Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

The Minister is making a strong case, but does he not accept that representations on the grounds of community are subject to the very inflexible electoral quota and the desire for equalisation of constituencies?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I make two points in response. Yes, there is a quota, but, first, in making recommendations, the Boundary Commission may have regard to local ties. As I indicated yesterday, the Government are minded to look again before Report at the question of wards, which, perhaps more than any other electoral area, best reflect local ties.

Secondly, as I indicated in my opening remarks, there are a number of different communities within one given constituency. Members of Parliaments of all parties seek to represent as best as they can different interests in different communities within their constituencies.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

The point I made earlier is that if a major party is left out of the arrangements for deciding the size of the legislature, there will be trouble. I give way to my noble friend, who has great experience of this sort of thing.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I wanted to suggest that he might direct the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who asked for evidence of the partisan nature of this legislation, to the website of Mr Mark Field—a prominent Member of the other place on the Conservative Benches—where he made it explicitly clear. I think that this is still up there; it was a few days ago. It says quite clearly that the party managers in the other place were going around seeking support for this legislation precisely because it would be to their partisan advantage.

[Lord Soley]

There is no doubt that that is how most people in the Conservative Party view it. I shall simply sit down on this point; the Government have made a fatal flaw. They are trying to decide the size of a Parliament without the agreement of the major parties. No other modern democracy would do that. All the bodies that we are part of, which oversee elections in countries emerging from dictatorships, look for that problem, identify it and point it out. The Government have also not looked at the other factor which I have referred to: the size of the payroll vote. They had something in here which said that they would reduce the size of the payroll vote. I know that we will come to that later. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will vote for it. He has obviously noticed it and clearly recognised its importance. It may be that I can tempt him into the Lobby on that one; who knows?

This is so important, not some stupid idea of: “Well, just filibuster for the hell of it”. I do not want to go back to what we did in the other place, staying overnight. I have far better things to do, frankly, with the remaining years of my life than to stay up night after night. But if a Government change the size of a Parliament without all-party agreement, they are driving a coach and horses through all the agreements that exists between parties in this place. They therefore cannot and must not assume that we will not fight it, because they would fight it if we did to them. If we did come back—and, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours says, I hope that we will not—with a figure in the House of Commons that suited us, do not tell me that they would not all be lined up on the other side doing everything that they could to prevent it. I beg to move this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for telling us how we normally do business. It is not normal for us to spend two and a half hours on an amendment—this one—and to have spent three hours on the previous amendment. If we are talking about normality, I rather wish that this whole debate had been conducted in a more normal way—

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

May I finish this point? I said that I have not heard anything new. I have no promise that anything new is to be said, so would it not help, rather than noble Lords opposite continually saying the same old thing, if I now gave a view on the amendments?

[Lord Wills]

To that very point, I have been trying to get in to speak to contribute something new to the debate, which is something of which the noble Lord will not be aware. That was my experience of dealing specifically with these issues and the process for dealing with them when I was the Minister responsible for them. He will not have known this, because obviously, it is a convention that the previous Government’s dealings are not passed to the new Government, so this would be new. I wonder whether he would allow me to share that information with the House before he commences his remarks.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think that there the sense that we should go on for a bit. Some noble Lords opposite are shaking their heads; there is a very strong sense from behind me that we should go on—the norm should be followed.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Perhaps I should not have given way to the noble Lord, Lord Wills.

This has been a great debate. I can tell the House—

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley]

I am serious. Let us hear the arguments for a moment. I have brought forward considerable evidence to support what I said about the problems that any Government would have with this. I also asked the noble Lord what he would do if a future Government of any political complexion came forward at the next election or the one after that and said, “We think that this number of MPs would be more beneficial to us and therefore we are going to drive it through”. I challenge him to say that he would not fight that every inch of the way. Those are the questions he has not answered. I am afraid that they have to be addressed because they are too important for the House and too important for the country.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I had thought that the noble Lord had given way to me, but I hope that I can now make the speech that I wanted to make earlier, which I make genuinely in the hope of helping the Government.

As the then Minister responsible, I went through all these issues in a great deal of detail, so I think that it might help the House to know the judgments that we made when we were in Government. Both Amendment 59 and Amendment 60 speak to the importance of having an impartial process—which, crucially, is seen to be impartial—in dealing with these issues. I have already spoken about why that is so important, so I will not rehearse those arguments again now, but the instances that I gave of the consideration that we gave to these issues in Government might—even at this late stage and with all the bad feeling that there is about it—persuade the Government to think again.

