Procedure Committee

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I reinforce the second point made by my noble friend Lord Grocott. On 4 April, the Government Front Bench in this House went on strike, in so far as it abandoned the so-called light-touch control at Question Time and during debates—quite deliberately. The body language of the Whips was such that they disappeared completely. The Front Bench allowed Members to speak beyond the time limits and go way beyond the subjects that we were debating. It was on the day of Yvette Cooper’s Bill. I formally complained to the Procedure Committee because nominally I was the Member in charge of the Bill. All I said was that, on days when the Government decide to abdicate their responsibility to keep good order, they should indicate as such so that the Chair can carry out those responsibilities.

I had that responsibility for two years, when my noble friend Lady Amos was Leader of the House. Upstairs, I have a copy of every single day’s Order Paper. I monitored how the speeches and questions were going around the House, to see fair play operating. Sometimes I upset people, because I had to intervene. These days, nobody intervenes; we might go a fortnight before anybody from the Front Bench intervenes. This allows chaos and allows the bullies in this place to dominate Question Time. That needs to be attended to but it is not attended to in this report. We still have a situation in which 80%, or whatever it is, of the Questions are asked by 50% of the Members, simply because of the bullying. Giving the role of seeing fair play to the Speaker, or someone in the Chair, will encourage a greater diversity of Members to intervene at Question Time. Sadly, that is what is missing. However, this report is a very good thin end of the wedge; it is a wedge I intend to hit very hard.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Grocott, because in addition to the practical points they have made there is a constitutional issue. It is absurd, in a House that holds the Executive and the Government to account, that a member of the Government decides who should do so. In addition to the problems already referred to, someone on the Government Front Bench cannot see who is standing behind him or her—that was illustrated again just a few minutes ago. But that is not the major issue, which is that our responsibility in Parliament is to hold the Executive to account. Who should decide who should do that? Surely it should be the totally independent Lord Speaker, not a member of the Government.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, which is way above my pay grade, but in answer to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—which I invite the Minister to get briefed on—about how this has been allowed to happen and when, I say that it would not have happened in David Renton’s time. He was the Member for Huntingdonshire in the other place and was still active here at 92, taking parliamentary draftsmen apart on a weekly basis, under the Government of whom I had the privilege to be a member. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, recalls this. He was meticulous. He chaired a report in the other place in the late 1970s on the drafting of legislation. It was his life’s work. He could pick apart these issues. No one is doing that these days and it is allowing slipshod work by parliamentary draftspeople to get on to the statute book, and it is about time we did more about it.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 53, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, and I want to contribute one very small thought to your Lordships. Many of us will recall that at the outset of consideration of this Bill by your Lordships’ House, there were many attacks in anticipation that we might amend it. But the very fact that the Minister has signed our amendment indicates that your Lordships’ House is doing its job. That is the whole point of our presence in the legislative process.

Ministers were egged on and convinced by the more incendiary Back-Benchers in the other House, and the tabloid media, that it would be outrageous if your Lordships’ House amended in the tiniest detail this wonderful Bill that was going to be put in front of us. The Minister has now helped us do some amending. We have already had seven changes, I think, improving the Bill, with a large majority in some cases. So I plead with the Minister to recognise in future that we are doing our job when we improve this Bill. It did not come to us perfect. It will go back to the other place a great deal better than when it came to us. I hope that there will not be so many incendiary attacks on your Lordships’ House in future by curious Back-Benchers in the other House.

Incidentally, I yield to nobody in wishing to reform your Lordships’ House, as some noble Lords will know to their cost. I was a strong supporter of the agreed Cross-Bench 2012 Bill. I now find it rather odd that the people who want to reform this House, or indeed to abolish it, are the very people who stood in our way on that occasion.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

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

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

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

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Tyler]

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

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

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, on this final group of Commons disagreements, I am much more at one with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and much more dispirited that the Government have not been able to move on this issue. Again, it does seem a relatively minor difference between what the noble and right reverend Lord has been suggesting and what my noble and learned friend has been saying about the way the Bill is intended to be explained and implemented by the Electoral Commission.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his assiduous commission originally suggested that no staff costs should be included in election expense returns submitted by non-party campaigners. I did not agree with that and I do not now, since some of those costs—for example, in relation to producing and distributing election material—are significant. I think we are all at one on that now, and they could be very significant in particular circumstances. Those costs are already regulated under the Labour Government’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and rightly so. Non-party organisations have had to account for those in both the 2005 and the 2010 general elections.

