2000 Act to deliver that minimum period. In our view, the 10 week minimum for the referendum period should be specified on the face of the Bill”.

Since I am currently looking almost eye to eye with the chair of that committee, I suddenly realise that I can continue to say how highly I have respected its views throughout my time here. Since we are looking at its recommendation, I would not be able to say today exactly how we would respond, but the committee has certainly presented a detailed, thorough report, which we are looking at and discussing in detail with colleagues before we come back with any firm commitment and proposal in response. That is the normal process in Committee, because all noble Lords who have taken part in discussions with Ministers or have been Ministers will know that there is a process by which these matters go forward.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

I would like to express appreciation, because I think that the other people who happen to be in the Chamber today are not in a position to respond on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I serve on that committee and I think the committee will appreciate that it is entirely appropriate that the Government should take some time to think about that, but we feel strongly about it so we will look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness says on Report.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. It is not the only point made in the committee’s report, and one of the factors which may not be appreciated by those outside this House is that, when the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commits itself to these pieces of work, the work has to be done very swiftly but it is always done with great consideration and much detail.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

8: Clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) This section is to be read as if references to the age of 18 in sections 1(1)(d) and 2(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 were references to the age of 16.”

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 8 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wallace and myself, I make it clear that the other amendments in this group are all heading in the same direction; we have just taken slightly different routes to the same end, and I am sure that other noble Lords will speak to their amendments shortly. In that context, I know that your Lordships will be terribly disappointed that I am not going to repeat my Second Reading speech. Instead, I want to refer to some of the other contributions made in that debate.

I think that there is now a general view in your Lordships’ House that we should move to the inclusion of 16 and 17 year-olds in the question of the future of our country in the European Union. I think we can take it as read that my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have supported this view consistently for many years in other contexts, and indeed in relation to the referendum, so I shall not repeat in detail the contributions to the Second Reading debate of my noble friends Lady Smith of Newnham and Lord Teverson, nor indeed that of my noble friend Lord Shipley. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, will forgive me if I do not repeat exactly what she said. Again, she was strongly in favour, but I think it is well known that the Labour Party has now also come round to the view that this would be an appropriate extension of the franchise.

However, I do want to refer to some very notable contributions during the Second Reading debate. The first was from the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, who I think was in his place a few minutes ago but is not now. He said:

“Like others, I think that there is a strong case for extending the franchise, as in the Scottish referendum, to 16 and 17 year-olds. The purity of the general election franchise has already been breached to allow Peers and citizens of Gibraltar to vote. It would surely be right to allow the generation who will be so greatly affected by the outcome of the referendum to take part in it”.—[Official Report, 13/10/15; col. 102.]

Wise words, my Lords. However, I was even more struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, whom I am delighted to see in his place. He said:

“The other point that I want to make refers to the 16 and 17 year-olds. We have a very interesting example before us in Scotland. My impression is that it worked well. I do not agree with those who say that if there is to be a change in the voting age, it should be introduced for general elections rather than for referendums. General elections are about the next five years. This referendum is certainly for the next generation and perhaps for very much longer. It does, therefore, touch the 16 and 17 year-olds very precisely. I will listen to the arguments but I incline very much at the moment to support those who would extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds”.—[Official Report, 13/10/15; col. 113.]

That point was very eloquently argued just now—although perhaps he did not mean it to be—by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who said that the most important decision for the next 40 years is the decision on our future in Europe. If it is for the next 40 years, I dare to suggest to your Lordships that one or two of us will not be here. Therefore, one or two of us may not have quite the same interest in that long-term view as 16 and 17 year-olds.

However, the most persuasive arguments that I have heard are from the other end of the building. They come from a number of Conservative Members of Parliament who have been very eloquent in saying that they think that on this particular decision 16 and 17 year-olds should be included in the franchise. This is what Mr Neil Carmichael said. He may not be well known to everybody but he is very well known to me because he is my local Member of Parliament. He is a Conservative but he also happens to be the chairman of the Education Select Committee, so he is very much in touch with the extent to which young people these days are well informed and well and truly mature enough to take this decision. He said:

“The closer we get to the referendum, the more we are hearing about the issue of extending votes to 16 and 17-year-olds. The strongest argument for doing so is that it is this generation which will have to live with the decision, probably for the majority of their lifetimes—and it is their opportunities that would most be affected by the vote. I believe it is absolutely right that they must have a say”.

That is what he said in the Stroud News and Journal. He has obviously been taking account of the views of his constituents, such as me. He extended that view, rather more eloquently, in City AM.

This is a one-off event and it is particularly important—

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes his summary of the contributions on the subject made in the other place, does he recall that the honourable Member for Totnes, also a Conservative, said something to the effect that one-quarter of those born today will live to be 100. They will be here, even if some of us will not be.

[Lord Tyler]

I am sure that the noble Lord will be here. He has already displayed the sort of longevity that we expect in this House. Indeed, it may not be known to Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House that we currently have 14 years’ greater longevity than the average citizen in the United Kingdom, which says something about the way in which we are looked after in this place—it may also say something about the intellectual stimulus that we occasionally have in this place. However, I agree with the noble Lord; I referred to that particular Member of the other House, who spoke very eloquently on this point.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

The noble Lord seems to be advancing two propositions, both of which I find puzzling. The first is that those of us in this Chamber have no concern for the future of our country after we are dead. I do not believe that that is the case at all. The second proposition is that 17 year-olds are somehow of a different generation from 18 year-olds. I do not understand that either.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I have not actually come to my own views on this subject. I have simply been reporting the views of the noble Lord’s colleagues in both this and the other House. If, for example, he has an objection to the views of my local Member of Parliament—a Conservative: Mr Neil Carmichael—I suggest that he take it up with him. All I am trying to suggest is that it is now the common experience and approach that young people are mature, well-informed and ready to take this particular step on this particular issue. This is widely accepted in all parts of your Lordships’ House—and, I suggest, in the other House.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

When we discussed this in the context of giving the Scottish Parliament the power to decide this, I warned that the Scottish Parliament would give the vote to 16 year-olds and that this would then be used as an argument for doing the same here, which is what the noble Lord has been doing. Does this not relate to the issue of the age of majority? In Scotland, 16 year-olds are not allowed to buy a pint of beer or a packet of cigarettes. Should we not look at this in the context of the appropriate age of majority and not in the context of a Bill of this kind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I apologise that I only half agree with the noble Lord. Years ago, I said that we should address this issue in the wider sense. Indeed, it is one of the arguments for the constitutional convention that many on this side of the House now support.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Those who are 16 are not allowed to buy cigarettes or buy a drink, but they are not being told that they will never be allowed to buy cigarettes or buy a drink. After the referendum, if we decide to leave the European Union, that is it—we would leave. They would then never have the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to be in the European Union. It seems to me that the analogy does not work; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to have that additional support from the Cross Benches.