It is no secret that we looked at these issues. Since 1997, as a Government we were embarked on a developing programme of constitutional reform, whose latter stages have been largely adopted by the new Government, which have claimed credit for the proposals as the new politics. As part of that developing programme of constitutional reform, we were looking at these very issues. As Minister, it was quite clear to me that all the issues that the noble Lord and his colleagues are so concerned about were real issues that should be engaged with in bringing forward any measures. We looked at these issues for some time. It is no secret that the amendment that I moved last week—Amendment 54ZA—was largely based on the conclusions that I came to as the Minister for constitutional reform. I hope that the noble Lord is listening to this, because he might learn something about why he has got himself and the Government into such a mess with this legislation.

Having looked at these issues, we came to the conclusion that the best way forward was to set up the sort of independent inquiry that my amendment proposed last week and that we have again heard advocated today. We did not bring forward that proposal for one simple reason: we felt that there was too little time left in the lifespan of that Government to be sure that we could bring about an all-party consensus on the mechanism. That is why we did not bring forward the proposal, although it was ready and prepared and officials had done the work. We believed that it was absolutely essential to achieve cross-party support for the mechanism. We thought that that would be difficult, because these issues are contentious and complex. As we did not think that we had enough time, we did not think that it was proper to introduce proposals that did not have that basis of cross-party support for the mechanism—not for the conclusions or outcomes or for 650 or 600 or 500 seats—by which we were to get there.

The reason that we thought that that was so important was not that we were unworried about what an incoming Conservative Government might do—of course, we were worried about that. We knew—I knew—that there was a possibility that we might lose the election and that we would get a Conservative Government. Politicians are always worried about what the other side might do, so this was not an easy conclusion. However, so important did we consider the impartiality of the process that we did not introduce our proposals. Even then, I hoped and honestly believed that, whatever Government came in—I did not expect a coalition Government, in the event that we were not re-elected—would abide by those basic constitutional proprieties, which are now being so flouted.

Cross-party agreement is so important precisely because of the element of trust. The issue is not just what parliamentarians think about the process and whether the Labour Party in Parliament thinks that the proposed process is flawed; fundamentally, the issue is about the people whom we serve. The people have to believe that politicians can be trusted to run the system impartially, without any appearance of partisan self-interest. I do not know whether the Government’s calculations are based on partisan self-interest because they simply have not provided the information, but it is so corrosive when such doubt remains. The Government have ample opportunity to deal with the issue by accepting either of these amendments or by saying that they will look at the issue again. What the Government must do is recognise the doubts that their process has created in the minds of many, many people. This will be poisonous if it is allowed to fester in the way that the Government are allowing it to fester.

I do not think that anyone on this side of the House wants to stop the Government getting their legislation through. [Laughter.] As I have said many times, I do not think that that is the case. I do not know how many noble Lords opposite, who are commenting from a sedentary position, have actually looked at what I have said. I have made it clear over and over again that I support the objectives of both parts of the Bill. As Minister, I was going to bring forward legislation. We brought forward legislation for the proposals in Part 1 of the Bill and I was preparing, as I have just said, to bring forward legislation that would have dealt with the issues, in the same way, that are dealt with in Part 2.

I want to see these objectives realised, but I want to see them realised in a proper way that will command consent across all parties and among the British people. The Government could still get their legislation through in this Parliament if they took a pause by taking advantage of one of these amendments to institute an impartial process. Such a process need not take very long—it need not take the three years that my amendment proposed—and could take just a short number of months, if the Government so wished. At least, there would then be an independent, fair-minded inquiry. That is what we were going to do in Government, and I urge and, indeed, beg the Government to follow that example.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak but, having listened to this debate, I want to say that this is not an artificial exercise. It appears to be artificial to the noble Lord only because he gives an example of where something went adrift, but I can certainly give an example of where things went adrift with first past the post, which I support. I refer to the UKIP vote, which would have gone to the Conservatives and put them in power. It did not happen, but these things do occur. There is no perfect system, and the argument of the noble Lord, whom I usually greatly respect, seems to have gone adrift.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I share the concerns that have been raised about the thresholds but with this amendment my noble friend has raised some very important underlying concerns about the nature of the union which have not been fully explored. These are not simple issues; they are complex and they take in the changing shape of devolution in our country. These are very important issues for all of us who care about the maintenance of the union in this country. With this amendment, my noble friend has isolated the folly of rushing ahead with a referendum in this way. These complex issues relating to the nature of our union should be debated and decided by Parliament on the basis of the results of the referendum. It is folly to have a post-legislative referendum. I know that we have debated these matters already but I very much hope that the Government will consider them again. They are profoundly important and they should be debated by Parliament after the referendum—that is inherent in the nature of our representative democracy. I very much hope that the Government will think again and this House will be able to return to the matter on Report.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, it was very late when we last discussed this matter in Committee and some people were wilting. In reality, the amendment relating to a threshold of those eligible to vote, as featured in the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, which I supported, and the remaining amendments in the same vein were discussed and are no longer on the Marshalled List. They all appear on the groupings list as having been already debated, and therefore there is no amendment before us today relating to a threshold of those eligible to vote. Perhaps there will be later, but certainly not today, and that will be very helpful in reducing the length of our discussions—something that I am sure will be welcome to all.

