Devolution: English Cities

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, Parliament and the country owe a huge debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for his long-standing and single-minded pursuit of this subject, reflected in this great report and, indeed, by the speech he has just made to your Lordships.

I can claim an affliction that is similar to what might almost be described by the noble Lord’s party colleagues as his obsession. As long ago as 1968, I was a co-author of a political pamphlet called Power to the Provinces. We had a number of themes which are as relevant today as they were then, and I will touch on them briefly. In doing so, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that my colleagues and I are here not to dilute his message, but to enhance and empower it still further. We believed then, and believe now, very strongly in the principle that decisions in a mature democracy should be taken as close as possible to the people they will affect. That has become known as subsidiarity. Devolution implies a degree of decision-making that is more extensive and holistic than simple delegation or decentralisation, however desirable they may also be.

I would draw the important distinction between, on the one hand, the delegation of funds—which, by its very nature, is a short-term decision—and devolution of fund-raising powers on the other: once that responsibility has been given it is extremely unlikely to be removed again. Allocation of a central government funding stream, by contrast, can be at the mercy of individual Governments and Chancellors. I am not sure whether this report clearly distinguishes between these two quite separate objectives and exercises: one can lead to the other, but the evolution does not happen automatically. It also follows from our starting point of principle that devolution does not stop at one sub-national or sub-federal level. Taking power from Whitehall or Westminster to national parliaments in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay, Stormont and, indeed, to the metropolitan cities in England does not absolve them from distributing powers and resources to lower levels of governance.

As my noble friend Lord Purvis observed in a recent debate, a truly federal UK constitution would necessitate democratic accountability at all levels, and we believe that double devolution has been as systematically pursued as it should be. More local levels of governance have not received the same amount of attention; for example, I believe that town and parish councils can be very effective in hands-on representation and in management of local facilities. There has always been a good case for intra vires, enabling all authorities to exercise all powers not specifically excluded, rather than the other way round.

As a general principle, I am worried by the implication in the Heseltine report when it appears to share the criticism of mayors that,

“the powers and resources that our conurbations have are uneven and bespoke”.

Given the remarkable diversity of our country in every conceivable area of challenge and opportunity, that is exactly as it should be. When we extend the basic principles beyond the larger cities of England, this becomes even more essential.

It is surely axiomatic that more rural parts of the country cannot be shut out of the advantages of more democratic self-government. The noble Lord referred to the countryside in that context. I appreciate that this report does not purport to extend its remit beyond the major English cities, but the Minister must acknowledge that there are lessons here for more rural parts of England as well. I have no doubt that he has read The future of non-metropolitan England recently published by the LGA. I hope that he will accept that that is a very timely antidote to overconcentration on the major conurbations.

I acknowledge that my experience as a Devon county councillor and then as a Cornish MP reinforces my conviction that the urban case has been more effectively pursued than that for rurality, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. The recent Lords Select Committee on the rural economy made a similar point, and if time permits I may return to the Cornish experience later.

A persistent concern has been the lack of demonstrably effective scrutiny and accountability. We were dismayed by the overcentralisation of power implicit in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill in 2015. We warned then of the possibility—even the likelihood—that we might be legislating for new one-party fiefdoms, with the mayor, the appointed deputy mayor, and a firm majority of the only body to which they would be answerable in the combined authority, all from the same political party. Without wider accountability, the risk of partisan patronage and petty corruption is increased. Democracy must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, expressed similar concerns in those debates. He said:

“We hear about accountability. What accountability is there in local government today? … In a vast number of councils in this country, the councillors never change from one party to another. A significant number of councils do not change allegiance either”.—[Official Report, 22/6/15; col. 1397.]


Fortunately, a few weeks ago, largely as a result of the local government revival of Liberal Democrats, that was put to the test.

We also argued in 1968, and have argued ever since, that the democratic deficit has been dangerously developed still further by the tendency of Whitehall towards top-down imposition of structures, with limited menus of permitted powers and boundaries. We Liberal Democrats, like the previous Liberal Party, have always argued for bottom-up initiatives, giving the people in identifiable areas a role in deciding how, when and in what form they are to benefit from increased subsidiarity. This has led to our concept of devolution on demand, with elected authorities bidding to take on responsibilities from a menu of options. For example, current bids might start with the current powers of the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament.

That brings me back to the Cornish experience. The coalition Government, especially my Liberal Democrat ministerial colleagues, were determined to demonstrate that the city deals were not the only model for decentralisation or devolution. No longer a county council and with its newly formed unitary authority, Cornwall was judged to be ready for a degree of devolution. Although this was very modest—perhaps more delegation than full-blooded devolution—it has recognised a level of separate identity and historic self-determination. Democratic accountability has been preserved by a more traditional leader and cabinet structure, avoiding the “elective dictatorship” of an elected mayor. It has proved a popular and well-respected model, giving real leadership through the Brexit crisis. Other more rural English areas are queuing up to follow the Cornish lead, with a unitary authority being seen as the key to progress.

Inspired by Cornwall’s example, a number of upper-tier authorities—mainly rural and with no major cities—have come together to form Britain’s Leading Edge group. Their latest report both demonstrates the value of bottom-up initiatives and displays a healthy approach to non-metropolitan devolution aspiration.

In this debate, my Liberal Democrat colleagues will follow up a number of these more general points with some specific examples of the direction in which we hope the devolution process will go next. In the meantime, I repeat my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for leading us in this direction and giving us this great debate.

Citizenship and Civic Engagement (Select Committee Report)

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, both on the way in which he introduced this debate and on the way he steered his committee to produce such a perceptive, thorough and very topical report. Of course, he has form, because he previously produced and published a very good report on campaigning, to which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, referred earlier.

I was struck by the reference to the power of words. Indeed, much of this report is concerned with words, which is not surprising because after all, Parliament is all about words. Words are extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred in a particular context to the word “fundamental”, and that point has been echoed by others. It is an extremely important part of this report that we should look again at the way in which we express these ideas. Of course, these ideas have been expressed not just in this debate but previously on many occasions. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. As a Minister, and before and after his service, he was very interested in the whole concept of citizenship. This afternoon he again referred to citizens’ rights and a social contract in our democracy. We also had two remarkable speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Alton. There must be something special in the water in Liverpool that has produced such eloquence and analysis, which I very much appreciated.

The debate also reminds us that citizenship is a two-way, mutual relationship. It is important to re-emphasise that the state and the body politic have a crucial responsibility to the citizen as well as nurturing the citizen’s role in the community and the nation. There was a vivid reminder of that in an article by Kamila Shamsie in the Guardian on Saturday entitled “Exiled: the disturbing story of a citizen made unBritish”. I confess that I had forgotten that the Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 made it possible for any Briton to be deprived of their citizenship and status as a UK citizen, even making them stateless if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything,

“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom … or any British overseas territory”.

That article quotes circumstances in which there has been no effective right to challenge or appeal. Given what we now know about the incompetence of the Home Office, let alone the evidence of UK complicity in extraordinary rendition, there is clearly room for review and reform of the way the Government respect citizens’ rights. Respect goes in both directions.

Similarly, both the committee’s report itself and the various other documents to which the excellent Library briefing has drawn our attention, emphasise the vital importance of fully involving what they describe as “hard-to-reach” groups. I detect some recognition from the committee that that has salience in the current debate about those who have been left behind in terms of household income and lifestyle in recent decades, and the growing sense of inequality in Britain. There is a widespread perception, with hard data to support it, that some citizens are much more equal than others. In that connection, the conclusion of last week’s UN report regarding Brexit is hard to argue against. The most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society will be least able to cope and will take the biggest hit. Our not-too-distant ancestors—I am thinking particularly of the great Liberal, William Beveridge—would be horrified to learn that we are still looking at such issues in those terms.

That is what makes so very timely the common theme, which permeates all these documents, of enhancing the efforts to engage everyone in our democratic systems. My own involvement in charities, from working for Shelter in the 1970s—a national campaign for the homeless—to working with the food banks movement currently, reinforces my own experience that ensuring a voice for the voiceless is very challenging. I know that other Members of your Lordships’ House—notably some of those here today—have had that experience and continue to have that involvement. I accept that the voluntary sector may well be more successful in achieving greater levels of participation than government agencies, national and local. That does not mean that the latter can be let off the hook.

There are so many recommendations in this report that I enthusiastically agree with, and time is so limited, that I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I concentrate on the contentious issues that have arisen during the debate and especially where the Government’s responses have been judged to be inadequate or complacent. That word has been repeated by a large number of your Lordships in the debate. For example:

“The Committee is very firm that the promotion of Shared British Values should be separated from counter-extremism policy”.


That is self-evidently so important if we are to achieve a greater positive commitment to the responsibilities and opportunities of citizenship. Frankly, the Government response is very wordy—possibly also rather worthy—but it is scarcely conclusive, persuasive or a model of clarity.

The section on education in the Select Committee’s report is very valuable and many references have been made to it by those who have much more expertise in and experience of this issue than I do. I draw particular attention to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, both of whom as Secretaries of State had a major role in that respect. I pay tribute also to the work done by others over the years, notably by the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Eaton, and of course by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Despite the extensive government response, most of us would say that the current state of citizenship teaching is at best patchy and at worst simply lamentable. The problem is not the quality of those who teach, but the totally inadequate quantity of professionally trained teachers of the subject. There is also a lack of official emphasis on its importance for new citizens.

The Association of Citizenship Teaching has briefed us that we have fewer than one trained specialist teacher per 10 schools, which is roughly the same analysis as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. The free schools and academies seem to be especially weak in this respect. Of course, the fact that it is not covered to the same extent in their curriculum requirements does not help. There was unanimous agreement in the committee that:

“The Government has allowed citizenship education in England to degrade to a parlous state. The decline of the subject must be addressed in its totality as a matter of urgency”.


I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves on the twin issues of volunteering and democratic engagement, and the relationship between them. Turning to the latter, I am aware that some of the initiatives the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office have undertaken have been valuable. I am very committed to the efforts that have already proved successful for attainers, notably the in-house registration programmes in Northern Ireland. They have been so successful that I simply do not understand why they have not been extended to other parts of the United Kingdom. We do not need more pilot schemes; these programmes already work very well and they should be replicated over here.