Staff costs in relation to canvassing could also be very relevant to election outcomes in particular circumstances. Clearly paying people to canvass in a way that could promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate is significant. The amendment therefore seeks to exclude staffing costs from consideration only when it comes to organising press conferences and rallies and in relation to transport, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has said. I do not know if my noble and learned friend can give adequate reassurance now on those points. I heard what he said just now, but I hope he may be able to go into some greater detail about the guidance that will be given to campaigners. Perhaps he can say that despite what the Bill says, somehow the incidental costs of someone travelling to a rally or booking the room for a press conference will not be included. However, I do not see where the de minimis provision is in the Bill. How will the Electoral Commission guidance deal with this level of detailed accountancy and audit?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

On that point, bearing in mind that if people are campaigning there must be an opposing view, what is to stop a fourth party in an election demanding of the campaigning group all the detail of its expenditure, if there is nothing in the legislation to prevent it? There is no de minimis, as the noble Lord rightly says. What is to stop the trouble-maker who is opposed to the third party campaigning from forcing that issue on to the third-party group? There is nothing in the legislation. Surely guidance cannot deal with that.

[Lord Tyler]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, and I think he shares my anxiety that, at this very late stage, there is not a clear indication of how that might happen. As he will know better than me having contested even more elections than I have, and with greater success of course—I had a few at council level that were more successful—in the heat of a campaign it is going to be very difficult for any organisation to adjudicate on these matters, be it the Electoral Commission or anyone else. I am afraid that this is a fact of life. It is one of the reasons that I referred to some problems that will undoubtedly occur at the latter stage of an election campaign. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was in his usual place then.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long. I think that it was generally accepted, after the vote last Monday on Report, that Amendment A1, which the House carried by just one vote and which is now in the Bill at Clause 1(2), requires tweaking. That amendment stated that less than 40 per cent of the electorate turning out meant that the vote was not binding; in other words, it has come back to Parliament, to a Minister. We had a brief discussion across the Floor that the amendment needs tweaking—and I fully accept that, but this is not that tweak.

Clause 8 is binding. That is accepted, and there is no problem about that. The amendment carried last week simply states that it is not binding if there is a turnout of less than 40 per cent, so it is not fatal. It is not a threshold, and it does not wreck the change. The amendment passed last week is a constraint that limits action.

I am moving Amendment 2 today as a result of a very long discussion last Thursday in the Political Reform and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place after we had finished our proceedings on the Bill. The witnesses were the Electoral Commission and Professor Johnston. I have to admit that I watched all the proceedings of that committee, some two hours, on Saturday afternoon, so I gave up quite a bit of time. In all honesty, I have to say—and I watched a bit of it twice, just to get it right—that there was a misinterpretation of the amendment this House passed last Monday by the Electoral Commission, some members of the committee and the chair, which was bordering on the wilful because the context always was that of a fatal threshold. In other words, the whole lot failed without a 40 per cent turnout. That is not what the House passed last week. What it said was that if the turnout is not 40 per cent, the referendum is not binding. The implication was that we have to make it discretionary, so that the Minister can come back. If the turnout is 10 per cent, it does not matter what the result is. The Houses of Parliament could still pass it, so it is non-fatal. The whole discussion in the Select Committee was based on the fact that it is a killer threshold. I was quite astonished at that.

The amendment the House passed last week was a compromise between having a consultative referendum and a binding referendum. Frankly, when the Prime Minister was asked about the issue by Christopher Chope last Wednesday at Question Time, he started to say that, generally speaking, in this country, we do not have thresholds at referendums—as I said, this is not a threshold—but generally in this country, we do not have binding referendums either. This is the first we have ever had. I do not know whether anyone has drawn that to the attention of the Prime Minister—and I add that I will be happy to share a no platform with him during the referendum.