As to the separate issue currently being put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, concerning whether there should be a required majority in each of the countries of the union, I am sorry to tell her that, having supported her earlier, on this occasion I support the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that we should not differentiate in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, in tabling her amendment, my noble friend Lady Hayter has done two useful things. First, she has reminded us that in legislating, particularly on constitutional matters, we should be sensitive to sentiment in the different nations of the United Kingdom. We needed to be sensitive to that sentiment 10 years ago, which is why we brought in devolution; and, in the context of devolution, and after 10 years’ experience of it, it is all the more important that we should be so. However, the legislation proposed by the Government fails to be sensitive in that important regard. Under their model, a majority in the United Kingdom as a whole would trump a no vote within one of its constituent countries. In that way we risk alienating national opinion and national sentiment in whatever part of the country it was—it might be Wales or Scotland—that found its wishes thus crudely overruled.

The second important thing that my noble friend’s amendment does is to underline that whatever the result of the referendum and however the procedures might be amended in this legislation, if we then went on to have a referendum under whatever set of rules, the result is liable to be divisive. It would be divisive in the case of a particular country of the United Kingdom having its wishes on the electoral system overruled; and, equally, under my noble friend’s amendment, it would be divisive because what she proposes would mean that where there was a no vote in any individual part of the United Kingdom, that would trump the yes vote across the wider United Kingdom and invalidate yes votes in other parts of the United Kingdom. That cannot be a happy outcome either.

A third way in which it would be possible to go, although it is not proposed in the amendment, is for each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom to determine its own electoral system. In those parts of the kingdom that voted for AV, general elections would in future be conducted on the basis of AV; in those parts which preferred first past the post, they would continue to elect their Members of Parliament on the basis of first past the post. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, smiles at the evident fatuity of such a scheme, yet I do not know whether he entirely rules out the possibility of two classes of Member coming to this House of Parliament, some elected, some appointed, because he very wisely does not show his hand and delays doing so for as long as he can.

The only circumstance in which a referendum on the voting system would not be divisive and set parts of the United Kingdom at odds with each other would be the eventuality of every part of the United Kingdom voting the same way, either for AV or first past the post. It is reasonable to think that that is rather an unlikely outcome.

[Lord Wills]

I am very interested in the case that my noble friend is making, but is he not worried that his third-way proposal might undermine the integrity of the Parliament of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am worried precisely about that. That is why I set it up as an Aunt Sally, because it would be an alternative. It would have at least the virtue of being respectful of political sentiment, public opinion and the way people had voted in the individual parts of the United Kingdom. But it would be an absurd arrangement for us to alight upon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it does. One vote would be enough under the terms of this legislation.

[Lord Wills]

Before the noble Lord moves from my comments on this, I refer him to tomorrow’s Hansard so that he may see exactly what I said about thresholds. I also expressed very clearly my worry about the effect of the way in which the Government are proceeding on the state of the union. I would be very grateful if he could address those concerns, which have been raised not only by me but by very many noble Lords this afternoon.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I very much agree with what the noble Lord said about the union, and with other noble Lords from all sides of the House who made exactly the same point. That is why we would not want to encourage this amendment in any way at all.

We will come back to thresholds on Report; this is an important debate to have. There was no threshold in 1975 in the only national referendum that we have held. The Opposition’s ardour for thresholds did not apply in 1997 and 1998 in their four referendums in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. There has been no proposal from any major political party for a threshold in the referendum in Wales next March that would extend the powers of the National Assembly. Most tellingly, when AV was proposed in the Bill before Parliament, there was no threshold in that either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that may well be an argument in a campaign either for or against AV. It is not an argument that can be used to decide whether there should be a referendum on that issue or whether there should be any limits or artificial barriers, as I call them, on this.

I think that everyone now knows what the amendment would do. It would require a majority vote in favour in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than a simple majority. We cannot contemplate a system whereby 100 per cent of voters in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland vote in favour of a proposal, only for it to be rejected because only 49 per cent of voters in Wales agree with them. I know that that is an extreme example, but it could be the effect of the amendment and it none the less highlights the fundamentally undemocratic consequences of this proposal. That is why the coalition agreement commits us to providing for a simple-majority referendum on the alternative vote, without qualification.