I was about to go back very briefly to the other, very comparable, situation that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to. We have to take into account the practical example of the Scottish independence referendum.

I have to confess that, until now, many of us on this side of the House—certainly those of us on the Liberal Democrat benches—have theoretically had to argue this case. We do not have to do that any longer. We know now, from the Scottish independence referendum campaign, that young people in Scotland took this issue very seriously. They were very well-informed and registered in much greater numbers than opponents ever thought that they would: 109,593 young people in this age group registered and 75% of them voted. That is more than the next cohort up, where people tend to go away from home—off to new jobs or university— and lose touch with the electoral process. Only 54% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted, and 72% of 25 to 34 year-olds voted. Young people debated the issues with great intelligence and personal integrity, ignoring vested interests. Indeed, they were rather more balanced in the outcome, as far as we can detect, than middle-aged men, who were actually taken in by some of the myths of the separatists.

Here, then, is the practical example. What is so important about this is that it demonstrates that, when young people are asked what they think about a longer-term issue of such huge importance to the country and to them, they take it very seriously. Some Members of your Lordships’ House who go on behalf of the Lord Speaker to sixth forms very often find that that age group is rather better informed, and perhaps more mature in their views, than some 60 and 70 year-olds.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

Has it ever occurred to the noble Lord that old people never get younger but young people, granted reasonable luck, get older? The older they get, the more they become like old people. It is a very curious thing. He is saying that their views as young people should be counted but that those of us who are in our advanced years are silly old fools who really should not be trusted with the future of the country at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I have not yet proposed an age limit for voting. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will have a vote in this referendum. He does not get one in a general election any more than I do, but he will be allowed a vote in this, which is one reason that some Members of your Lordships’ House feel that there is a clear case for extending the franchise. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will vote the right way, although I have more confidence in the judgment of some 16 and 17 year-olds than I do in his.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Was that a confession that the noble Lord is in favour of this because he thinks that these 16 year-olds will vote “the right way”?

[Lord Tyler]

It was not, my Lords. This issue is one on which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and his colleagues—who may have doubtful views on these matters—are just as likely to persuade young people to vote their way as I am. I just think that the judgment should be in the hands of the people who are going to be affected.

[Baroness Crawley]

Is it not the case that the 16 and 17 year-olds who voted in the Scottish referendum broke fairly evenly between the yes and no camps?

[Lord Tyler]

There is no concrete evidence of that—the ballot is secret. I think that there was a slight margin among 16 and 17 year-olds to vote no to independence. In the next group up, there was a slight increase.

I dare anybody in your Lordships’ House to say to the 16 and 17 year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that they are not mature or well-enough informed, do not know what they are talking about and would be influenced by the wrong people—yet that the Scots are up to it. I just do not understand how we could do that. It is critical that this bedrock, this foundation stone of our representative democracy—the franchise—should in this respect be exactly the same throughout the country. I beg to move.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I want to say a few words about my experience in the Scottish referendum, which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned. I feel so strongly about this issue that I am here tonight despite the fact that in another place—I do not mean down the corridor, but in Tynecastle Park in Edinburgh—Heart of Midlothian are playing Celtic in the quarter-finals of the Scottish league cup. If any of my colleagues here know about my passion and enthusiasm for Heart of Midlothian football club, which I had the privilege of chairing for a couple of years, they will know that it is a great sacrifice for me to be here tonight. That indicates my strength of feeling on this issue.

If I was not convinced before the Scottish referendum that 16 and 17 year-olds should have a vote, the referendum campaign convinced me. I know that my noble friend Lady Adams, who was there as well, agrees with this. I was canvassing for people to vote against independence, and the enthusiasm for participating was absolutely fantastic. To give one example, I was going round Portobello, and some sixth-form pupils from Portobello High School came out and spoke to us on the corner of the street. They were arguing the case: they knew all the arguments on both sides. Some of them supported yes and some of them supported no; they were arguing with me and they were arguing with each other. We were doing that for about half an hour, and then one of them looked at me and said, “Hey, you’re that Foulkes fellow, aren’t you?”, and I said, “Oh, well done”. They really know what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

Of course, the noble Lord will recall that we had a referendum relatively recently, in 2011, about a change in the voting system—to introduce the alternative vote—which was on the Westminster model. The argument was very much, “Well, this is inevitable” or “This is a slippery slope”, to use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and that, by accepting the validity of the argument on the European referendum, it must follow, as night follows day, that we would then proceed to change the Westminster franchise. By accepting that argument, we would be reversing into an inevitable change in the Westminster franchise. There might or might not be an argument for doing that, but that is an argument that ought to take place in the fullness of time, with all available evidence, once all the matters that we have gone into and wanted to consider were available.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, this has been a very good debate. I do not intend to detain the House for long because, frankly, there will be a further opportunity to debate these issues. I just want to deal with one or two factual points. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said that the franchise is not being extended in this Bill. It is being extended, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said, and, indeed, there will be further debates about extending the franchise. I understand that it is Conservative policy to extend the franchise to UK citizens resident in the EU beyond the 15-year limit, so it will be very interesting to hear what is said about that.

The other issue, which is an important one, is about practicalities, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, spoke. I talked to the Electoral Commission and it is clear that it wants to have the longest possible lead time, so the sooner the Government decide to accept this amendment the better from the point of view of the commission. I am sure that they will do it eventually. MPs keep telling me that they will, so it is just a question of not leaving it too long. It is also true that we have the hard evidence of what happened in Scotland. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds proceeded remarkably easily, so there is no technical difficulty there.