I have also been involved in attempts to increase successful registration programmes for UK citizens abroad. This is hampered by the now totally anachronistic insistence on linking to a UK constituency that the individual might have left up to 15 years ago; clearly, this will become even more absurd when and if that limit is removed.

Finally, on the issue of naturalisation, I am glad to see that the Government agree with the committee on “good character” requirements for applicants, and that:

“Honest mistakes made during the application process should not by themselves be treated as evidence of bad character”.


I should have thought that that was pretty obvious, and I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said on the tests for children. It is really quite ridiculous that we are still being forced to adopt that attitude. However, what I really do regret is the parsimonious objection by Ministers to the recommendation that states:

“It is inequitable that the Government should seek to make excessive profits out of those seeking naturalisation”.


I should declare an interest, in that my son-in-law, previously an American citizen, saw the sense not only in marrying my daughter but in becoming a British citizen. He has recently been through this exercise. The total costs that can be incurred are well over £1,000. By the time someone has finished the process, it is a great deal more than the £370 that is the actual cost of the administrative burden. I know of several cases where the many hundreds of pounds in fees and other costs have been a real source of aggravation and discouragement. I warmly support the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Judd.

The Minister will, I am sure, do his very best to respond both to the debate and to the exceptionally thoughtful committee report on which it has been based, as he always does. I do not envy him his task today: not only does the scope of the debate and the report attract the generalities that Ministers trot out—although we do not expect them from him—but the current government obsession inevitably leads to an impression of complacency on the hugely important issues involved here. I wish him success.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Committee: 11th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, as a co-signatory to the amendment, I want to make a short contribution in support of the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to pay tribute to our legal advisers, who are not only expert and experienced but amazingly diligent. The noble Lord referred to the committee’s work on the Bill, but he did not make direct reference to paragraph 93 of our third report to the House, the last sentence of which reads:

“The Statute of Proclamations 1539, which gave proclamations the force of statute law and later gave rise to the term ‘Henry VIII power’, was repealed in 1547 (after the King’s death earlier that year)”.


I have not been able to do the necessary follow-up research but, as I understand it, our 16th-century predecessors put around the statute of limitations some additional restrictions that are not in this Bill. As a former Member of the other House, I think that it would be extraordinary if the two Houses of Parliament allowed this to go through. It may seem a minor matter, but in terms of precedent it is extremely important. If we let it through, it seems that we will not have done our job as well as our 16th-century predecessors.

The work that is done by the Delegated Powers Committee is well respected in your Lordships’ House and I am delighted that that is the case. In saying that, I want to make sure that Members of the House know that we have the advice of some extremely assiduous lawyers. I think that the advice that we give the House usually benefits from that. I am not always a huge fan of lawyers, but in this respect I think that we are very well served.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, we come to the next stage of the slow journey of this Bill through the House. I shall look at Clause 9 again and address the issue of what the Act of proclamations provided, but just as a footnote I remind the House that the statute provided in categoric terms that a proclamation could not overrule a statute. One tends to overlook that. Everyone is absolutely riveted, are they not? Schedule 5—what an exciting topic to come to first thing in the morning. The problem, though, is that tucked away in this schedule, as frequently happens, is an issue of principle. That issue is, simply, and I support what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, says, that we are giving an unnecessary, or inappropriate—I do not mind which word we use for these purposes—surrender of power to the Executive. We really must break that habit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

If we can set to one side any concept of malevolence or malign intent on the part of the Government or a Minister, perhaps we can accept that this is a genuine attempt to provide simplicity. If a Minister in a department perceives that an instrument or one of the elements of EU retained law is no longer applicable and is not going to fit in with the new body of law, it is desirable that clarification can be provided in the swiftest possible way and that it should not make its way to the Queen’s printer. I appreciate that there are deeply felt views about this, and I am certain that we will come to this again on Report. I am merely trying to indicate to the Committee what the Government think is not just a sustainable position—

[Lord Tyler]

I am full of admiration for the way in which the noble Baroness appears to be trying to avoid the suggestion that it is executive expediency that is going to determine how this issue is going to be addressed. I think she knows that if she had used that phrase, people all over the House would have said: “We are not into that business”. Perhaps she could be a bit clearer about what considerations she thinks would be in the Minister’s mind to take this particular action.

[Baroness Goldie]

It is a little difficult to predict specific examples. Many of your Lordships have had experience of ministerial positions. I imagine that if an anomaly were brought to the attention of the Minister that something was not going to apply; it was no longer relevant; it did not fit in the new framework of what will be a body of UK law, the Minister would be reasonable in trying to ensure that that element, whatever it was, did not appear to make its way via the Queen’s printer on to what is perceived to be the body of law for the UK.

Some may argue that that is inherently flawed and a deeply suspect way for any Government to behave. In the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves— I suggest that outside of wartime this situation is unprecedented—common sense has to be applied. There has to be a proportionate way of balancing legitimate interests in the constitution with the practical need to make sure that we do not create nonsense in the statute book.

Wales Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)]

My Lords, during the passage of the Wales Bill through this House, many noble Lords pointed to the numbers of young people who registered to vote in the recent referendum in Scotland as a great example of how young people want to get involved in the political process. Noble Lords also expressed the opinion that it would therefore be unfair for young people in Wales to be treated differently from their counterparts in Scotland in the referendum on income tax powers for which this Bill provides. I therefore committed on Report to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to allow the Assembly to decide whether 16 and 17 year-olds should be able to vote in an income tax referendum.

These government amendments provide that when a resolution to hold a referendum on income tax powers is moved in the Assembly, the Assembly must state, as part of that resolution, whether the voting age is to be 16 or 18 for that referendum. Let me be clear: we are not devolving the competence over the franchise in Wales to the Assembly. The franchise will remain solely within the power of Parliament. What we are doing is allowing the Assembly to make a decision in relation to an income tax referendum provided for under this Bill.

The amendments set out that if the Assembly resolves that the voting age in the referendum is to be 16, the resulting order to be laid by the Secretary of State must also provide for the creation and maintenance of a register of young voters. Many 17 year-olds will already be on the register of local government electors as attainers; that is, those who would reach the age of 18 before the creation of the next register, each 1 December. They would not be moved onto this new register of young voters but would still be able to vote in the referendum. This is because eligibility is based on being on either the register of young voters or the register of local government electors. In short, if, come the day of the referendum, the only thing that would stop you from voting in an Assembly election on that day is that you are 16 or 17, you would be eligible to vote in the referendum.

Of course, the voting age at an income tax referendum would be a matter for the Assembly to decide on when it triggers the referendum. At the moment, the Welsh Government have yet even to commit to holding such a referendum. I again urge Welsh Ministers to do so at the earliest opportunity. I have made no secret of the fact that I personally believe that lowering the voting age might help to reinvigorate our democracy. Many of those who spoke in the Assembly debate on this issue on 24 September also support reducing the voting age and would hope that, if and when the time finally comes to hold a trigger vote, Assembly Members will look at how much the debate on the Scottish referendum was invigorated by the number of 16 and 17 year-olds who became involved and would vote therefore accordingly. I therefore ask noble Lords to support these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of Amendments 1 and 2, which I and my colleagues have signed. I want to pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister and her officials for the patience, persistence and professional care with which they have managed to perfect these proposals after so much discussion and improvement in meetings since I first raised the issue at an early stage of our consideration of the Bill. I am confident that we are now well on our way towards this timely reform. I cannot believe that anyone in the other place, or indeed anywhere else, will stand in its way. It would surely be a brave reactionary—even a foolhardy one—who would now claim that Welsh young people are less mature, well informed and well intentioned than their Scottish counterparts.

I have heard mutters that this is the thin end of the wedge. That is not so. The wedge was firmly implanted by the record number of 16 and 17 year-olds who not only registered to vote in their thousands, but then on 18 September ignored the blandishments of the separatists and voted to stay in the United Kingdom. We should recall that all UK parties endorsed the Edinburgh agreement which introduced this simple reform. I observed during the Report stage of this Bill:

“It would surely be constitutionally improper, in what has now been reinforced as a United Kingdom, to differentiate between the basic civic rights and duties of citizens here, simply on their area of residence. If, as I believe, the franchise is the foundation stone of our representative democracy, discrimination on that basis must surely be totally unacceptable”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; col. 158.]

As my noble friend said, it will now be for the Welsh Assembly to complete the process. I am sure that this will prove uncontroversial since a substantial majority of Assembly Members have already declared their support. In the debate of 24 September, to which my noble friend referred, the Conservative spokesperson, Andrew Davies AM, said that:

“My group has a free vote on this particular issue, because there is no party line on whether there should be votes for 16 and 17-year-olds”.

Julie Morgan AM from the Labour Party said that it was encouraging and quite inspiring to see 16 and 17 year-olds involved in the Scottish referendum. The debate was led by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Assembly, who committed themselves there and subsequently, but perhaps even more significant was that the Minister, Jane Hutt AM, said that,

“we support the lowering of the voting age to 16”.

The outcome of that debate, held just two months ago and just after the Scottish vote, was 41 to 11 in favour of this reform. It is now surely unthinkable that any future referendum with equally long-term implications for the country and its citizens could be permitted to lapse back into the pre-2014 limited franchise. Whether that is on UK membership of the EU or any similar major decision, these young people have now earned the right to have their say.

This is a triumph for those who have worked so hard for so long to achieve this reform. The recent Youth Select Committee deserves special mention for its authoritative report, published just a few days ago, which carefully weighs the arguments. But the final and conclusive credit must go to the 110,000 young people in Scotland who showed by their actions that they were ready to take on this responsibility as fully adult citizens of the United Kingdom. I am delighted to support my noble friend.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment as far as it goes. Of course we had amendments on Report that went a little further and would have dealt with voting for young people aged 16 and 17 in other referenda and in elections within Wales itself. I realise that as far as the Bill is concerned, the peg for this change is the fact that income tax is included in it. My colleague and noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas and I would like to have seen a more general approach by giving powers to the Assembly in the generality in order to address issues such as this. The fact that it does not go as far as we would have liked does not mean that we do not support it in going this far.

I was very conscious of the tone set by the Secretary of State, Stephen Crabb, as background to today’s debate. Only last Monday, addressing the Institute of Welsh Affairs, he said:

“We now have a unique opportunity to reshape the future of our Union. The appetite for change is there. People want a stronger voice over their own affairs. It is unmistakable in Scotland … And palpable in Wales. And it is a sentiment that cannot, and will not, be ignored. And I am determined that Wales should not play second fiddle in the current debate on devolution”.