[Lord Wills]

The noble Lord is being very generous in giving way. However, does he not accept that whatever the view about a threshold, a differential result in each of the constituent nations of the union could have profound implications for our United Kingdom—for the union? He must accept that. It is a logical assumption to make. If he accepts that, why does he reject the proposition? Is it not more reasonable for Parliament, the acme of our representative democracy, to assess those results, know what they are and then judge how to proceed? Is that not the most sensible way forward?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on this Front Bench we are entirely tied by collective responsibility and my noble friend is totally aware of that. The point is that in the generality we would expect more than 50 per cent of voters to have voted for MPs, but there are circumstances, as I and the noble Lord have explained, where that will not be the case.

I was saying as a matter of assurance that the Electoral Commission will provide information on the different voting systems so that people will understand how the optional preferential system works.

[Lord Wills]

Exactly what are the circumstances in which someone could be elected with less than the 50 per cent support of some of the voters?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the circumstance is when most people who vote express only a first preference and do not then list any further preferences.

The Electoral Commission will be providing this kind of information, and voters will know what they are voting for in the referendum. If they choose AV, it will, I assume, be because they want to express more than one preference at an election, because if they do not, they may as well vote for what we have currently got. So I do not think that there is really any need to worry about voters not exercising this right, if that is the very system that they voted for in the first place. Just as we are not convinced that voters should be made to express a preference for all candidates, we are not persuaded that the Bill should limit the number of preferences that a voter may express at an election. Therefore, we do not agree that the supplementary vote system is the appropriate alternative vote system to present.

I have set out our reasoning and I do not want to go on about arguments that I have already made, but I assume that this is the same reasoning that was behind the previous Government’s proposals for a referendum on this same type of alternative vote system. I know that we have spent some time on this amendment, but it was worth while doing so and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I remember the words of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, in an earlier debate when he said, “If it’s not broke, don’t break it”. That seems to fit most of the prejudices with which I approach politics. But I think we should look again at the question of voting on Thursdays. That was set up in an age when people did not move very much. We are now dealing with a much more mobile population and people who travel all over the country. How many of us have canvassed on election day, knocking on doors to find that somebody has travelled the length of the country and is sitting in some city a very long way away from where they can vote? There are arguments for moving the date of an election to the weekend because it is much more likely that people would then be at home. This is something that needs consideration. As the noble Lord, Lord Snape, pointed out, the Europeans on the whole vote on Sundays and that seems to be eminently sensible. This has a degree of merit and should be seriously considered because the habits of people are changing.

A noble friend said to me when I was considering supporting this amendment that we now have postal voting and so therefore this becomes less of a problem. I am not certain about that. Postal voting has opened up enormous opportunities for fraud and it seems to be possible to create electors in inordinately large numbers who do not actually exist. There is something to be said for restraining the growth in postal voting and possibly considering moving the election day to the weekend when there will be more people at home and in a position to vote.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on this and to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Snape. Both noble Lords are right to draw attention to the fact that in the past there has been a great flexibility on election day and the changing circumstances of the British people now suggest that we ought to be looking at this again. That is why the previous Government held a consultation on this issue. That consultation, for which I was the Minister responsible, proved a very interesting one. There was a mixed response, as one would expect. There were a lot of voices in favour of moving election day. There were equally, I think it is fair to say, a lot of voices very much opposed to it. But what it showed was that there are a great number of issues that have to be taken into account on this: participation in elections, which is a fundamental of our democracy, questions of faith, the patterns of the working day for the great majority of the British electorate and the cost of shifting the election day.

These are complex issues. In the end the previous Government took the view that it was right that the British people should have a decisive say in that. It is their democracy. It is not for us but for them to decide what day would be most convenient, bearing in mind all those other considerations that both noble Lords have alluded to and which the consultation highlighted. We thought in Government that the best way of allowing the British people to have their say was through a citizens’ summit, as my noble friend Lord Snape has reminded us. I still think that probably is the best way but I realise that that is not on offer from the Government. I regret that, but we have a unique opportunity with a referendum. It is the next best thing and I urge the Government to consider this. Both noble Lords have made powerful cases for the consideration of this. It is not a question of deciding to shift it from Thursday. This is really about giving the British people the right to decide. I have heard the Leader of the House say many times that the British people are wise and sagacious enough to make these decisions for themselves. Those on both sides of the debate will put their arguments forward but then the British people in their wisdom will decide. He has said that many times in our debates on this Bill already so I urge him to follow his own logic and accept the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Snape and at least put it to the British people to decide.