I am intrigued to hear constant references to the difficulties of piecemeal changes to our constitution. The Government are about to change the relationship between the two Houses, if they can get away with it. That is what they are doing today. If that is not a constitutional change, what is? Then, what about EVEL—English Votes for English Laws? That is piecemeal. I thought that the Conservatives were actually in favour of incremental changes to our constitution. My study of history was that that was what Disraeli was all about—and very clever he was at it. So it is not an appropriate argument in this case to say that we cannot do this because it is not the ripe time—the doctrine of ripe time. That is what our ancestors in this very House argued right through the 19th century. I shall come back to that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I may be having a problem with my brain, because I do not understand where the noble Lord is coming from. He has spent the last year arguing that constitutional change should not be made in a piecemeal way and that we need to have a constitutional convention to look at these things in the round. We have spent this evening listening to people opening doors—saying that we opened the door to the Scottish changes in the franchise, when the Government said that it would not open the door. Surely, the noble Lord needs to work out whether he believes that these things should be looked at in the round. He has also argued that this is a one-off and will not have further implications. I am completely confused as to how he can maintain two opposing positions at the same time. One is tempted, is one not, when he made his slip, to conclude that the real reason he wants these changes is that it will help him to get the result that he wants?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, the Bill sets out a timetable, and we had some discussion on that earlier this evening. That is the timetable with which we are faced in your Lordships’ House; we have a Bill, and we are going to have a referendum. I agree with the noble Lord that it would have been preferable some years ago if we had had the opportunity to look at some of these issues in the round, but we did not, and we have not done so, and the present Government are still setting their face firmly against a constitutional convention. Unless he is prepared to delay a referendum for another three, four or five years, I am afraid that we must address what is on the Marshalled List today, which gives us an opportunity to decide what is to be the franchise for one very specific question. That is what it is all about.

I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. It may well be that there are Members of your Lordships’ House who think that this is not the right moment to move, but I think that we have an excellent precedent on this sort of issue, when the decision that will be taken has such ramifications and implications for so long. In that context, we should make progress in that direction. However, I accept that this may not be technically the most robust amendment to achieve that change, and I certainly want to make sure that we get cross-House support from Cross-Benchers, Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats for the amendment, to demonstrate how wide the support now is. More support has been demonstrated today, and I hope that we can do that. In that context, it is obviously right that for this Bill and on this occasion we make sure that the amendment is absolutely technically perfect. So in that circumstance, to make sure that we can demonstrate that breadth of support, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, less than 24 hours after the publication of a carefully considered report, it would be impudent of me to start pronouncing on some of these issues. As to the opinions of the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord on the 1911 Act, the strength and the powers of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts were recently tested in court.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government have made an assessment of the risks of not proceeding with legislation for the reform of this House? For example, does he appreciate that if each incoming Prime Minister wished to rebalance the party representation in this House, we would soon exceed 1,000 Members? Does he also recognise that the public at the moment are more in favour of abolition of your Lordships’ House—by a very considerable margin—than retaining the all-appointed element?

Political Party Funding

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on party funding.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government are grateful to the committee for its report and will consider its recommendations before providing a formal response. The Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government’s proposed approach to party funding reform in his Written Ministerial Statement of 23 November.

[Lord Tyler]

Can my noble friend give us an assurance that unlike under the previous Administration, the most reluctant and recalcitrant participants in this process will not be allowed to delay everything, and will not be given a complete veto on progress? In particular, may I suggest that we should start with immediate action to stop the arms race in expenditure, both at the constituency level—targeting constituencies as well as national constituencies—and before, as well as during, campaigns? This could achieve some cross-party agreement, and of course would be very popular with the long-suffering public.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I welcome those suggestions from my noble friend, which I will pass on to the Deputy Prime Minister. In his Statement that I referred to, he said:

“The Government believe that the case cannot be made for greater state funding of political parties at a time when budgets are being squeezed and economic recovery remains the highest priority. But there is a case for looking carefully at whether existing levels of support could be used more effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/11; col. 25WS.]

I would have thought that some of the suggestions that my noble friend made could be brought into that general consultation with all political parties.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 3rd October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend will recall that two Joint Committees looked at these issues with great care in the previous Parliament. I served on both of them. The Government of the day then accepted the advice of those committees. Would my noble friend like to speculate on why the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, raises this issue now, rather than exerting his influence in that Government?

[Lord McNally]

No, I prefer to look forward on this matter. We have given the noble Lord, Lord Richard, a task. If the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, wants to write to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with any doubts or concerns he has about war powers, particularly after the Government have made their statement, so be it. Of course, it is legitimate to address one of the regular Questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on Lords reform, but I hope that the House will debate the war powers issue with due seriousness when the Government come through with proposals. There are a lot of examples around the world of parliaments that have taken war powers which have made it virtually impossible for those countries to deploy forces. At the other end of the scale, we have the example of Iraq, when Parliament felt that it had not been fully consulted. The Government are looking at this very carefully and seriously and will bring forward proposals in due course.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I promise most sincerely that I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in any respect. The last two days of debates have been laced with the most delicious, rich irony, which is somehow so traditional in any debate in this place when we are talking to ourselves about ourselves. I counted the number of former Members of Parliament on the list of speakers. There are 68, two-thirds of the total. The first irony is that rather too many of them seem to think that appointed politicians are somehow more reputable and reliable than elected ones, which I think reflects on their previous experience.

Meanwhile, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has set the scene best in his book on this subject, Unfinished Business. He wrote:

“Executive control over the House of Commons is stronger in Britain than in any comparable country. Though it frequently masquerades as a defence of the rights of the Commons, in reality many of the arguments against comprehensive reform”—

that is, of this House—

“are a defence of that executive power”.

He hits the nail on the head. The endless defence of the supremacy of the other place amounts to an assertion that we really should have that “elective dictatorship” of which Lord Hailsham spoke in 1976. Indeed, some Members seem so anxious to avoid a House that will assert itself against the Executive, strengthening Parliament as a whole, that they would prefer to have this House abolished altogether, and not be bicameral at all, rather than see it gain the legitimacy that it so richly needs but at present so woefully lacks.