That is very interesting, in the context of the amendments before us today, but it begs the question of how much further—and when—the rest of that commitment is going to be borne out.

We are very much aware that we expect to have the report of the Smith commission on Scotland tomorrow and, no doubt, this will have a relevance to these things. In relation to this amendment, however, can I take it that the Government would be minded to enable the Assembly to use similar powers in any further referendum which was only in a Welsh context? Does the fact that the provision goes only as far as income tax indicate—or not—that the Government do not foresee any further referendum in Wales in the context of further devolution and that that will be undertaken as quickly as possible, without being held up by the need for a referendum?

Wales Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, Amendment 2, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, seeks to enable the National Assembly to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. A number of amendments have been grouped with this one and they point in the same direction. If the amendment is passed, the Assembly would be empowered to determine whether those aged 16 and over could participate in Assembly elections, Welsh local authority elections and any Welsh referendum that may be held. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause ensures that no such change could occur unless,

“two-thirds of the Assembly members participating in the voting”,

support the provision. As might be expected, the amendment was drawn up partly in response to the decision of the Scottish Government to empower 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the September referendum, and having noted the outstanding take-up of that right in Scotland. By polling day, 109,533 16 and 17 year-olds had registered to vote in the Scottish referendum. The impact of that referendum has understandably been felt keenly in our debates on the legislation before us. Whatever people’s politics may be, I hope that I would be correct in asserting that the decision to allow those aged 16 and over to vote in that referendum was commendable and opened up democracy for a new generation. The sheer level of engagement in the referendum was staggering, and if we in Wales and indeed across the United Kingdom can try to emulate such engagement in politics and public life, that will be a tremendous success.

In terms of principle, I believe that there should be no taxation without representation. Young people aged 16 and 17 can have left school, be working and thus paying tax. They should have the right to vote on their representation in Parliament and the Assemblies which determine any such taxation. In 2012, the National Assembly for Wales voted in favour of lowering the voting age to 16, but at present, of course, it does not have the necessary powers to implement that decision. Amendment 2 would give it the powers to do so.

Voting at16 is common practice in many European countries, including Austria, Germany and Norway, as well as in Latin America, in countries such as Argentina and Brazil. I would like to see Wales lead the way in this matter, especially as Assembly Members have already signalled their intention to introduce such measures. My party, Plaid Cymru, is committed to this, and I know that other parties in Wales are also committed.

The other amendments in this group have the same objective. I realise that if the amendment is carried, the Government might want to tidy it up in another place, although the advice that we were given was that the wording was both effective and clear. At the very least, I hope that the Government will realise that there is a widespread wish for this to happen and will not stand in the way of such progress. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in my name in this group—Amendments 3 and 19—I can be relatively brief, since I proposed similar improvements to the Bill in Committee, as those who participated then will recall. The principle of including 16 and 17 year-old fellow citizens in the franchise is now an accepted fact. All parties in this Parliament have endorsed this change. Contrary to the doom mongers’ forecasts, a very high proportion of this age group registered to vote in the Scottish independence referendum—nearly 110,000, which is a remarkable figure. Incidentally, I received the Answer to a Question today indicating that nearly 500,000 young voters in the age group 16 to 18 are currently registering under the new system, so this is a success story under IER.

On 18 September, a very large percentage of those—thousands of them—voted in the actual referendum. In the words of the Intergenerational Foundation newsletter,

“16 to 24 year-olds actually favoured staying in the union by a small margin (35% to 33%) ... the idea that the vision of an independent Scotland would appeal to an iconoclastic streak among the youngest members of the electorate appears to have been misplaced”.

That is putting it mildly. Curiously, it seems that middle-aged men, not women, were the most influenced by the fantastical claims of the separatists. Therefore, if we were to exclude the less mature, the less well informed and the less rational, we might wonder just which cohort we should be excluding from the franchise. It is not the most young; it is others.

There was another testimony from the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke:

“Does the Minister agree that the quality of debate among 16 and 17 year-olds during the referendum debate was astonishing? I admit I was wrong; I was one of the people who thought that it was wrong for the franchise to reduce the voting age to 16. I was comprehensively proved wrong. I heard some of the best debates I have ever heard in a lifetime in politics from 16 and 17 year-olds”.—[Official Report, 16/10/14; col. 295.]

My noble friend Lord Cormack, whom I am pleased to see in his place, made a similar confession on 29 October:

“My eldest grand-daughter voted at the age of 16. I do not necessarily agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, on that, but I know that my grand-daughter and all her classmates took this matter exceptionally seriously”.—[Official Report, 29/10/14; col. 1261.]

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Of course they did, and I will say something about that if I have an opportunity later. However, I did not, do not, and do not think I ever will, agree with extending the franchise to 16 year-olds universally.

[Lord Tyler]

My noble friend is the personification of constitutional rectitude, so I will not be surprised if he finds my argument absolutely conclusive, that having extended the franchise to this particular group in one part of our United Kingdom, we should look at the relevance of that to other parts. That brings us to the heart of the matter: it is surely unthinkable that this hugely successful precedent could or should be simply overturned. I ask my noble friend to think about this: if my brother, long-since resident in Wales, had a grand- daughter aged 16, and there was a similar referendum vote there, which Member of your Lordships’ House—including my noble friend—would deny her the franchise? Which noble Lords would dare to suggest that Welsh young people are less mature, less well informed or less rational than their Scottish counterparts?

Anyone who still doubts that we have moved on—that the dam has broken—should read the excellent Youth Select Committee report, published last week, entitled, Lowering the Voting Age to 16. With remorseless logic, the committee examined all the familiar arguments and then arrived at this clear conclusion:

“We recommend that the Government introduce legislation to set the age at which people become eligible to vote in all elections at 16”.

As the Select Committee makes abundantly clear, we are no longer discussing theories. Any of my Conservative friends who retain misgivings must now accept the facts: the time to resist on principle has passed. The precedent is unanswerable.

My two amendments deliberately distinguish between elections to the Welsh Assembly, on the one hand, and any future significant referendum in Wales on the other. The latter, of course, is even more relevant after the Scottish experience than the former.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My noble friend is making a very strong argument in principle for 16 year-olds benefiting from the franchise, but why not extend that to allowing them to stand for election? Why not extend it to the general election? Where is the principle here that he is applying?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I do not know if my noble friend heard some of the discussion earlier about the piecemeal way in which we are attacking these problems. It would just be inappropriate—as he will know, as a very distinguished parliamentarian—for me to try to insert this into this particular Bill, so I am not trying to do so.

Since Committee, the Minister and her officials have responded most helpfully and with continuous attention to the points I raised then. She has been fully committed to the positive answers that she gave to me and the rest of your Lordships’ House, and I am enormously grateful to her. I note that in Amendment 2, noble Lords opposite have taken up a suggestion I made in Committee, that the referendum issue should be treated on a similar basis as that in Scotland. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There is clearly a strong case for the decision to be taken in the Assembly, but we believe that a strong steer from this Parliament is appropriate on something as crucial as the franchise.

Here I would like to refer to the similar exercise that took place before the Scottish referendum. In the Edinburgh agreement, in paragraph 10, there was this statement:

“The Scottish Government’s consultation on the referendum also set out a proposal for extending the franchise to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the referendum. It will be for the Scottish Government to decide whether to propose extending the franchise for this referendum and how that should be done. It will be for the Scottish Parliament to approve the referendum franchise, as it would be for any referendum on devolved matters”.

That was not the end of the matter, and I would be grateful if the Minister would consider this point, because there was then a vote on the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill in the Scottish Parliament on 27 June. There was a vote, and the Deputy Presiding Officer told the Parliament that the result of the Division was: 103 for; 12 against; abstentions, nought. I think we should record abstentions in this House, because abstentions would usually outnumber those attending, but that is a different matter for a different occasion. The reason for mentioning that is, of course, that that was a simple majority in the Scottish Parliament, and I would like the Minister to give some consideration to that in her response to this group of amendments.

The main point, which I hope the Minister will now accept, is that the case in principle is unanswerable. I hope that she therefore will be able to give us a very positive response to these amendments today. I hope that, if we are not able to conclude the matter today, we can do so before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House.

It would be surely be constitutionally improper, in what has now been reinforced as a United Kingdom, to differentiate between the basic civic rights and duties of citizens here, simply on the basis of their area of residence. If, as I believe, the franchise is the foundation stone of our representative democracy, then discrimination on that basis must surely be totally unacceptable.

As a footnote, on 11 November 2014, we can recall that young men and women gave their all in two world wars to secure true representative democracy. This is just one more step to advance that cause and prevent unfair discrimination between our fellow citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about the significance of grants that I hope would continue to be made from the Government in London—the Government of the United Kingdom. I have some anxieties that the conferral of tax-raising powers on Wales may be the prelude to a rather drastic withdrawal of redistributive taxation and grant giving across the United Kingdom as a whole. The noble Lord is quite right that these are very difficult issues. I acknowledge the force of what he said on that particular point.

Where I have a reservation about this group of amendments is that they seem to envisage perpetual referendums. There is a reference in all of them to referendums. Personally, I very much hope that the people of Wales will not reach a point in their politics when they conduct a referendum on independence for Wales. I do not want to contemplate that. Nor would it be a good idea if the people of Wales developed the habit of conducting a series of referendums on ad hoc issues. To the extent that we resort to referendums to solve tricky issues in our domestic politics, we tend to undermine representative government and the Parliament of Westminster. I will just finish the point and then give way to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. We would equally undermine the authority of the Welsh Assembly if it became a habit or reflex to have referendums, however populist that might be.

[Lord Tyler]

I just wanted to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that there is of course a very considerable section of the Bill dealing precisely with referendums—or referenda, as I prefer to describe them. The noble Lord will have to accept that these are entirely relevant to the Bill and therefore a very likely prospect in Wales at some point.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

They are relevant to the Bill but the fact that the Bill deals with referendums does not make referendums any more desirable. On the question of gerunds and gerundives, I hope that there is perhaps a noble Lord in the House who can resolve this issue between the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and myself, and tell us whether they should be referred to as referenda or referendums.