[Lord Renton of Mount Harry]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I am rather surprised by what he is saying. I apologise for the fact that I was not in the House for the beginning of this debate, but is he saying that he would like to see the British people being given the choice as to whether it is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday? If he is, the people will simply split and you will have 10 per cent saying one thing, 10 per cent saying another, et cetera. I have stood in seven or eight general elections, all of them on a Thursday, and I never saw anything wrong with it being on a Thursday. People are used to that and personally I would continue having them on Thursdays only.

[Lord Wills]

I had sat down, but I shall briefly respond to the noble Lord’s question. He asked what was wrong with having elections on a Thursday. Quite simply, we have seen turnout falling. It is extraordinarily low in local elections and deplorably low even in general elections, which is the British people deciding on the future of their country and 60 per cent of them turn out. We owe it to them to look at every obstacle to people turning out. I absolutely accept that it is not only to do with the convenience of polling and whether there is electronic voting or voting on election day. Politicians—I include myself in this—are at fault as well in this deplorably low turnout. We should do everything we possibly can. At the very least we have to examine, as one of the options, the question of polling day. That is why I think it is worth examining this matter. The Government in their wisdom have already made a judgment on how we should judge the outcome of a referendum on the alternative vote system. We do this every time we have a referendum. This is not an insoluble problem. The need is pressing and we owe the British people the option of deciding on this.

[Lord Monson]

If one is thinking of opting for weekend voting, it would be preferable to choose a Sunday rather than a Saturday. Of course, it is true that many shops and places of entertainment are open on Sundays nowadays but not nearly as many as are open on a Saturday, when there are a great many choices which the average voter might prefer to queuing up at a polling station. If one wants to optimise turnout, as I think most of us do, of the two I would certainly plump for a Sunday.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point—but it is not the fundamental case that the Government are making in the Bill. This is about a general fairness across the country.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he moves off this point about the size of the reconstituted House of Commons, does he recall that at the election both the coalition partners were committed to reducing the House of Commons to below 600? Can he explain to this House what exactly changed their minds about that?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, in the same way as the figure of 650 is one that has developed over time and is basically an arbitrary one, so the figure of 600—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, plucks a figure from the air. It was not quite like that. Six hundred strikes me as being a nice, round figure. But these are precisely the points that we will take up in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wills]

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

“This rule”—

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

“has effect subject to rules 2 and 4”.

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

[Lord Tyler]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has already outed me, I begin with the confession that I was indeed the Minister in the previous Government responsible for the issues with which the Bill is concerned. Had my party been re-elected, I am sure that we would have approached these issues rather differently, but that has not led me to oppose the Bill. I oppose the Bill because a large part of it attempts to rewire our constitutional arrangements for partisan advantage; and that is unacceptable.

Part 1 sets out to deliver a referendum on the alternative vote. Had the Government adopted the approach pursued by the previous Government, I might have felt able to support them on that, although I recognise that some of my colleagues in this place will differ from me on this in all conceivable circumstances.

If agreed in a referendum, I believe that the alternative vote could help to tackle the problem of legitimacy created by the phenomenon of Government after Government—including the present Government—being elected to power with the support of only a minority of the electorate. The alternative vote system is not a panacea for all the problems of legitimacy faced by our political system, but it at least ensures that more MPs will be returned from their constituencies with the support of a majority of those voting. Crucially, it does so while retaining the MPs’ direct link with their constituents. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who made exactly that point. That is vital for accountability in our democracy.

Sadly, the Government have not followed the careful approach of the previous Government, they have pushed ahead with a process which, as we have already heard, is precipitate; it denies Parliament a proper opportunity to scrutinise such an important constitutional measure. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, this referendum is post-legislative.

I shall return to some other flaws with this process shortly, but I turn to Part 2. It aims to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons and equalise the size of the constituencies that remain. It is reasonable at the very least to debate such reduction and equalisation. There is nothing axiomatically right about that Chamber's current size. As the House will know, the principle that all constituencies should be a broadly similar size is already written into legislation.

However, when we examine how the Government are setting about these tasks, we see principles and practice which have long ensured the fair working of our constitution rejected in what I am afraid can only be construed as partisan self-interest. It has long been accepted, as we have heard over and over again this evening, that the boundaries of a constituency should be shaped not only by numbers but also by the specific character of the constituency, local identities and natural boundaries, such as mountains and rivers, which have throughout history helped to define communities. But in this Bill such considerations have been demoted by the Government.

Nor do the Government appear to have given any consideration to other relevant factors—for example, the optimum size for a constituency; not a number plucked out of the air, like 76,000, but the optimum number, taking into account the respective role of MPs in their constituencies and their role in Parliament, and the implication for both those roles of further decentralisation of power to local authorities and, indeed, then to local councillors.