Surely the White Paper and draft Bill, and the central intention to ensure that this place contains an elected element by 2015, should not come as a surprise to any Member of your Lordships’ House. Of the 105 speakers in this debate, 65 have been appointed since 1997, when a Government came to power determined to introduce a democratically elected element to this House. All noble Lords who have come to this House after that date must be absolutely clear that our appointment was not for life but would be temporary. That, too, is an irony.

Much has been made, especially on the opposition Benches, of the need to clarify the future relationship between the Houses if and when these reforms are fully implemented. The best analysis that I have seen concluded:

“There is no reason why any further increase in the authority and effectiveness of the second chamber following elections should undermine the primacy of the House of Commons”.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will recognise that quotation because he wrote it. It is a direct quotation from the Jack Straw/Philip Hunt—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—White Paper of 2008. Members on the other side of the House should read their own White Paper before they come to the House and pretend that all these matters are completely new.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Can the noble Lord answer the question which his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, failed to answer yesterday as to why he thinks that a House elected by first past the post should have primacy over a House elected by single transferable vote?

[Lord Tyler]

If the noble Lord had read his own White Paper, let alone the Government’s White Paper, he would know that three tranches of elections to this House—whether it is 80 per cent or 100 per cent—mean that at no time would the membership of this House have a more up-to-date mandate than that held by Members of the other House. That is absolutely clear—and Jack Straw and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were clear about it, too.

I am very respectful and appreciative of the wise heads in this House, but they cannot go on asserting the primacy of the other House and yet build up the impression in this House and beyond that they intend to threaten a veto on any reform Bill that the other House sends us. That is yet another irony.

Breaking a habit of a lifetime, I will concentrate for the few minutes that I have on the one area where I think there may well be a consensus in your Lordships’ House. Several Members have questioned the suggestion that 300 is a sensible number for a reformed House. This matter requires very careful analysis by the Joint Committee. The commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—who was here just now—recommended 550; the 2001 government White Paper 600; the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee 350; the Bill which was sponsored by Messrs Clarke, Wright, Cook, Young and Tyler, 413; and the Jack Straw/Philip Hunt White Paper 435. At no stage has anyone suggested that the workload of this House could be undertaken by 300. We all thought that it was preferable to have a second House of Parliament where it was not necessary to have full-time parliamentarians. I regret that the White Paper has gone on that route when it has never been recommended.

There are five reasons why 300 Members is too small a number. First, as I have hinted, Parliament as a whole benefits from having a proportion of Members who retain an active involvement in other walks of life, which would be very difficult to have with only 300. Secondly, given the relatively long but one-term limited service, it would be difficult to recruit candidates who were prepared to be full-time parliamentarians while they were not able to take part in other activities and go back to another career. Thirdly, your Lordships should note that 80 of the 800 Members of your Lordships’ House are already involved in European scrutiny. It is already a very considerable commitment and I do not think that 300 could do the job.

[Lord Higgins]

In fact, the White Paper comes up with the very strange proposition that the figure should be around 300 or so because that is the average attendance in this House. However, this assumes that the average attendance covers all the same people, which is absolute rubbish. People come depending on their expertise in a particular debate. We need more than that number in order to get the coverage.

[Lord Tyler]

I am very grateful to my noble friend, but there is an additional reason. In fact the average is not 300; it is over 400. That figure is out of date. I accept entirely what my noble friend said and I hope that there will be support from other Members across the House when it comes to looking at this issue in the Joint Committee.

Finally, under whatever system of PR, if the number is so small it will be quite difficult to get diversity—indeed, even gender balance—in the membership of this House. If only 80 Members are elected in each tranche there will be relatively small multi-Member seats and it will be quite difficult to get the sort of diversity and gender balance that I know many Members of your Lordships' House wish to have. Many have already expressed concerns on this.

[Lord Lucas]

Does the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, accept that whatever way I vote today and whatever I think of his speech as a whole, I am in total agreement with that last section?

[Lord Tyler]

I am embarrassed by this support from all sides. It is an unaccustomed experience. I hope that this will be a very early discussion in the Joint Committee.

The Government’s proposals are incremental and evolutionary and take advantage of the work of the royal commission led so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. They take advantage of all the thinking that went into the work on the Jack Straw White Paper and it is simply nonsense to suggest that this issue has suddenly burst upon us in this House and in the other House and among the public. People have been talking about these issues for a very long time and been studying precisely the concerns which have been expressed in your Lordships' House yesterday and today. These proposals maintain the best of this place and will give it the legitimacy and credibility that I believe it not only needs but deserves. The pace of change will still be slow, but its direction will be clear. For that, it is very much welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that we should all represent something. I suppose that I represent the long list of Lords Ministers who have dabbled in Lords reform, but without, alas, much success. We come to the end of this long but invigorating debate. I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, on his excellent maiden speech—it seems a long time ago. He said that in the few short weeks he had been in your Lordships’ House he has moved from a position of supporting a wholly elected House to endorsing a mostly elected House. I wonder where the noble Lord’s voyage of discovery will end. We await his next contribution to a debate on Lords reform with eager anticipation—he will have further opportunities.

There have been many reports on Lords reform, none better than the royal commission report chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who spoke so eloquently yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and other noble Lords argued at some point for indirect elections. This is, of course, not a new idea. Viscount Bryce chaired a conference of Peers and MPs appointed by the Prime Minister in 1917 on the reform of the second Chamber, which made proposals for the indirect election of Members of the second Chamber by MPs in regional groupings. Alas, it went the way of many such proposals. I have much greater hopes for my noble friend Lord Richard.

Of course, this debate is rather more significant than many in recent years. We have a draft Bill, far-reaching proposals, pre-legislative scrutiny to come and a pathway towards the first elected Members setting foot in the second Chamber in 2015. How determined the Government are to meet that date is, perhaps, open to question. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, yesterday reaffirmed the 2015 goal, yet in his highly entertaining interview in the Financial Times this weekend he seemed to have lost a little of his reforming zeal. Perhaps he was looking for St Augustine for inspiration. “Oh, Lord”, the Leader seemed to be saying, “deliver me an elected second Chamber, but not quite yet”. We will all be interested to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord McNally, takes a similar view. Indeed, does he think he can take his Members of Parliament with him, to say nothing of the noble Lords behind him?