--- Later in debate ---

In answer to my noble friend, I say that we are indeed legislating here for Wales, and I am sorry that the approach has been piecemeal. Of course the Bill will go through, but with as few additions as possible, I hope.

[Lord Tyler]

Does my noble friend not accept that, if there is to be a comprehensive exercise involving a royal commission, a convention or whatever, it will take quite a long time? I think that he and I will both wish to make representations to it, and on past form the whole process could take several years. Would my noble friend be kind enough to address the question that I put specifically to him and to others in the House: if there is to be any sort of referendum, in the terms of the Bill, within that period, is he prepared to deny to my notional great-niece in Wales what his granddaughter experienced, enjoyed and took such good advantage of in Scotland? During the period before the comprehensive exercise is complete, is a 16 year-old in Wales to be denied what has been permitted to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland?

[Lord Cormack]

I do not favour votes at 16, so I would be hypocritical in the extreme if I said, “Yes, of course”, to the idea. I think that we made a mistake in Scotland, and the whole thing needs looking at very carefully. If, as a result of that careful deliberation, the consensus solution—as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell puts it—is votes at 16, so be it. But I do not wish to move further in that direction at the moment. I do not think that is a necessary part of this Bill; that is a further answer to my noble friend Lord Wigley. I therefore hope that the Government will resist these amendments, however persuasively they have been put by people for whom I have real regard and affection.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, if I had had the vote at 16, I would have voted Labour, but I grew out of it. I grew up and I grew out of it. The experience of the Scottish referendum was remarkable. I guess that those on my Front Bench probably want me to make a short speech. If I was to make a short speech, I would say: “I told you so”.

When we agreed that the Scottish Parliament could decide the franchise for the referendum, we gave up the argument. It became impossible to resist the argument for referenda in other devolved areas. We did that, I believe, without giving the matter proper consideration. We have not at any stage had a debate on the franchise. I asked my noble friend Lord Tyler whether he would extend it to general elections and candidates, and he gave me a politician’s answer. He did not answer the point; he said that it is not relevant to the Bill; but it is, it seems to me. If we are to give 16 year-olds the vote, why should we not allow them to stand as candidates for the bodies for which they have the vote as councillors or Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly? Why should we limit that?

Other issues arise. Why do you have the right in Scotland to decide to break up the United Kingdom but not the right to buy a packet of cigarettes? We need to have a considered debate about what rights should apply to 16 year-olds. My noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cormack emphasised earlier today that you cannot proceed with constitutional reform on a piecemeal basis; it must be looked at in the round.

I am becoming desperately alarmed at the way in which the political parties are now engaged in a competition to use constitutional reform to get votes. That is disastrous. I was brought up in a tradition where constitutional reform was something which you did not do unless you had consensus, unless you could show precedent and unless you had taken a considerable time to consider the implications and unintended consequences, which always follow from constitutional reform. I am very much in the camp of the Labour Party in wanting a constitutional convention, a royal commission, or something to look at all the issues in the round, recognise how far we have gone so far and do something about it.

We are engaged in highly dangerous stuff. If you do not believe that, look at the opinion polls in Scotland today. We have just won a referendum. We won the argument decisively. What has happened? The unionist parties have seen their support slump. According to the opinion polls, Labour is looking at having only four seats in Scotland. The Tories have our lowest ever recorded share of the vote—that is saying something—at 8% to 10%, and the nationalists are romping ahead. Why? Because of that last-minute promise made of extra powers, not defined, and the consequences that have followed from that. We are in grave danger of dismantling our British constitution like some fine clock, taking out the wheels and finding that we no longer know the time of day.

[Lord Tyler]

Perhaps I may take my noble friend back from his party-political forays to the issue of principle, with which I have sympathy. He said that two things were essential: consensus and precedent. Does he accept that there was consensus? The Prime Minister led the consensus that the Scottish Parliament should be permitted to include the franchise for 16 and 17 year-olds. He may not agree, but there was one between the parties. Secondly, the noble Lord must accept that there is now a precedent. Young people in Scotland have exercised the vote in a referendum. We know that the commission—or conventions or whatever it may be—that will look at the constitution in the round will take some time. In that intervening period, does he not recognise that for young people of comparable age in Wales, in a comparable referendum, the precedent is established?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 3 and 19, in the name of my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Morgan, would reduce the age for voting in an election to the National Assembly for Wales and any referendum held under Clause 12 from the age of 18 to 16. Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would devolve to the Assembly the power to lower the voting age to 16 for elections to the Assembly and local authorities, as well as referenda.

The debate around whether the voting age should be lowered has of course been given fresh focus by the independence referendum in Scotland. As many noble Lords have made clear in their remarks here today, that was the first major poll in the UK in which 16 and 17 year-olds were able to participate. Whether your Lordships regard that as a mistake or not, it was a very successful mistake. Taken as an exercise in civic engagement, it was extraordinarily successful. As a long-time supporter of lowering the voting age, I very much welcome the fact that so many young people took advantage of the opportunity offered to them to have their say on that vital question on the future of Scotland. I share the joy of my noble friend Lord Tyler that so many of them appear to have voted to preserve the union.

However, I recognise that lowering the voting age is in itself no magic bullet. For example, in the Isle of Man the voting age is 16 and it still suffers from very low turnout rates. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that children do not grow up overnight and that there is a period of transition when young people are trying out their wings, if I may put it that way, in which they need support and proper civic education. Yet it can work well, as the Scottish situation has proved.

The Government have recognised the strength of feeling in the House, expressed in Committee and by a number of noble Lords this afternoon, that 16 and 17 year-olds in Wales should have the same opportunity to participate in the income tax referendum that their counterparts enjoyed in Scotland. The ability of 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in that referendum represented the will of the Scottish Parliament, answerable to the Scottish people. It was not a decision made in Westminster, as Amendments 2, 3 and 19 would be. That is why I can today commit that, at Third Reading, the Government will bring forward amendments to enable the Assembly to decide whether 16 and 17 year-olds should vote in the income tax referendum, whenever it is held.

My noble friend Lord Tyler referred to the vote of 103 to 12 in the Scottish Parliament; noble Lords can do no better than to read the debate on this issue in the Assembly record of 24 September to gain an impression of how the Assembly would vote on this issue. There is overwhelming support in the Assembly for votes at 16.

[Lord Tyler]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and to her officials for all the discussions that have taken place since Committee. I want to ask her one particular question. She referred to the Scottish Parliament decision which I read. The Scottish Parliament does not have the same internal regulations about the nature of the vote. It was a simple majority. Am I right in thinking that in the Welsh Assembly there is a precedent for decisions of this sort to require a two-thirds majority? That is an important difference. In giving a lead to the Assembly at Third Reading, as she is proposing, we may want to consider that matter.

[Baroness Randerson]

I may stand to be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, whose experience of Assembly Standing Orders is much more recent than mine, but I believe that the two-thirds majority would still stand on issues such as this. I can see that he is nodding so there would be a requirement for a two-thirds majority, which is an Assembly Standing Order requirement.

I think we would all agree that this is a significant step in terms of Welsh devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Coventry]

My Lords, it is 94 years since the voice of the bishops in Wales has been heard in this House but, as my noble Lord Roberts implied, I thought it right to consult the Church in Wales, and the Archbishop of Wales in particular, about the amendments, which seem to me to have a great deal of merit, to see whether their voice might be heard today indirectly, as it were. As a result, I can say that the Archbishop of Wales has asked me to convey to your Lordships’ House that the bishops of the Church in Wales are very supportive of the amendments. Indeed, I understand that they also support the extension of the franchise, as was proposed and discussed earlier, but I chose to concentrate my consultations on these amendments.

As are Members of your Lordships’ House, the bishops in Wales are very conscious of and concerned about low levels of political engagement in Wales. The Church in Wales has been working hard on its own structures to increase participation in its governance, especially among young people, so it is very glad to give its backing to the amendments as practical steps in national government both to encourage a higher level of voter registration, especially among young people, and, as a necessary corollary, to further political education in the schools and colleges of Wales.

On a more personal level, I believe that the bishops of the Church in Wales are right to support the amendments. I hope that what is done in Wales will model ways forward—somewhat along the lines described by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—as laboratories of best electoral processes for the whole of the UK, as was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We need ways to improve levels of voter registration and to educate and, moreover, inspire young people in the responsibilities and opportunities of political engagement.

The amendments seem to me to be of great help in hooking young people into the political process, so that when they are entitled, they are primed and ready to go.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am delighted to be a cosignatory of Amendment 15 in the name of my noble friend and others. I want to take issue to a very limited extent with both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who I think are being slightly too pessimistic about the level of interest of young people in registration. The Scottish example is wonderful in that respect, but it is also true that Bite the Ballot, to which reference has been made, has made some real progress this year. It has been by making sure that it there is peer-to-peer encouragement—I do not mean Peer in the sense of Members in this House, I mean the real reference of young people to young people of the issues that are at stake. I have today had an Answer to a Question from the Minister for the Cabinet Office. My Question was:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to improve electoral registration rates among those attaining the age of 18”.

I will not read the whole Answer because it is substantial, but just two important paragraphs:

“To support the transition to Individual Electoral Registration, the Government has invested £4.2 million in 2013/14 shared across every ERO in Great Britain and 5 national organisations to support the costs of activities aimed at increasing the rate of voter registration.

The Government has also introduced online registration in Great Britain. As of midnight 28 October, 478,177 16-24 year olds had registered online”.—[Official Report, 10/11/14; col. WA 4.]

In a relatively short period this is a success story. I do not think that we should be too depressed or pessimistic about this problem.

As the Minister will know, I have sat for some time on a small cross-party informal group advising the Electoral Commission. Therefore I take very seriously indeed the guidance it gives us. In its note on this part of the Bill and the amendments to the Bill, it says:

“We strongly support the principle of EROs—

that is obviously electoral registration officers—

“visiting schools and talking to young people about democratic participation. This should form part of their local strategies to promote electoral registration generally and to target those groups who are least likely to be registered to vote … All 22 EROs in Wales have specific plans in place highlighting how they will work with schools and the further education sector in order to engage with attainers and young people”.

I think there is a consensus across the House—certainly among all those who have already spoken—that this is an important issue. Maybe, however, the concern some of us have is whether it is appropriate for statute. Is it appropriate to be in the Bill to this extent and in this detail? Hence the very brief amendment that I endorse.