Instead of a proper consideration of all these important issues, what we see is the Government claiming that the equalisation of constituency size must be elevated above all these other important considerations. Why? We are not given any satisfactory answer whatever. But then they do not uphold even this dubious principle consistently. Wales, as we have heard, is to lose in one swing of the axe 25 per cent of its parliamentary representation while Northern Ireland, for perfectly understandable reasons, is allowed to depart from the electoral quota rule.

Moreover, as we heard in a previous discussion earlier today, the Bill makes an explicit and privileged exception for two Scottish seats, one of which, I am sure coincidentally, is held by the Liberal Democrat MP, the Deputy Chief Whip of the Government. And then again, as we have already heard, a further exemption from the electoral quota is given on the basis of the territorial extent of a constituency, drawn up coincidentally, I am sure, in such a way that it can have practical effect in only one area of the United Kingdom—the Scottish Highlands, where only one constituency currently falls into this special category: the seat held by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats. So why exactly does the Bill allow the factors of sparsity and geography to be given priority over electoral equality in these places but nowhere else?

It is hard to find anywhere in the Bill anything that could pass as a consistently applied informing principle. The Bill abolishes the ability of local people to have any significant say in the shape of the constituency in which they live, even though local representations have significantly influenced boundary revisions in the past. As we have heard, the Boundary Commission report in 2007 found that just about two-thirds of local inquiries had led to changes in the original recommendations of the Boundary Commission.

The Deputy Prime Minister has justified this change with these words—I quote them because they are worth hearing:

“The review process is lengthy and time-consuming”.

Lengthy and time-consuming—exactly the same might be said for democracy itself. Administrative convenience for the Executive is never a good argument for attacking the foundations of accountable democracy.

Then we have the decision on the proper size for the House of Commons. How exactly did the Government alight on the figure of 600? Both the coalition partners were committed before the election to reducing the House of Commons to below the number of 600. They had different figures but they were united in their belief that the House of Commons should be reduced to a figure below 600. So what exactly changed their minds? Will the Minister tell the House whether any modelling was done by the Government or the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative Party on the effects on those parties’ representation in the House of Commons of reducing the number of MPs below 600; and if so, what such modelling showed?

Then the Deputy Prime Minister tells us—we have heard a lot about this from the government Benches already tonight—that,

“it is patently obvious that individuals' votes should carry the same weight”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 35.]

That is right—but they already do. They are only counted once. Every vote is only counted once. What the Deputy Prime Minister appears to mean is that on average it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative or Liberal Democrat MP. However, that is not because votes for the Labour Party weigh more than votes for other parties; it is the consequence, in part, of the fact that turnout and electoral registration are lower in Labour areas and in part it is because Labour’s vote is currently distributed more efficiently within the first past the post system. There is no inherent, systemic bias in favour of the Labour Party. The same system worked against the Labour Party throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

As Liberal Democrat MPs, of all people, should know, if each vote weighing equally means that the share of the vote translates directly into an equal proportion of seats held in the House of Commons, there is only one electoral system that delivers that. We have already heard that tonight. It is proportional representation, which is not on offer in the Bill and carries with it all sorts of other problems that mean that I for one would never want to see it introduced as a method of election into the House of Commons.

If the Government were really so concerned about equality among voters, they would not be seeking to redraw the electoral map on the basis of a register that fails to include over 3 million voters who would otherwise be eligible to vote. Do the Government seriously believe that any credible equalisation of boundaries can take place when some constituencies achieve nearly 100 per cent registration rates while others achieve barely half that? When we look at it, another so-called principle crumbles.

Then there is the way the Bill has been introduced in a display of contempt for Parliament by the Executive. The Labour Government introduced a raft of constitutional reforms, and they always did so by seeking consensus wherever possible on the grounds that whenever constitutional changes are made, they should be made in the interests of the legitimacy of our constitutional system as a whole. This is a crucial principle. These changes should not be subject to claims that partisan advantage is being pursued. I am truly sorry that this Government have rejected this approach.

In the rushed passage of the Bill through the other place, not a single Opposition or Back-Bench amendment was accepted by the Government. That is not the only example of the Government’s contempt for good practice. The Electoral Commission has consistently made clear its view that:

“The rules on how the referendum will be conducted must be clear from at least six months in advance”.

For that to have happened in this case, the Bill would need to have been passed on to the statute book two weeks ago.