The caution that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, expressed over the weekend is, I think, entirely understandable. He must know that the Government are being disingenuous in presenting these proposals as a stand-alone measure with little consequence for our overall constitutional arrangements. He must know that, if enacted, the Bill would have a profound impact on Parliament and our democracy. I regret that, because the Government’s failure to admit this risks the whole reform process. I am a reformer, I support an elected House, I have always voted for it, but I want that reform to enhance our democracy. I do not want changes which threaten a fight between this House and the other place. I do not want changes that detract from the Lords’ role as a revising Chamber. Time and again it has been this House that has improved legislation, held Ministers properly to account and saved Governments from themselves—my own included. Would that the other place could say the same.

It is noticeable how many noble Lords in the past two days have commented on the performance of the Commons and their concern to strengthen Parliament as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a telling point about the overweening power of the Executive and of his fear that the Bill would extend that. Nowhere is that more to be seen than in paragraph 68 of the White Paper where a Prime Minister can at a whim throw a Member of the new second Chamber out of Parliament. That is the rub of it. As my noble friend Lord Whitty has said, the Government have simply not put the groundwork into the draft Bill. Yet they had plenty of time. The draft Bill was published on 17 May but the cross-party committee, chaired by Mr Clegg, has not met since 24 November. Almost six months has been wasted.

It is pretty arrogant on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister to think that he can waltz this reform through Parliament, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, reminded us, on the whim of a hunch or a best guess and to do so without so much as a genuflection to the complexities with which governments and parliamentarians have wrestled for these past 100 years. Why that should be so has become clear during our debate. The Government seek to strive for a second Chamber that replicates most of what the House of Lords does now but with electoral legitimacy. We are told that the reformed House of Lords would have the same functions as the current House and that no change is envisaged in the fundamental relationship with the House of Commons, which would remain the primary House.

In Clause 2 of the draft Bill, we are pointed to the relationship between the two Houses. It is worth restating. It says that nothing in the Bill,

“affects the status of the House of Lords … the primacy of the House of Commons, or … the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses”.

My noble friend described that as nonsense and I think that he was being kind. That is my response to the noble Lord, Lord True, who also criticised Clause 2. But does he not recognise that Clause 2 goes to the heart of the Bill? Nowhere is that more illustrated than in the conventions which govern the relationship of this House with the Commons.

The Cunningham committee was clear that, in a formal sense, the Lords has equal status with the Commons as a House of Parliament in initiating and passing Bills, subject to Commons financial privilege and the Parliament Acts, and equal status in approving delegated legislation. In reality, as Cunningham said, the formal position has come to be moderated by conventions reflecting the primacy of the Commons. The moment that elected Members walk into this Chamber, those conventions will evaporate.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to comment on how precisely that clause differs from his recommendation in his own White Paper, which I quoted to your Lordships’ House earlier. It said:

“There is no reason why any further increase in the authority and effectiveness of the second chamber following elections should undermine the primacy of the House of Commons”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for reminding the House of my heroic efforts on the cross-party group chaired by my right honourable friend Jack Straw, and very enjoyable it was too. I say two things to the noble Lord. First, we produced a White Paper for consultation. We did not produce a draft Bill. Secondly, I am not arguing about primacy. I am arguing about the issue of an elected House of Lords using the powers that it formally has within the context of primacy. I believe that even within the context of primacy, the clash between two elected Houses will bring profound constitutional changes.

Noble Lords could argue that we should not worry about that, which is a perfectly legitimate point to put across. But the one thing that I have learnt from my three years of dabbling in this subject is that unless a Government are explicit about the powers of an elected second Chamber, any attempt at reform will always be doomed to failure. I speak as someone who has always supported legitimate reform of your Lordships’ House. When elected Members enter this House, the conventions will evaporate because they are voluntary constraints on an unelected House in their relationship to the elected House. Once you have an elected House, what is the need for restraint?

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was eloquent yesterday in favouring a strong second Chamber to stand up to the Executive. His noble friend Lord Ashdown reminded us that there are many examples around the world of bicameral systems with two elected bodies which manage to sort out their relationships. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, remarked, that is because the relationship between those houses is set out in some form of written constitution that will usually provide for dispute resolution between the two houses. I acknowledge that the implications of a written constitution in the UK are profound. However, as my noble friend Lord Elder suggested, they have to be considered when introducing major constitutional change.

Representation of the People (Electoral Registration Data Schemes) Regulations 2011

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I declare that I am an electoral commissioner, having joined the commission on 1 October last year. I fully support the thrust of the commission’s views on these important statutory instruments.

I am sure that all noble Lords want completeness and accuracy of electoral registers. We want confidence in our democracy and our electoral system. We want confidence that you will be able to vote if you want to and if you are eligible. We want confidence in those who have been elected to serve at all levels of government.

It is important that clear and reliable evidence on data matching is produced and that the evidence is robustly assessed. It is particularly important that this assessment is done carefully and represents fully what can be achieved, not least because data matching is envisaged as the primary method of ensuring the continued completeness of individual registration in 2014-15. I should welcome a response from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on that specific point and on the commission’s concern that the timing of the schemes will coincide with the annual canvass of electors. It is important that there is clarity about the design of the data-matching schemes, so that the impact and any follow-up activity can be demonstrated beyond what the annual canvass activity would normally achieve.

Can the noble Lord give any further information on the agreement to process the data? It is particularly important that personal data are handled carefully and are protected. The commission has specifically recommended that the approach to the delivery of each pilot area should also form part of any written agreement, so that the commission can fully evaluate each scheme.

Finally, the noble Lord will be aware that the commission is required to produce an evaluation report on the operation of the scheme by 1 March 2012. To achieve this, it will be important that EROs are able to provide the commission at agreed intervals during the schemes’ operation with the information needed. Clarity about the design and delivery of each scheme will ensure that the commission is able to undertake its statutory evaluation effectively and that the results can inform future policy development on electoral registration. I am of course happy for the noble Lord to write to me to clarify a number of these points.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, because I know that he shares the commitment that we have on all sides of the House to make the electoral register as comprehensive and accurate as we can.