I accept, however, that my noble friend the Minister may well feel that the Government are already committed —in supporting the Electoral Commission financially, and in terms of guidance and instruction where that is appropriate—to make sure that what we are seeking will happen with or without this amendment. I therefore look forward with interest to hearing how the Minister feels that we can best achieve the objectives which I think we share throughout the House.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, is it not a principal purpose of education to enable young people to think for themselves, to form views on informed and discerning bases and to take good decisions? In no sphere of life is this more important than democracy. Education should be a preparation for democracy. That is why I support these amendments, and very particularly Amendment 14.

Wales Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elis-Thomas (PC)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my colleague in the adjacent barony of Llandudno, along with my colleague in the barony of Llanrwst, for introducing this topic. I speak of course, as the Lord of Nant Conwy—a fine historic barony in the history of Wales—but we will leave that for today. Before the Minister responds to the debate, let me say that I would encourage her to respond positively.

As noble Lords will be aware today, for the feast of St Edward the Confessor holy communion in the abbey close to us occurs at his shrine, which unfortunately also includes the grave of Edward I—a place that I do not normally visit. But having visited that place this lunchtime has enabled me further to consider how appropriate it is that, at this time of the feast of St Edward the Confessor, we should continue our debate on the future of the nations of these islands. Such a debate is stimulated by the whole question of participation.

The Minister will be aware, because she and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, were there at the time, that the Assembly is already empowered to spend money to promote its activities as a part of democratic participation. We did that alongside the Electoral Commission in the period before the last referendum. But these have been sporadic initiatives. What we want is a systemic way in which to ensure that there is automatic participation by the potential electorate before they get to voting age in democratic elections, by being clearly included and prompted. There is no coercion here; it should be seen as part of citizenship that the opportunity to participate is presented to the potential voter.

I remember an occasion when I took part in one of these promotion things when I visited my native county of Carmarthenshire and spoke to young people in primary school, whereupon we had a real vote in the classroom itself. At the end of the day, apparently, one of the young pupils went home and told her parents, “A man from Cardiff whom I had seen on television came to my school and told me to tell you that you have to come out to vote”. So there are dangers in these things. The more we can make this acceptable as a painless and democratic part of our electoral system, the better. This might be the first opportunity for the Minister to accept an amendment in principle and bring back an even better one on Report.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to add my signature to this group of amendments. Although I am very proud of my Celtic ancestry in a different part of the United Kingdom, I am not Welsh, not a lawyer and not even a Methodist local preacher. So I can be incredibly succinct in saying that what is so important about this group of amendments is that it is based not on any theory but on practical experience both in Northern Ireland and now in Scotland, as my noble friend Lord Roberts has said. I hope that, in that spirit, the Minister will be able to accept these amendments in toto because they do not in any way extend into a new area. They simply take advantage of the practical experience we have had in other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, given the very disappointing levels of registration and turnout among young people to which both the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and my noble friend have referred, we clearly need to be a lot more energetic and imaginative in the ways in which we seek to engage young people in our democratic processes. I find the proposals in these amendments very attractive, but I wonder whether the Minister, or the noble Lord who moved these amendments, would offer any thoughts on two issues.

The first is that it is going to cost money. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, suggested that these processes could be carried out even, perhaps, at a profit. I would be grateful if he could clarify how this might occur because, if we ask electoral registration officers to take on additional responsibilities and to become busier, it is likely to cost money. In this time of austerity, when local authorities are operating within such extremely stringent financial limits, there are questions about priorities. When local authorities are finding it extremely difficult to carry out the responsibilities that they wish to do in relation to education, social services, housing and so forth, where would the pursuit of improved levels of electoral registration best lie within their scale of priorities?

The other issue on which I would be interested to hear the views of the Minister and of the noble Lord is whether we should move to giving the vote to young people at the age of 16. Of course we want to encourage young people to participate in our democracy. Many young people would wish to do so and feel ready to do so at 16. When I was the Member of Parliament for Newport East and used to hold meetings with sixth-formers in my constituency, I was quite surprised to find how many young people had their doubts as to whether it was appropriate to lower the voting age to 16. I would be interested to hear the thoughts of noble Lords opposite as to whether that sentiment has changed in the 10 years since I ceased to be a Member of Parliament for a Welsh constituency and whether, if we enfranchise people at 16, we will see them positively engaging in democracy with that new opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

There are of course two issues here. There is data matching to check that you have accurate information about those who are on the register, and data mining to spot people who are not on the register but who ought to be. The full evaluation of both these approaches will be available in the summer of 2015.

[Lord Tyler]

As my noble friend will know, I have been following the DVLA issue through the IER process for a number of years and I welcome what she has just said. But even more valuable than all these pilot studies would be to look very carefully indeed at the very recent experience in Scotland. The levels of registration, particularly among young people, exceeded anything we have seen anywhere else in the United Kingdom. One of the differences between Scotland and Northern Ireland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other is that there is greater direction in Scotland to the local electoral registration process to make sure that there is an equal quality of service at the lower level.

As I mentioned quickly in my previous remarks, I encourage the Minister and her colleagues to look very carefully indeed at the recent experience in Scotland. It is practical experience—it is not a pilot in a particular area. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said earlier, it gives added impetus to the suggestion that now is the right time to take a forward step in this area.

[Baroness Randerson]

My noble friend makes a good point. Of course, the Electoral Commission will be doing a report on the referendum in Scotland that will cover those issues.

I recognise that there is considerable sympathy in this Chamber and beyond for the aims of Amendment 20. I assure noble Lords that I share them. However, the Government are already taking steps to increase the engagement and registration levels of traditionally underregistered groups. Five national organisations and every registration officer in Wales, as in England and Scotland, have shared £4.2 million of funding aimed at maximising the rate of voter registration as part of the transition to IER. I draw my noble friend’s attention to the fact that every electoral registration officer in Wales has received that funding—not just one. Cardiff received almost £25,000 in order to engage more with underregistered groups and Ceredigion received £4,290 in order to take that work on. The amounts given were based on a formula that related to the level of underregistration in every local authority throughout Great Britain and the number of 16 to 18 year-olds within that area specifically so that EROs could go into schools and do the engagement work that is encompassed in my noble friend’s amendment.

Perhaps I may also respond to his comment that it needs only a tick in a box—would that that were so. Unfortunately, there is a complex legal basis for voting. The form has to be set out in a particular way and it has to be of some considerable length. The tick-box would work in terms of expressing an interest in voting, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, pointed out, it means that you have to follow up on the person. It is to be hoped that if they have ticked a box, they would respond to a letter, but people often tick boxes and then do not respond to a letter, so they could well require door-to-door canvassing. Ticking a box sounds good and it works up to a point, but in itself it does not actually get anyone on to the register. Northern Ireland is indeed a case of best practice in our country. That effort was based on going into schools and getting young people to fill in paper forms. The crucial difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is that Northern Ireland has a paper-based system and we now have online electoral registration.

Perhaps I may return to the amendment. I know that the Electoral Commission sent a briefing to noble Lords setting out its view that while it strongly supports the principle of EROs working with local education establishments to encourage registration, there is no need for additional legislation to provide for this. I should point out that there is no obligation in Northern Ireland on the electoral officer to engage with schools and colleges. That work was done without any legal obligation or basis. However, in the light of concerns expressed by noble Lords and indeed in the letter referred to from the four party leaders in the Assembly, I will be happy to look at this issue again. However, I should say that registration officers already can and do visit schools, colleges and other locations in Wales in order to target under-registered groups and fantastic work is being done up and down the country by civil society organisations to find new ways of reaching a range of underregistered groups and encouraging them to register to vote. The Government are proud to fund this type of activity and I congratulate the wide range of organisations engaged in this work.

I want to make a final point about Northern Ireland in response to the comments made about the low levels of registration among young people there. Yes, the figures were woefully low in part because they had not been doing the annual canvass. That has proved to be the crucial thing. The annual canvass must be maintained alongside all the additional work. However, given that registration had fallen to very low levels in Northern Ireland, considerable remedial work needed to be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to the National Assembly. The National Assembly has an excellent record in terms of its outreach work with young people. I think that at one point the Assembly was the major tourist attraction in Wales. A large number of young people come into the Assembly to learn about politics and to hear excellent debates. That is the kind of thing I was referring to in the first sentence of my response. It is about more than registration—you have to engage young people and explain why it is relevant to them.

I have already referred briefly to online registration. It brings voter registration into the 21st century and it is particularly attractive to young people because it is easier, simpler and faster. More than 410,000 applications have been made online by people aged between 16 and 24 since 1 July this year. More than 90% of the users of the system have been either satisfied or very satisfied, so it is obviously an easy system to use. The Electoral Commission has further noted that a statutory change specifically relating to electoral registration officers in Wales would be complex to manage at a time when they are dealing with things throughout the UK on IER. However, in the light of the concerns and the consensus here today, I certainly undertake that, before Report, I will discuss with the Minister for the Constitution all the issues that have been raised. I will also discuss with the Electoral Commission the issues that it put forward in its circular to all of us saying that these amendments are not necessary.

Wales Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

12: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Franchise for Assembly elections to include 16 and 17 year olds
In section 12 of GOWA 2006 (entitlement to vote), at the end of subsection (1) insert “, or(c) those who would be so entitled and registered under this subsection had they attained the age of 18 but who at the time of an election held under Part 1 of this Act are aged 16 or 17 years old.(1A) For the purposes of this section, the Welsh Ministers must by regulation make provision for registration officers to take necessary steps to register 16 and 17 year olds.
(1B) Regulations for necessary steps under subsection (1A) must include, but are not limited to, those listed in section 9A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (registration officers: duty to take necessary steps).””

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friends and I are very pleased to lead on this group of amendments, just as we have led the debate on this issue for more than a decade. In that time, cross-party support has grown, not least for my Private Member’s Bill, which was debated in the House in October 2013. We are now pleased to have the support of the Labour Front Bench in both Houses.

Only the Conservative leadership remains unconvinced, and yet the irony is, of course, that it has been the Prime Minister himself who, through his agreement with the Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary and with Alex Salmond, has let the genie out of the bottle. The evidence for this change no longer lies merely on foreign shores but here in the United Kingdom. The new clauses in Amendments 12 and 46 within the scope of this Bill argue separately for extending the franchise for Welsh Assembly elections, and for extending the franchise for any referendum on future tax-raising powers for the Assembly, to 16 year-olds and 17 year- olds.