This issue goes well beyond what has happened in the past. At no time during the Select Committee discussion was the unbinding bit of the Bill ever raised. The discussion proceeded on the basis that we cannot measure turnout, because there is no national register, and cannot measure what a vote is. That is what the Electoral Commission said to the Select Committee. We cannot measure the turnout because it is too complicated. We do not even know what a vote is because it is not defined. What is a vote? Does that mean we count the spoilt papers as well as those that count? All that was trotted out before the Select Committee without any challenge. Then the size of the register was raised. Given that we have legislated on the basis that by common consent there are 3.5 million people missing from the register and hundreds of thousands of voters entered twice, either as undergraduates or second-home owners, it could be argued that there is a distinct lack of precision about the register in the first place for all purposes, let alone this one.

It seems to me to be reasonable to call the electorate those people defined in Clause 2 as entitled to vote. The vote is those counted under Part 1. That gives clarity. The Bill sets out the electorate in Clause 2, on which we had long debates. The vote is defined as voters who are counted under Part 1 of the Act, namely those who are yes or no. Those are the only votes that count. Spoiled votes do not count. I would have thought the Electoral Commission would have been aware of this, yet it has raised these issues as if, if there is a little doubt about the result, the whole thing is down the plug hole. It is not. It simply becomes unbinding. That is my worry.

To conclude, if it becomes the case—

[Lord Tyler]

Could the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, clarify one point? The Electoral Commission points out that there is some doubt about his definitions. In particular, does he accept that the register may be considerably out of date by the date of the referendum? For example, anybody who has died in the intervening period would, under the terms of his previous amendment, be counted as a no. Every abstention is, effectively, a no when it comes to looking at his threshold. Does the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, accept that the Electoral Commission may not be right about everything but it is correct in saying that his current amendment is defective?

[Lord Rooker]

It is certainly wrong about it being fatal; I will argue that until the cows come home. The Electoral Commission bordered on being wilful. I was about to come to the point that the noble Lord raised, which is a very fair one, about the register. My point is this: after the referendum, when everything is counted, if it comes down to such a fine definition that we have to look at the number of people currently on the register who died or left the country before 5 May—in addition to such elements as foreigners who are able to vote in some elections but not for Westminster—we will have precisely the situation that I seek to avoid in a binding referendum. If all those factors come into play—that is, if the result is narrow and there is an argument over the numbers—it will be the very reason why we should not have a binding referendum in the first place.

My compromise is to say that the threshold should be 40 per cent. My original compromise was that it should all be consulted on. The House threw that out by 17 votes in November. That is my point. If it comes down to the fact that these issues start to matter, we will have a serious problem on our hands. Therefore, if the referendum was not binding, Parliament could then look at it, Ministers could advise Parliament, we could take a rational view and maybe—I fully accept this—still go ahead and introduce AV. This amendment does not stop the introduction of AV. If the circumstances are such that we have that problem, we will also have a problem that is even bigger.

I have listened to what the Electoral Commission told the Select Committee and to the chairman of the committee, who swore blind that she voted for this amendment in the Commons last year. She did not. The amendment in the Commons last year, which was defeated by around 500 votes to a couple of dozen was on a killer, fatal threshold. The Labour Party voted against it and quite right, too. If the threshold was not met, that would be it—the referendum would be off. That is not what this is about. Those who refuse to accept that are being disingenuous about the situation we have arrived at. It is not too late.

In other words, this amendment is directly consequential on what the House passed last Monday. Irrespective of what the Government choose to do in the Commons in the morning, it would be wrong to reject it—I make no assumptions either way—on the basis that the Electoral Commission said that it cannot define “votes” and “the electorate” if we cannot today add this consequential bit to the amendment we passed last Monday. One flows from the other. If the argument is not used tomorrow, this does not apply. However, is it intended that the Electoral Commission brief the Commons and say, “This won’t stand. As we told the Political and Constitutional Affairs Committee last week, ‘votes’ and ‘electorate’ are not defined.”? Since I have made a modest attempt to define them in the context of the Bill, that would be quite wrong. The amendment should be added to what we passed last Monday.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

I want to raise a point that only the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has touched on. I speak as someone who was in the other place and went through two boundary inquiries. Most Members of Parliament fail when dealing with casework, and they have to give their constituents bad news. Most constituents receive that news on the basis that their case has been taken to the top; they accept that, and that is the end of the matter. That is a generalisation, but by and large it is my experience.