If due process and consistent principle do not underpin the Bill, why are the Government bringing it forward? A clue might be provided by the speed with which these measures are being rushed through: speed in rushing this through the other place, speed in holding a referendum less than six months from the presumed passage of the Bill on to the statute book and unprecedented speed in completing the wholesale revision of constituency boundaries. Why the rush? Surely such important constitutional measures deserve appropriate pre-legislative and legislative scrutiny. Surely people should have the time and opportunity to have their say on the shape of the constituencies in which they live.

It is clear that the reason for this haste is that the Government want to get the new system in place by the next election, but why? Important as I believe these measures to be, there is no popular clamour for them, nor any other compelling reason to rush these measures through. Why rush to draw up the boundaries on the basis of an inaccurate and incomplete register when legislation has already been passed by the previous Government—this is the answer to the charge laid by the noble Lord, Lord Baker—to task the Electoral Commission to make the register comprehensive and accurate by 2015 and gave it new powers to do that? The Governments that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, so illuminated in his time in the other place never did anything like that to achieve a proper register. The date selected in that legislation was 2015 because it was judged that that time was needed successfully to compete the task, not least because the key to guaranteeing that the register is comprehensive and accurate is going to be using the results of the 2011 census, the most up-to-date figures we have on the population, to validate it.

Such an analysis is unlikely to be available before 2014. So why are the Government rushing it through before that crucial analysis is available? Why could the Government not wait just a few months longer to be sure that boundary revisions can take place only on the basis of a comprehensive and accurate electoral register, which is the only fair basis on which such revisions can be conducted? The only reason can be that the new boundaries would not be in place for the next general election, but constitutional changes of this significance should be drafted to endure for generations. In this context, whether they are in the place for the coming general election or the one after that really should not weigh in the balance.

Why, after all this, might the Government still be so anxious to get these measures in place by the time of the next election? They must have foreseen these criticisms. I am sure that they did. But why are they proceeding like this nevertheless? Is it too cynical to suspect that it is because they expect to benefit from them? It is widely accepted that revising the boundaries when millions of eligible voters are missing from the register is likely to damage the Labour Party most.

Let me quote from a prominent Conservative, Mr Mark Field, Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster. On his website, which is available to all Members of this House, noble Lords can read that,

“the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by Party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office”.

That is the purpose of this legislation in the words of Mr Mark Field MP.

It should not need me to say that political expediency for one party is an unacceptable basis for constitutional change. This is not the new politics we were promised. It is an old politics where constitutional arrangements are subverted for partisan advantage, which should have no place in our democracy. Far from restoring legitimacy to our politics, as the Government claim, this Bill will damage it further. It is a bad Bill. I hope that this House will do its duty in making all the changes necessary to make it a better one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, as someone whose title was taken from Lerwick in Shetland, I was somewhat startled and delighted this afternoon to arrive here to find that Shetland is once again in the cockpit of history. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, was equally delighted as a former MP for Orkney and Shetland. I do not think that Orkney and Shetland have been so near to the pulse of the nation since Charles James Fox was for a short time the Member of Parliament for the rotten borough there. That was after he had contested the Westminster by-election and there was an inquiry into whether the result was fraudulent. However, I do not think that I ought to go into the merits of the special treatment of Orkney and Shetland.

I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snape, in one respect, as I shall talk mainly about AV. On Part 2 of the Bill, which seeks to reduce the size of the House of Commons, I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Baker that, when we compare the size of our legislature with the size of legislatures in other countries, we should look not at Europe—as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, did—but at countries such as Japan, the United States and India. There is a strong argument for saying that our legislature is too large.

Briefly, on the second principle of equalising constituencies, I will listen carefully to what the Opposition say, but I do not think that so far the case has been wholly convincing.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I want to deal briefly with this, as I really want to talk about AV, if the noble Lord does not mind.

We heard moving speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Myners and Lord Elystan-Morgan, about natural boundaries, rivers, county boundaries and history. I remember in my suburban constituency of Kingston that people used to think that Worcester Park should be excluded simply because it was on the other side of the bypass. I am sure that in Shetland, too, some people think that Orkney should be excluded because it is too far away. These are, as has been said, important points and principles, but the overriding factor must be the integrity and fairness of the democratic system and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, elegantly said, ensuring that as far as possible each vote is of equal value.

Part 1 of the Bill stems from the coalition agreement. As I support the coalition and the necessity of a coalition because of the economic situation that we face, I support the general principles of the Bill. However, I have some suggestions for improving it. In the coalition agreement, there is one statement with which I disagree. The agreement says:

“The Government believes that our political system is broken”.