Sixteen year-olds will be liable to pay tax. Why, then, should they not be responsible, in common with their fellow citizens, for voting on who should levy that tax? We support, too, the spirit of the Labour Front Bench’s Amendment 18, which would extend the right to vote to 16 year-olds at Welsh local elections. Indeed, on these Benches we support the extension to all United Kingdom elections.

This cannot any longer be considered controversial. What would be much more controversial, having extended the franchise on the question of the utmost importance of one part of the United Kingdom in the recent referendum, would be to retract that and go back to a voting age of 18. Removing that right from voters who have had that right in the upcoming general election would be extraordinary—and very controversial.

There will be an important election next year. What could be more important than the future governance of our country? Your Lordships’ House will be familiar with the excellent work of Kenny Imafidon in his two reports on democratic engagement among young people. He has given me a sneak preview of his third report, which rightly concludes:

“If we do not let 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, vote at our next election, we—the UK—will be the first democracy to enfranchise a group of voters, then take away their right to vote … for no logical reason”.

I could not put it better myself. Enfranchising 16 year-olds has plainly been a triumphant success in one part of the United Kingdom. It is extraordinary to note that their turnout was very good indeed. More than 80% of 16 and 17 year-olds registered to vote. That itself is a record.

No one could claim that their enfranchisement dragged down the overall turnout. The referendum had a higher turnout than any election in living memory. We all saw on our television screens young people who had been engaged by the process and were ready to vote again. What a scandal it would be if some of them were denied that right next year.

International evidence also supports those of us who would extend the franchise to all elections. Eva Zeglovits from the Austrian National Election Study team tells us:

“Results from Austria show that turnout of 16- and 17-year-olds is in fact higher than turnout of older first-time voters and is nearly as high as the overall turnout”.

The argument extends well beyond the simple issue of turnout. If not turning out were a reason for disenfranchising a group of people, all sorts would lose their vote. Some of us might say that, if maturity is the test of whether someone should be enfranchised, many older people would find themselves excluded. Indeed, extensive analysis of voting intentions in the Scottish referendum tells us that it was middle-aged men who took an arguably more emotional and less rational view in supporting independence. They could be said to have been immature.

Of course, their younger and older counterparts, and women, were a great deal more mature in their attitude to that particular question. Meanwhile, recent opinion polls and parliamentary election results might just suggest that it is an older demographic that is the most irrational and immature, giving reasons that seem to show that they are prepared to gamble with the country’s future in an effort to stop the world so they can get off. I suspect that even in your Lordships’ House nobody would argue that such emotional reactions warrant removing someone’s right to vote. Yet somehow that same argument is allowed to go unchecked in relation to 16 and 17 year-olds, whom people wrongly write off as unable to make a rational choice.

Again, there is some international evidence here. The Austrian experience is instructive. The latest study, to which I referred just now, also finds that while political interest was lower among younger than older age groups, young voters still made an informed choice when they cast their vote. It stated:

“The congruence between attitudes and the vote choice of teenage voters is comparable to adult voters”.

I know that the discussion goes on: why should 16 be right and 18 wrong? One of the strongest arguments is that those who cast their first vote at 16 are likely to do so in the community where they grow up, where it means something more to them than, perhaps, when they leave home and go to a different part of the country. We make so much in this country of the importance of a local link between representatives and those they represent. I endorse that, as someone who was very proud to represent the North Cornwall constituency for a fair number of years. That link is a key pillar in the argument for votes at 16.

In Norway, where they piloted votes at 16 just at local elections, the Institute of Social Research in Oslo found that turnout and interest is higher among 16 and 17 year olds than among the 18 to 24 year-old cohort. It says that two factors explain this:

First, 16 and 17 year-olds are more easily mobilised than their slightly older peers. They still go to school, live at home, and have not moved out of their local community. Second, the selected municipalities made considerable efforts to mobilise their young voters—this was also a prestige project.

It could and should become a prestige project here, too, with the aim of making a 16 year-old’s vote the first of many that they will cast through their life. Amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Roberts, along with the work done by Bite the Ballot, would also be crucial to that project, and to achieving success and extending the franchise. We will debate those amendments later this evening or on a future occasion.

We return from the Summer Recess celebrating that our United Kingdom is still united, and with an unexpected bonus. The referendum opened up debate about how our democracy works and blew away old assumptions about participation. The idea that the electorate is congenitally apathetic was confounded by the response of the Scottish people to a real democratic choice. For too long it has been our political establishment that has been apathetic, content to leave things as they are in the hope that a few middle-aged voters in a few middle England marginal seats would deliver one or other party a tired victory at each election. Well, no more. Extending the franchise is a first step to reinvigorating our politics, creating a seamless link between citizenship education, voter registration and then active participation in the electoral process itself.

Our amendments argue that we should do this in Wales, but we should do it in the whole of our renewed United Kingdom, debunking the idea that these basic rights should differ around the UK. We argue for an equal, constant right for all 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the election next year, the devolved elections after that and, certainly, in any referendum on the vital political and economic issue of the future of this country in Europe. This right should extend to all UK citizens with the responsibilities in society which 16 and 17 year-olds now bear. Any other outcome after the Scottish experience would amount to completely unacceptable discrimination—evidence of a disunited kingdom. Votes at 16 is a principle for which I and my colleagues have argued tirelessly. It is an idea whose time has come—now. I beg to move.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who made such an excellent case for votes for all 16 year-olds in all elections.

The Labour Party position is quite firmly that 16 year-olds should be able to vote in general elections. We believe that the time has now come for 16 year-olds in Wales to be able to vote in the Welsh Assembly elections. Ed Miliband confirmed at the Labour Party conference that there will be a manifesto commitment for next year’s general election, which will include a pledge to lower the voting age to 16 for general elections, as we pledged in the 2010 general election. That would allow more than 1.5 million 16 and 17 year-olds to participate in elections for the first time.

We saw how the 16 and 17 year-olds came out to vote in the Scottish referendum. The shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, has said:

“Despite warnings from the sceptics, 16 and 17-year-olds did come out and vote and engage in the big issues over the future of Scotland. This is all the more reason why the voting age should be lowered for all elections. It’s an idea whose time has come”.

Labour has been calling for a lowering of the voting age for some time. After the referendum in Scotland, there is very little reason why it should not be full steam ahead for all the elections.

The Welsh Labour Government believe that lowering the voting age would demonstrate a strong commitment to an effective democracy in our nation. Encouraging and engaging young people in this way would help to improve voter turnout, again, as the recent experience in Scotland has shown. Lowering the voting age would also clearly demonstrate to young people in Wales that they are being taken seriously and that their views will be listened to. The Welsh Government support and value strong, effective democracy and recognise that the involvement of young people in the democratic process is essential to achieving that. At present, 16 and 17 year-olds are deemed old enough to pay taxes, leave school, marry and join the Armed Forces, along with a wide range of other responsibilities. Why should they be denied the right to vote on how those taxes are spent, as well as on the direction of education, defence and other public policies?

However, the Welsh Government currently do not have the power to legislate on the voting age for elections held in Wales, as the UK Government retain responsibility for the conduct of elections and for the franchise. That is why the amendment is before your Lordships’ House tonight. While the Welsh Labour Government do not have the power to lower the voting age across Wales, in decision-making they encourage youth and pupil participation and have enabled them to have an important voice in our society. One example is the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011, which provided for the appointment of up to two community youth representatives to a community council.

In 2002, the Welsh Government established the Sunderland commission on electoral arrangements. It looked at local government electoral arrangements and recommended a reduction in the voting age to 16. Regulations from the Welsh Labour Government in 2005 also established school councils in maintained primary and secondary schools in Wales. They play a part in making key appointments, as well as implementing budget decisions and representing the views of their peers, which is part of learning about the democratic process. We have given that responsibility to younger people and they have shown that they can deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, until the last few seconds of my noble friend’s contribution I thought that we were going to have a very nice end to the evening. I have heard in this House and in the other House the doctrine of unripe time so often that it is frankly getting rather boring.

I remind my noble friend that in the House of Commons debate to which she referred there was actually a majority in favour of making this change. What is different about this issue compared with a number of the others discussed earlier in the evening, all of them important, is that the clock is ticking on this one. Those young 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland will in a matter of eight or nine months be denied the opportunity to use their democratic right again. The clock is ticking on this. We cannot say that it can be easily delayed and dealt with in other legislation, and that it is premature. The vote in Scotland means that we have to adopt the wholesale approach and avoid the piecemeal one to which the Minister has been referring. We have to make progress on this one. The initiative has already been taken in Scotland, with support across all parties. That is what is different about this issue.

I know that the Minister’s sympathies are entirely with us on this, but I must warn her that she should warn her colleagues in the coalition that this issue is not going to go away. It will come back on Report in your Lordships’ House. If we are able to make sure that it does, it will come up again in the other House. The time has come for this issue. It cannot be delayed. Nevertheless, for the time being I am happy to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has returned to the principles of this Bill because it enables me briefly to return to the report of your Lordships’ Committee on the Constitution, which I have the honour to chair and which I note the Minister did not refer to. Well, he referred to it only in passing; he did not refer to the fact that the Committee was on the whole opposed to the idea of the principle of fixed-term Parliaments and was very much in support of the idea that if they were to be undertaken they should have four-year terms rather than five-year terms.

In supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, it is more appropriate to refer again to the Constitution Committee’s strictures on the processes that produced this Bill. Your Lordships will recall that one of the things that the Committee felt most strongly about was that the Bill had been brought forward with as many political concerns and ambitions in mind as constitutional principles. In fact, we were very concerned that this was seen as a short-term measure designed to extend and protect the five-year term of the present coalition Government, and not something that was designed properly to change the constitution.

We also referred to the fact—as the Minister said in his opening remarks—that there was some time in Parliament for the Bill to be considered, although I noted that my noble friend Lord Howarth referred to the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny that we felt was desirable in this case. None of the pre-legislative scrutiny or any of the processes that we as a committee felt should have been undertaken to ensure that the Bill had widespread support in making a major change to the constitution had been undertaken. There was no Green Paper and no White Paper, and although Ministers appearing before the committee said at the time that this was because it was early in the Parliament—as the Minister said—we felt that there was no time limit on this Bill in the way that there was on the referendum legislation that was brought forward with equal speed early in the Parliament, so there was nothing to prevent this Bill being considered in what we would have thought was the proper way for a constitutional Bill of this significance.