On both of the boundary changes that we dealt with—I am speaking only about the evidence from the city of Birmingham—we as Members of Parliament took criticism from members of the public, churches and party members, and this applied to both major parties as we were very much a two-party city in those days. The criticism was that someone had come up from London who had never been there before and was redrawing boundaries and sticking this ward into the constituency when we wanted that one instead.

I remember one particular incident, at a public community meeting separate from the boundary inquiry, that I was able to quell. It was not a riot, but it was pretty bad. I said to people, “Look, we might disagree, but we don’t even know this guy’s name or his background. He’s a lawyer, and he has chaired the meeting, but at least we’ve been able to put our case and argue the case with the Tory party”. There was a major argument about a big ward, with 20,000 electors, going in. We were able to say to people, “We’ve had our day in court”—the very phrase that has just been used. We were able to say that we had argued the toss with our political opponents and that it had been done openly and transparently. Everyone accepted that. Whether we won or lost, it probably did not materially affect the political outcome, but it was thought that it might.

There are probably far more people interested in this change than there have been in previous boundary changes, for obvious reasons. It is important to be able to report back to the interested public and say that their case has been listened to; that they have been able to put up a challenge, because there will be political arguments on this; and that they might have lost, but it was done openly and fairly. However, I do not think that it will be seen to have been done fairly. No MP will be able to do what I did and say to constituents, “You were able to argue and challenge the opposing views. We lost, but it was done in the open, and that’s the way that it is done in Britain”. That is something to be regretted.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to make a brief intervention, because I am not a lawyer. Until he spoke, everyone was speaking with huge legal experience.

I have a practical question that your Lordships’ House needs to give some attention to. It seems to me that the danger is not successful judicial review—or any sort of legal challenge—rather, it is that all over the country the opportunity will be taken to try and delay the process, for reasons that we all understand, so that the changes will not be in place ready for the 2015 election. I have appeared at inquiries and before commissions—unpaid, of course, as I was not a lawyer. I was reminded of this by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Imagine the circumstances when a number of MPs who see their seats being changed do not necessarily think that they could be successful at judicial review but think it is worth trying to delay the process. There could be 400 applications for judicial review. That seems to be the danger.

I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is saying. I understand what other lawyers are saying. My fear is simply that this process will be undermined not by successful judicial review but by attempts to try and delay the process. If that is the game that we have to foresee, then your Lordships’ House will be blamed for delaying an important process that will give equality of votes to a lot of our fellow citizens.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

That is not true, because in other parts of the country the turnout was not 83 per cent. It was 83 per cent in my constituency because the contest was seen to be very close. When I had a majority of 9,000 plus, down it went. Because it was not so interesting and the votes were not going to be so important, it dropped to 63 per cent. There is a direct correlation between safer seats and turnout. Nobody can deny that. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is agreeing with me. Where constituents feel that there is not a real chance of change—whether they fear it or hope for it is immaterial—they do not register on the same level and they do not turn out. For example, in May 2010 the lowest turnout—well under 50 per cent in Birmingham Ladywood, Manchester Central and Leeds Central—was in seats where the electors knew there was very little chance of change, whether they wanted it or not. On the other hand, in Westmorland and Lonsdale and in Richmond Park, where there was clearly going to be a very close result, up went the turnout to 77 per cent. People vote and register to vote when they think that their votes are going to be important in terms of the outcome. That is surely the most important lesson we should all learn.

Short of compulsion, which we discussed earlier, the most effective incentive for people to vote is because they think their vote will make a difference and that is the case for AV. I have never pretended—I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves—that somehow this is the magic solution and everybody is going to turn out and will inevitably go for a first preference. It does not necessarily mean that everybody will have a majority. But look at the alternatives; look at first past the post. It is a staggering fact that there is not a single Member of the other place who can put their hand on their heart after the May 2010 election and say, “I am supported by more than half the people who could vote in my constituency”. Not one can say they have more than 50 per cent of those registered to vote in their constituency. Not one. If we are saying that AV is not perfect, first past the post is much less perfect.