In the debates earlier this year on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, there was a great deal of discussion about under-registration. That was not the first time that the issue was raised. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, gave a great deal of attention to this in the previous Government. I recall that on a number of occasions in Grand Committee on the Political Parties and Elections Bill we had considerable discussions about the right momentum and the right progress needed to improve the level of registration. On a number of occasions, previous Administrations—like the present Government—have looked at ways in which data matching could assist this purpose.

It is important to note that there was an improvement during the calendar year 2010; in the last few days there have been some interesting improvements, too, which I notice that colleagues on the other side of the House have also seen. The context of that was a very exciting general election at which, for the first time in some people’s political memory, it looked as though the outcome was not certain. In those circumstances, there was an increase, particularly—and this is encouraging—among the younger age group, which notoriously in the recent past has not registered. We should take encouragement from the fact that, if we can make politics more interesting and outcomes more indeterminate, we can increase registration. It is not only a mechanical operation but a political one to get as many of our fellow citizens engaged as possible.

The integrity of the register is a question of making sure that those who should be on are on and that those who should not be on, or are there in duplicate, are not on. Therefore, accuracy and integrity are the same thing.

The PPE Act, as the Bill became, set fair and square registration objectives. They are,

“to secure, so far as reasonably practicable—(a) that persons who are entitled to be registered in a register are registered in it, (b) that persons who are not entitled to be registered in a register are not registered in it, and (c) that none of the information relating to a registered person that appears in a register or other record kept by the officer is false”.

Obviously, the instruments that are before the Committee today seek to build on that responsibility, which lies not only on the Government but on all of us. I appreciate the clarity with which my noble friend introduced the instruments, which I welcome.

Those objectives are clearly uncontroversial and it is a matter of some puzzlement to our fellow citizens that sometimes the electoral register seems to be totally unrelated to the other information that has been gathered on behalf of local or central government. They find it peculiar; they think that we are all the same thing. They think that Parliament and the Government are the same thing, let alone local authorities and other parts of the state system. They think that we are all part of the same bureaucracy. For example, those who are accused of filing a housing benefit form inaccurately will often cite the presence of all members of their household on the electoral register as a necessary and understandable defence. Who can blame them? They think that that is an official document and therefore can be quoted as such.

Those kinds of situations raise the question of whether the flow of information from government departments into councils will be a two-way process. Will it work in both directions? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—this is in the order—might give information on the DWP’s database to the electoral registration officer in Blackpool, but will the DWP then use the comparison data to identify potential fraud on its own books? I do not expect my noble friend to answer on behalf of the other department this afternoon, but I think that this is a subject where our fellow citizens would genuinely like to know whether there is an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords—

[Lord Wills]

I thought that someone would challenge me on this and I am delighted to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.

[Lord Tyler]

I do not wish to challenge that. I want to draw the noble Lord’s attention to the fact—he is a very fair man—that what he has just said about individual registration and what he said previously about the fact that his Administration failed to bring forward these instruments after the PPE Act in 2009 are in direct contradiction. If it is so vital to improve data sharing so that the register can be more effective and more accurate and so that its integrity can be improved to enable us to move further and faster on individual registration, why did his Administration not bring forward these instruments immediately after the PPE Act?

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. He is fully aware that we are talking about a matter of months. We considered all the advice that we received and we consulted widely. As the noble Lord has raised this point, it is worth reminding the Committee that, under the previous Government, the Front Benches of both the party of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, including the Minister, and the Conservative Party agreed that the timeframe that was necessary to bring in individual registration could not be rushed. Therefore, we set a date of 2015. Everyone agreed with all the expert analysis that that time was needed to achieve a comprehensive and accurate register. That is the reason for the timeframe. There is no good reason for bringing this forward in the way that the Government propose—none.

We will return to these issues in due course, but I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who is also a fair man, did not in his remarks pay credit to the Electoral Commission for the work that it did in improving registration rates in the run-up to the election. He may well be right that it was an interesting general election and that that motivated more people to register and, in some cases, even to vote. However, it was also the case that the Electoral Commission did first-rate work in targeting particularly hard-to-reach groups—groups that are traditionally under-registered—and achieved considerable success. This will give us all hope and the commission deserves credit for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, should have given the previous Government some credit for the measures that they put in place and implemented to drive up rates of registration. The encouraging figures that we have seen recently owe at least something to the work that we did in government. I hope that he is nodding in agreement with this. I am happy to give way to him so that he can put it on the record.

[Lord Tyler]

I give credit to all who can improve registration, but the noble Lord is again undermining his own case. If registration has improved over the past 12 or 24 months, the circumstances that he described of moving towards individual registration could also be accelerated.

[Lord Wills]

I am delighted that the noble Lord has made that point. We set up a process under which there would be an independent assessment of whether the register was comprehensive and accurate—not a guess by Ministers or politicians but an accurate independent assessment. As the noble Lord is aware, under the legislation the Electoral Commission has to report annually to Parliament on progress. Let us see what it says and not rush ahead before we have received such assessments, which are unlikely to show that. I do not say that they will not show it and, if they do, obviously this can be revisited. We put in the requirement for those annual reports to Parliament so that it could make that judgment on the basis of independent evidence and not on the basis of a ministerial whim. When the noble Lord’s party was in opposition, it was very much against that kind of executive whim. I hope that we will see that antagonism to arbitrary action by the state exemplified in its opposition to this legislation.

[Lord Tyler]

I am sorry, but we did not support the timescale that the noble Lord is now describing. In this very Room in Committee, my noble friend Lord Rennard and I argued that we surely could be in a position to accelerate the process in time for an expected election at some point in 2014-15.

[Lord Wills]

With all due respect to the noble Lord, we have to make that judgment on the basis of evidence, but the evidence is not there at the moment. I tried hard in government to put in further measures to improve registration, but for various reasons I was not able to get them all through. I want to know what this Government are doing to bring in new measures over and above what we brought in. That was my first question to the Minister. I have not seen any evidence that this Government are doing any more than the previous Government did, although I am happy to be proved wrong. The improvement of registration rates is vital for the health of our democracy.