I add in conclusion that your Lordships’ committee has now undertaken, partly because of our concern about this Bill, a full-scale inquiry into the process of constitutional change that we have just completed and which I very much look forward to having the opportunity to debate with your Lordships following the Recess.

[Lord Tyler]

I agree very much with the noble Baroness and respect the views of her committee. In thinking about process, does she think that the novel constitutional process that the amendments introduce is a short-cut, without proper process, to look at major primary legislation by resolution of the two Houses, which could be in conflict, or does she think that that is a proper constitutional process?

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, the committee’s position, and certainly my personal position, is that given the inadequate processes that have produced this legislation, some form of post-legislative scrutiny was needed. I do not remember whether the noble Lord was present when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, led the previous debate on a similar subject, but the discussion included the issue of whether there was some way not perhaps of preventing the present Government fulfilling their five-year term, which the Constitution Committee certainly thought was the primary aim of this Bill, but of giving Parliament an opportunity to think again about whether this was an appropriate way for the constitution to be changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith]

This House has put forward sunset clauses which have been agreed a number of times; the precise mechanism does not matter. The point is that this House has said from time to time—for example, in relation to control orders—“All right, Government, you can have them for the time being, but you are not going to keep them without some further legislative process”. That seems to me to be a very good idea.

[Lord Tyler]

Can I ask the noble and learned Lord whether in his consideration within the committee—to which I made reference earlier—he thought it appropriate for a constitutional Bill of this sort, over which a great deal of concern has been expressed on his side of the House, to be subject to this fast-track, quick process, which is an entire novelty? It is not given to any other legislation whatever. Will he address in particular what would happen if one resolution were “Yes” and the other resolution in the other House were “No”? Would that not then raise questions about the adequacy of the process?

[Lord Goldsmith]

The noble Lord is tempting me to tell him what I think about the legislative process that has taken place so far in relation to the Bill. It is deplorable—not the consideration in this House, but the whole way in which this has come forward. This House is making the best it can of that job by taking poor, inadequately consulted-on legislation and putting forward a compromise that I believe will work. In answer to the noble Lord’s second question, the amendment is very clear. Both Houses need to give their approval. However, if they do not, it is still open to the other place to bring forward legislation and to use the Parliament Act if it wants to do so.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord noticed, but we lost the election. In a sense, I would not have been able to say that we would have had much credibility in putting that forward as the losing party—but you might think that that illustrates my point. The AV referendum was defeated, and the party that proposed it was defeated; the Liberal Democrats did not propose it and the Tories did not propose it. Because of the deal that was done and because of the influence that the coalition has on both Houses of Parliament, it is possible for such a constitutional change to get through both Houses of Parliament. An even more interesting point is that I do not think, although the noble and learned Lord will know better than I, that the AV constitutional change—if we ignore the referendum result for the moment—would have actually passed through Parliament; the only way that an attempt could be made to get it on to the statute book was by using the referendum route. The Conservatives would not have voted for it and half of my party would not have voted for it; all the Liberal Democrats would have voted for it, but I do not think that that constitutes a majority.

Most countries have some sort of entrenched or embedded position to protect the constitution, because most countries believe that if their constitution is working it should be more difficult to change it than other provisions. The heart of our constitution is in our democratic arrangements, such as how long Parliaments last, how we elect Members of Parliament, how we determine what the constituencies are and how many constituencies there are. All those arrangements have been fundamentally changed by the first two Bills, except that the AV referendum was defeated. The significance of the defeat in the AV referendum is that it indicates that the public are not interested in, or particularly keen on, a particular change in those particular systems. Before this series of Bills was introduced, my inclination would have been to be more trusting of Parliament to stop changes that go to the heart of the constitution and do not have popular support. Inevitably, in the light of what the coalition has done, one’s faith in Parliament’s ability to resist, because of the coalition, goes down.

The importance of what my noble friend Lord Grocott is proposing in this amendment, which I doubt he will push to a vote—but it is an incredibly important debate to have—is that, if parliamentarians are prepared to play with the constitution in the way that the coalition has done, as simply a counter to be given away in order to get into power, Parliament needs to look at how you protect the constitution against backroom deals in smoke-filled rooms. I am not aiming that particularly at the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives; I am saying what the consequence is of coalitions.

I end with a reference to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I do not know whether noble Lords remember the excellent contribution that he made to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, but he was an enthusiast for all of it. I happened to read in my Observer after the AV thing was lost, where the noble Lord said words to the effect that, “Now the AV vote has been lost, I should remind the Conservatives that there still yet needs to be a vote on the new constituencies that are being drawn”. I took that to mean that it was all basically politics that was going on, that it as just a deal that was done, and that if the Liberal Democrats did not get AV they might look askance at what they had previously said was a major constitutional change. I understand why constitutional change. I understand why the noble Lord did it, but does that not suggest that we need to build in a few more protections in relation to major constitutional change? It would appear that this House, which has previously been good at stopping major constitutional change, is now faced with a coalition that has not viewed constitutional change with the same degree of responsibility as previous Governments.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. He is absolutely right that from time to time we did propose constitutional changes, but we got drawn up short by Parliament. That has not happened with this suite of constitutional measures. That is what my noble friend Lord Grocott is saying needs very careful thought. It might not be a referendum that is needed, but something is certainly needed to give a bit of strength to Parliament to resist the possibly politically motivated constitutional changes that the coalition has brought forward—as opposed to in the national interest.

[Lord Tyler]

I wonder whether in the course of his rewriting of history, the noble and learned Lord could just indicate which proposals for changing our constitution during 13 years of Labour Government, many of which he himself was responsible for, he ever suggested should be put to the public in the form of a referendum.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Mayor of London—those are the ones that come to mind immediately.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, having heard that, I hope that I am now in order in rising to support the amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.

I begin by making the point that the removal of the Speaker’s certificate as a requisite for calling an early general election certainly meets my principal objection to the original wording in Clause 2. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the Government for accepting the need to safeguard the non-partisan position of the Speaker in their proposed legislation. I think that the noble and learned Lord realises that I should have liked them to have gone a little further on this clause, but I would not push my luck in such circumstances, and I am thankful for small mercies.

I hope that all parties in the other place will take the opportunity, when the Bill returns to the Commons, to place on record the importance of a Speaker’s independence and never again put it at risk, as did the original clause. It gives me particular satisfaction to know that some of us were able to use our membership of this House to help remove a defect in the Bill that, to put it perfectly bluntly, should have been corrected in the other place—the elected Chamber. It proves, yet again, the indispensible role that your Lordships play in the legislative process, particularly in constitutional matters.

We have talked about perfection, and I regret that the amendment is not as precise or as perfect as I would wish. That is life. However, when considered along with other amendments, it is a reasonable way forward and we can make the best of what I regard as a poor and unnecessary item of legislation.

I wish to place my view on record in relation to the leeway, or what I call the 14-day cooling-off period, following a vote of no confidence, to give time to the Executive to cobble together and approve a new Government. That requirement in the Bill strikes at the very roots of my belief in the way our democracy works. For reasons that we all understand, we have a coalition Government who govern on the basis of a two-party agreement. I have no quarrel with that. I accept the need for coalitions when no party has an overall majority. Nor am I opposed to the principle of self-preservation—I practise it myself. However, if the Government were to lose the confidence of the Commons, this legislation would allow a different coalition, a coalition mark II, to replace it after 14 days of hard bargaining, wheeler-dealing or horse trading—call it what you want—without reference to the electorate by calling an election. That is wrong.

In that event, the Bill would be seen as the “elections avoidance Act”—and rightly so. Some might call it a “fixed Parliaments Act”—using “fixed” in its pejorative sense. I confess to belonging to the school of democrats who believe in the unfettered right of the Commons to send a Government packing, as it did in 1979, and in the integrity of the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to say what he would do. I also believe in the sovereign right of the people of this country to elect their Governments at elections. I maintain that these two rights are not incompatible and we should not tamper with them. They have served us well and are the basis of our parliamentary democracy.

This time, the Commons is the target of the constitutional meddlers. However, proposals for the abolition of this House will soon be put before us. The bottom line of my concern now is that the legislation restricts the traditional freedom of the elected Chamber to get rid of a failed Government and for a Prime Minister to go to the country to seek a mandate. Snap elections have become a derogatory term in some quarters. Many countries that I know are under the yoke of dictators and would love to hold a snap election. I would rather have a snap election at any time than a Parliament that is well and truly fixed in the way that many are and in the manner now proposed by this coalition.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to people who have a great deal more experience and expertise in this matter than I, and I think that we are gradually moving towards a very sensible conclusion. On all sides of the House, we need to express our thanks to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, whose personal intervention has moved us in a sensible direction. That is evidence, contrary to what was being said at earlier stages of the consideration of the Bill, that the Government are listening to your Lordships' House and have moved.

However, it is equally true, and I commend it for this, that the coalition has not been prepared to accept wrecking tactics which would undo what is, after all, a Bill which came to your Lordships' House from the other place, which, as we have already heard this afternoon, we all regard as retaining primacy in our parliamentary system. I very much welcome the constructive dialogue that has taken place during the interval between different stages of the Bill. One of the most important points that has arisen since we were discussing this last week is an emphasis on simplicity. Several colleagues on all sides of the House said that that is an important part of how we can improve legislation. Frankly, on that ground alone, the Government may well be fully justified in seeking to reverse the amendment passed on such a narrow majority last week, because it adds a whole new layer of unnecessary complexity.

By contrast, Amendment 20 has clearly benefited from the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin—two distinguished former Speakers—among others. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, was generous in saying that it seems to meet many of his criteria. I think that his phrase was that it was the nearest to being completely foolproof of the amendments before us. The simplification of Clause 2 also certainly meets the major anxieties that my noble friends Lord Rennard, Lord Marks and I had over the rather cumbersome process originally set out.