[Lord Rooker]

I missed the first part of the debate on Clause 1 and I regret that. The noble Lord gave the example of the second defect, which my noble friend Lord Grocott did not address—not so much the argument about everybody getting 50 per cent but the second porky that it does away with tactical voting. We heard that today from the people who launched the pro-AV campaign. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has just said it will be their second preference. That is what will get them out to vote. That is where the tactical voting comes in. What we need on the record, like we had from the Leader earlier on, is a definitive statement from the Government that it is not true that every MP will get elected by 50 per cent. We also need on the record that AV does not do away with tactical voting because the tactical vote is on the second preference, not on the first vote. It would be quite useful if this debate could get that on the record because all our words will be used in leaflets next year, I can assure noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, because he has pre-empted the question that I was about to ask. I am assuming, from what he has just said, that he will support—not just not vote against—the motion that Clause 1 stand part, because what he has said implies that he will do so. If we had known that an hour or so ago, this debate might have been rather shorter.

It is true that the previous Labour Government twice committed itself to this precise form of words for putting the issue to the people. I believe, as Churchill said, that we should trust the people on this issue. I am quite prepared to debate in any television studio with the noble Lord—

[Lord Rooker]

Churchill did not want AV. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, told us, Churchill is on record as doing the best rubbishing job on AV that anyone has done.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

I never once referred to combined elections. That is not the issue as far as my amendment is concerned; I know that others in the group are concerned with this. My question is this: what were the relevant dates for that legislation? I know the referendum the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers to was for London only and not national, but how close to the referendum did the legislation start through the two Houses? That is the point that I am raising. I am not arguing against 5 May; I am just saying that if something goes wrong between now and then, my amendment is a lifeboat and we can still have the referendum.

[Lord Tyler]

I can answer the noble Lord, as it happens, because I have very good brief. That Bill started its progress through the House of Commons on 28 October 1997 and was not completed until well into 1998, so it is a very similar situation to the present one. I go a step further, which is why I hope we are going to get a contribution from the opposition Front Bench. Amendment 12 specifies that this referendum should take place on the same day as the mayoral and Assembly elections in London in 2012. What is right for the goose is surely right for the gander. How can we possibly argue, as Members opposite did for hours the other night—it seemed interminable—that somehow the Scots are not capable of taking this decision on the same day when London has done so in the past, and there is a proposal, which has been supported by at least some Members opposite, to do so again in 2012? I stand up for the Scots as a fellow Celt. I think they are quite capable of taking this decision on the same day, and I hope your Lordships’ House will take the same view.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Rooker

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, unlike the debate we have just had, this is a very narrow, targeted debate. My basic submission is that a binding referendum on virtually any issue, let alone an issue without consultation, is not the British way of doing things. We do not do it. I was told that there has been one case of a binding referendum. An indicative or consultative referendum is the normal way we operate in the UK and frankly it fits the bill in this case. There are many people who would take that view. It will preserve parliamentary sovereignty in a formal way, whereas the way the Bill is drafted it certainly does not. I think that is important. It allows for some thought on the result and the turnout. In my view, it would obviate the need for thresholds. I have not looked at the complete list of amendments. I do not know whether there are amendments about turnout or majority thresholds. With an indicative referendum you would not need to put into the Bill anything to do with thresholds because it would allow time for reflection afterwards and Parliament would decide, having listened to and taken the views of the people. I think the processes and consequences are important.

There has been an example—it is important to give examples—of where the processes have been used. When New Zealand changed its voting system from first past the post in 1992 it had a consultative referendum. That resulted a year later in a binding referendum so everyone was absolutely clear. However, initially Parliament was able to take a view about what the public had actually decided.

As the Bill stands—I stand to be corrected by the Ministers who know more about the detail—it does not matter what the turnout is or what the level of a yes majority vote is. The change will happen. That is set out, I think, in Clause 8. So what are we saying? I am not going to give high-falutin’ examples. Let us say that we get a respectable turnout—50 to 60 per cent. I think it would be a very respectable turnout, a general election turnout. That is tens of millions of people voting. Let us say that the majority of the yes votes over the no votes is 1,000. Do we really then proceed with such a major change, without let or hindrance, because that is what the legislation actually says? It could be 10,000 but we are talking of something like 30 million people participating in the vote.