The point that I was making, which the noble Lord overlooked, was that Parliament will have an opportunity annually to assess progress towards a comprehensive and accurate register. My concern is not about the speed of individual registration but that it should happen only when the register is comprehensive and accurate. The noble Lord seems to be saying that it should just be done whenever Ministers feel like it. That is the point of disagreement between us. If a comprehensive and accurate register, assessed independently by the Electoral Commission, can be achieved earlier than 2015, that is fine, but all the evidence is that it will not be. If it can be done, then I agree with the noble Lord that we can bring in individual registration sooner, but to rush ahead before the register is comprehensive and accurate will be very damaging. It will be damaging to the register and to the health of our democracy, because it is so transparently partisan to so many of us.

We do not see this as a benign oversight by the Government; we see it as another example of a Government trying to fix the system in their own electoral interest. I know that many people will just shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, that’s what politicians always do. What do you expect?”, but we and this Government really should not behave like that. That is why this matter is so important. It may sound like a technical issue to many people out there but it is not; it is about the integrity of the whole system. I hope that when we get to debate these measures we will hear the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, engage with these issues with his customary rigour, fairness and belief in the integrity of the system. He may come to the point where he is persuaded to vote against his Government on this measure because, in my view, that is what he should do.

[Lord Tyler]

The noble Lord is eloquent, but perhaps I may ask him to confirm one thing before he completely rewrites the history of the previous Administration. Am I right in thinking that the Electoral Commission recommended a staged move towards individual registration in 2003? Why did it take so long for him and his colleagues to get round to doing anything about it if it is as important as he says that it is?

[Lord Wills]

I agree. This was a particularly intractable problem, which Governments have looked at and tried to solve over a very long period. We were not in power for the whole of the past 50 years. Other Governments were in power and they, too, did nothing about moving towards individual registration. We tried to move towards it. The problem was that, every time we looked at achieving the desirable good of individual registration, we saw the problems with the register. We took necessary and important steps to improve the register, but I admit that they were not sufficient. I accept that and the noble Lord is right to criticise us for it. However, you cannot try to achieve one desirable good at the risk of creating what I would see as a greater ill, which is damaging a flawed register even more than it is already damaged.

It was not an easy process, but we found a way to do that. It took a huge amount of effort and negotiation with all sides, including the Electoral Commission, which had to be satisfied that it was proper. We found a balance by coupling the two processes. We coupled the improvement of the register so that it became comprehensive and accurate with individual registration. That, we hoped, would put pressure on everyone to drive up registration rates and move within a reasonable timeframe—and 2015 really is a reasonable timeframe; this is not long-grass territory. Therefore, we moved towards individual registration within a reasonable timeframe and, at the same time, tried to ensure that the register was not damaged, or, to be precise, damaged more than it was already.

I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that is a reasonable point of view. We have to be careful with this. I know that the Minister has not tried to do so, but it is wrong to claim—I am hearing this among the background noises—that these desirable and worthwhile measures that he has brought before us today, for which we are all grateful, on their own justify the partisan rush to individual registration. For all their merits, they do not.

Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the regulations concern the use of emblems on ballot papers by candidates at local authority mayoral elections in England and Wales. Their purpose is to make the changes necessary to address an oversight that has arisen in the drafting of the existing regulations governing the conduct of local mayoral elections.

The changes being considered today will enable a candidate who is standing on behalf of two or more registered political parties at such an election to request that the ballot paper should feature, alongside the candidate’s particulars, an emblem registered by one of those political parties. I understand that a number of local mayoral elections are scheduled to take place in England in May 2011—I think that the number is five. The regulations will ensure that the issue is addressed ahead of those elections.

Under Section 29 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, a political party registered with the Electoral Commission may register with the commission up to three emblems for use on ballot papers by candidates standing for the party at elections. Electoral law is clear that a candidate standing on behalf of a single party may request that an emblem registered by that party appear on the ballot paper against the candidate’s particulars.

However, at the May 2010 general election, it came to light that amendments to the parliamentary election rules set out in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 made by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 had had the unintended effect of preventing candidates standing on behalf of two or more registered political parties at UK parliamentary elections using on the ballot paper a party emblem registered by one of those parties.

This has affected jointly nominated candidates who have wanted a party emblem on their ballot paper, most notably those wishing to stand for the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland branch of the Conservative Party, where candidates have stood under the description, “Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force”. I should perhaps pre-empt any comments from the other side by saying that, as far as I know, these are the only two examples of political parties planning joint candidatures in the future.

These provisions have been replicated in the rules governing the conduct of various other elections. These include the rules for the conduct of local mayoral elections in England and Wales as set out in the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. Schedule 1 to those regulations contains the rules for a stand-alone local mayoral election and Schedule 3 sets out the rules where a local mayoral election is combined with another poll. As a result, there is now an inconsistency in the use of registered emblems on ballot papers at local mayoral elections by candidates standing on behalf of a single party and those standing on behalf of more than one party. The draft regulations we are considering today address this inconsistency, which has resulted from an oversight in the 2007 regulations. As I have explained, these regulations are being made to address the issue ahead of the local mayoral elections scheduled for the 5 May. It might be helpful if I briefly explain the changes made by the regulations.

The issue arises in the context of the 2007 regulations. Rule 18(4) in Schedules 1 and 3—about candidates using an emblem on the ballot paper—makes reference only to Rule 7(1), which concerns the nomination paper for a candidate standing for a single party. To address the situation, Regulation 2 of the draft regulations before us inserts new Rule 18(4A) in Schedules 1 and 3. It refers to Rule 7(3), concerning the nomination paper for a candidate standing for more than one party. Further, Regulation 2 amends Rule 18(5) in each schedule so that it refers to paragraphs (4) and (4A) of Rule 18. The effect of these changes is that it will be possible for a candidate who is authorised to stand on behalf of more than one party at a local authority mayoral election in England and Wales to use an emblem registered with the Electoral Commission by one of those political parties, if they wish to do so.

The draft regulations allow such a candidate to use one emblem only on the ballot paper, which must be an emblem registered with the Electoral Commission by one of the parties for which they are standing. Our approach maintains the current policy that candidates nominated by a political party may have only one emblem featured against their details on the ballot paper. A candidate’s request to use an emblem must be made in writing to the returning officer before the deadline for the delivery of nomination papers, which is noon on the 19th day before the day of the election. For the local mayoral elections on 5 May, this is noon on Monday, 4 April.

The Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators highlighted this issue in their reports on the May 2010 election. The political parties have also raised this issue with us. There is a broad consensus that the issue should be addressed at an early opportunity and in time for the elections scheduled to take place in May of this year. I can confirm that the Electoral Commission was formally consulted on these regulations and has indicated that it is content with the changes being made to the 2007 regulations. The same issue was replicated in the separate rules governing the conduct of other elections. We are addressing the issue in the relevant legislation for the other elections scheduled for 5 May. It will require primary legislation to address the issue for a UK parliamentary election, and we will look for an opportunity to do this in advance of the next general election.

These regulations make a sensible and appropriate change to put right an oversight in the drafting of the existing rules governing the conduct of local authority mayoral elections to allow the use of emblems on ballot papers by candidates nominated by two or more parties at those elections. In that spirit, I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I hope not to detain the Grand Committee for more than a few minutes. Before I come to specifics of the regulations that my noble friend introduced, would he comment on the report I read today? It said that Ministers and departments are under strict instruction, under the deregulation initiative or in/out process, that every time a new directive or regulation is introduced, one should also be abolished or repealed. If that is the case, I hope that we will, in future, get a brief description of what will be repealed to enable the new regulation to be introduced. Obviously, this is a very helpful and entirely desirable improvement to the situation, and I commend my noble friend for introducing it—in a totally non-partisan spirit, because I anticipate that the main advantage will be to the opposition party. I hope that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that on this occasion at least there is no ignoble partisan initiative or motive behind this, because clearly the primary benefit will be for Labour and Co-operative candidates. I know that there is a long tradition of them working together, and I hope that this will be accepted as an extremely helpful and consistent implementation of a principle that has been accepted in other parts of the electoral law.

I have three specific questions. As I understand it, it will now be possible for candidates standing for more than one party to have exactly the same opportunities for the use of an emblem on the ballot paper as those who are standing for a single party. However, it is a standing policy of all Governments that there should always be one emblem. The idea of combined emblems will provide a very interesting design objective in some circumstances. Whether the red rose is sometimes painted green—or there may be other opportunities for amalgamation—it will be a challenge to all designers. But there is also a problem of definition. I imagine that bringing together two emblems in a way that apparently creates a combined emblem will not be entirely easy to distinguish from two emblems separately put on the ballot paper. That is something that all Ministers in all Governments have rightly sought to resist as, once you open to door to that, you could have multi-emblems attempting to get on the ballot paper and more space being required—or else they would be too small to be legible. Is my noble friend entirely satisfied that the regulation will prevent what would otherwise look like two emblems being rather loosely combined? That may seem a small design problem, but it could turn out to cause difficulties.

Secondly, and relating to that, we are approaching the noon deadline on Monday 4 April at considerable speed. The consultation on this issue took place immediately after the 2010 election, both with the Electoral Commission—and I have declared an interest as having a minor role on an informal advisory group for the commission—and more widely. It is unfortunate that the elections for mayors in Bedford, Middlesbrough, Mansfield, Torbay and Leicester, where they must now already be starting their campaigns, have not been briefly and appropriately informed of the change. I have no idea whether there are candidates in any of those five locations who intend to stand on behalf of more than one party, but we are near the deadline and I hope that some attempt has been made to inform people in those areas, the political parties and those responsible for electoral administration, that this proposal was coming forward.

Thirdly, in his introduction, my noble friend referred to the fact that in due course primary legislation would be required for UK parliamentary elections. Can he tell the Grand Committee whether this is yet another candidate for the so-called “Christmas tree Bill”? That is rather an unfortunate description; it might be more properly described as the “Odds and Sods Constitutional Reform Bill”, because I know that a number of different proposals are likely to be contained in it. If it is, how soon may we expect to see that Bill? To adopt more parliamentary language, perhaps it could be called a portmanteau Bill. Either way, it is obviously important that the parties are given due notice that proposals will be brought forward as soon as time is available to deal with the bigger issue of the 2015 general election. As my noble friend has said, it is extremely important that we have total consistency so that the political parties, candidates and agents, as well as those responsible for electoral administration, have clear guidance that there will be a consistent approach right across the board.

Very briefly, since we are dealing with mayoral elections, I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that some of the issues arising over how executive mayors have been introduced into this country over the past 10 years are being reviewed in preparation for the Localism Bill, which is already under consideration in the other place. There are important problems that arise from that legislation, not least the fact that financial decisions are incredibly controversial when they are made by an elected mayor, because he or she can introduce a budget when two thirds of a council votes against it. There is also the issue of special responsibility allowances, which give the elected mayor huge patronage opportunities.

Obviously, this afternoon is not the opportunity to discuss these issues. However, I hope my noble friend will acknowledge that we cannot completely detach the issue of mayoral elections from wider concerns about the way in which the system is working, after a long period where it has caused some controversy in different parts of the country. When we come to the Localism Bill shortly, I hope that we will be able to address these.

I think my noble friend and his colleagues in the coalition Government have introduced some very sensible and, some might say, rather latter-day improvements to the system. They are correcting an inconsistency, a discrepancy that unfortunately managed to find its way into the previous basis for the identification of candidates on the ballot paper. I very much support and welcome the order before us.

[Baroness Golding]

My Lords, if I may for a moment, I was on the Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I can remember very vaguely why it was called that. It was something to do with political parties so-called registering themselves in similar names—I think it was something like Liberal and Literal—so that voters would be confused by not reading properly. I had a letter in 2007 from someone saying that they had attempted to obtain the committee minutes and reports of this committee. He goes on to say that the committee office had performed a search in the Houses of Parliament and the parliamentary archives for the committee’s records. Unfortunately, and also rather incredibly, they reported on 20 January that the contents of the only file they had located related mainly to the establishment of the committee and included virtually nothing about any advice it may have given about the registration of parties. That seems incredible. I would like to know if in fact these minutes were found. I think it is important, because the registration of parties came before the registration of these emblems. The parties that are registered should be proper political parties, not ones that were originally trying to imitate another party. So I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know if the minutes have been discovered.