At this point, it is important to emphasise that the sole purpose of the legislation is to give new responsibility, new power to Parliament, rather than to reinforce the current opportunity of the Prime Minister of the day—who is, after all, a party leader; we should never forget that—to pick and choose the most favourable date for an election for his or her party. There was some confusion last week on that point. By legislating for a parliamentary safety valve to enable an early election to take place within the normal five-year period, the Government are right to insist that that must be on the basis of cross-party support in the House of Commons. We should not revert to a No. 10 partisan fix.

It is important for us all to recall that we do not elect Governments in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, perhaps led us slightly astray on that point. We elect Parliament, which then gives or takes away confidence from an Administration. Therefore, the simple decision of the head of a Government that he or she can no longer continue personally to lead a Government is not the critical issue. The critical issue is: what is the decision of our Parliament and, in this case, the primary House, the House of Commons?

Last week, there was some anxiety—some amusement, in fact—about the special circumstances of October 1974 and May 1979 and the fact that such circumstances might not provide a proper opportunity for an early general election and for the people to speak. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in his place; he should be reassured. If the Bill had reached the statute book then, I am convinced that an early general election would almost certainly have been triggered by the House of Commons in those circumstances. He would have been elected and I would have been unelected. I think that the Bill proves able to deal with the circumstances we were discussing last week.

[Lord Grocott]

I was not intending to speak but it is just too tempting. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks that a key determinant of our constitutional arrangements should be simplicity and simple solutions. That is slightly ironic coming from someone who spent several months arguing for the alternative vote system but that is now behind us. I merely put it to him: is not the simplest proposition of the lot for Governments who have lost the confidence of the House of Commons by a majority of one—a simple majority—to go immediately to the country without this 14-day formulation?

[Lord Tyler]

No, my Lords; I think that that is over-simple. It does not give the House of Commons a proper, responsible role and I think that there would be circumstances in which it certainly would not be appropriate.

[Lord Cormack]

Would not the circumstances where it would not be appropriate, to which my noble friend has just referred, almost certainly be coalition circumstances? Is not the real fear of many of us that the Bill has been designed to perpetuate the opportunity of coalition? Would not the public have the right to feel cheated if, as I devoutly hope does not happen, the present coalition collapsed and the leaders of the Liberal Democrat Party and the Labour Party sought to form a pact and a Government—a Government who would certainly not have commanded the support of the majority of the country last year? Do we not have to bear that in mind? Has not this been devised in a coalition climate to perpetuate a coalition climate?

[Lord Tyler]

I can only say to my noble friend that I was advancing the case for precisely this legislation long before there was ever the possibility of a coalition. It is extremely important to come back to my absolute core principle that the arithmetic of the House of Commons should be of issue. If, for example, the circumstances to which my noble friend refers occurred and there were in the House of Commons a solid majority for a change of Government in the midst of the present economic crisis, in order for that change of Government to take place without a general election it would be the House of Commons that decided whether the Government had the confidence to continue. Therefore, I do not think that that circumstance is an appropriate or proper reason for changing Amendment 20, which I think would be a useful amendment to the Bill.

The Bill recognises that, if it were acceptable or even necessary to call an early general election, the final decision should be left to Parliament and not to the individual whim of one party leader who happened to occupy No. 10. Even if there were not near unanimity among MPs, the safeguards in the Bill would ensure that, in the circumstances I have described, a vote of no confidence would lead to an early poll once it became clear that no alternative Government could be established and enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. Amendment 20 deals very well with this problem. It deals with the questions that were raised last week, although clearly some people on that occasion and now might say, “Well, we know what a Motion of no confidence looks like when we see it”. Frankly, I think that the amendment deals with the problem of definition rather better than that.

I think it was my noble friend Lord Forsyth who made the point that in almost all the circumstances that have been described—defeat on a Finance Bill or some big issue of that sort—the leader of the Opposition would be likely immediately to table a Motion of no confidence in the Government. Therefore, to some extent, the suggestions that have come from other parts of the House may be superfluous. I and my colleagues tabled a probing amendment suggesting that such a Motion should always be in the name of the leader of the Opposition, which would reflect that point, but in the real world that will almost always be the person who tables the Motion.

The Government have moved substantially and my noble friend has put his name to Amendment 20. I think that the very serious problems enunciated earlier by previous Speakers of the other place have been dealt with, and removing the Speaker from a potentially very invidious position is very important.

I turn to the other amendments briefly because I suspect that they are not going to be pursued with quite the same enthusiasm as Amendment 20. The amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Hamilton seems largely to enshrine the status quo. However, I do not think that the status quo is acceptable, as it involves all sorts of problems. I suggest that under their amendment a Prime Minister, instead of simply going to the Palace, as now, could engineer a vote of no confidence and therefore cut and run for an early election, which would destroy one of the major objectives of the Bill.

The proposal maintains the unfair partisan advantage conferred on one party leader as opposed to another. It is remarkable that when faced with the prospect of the first Prime Minister in history prepared to give up this important power to Parliament there seem to be some people in your Lordships’ House who say, “We do not want to be given this power. We would rather you kept it, Prime Minister. We do not want the responsibility”. I think that that would be a retrograde step.

The issue is also present in Amendment 22ZB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who has explained why he is not able to be here. Amendment 22ZB contains an extraordinary provision that any vote deemed a vote of no confidence by the Prime Minister, and party leader, should be a vote of no confidence. Rightly, the Bill and, indeed, Amendment 20 seek to avoid that. Those in your Lordships’ House who lived through the Maastricht debates in the other place, particularly former Conservative MPs, will remember the pressure that was brought to bear night after night by the Whips threatening that it could be deemed a Motion of confidence that could bring the Government down and trigger an immediate general election. MPs should have the capacity to vote down the details of legislation they disapprove of without being pressurised by a Government trying to force them to take a view that is not truly theirs. I fear that Amendment 22ZB could be defective for that reason, if for no other.

There is a definite problem with that amendment since it might well be open to judicial challenge. The judicial challenge to the role of the Speaker would be very difficult but when the head of the Executive takes a decision, I think a judicial review might well be a prospect that we would have to face. I mentioned that in Committee previously and a number of Members of your Lordships’ House, who are much more learned in the literal sense than me, seemed to agree with that. There is also an implication for Clause 3 and the issue of how a Dissolution should take place in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.

I am slightly baffled by the amendments in the name of Members of the Labour Party and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I may just be being stupid but it seems to me that perhaps quite a major constitutional change is in prospect. The burden of their amendments seems to be that when a Government are newly elected—or, strictly, a Parliament—some special mechanism should be introduced in the days following the election.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I can assure the noble Lord that he is not being stupid. It is my failure for not explaining it adequately. Where there has just been a general election and a Government do not obtain the confidence of the House, the right course in those special circumstances, as in the case of Mr Baldwin in 1923, is that what the electorate may well have wanted from the election is somebody other than, as it were, Mr Baldwin. That is why those amendments are there.

[Lord Tyler]

That is a very interesting point and I shall contemplate it.

I come to another point. It would seem that the noble and learned Lord has a problem with the two-week thought process—the cooling off period that the noble Baroness referred to. I would like to know whether he stands by the statement by Mr Christopher Bryant in the other House, who said:

“We quite like the provision for two weeks—it seems sensible if an alternative coalition or Government could be formed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/10; col. 361.]

He also said:

“The Government—I think rightly—want to say that after a motion of no confidence, there could be two weeks during which the House could, if it wanted, pass a motion of confidence in either the same Government, presumably, or another Government, with either the same Prime Minister or a different Prime Minister, with a different set of ministerial colleagues”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/10; col. 359.]

That flexibility was very admirable and a great deal more supportive, if I may say so, of the Government’s position than would be implied by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has said. It may be that he or one of his noble friends may wish to come back and say whether Mr Bryant was misled, or whether I was misled by that interpretation.

Amendments 20C and 22ZD have so many negatives that I am in something of a spin, even after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained them to me. If the intention is to make a major change in the circumstances immediately following an election, there is a good case for that: it is a very attractive proposition. The fact that the leader of the party who seeks to form an Administration should bring both the Administration and his or her programme to the House of Commons for it to be endorsed at the outset of a Parliament would emphasise that we are not electing a Government but a House of Commons, which in turn gives responsibility and power to a Government. However, it may be rather too late in the passage of this Bill to introduce changes of that scale and radical intent.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, as usual gave us a very interesting attempt to define and pin down the issues, but I think that he conceded that Amendment 20 may be the right way ahead.

We have made huge progress. As others have said, this is very much to the credit of my noble and learned friend, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. Again, it illustrates some very important points that we should all take account of. First and foremost, we have maintained intact the principle of the Bill that was sent to us by the other House. Secondly, if we pass the amendment and introduce a new Clause 2, that will remove any possibility of any weakening of the neutrality of Speakers of the House of Commons. That is obviously desirable. Thirdly, it still removes an important extra power from Prime Ministers and their Whips simply to decide that an issue of detailed policy is a matter of confidence. All three of these achievements are truly welcome. I hope that the House will support Amendment 20.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, the House has been very generous in its consideration of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which I have the privilege to chair. However, one aspect of our report has received scant attention, although the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to it briefly. That is the question, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, of government manipulation of the no-confidence process.

Having looked at all the amendments that have been tabled, I recognise, as do all noble Lords, that they are a vast improvement on what we were considering last week. However, it does not seem to me that these problems are met. I refer the House to the discussions that the committee had on this point with the Deputy Prime Minister. He accepted that it was not possible to exclude the possibility that the Government could manipulate Motions to this effect, but went on to say that,

“if a Government sought to do that it would be so transparent and so self-evidently grubby and self-serving that it would not do that Government any good at all”.

He assumed that if a Government manipulated the process in that way, they would be punished. However, the committee held evidence that suggested that international experience does not necessarily confirm that impression. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, referred to examples from both Canada and Germany of occasions where Governments achieved precisely that purpose by manipulating votes of no confidence in themselves. Our evidence suggested that scrutiny of those decisions and subsequent elections that happened as a result of them did not necessarily produce an electorate who thought that this was, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, so “self-evidently grubby” that the Government should be punished. In both the most recent cases, in 2005 and 2008, in Germany and Canada, the Governments who behaved in this way were re-elected.

The House may feel that this is too small a point to consider at this stage of proceedings. However, if we are in the business, as everybody has suggested, of improving the amendments that were before us and putting into statute something that we have always understood in this country and in the history of Parliament to be a matter of conventions, we need to be very careful about this matter.