Let us think about what we are doing. We are binding ourselves before we start. Parliament has never done that and we should not do it on this occasion. I do not need to speculate. Frankly, my amendment is a lifeboat for both the coalition and Parliament. It does not alter the rest of the Bill. I would almost settle for this amendment and almost not bother with the rest of them because I think that would be so important in constitutional terms. It would be a lifeboat for Parliament and certainly a lifeboat for the coalition. Without such a lifeboat it is inevitable that we will have debates about thresholds on the turnout and the majority in order to trigger the operation of Clause 8. Why should we do that? It may come as a surprise, but for the vast majority of people in this country, voting is the only political activity they ever do. We are all anoraks. Some of us have been in the other place, but we are all here for a reason. For the vast majority of people their only action is voting. To make a change of such importance and significance we have to have the demonstrable consent of the public to a change of the status quo. That is absolutely clear. First we have to listen to the public and then Parliament can take a decision.

This is not some executive decision such as the level of taxation or the granting of a planning application. This is a major fundamental change in the way we elect our Parliament. It is of supreme voter and constitutional significance and it should be embedded for a goodly amount of time. It will not be if the scenario I have just given as an example comes about. We will end up with chaos unless we are prepared to say that we will listen to the public, fight the referendum and Parliament will then decide the way forward having listened and consulted. By and large, Parliament has taken a view on consultation in the past. It would be a lot easier to decide in principle and practice to have an indicative referendum than try to decide thresholds. It would be a nightmare to get involved in threshold debates. I have thought about it. It would be an absolute nightmare. It is so unpredictable, so personal and subjective. To say we will have an indicative referendum to consult will be pretty important.

I am going to pray in aid only one Member of the House. Earlier today we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I think we will all read his speech tomorrow. He gave several examples of what had been said before the election as a reason for doing it after the election. I disagreed with my own side on AV and made my position absolutely clear on 24 March, but that is not the issue now. I just want the referendum to be indicative so that Parliament has the final decision. It would be on the same date with the same question, the lot, but it would be consultative. As I said, I made my position clear on 24 March and I am saying the same things on this side of the House as I said on the other side. My challenge is for others to do the same. I quote from Hansard:

“On the other hand, a consultative referendum early in the next Parliament would assist rather than hinder deliberations and would not fall foul of the strictures from the Select Committee that we are producing change without scrutiny”.—[Official Report, 24/3/10; col. 971.]

Those are the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I rest my case.

[Lord Tyler]

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, very kindly referred to me in the previous debate and challenged me to contribute to the debate on this amendment. I certainly intend to do so, though I hope very briefly.

Frankly, I am mystified. I totally understand where the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is coming from. What I do not yet understand is whether he is going to be supported from his own Front Bench because of course his party—I know he was a rebel on this and I respect him for it—was absolutely explicit in putting its case to the country just a few months ago. In its manifesto his party said:

“To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons”.

There is no mention of ifs and buts about consultative, confirmatory or indicative. It said “we will hold a referendum”. It may be that I misunderstood the Labour manifesto but that seems to be an absolutely clear commitment. Indeed, Mr Jack Straw, who is a very distinguished colleague of those on the other side who take a different view, set out in the debates on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill just a few weeks before the election precisely where the Labour Party was and gave an opportunity for people in the country to understand where it was. This business that there has been no discussion about it is not true. There has been lots of discussion. Maybe it is only anoraks such as myself and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who were discussing the relative merits of these issues but the fact is that it was out in the open because Mr Straw said in the House of Commons that,

“all of us here must do all that we can to restore trust in politics … part of that process must involve consideration of which electoral system can best serve the people of this country and asking them to make a decision. Our response is to put in place a credible alternative that would go with the grain of what the British people value in our system, and allow them to express their clear view in a referendum”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/10; col. 799.]

That was a specific proposal—put before Parliament weeks before the election and as clear as anything ever is from a ministerial statement—to insert into that Bill the specific proposal that we are now debating. It is simply untrue that this has never previously come before Parliament. What is true—I have to say—is that the Labour Party was absolutely explicit that it would not be a consultative, indicative or confirmatory referendum. It would be a decisive referendum. I rest my case.