The phrase,

“our political system is broken”,

was last used by Sir Oswald Mosley. I do not believe that our political system is broken. Of course we have had, rightly, anger and disillusionment with politicians over expenses. We have had some rotten apples. We have had some people who should be and will be punished. However, that is not the same as saying that our constitution is broken. There is no connection between the scandal of expenses and arguments about fixed-term Parliaments, an elected House of Lords or, indeed, AV; they are totally separate. There might be more respect for politics, which is what we all desperately want, if we admitted that AV is being put forward because of a political alliance, as a result of which one party that would not naturally have favoured it has conceded it to the other party. There is no reason to justify this by saying that our political system is broken.

Bismarck once remarked that laws are like sausages, in that it is better not to see them being made. Many laws, many aspects of our constitution and many anomalies in our constitution are the result of accidents of politics and political deals. That applies even to the wonderful and pure theory of PR in Europe. In continental European countries, PR was often introduced in order to save the Liberal party from the rise of socialism and Labour parties.

None the less, we should be cautious about trading permanent changes in the constitution for short-term political advantage. We do not want to get into the situation of Latin American countries, where people campaign on changes to the constitution. We do not want to get into the situation of the fourth republic in France, where there was an old joke about the man who went into the library and asked for a copy of the constitution and was told, “We don’t stock periodicals here”. We do not want to get into the situation whereby one political change is seen as a precursor to the next. Some see AV as precisely that—as a precursor to a move towards PR.

The support for AV in the Bill and the coalition in some ways seems quite surprising. In February this year, the Deputy Prime Minister described AV as a “miserable little compromise”. As has been said, AV is the system used in Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia. In Australia, AV has proved to be often less proportional even than first past the post and to lead to even larger swings—the large swings under first past the post have been among the things most criticised about our present system. AV has not reduced the proportion of safe seats, which is a very high proportion that is similar to the number in this country. In addition, the system of AV often leads to deals, which are not always declared publicly, between major and small, minor or fringe political parties in order to secure office.

The intellectual justification for AV seems somewhat elusive. The system was first proposed in 1917 in the Speaker’s conference, which is more likely to be remembered for having proposed votes for women over 30. The system was put forward in 1931 as a positive solution, and Winston Churchill described it at the time as,

“the worst of all possible plans … the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal. The decision … is to be determined by the most worthless votes given to the most worthless candidates”.

As has been said in this debate, in many cases the outcome of a poll in a constituency under AV will be decided by the person who comes bottom, who might be the British National Party candidate, as has been said. In any case, it seems difficult to justify why the result should always be decided by the second preferences of those who voted for the candidate who came bottom, even if he is only the third candidate. I recently read an article by an Australian academic who suggests that, under AV in Australia, it is possible that, depending on the number of candidates standing, someone might actually be elected who was nobody’s first choice.

As was said by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the referendum proposed on AV is unusual in that it is not an advisory referendum but an implementary one. That raises an important matter. Changing our voting system is a very significant move. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said, when we make such changes they ought to be for generations—for the long term—and the outcome must be seen to command confidence and respect. They must be seen to reflect a real demand for change. If there is a derisory turnout, those conditions will not be met. I submit that this is a significant change.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made some points against the first-past-the-post system, but I say that it has served us well. The same system is followed by leading democracies such as the United States, India and Canada. It has accommodated change, such as when the Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party in the interwar period. What some see as inflexibility or the insensitivity of the system has often protected us from extremism, such as we see when we look at the different electoral systems in Europe and the rise of far-right parties in Holland and Belgium. That was particularly the case in the 1930s, when extremists of both left and right failed to get any parliamentary representation whatever in this country, which was quite different from the experience in continental Europe. We like to put that down, of course, to the moderation and good sense of the British people. I am sure that that exists, but we should not deceive ourselves too much. It may also have a lot to do with our electoral system, so I suggest that we have to think carefully before we change that.

That brings me on to the point about referendums and constitutional change. Many countries have a specific threshold, either of turnout or of the numbers voting yes, before constitutional change can be made in a referendum. Germany and Spain have provisions for a fixed majority before they can effect a change in their constitutions. In Denmark and Italy, the requirement is for a specified proportion—in Italy, it is 60 per cent, I think—not in outcome but in turnout. In 1979, of course, George Cunningham inserted into the Scottish devolution bill a requirement for a 40 per cent yes vote. That has possibly somewhat scarred the Labour Party—I am not quite sure why—so I was particularly interested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, returned today to the subject of a threshold.

I want to put a question to my noble friend Lord McNally, the Minister who, as I understand it, will answer at the end of the debate. I understand that the coalition agreement specified that there should be a simple majority in the referendum without an outcome-specific threshold—that is, there should not be anything similar to the Cunningham amendment. Am I not therefore right that the coalition agreement does not specify that there could not be a turnout threshold and that a provision in the Bill which said that the result of the referendum would only have the effect of law provided that there was a certain turnout would not be inconsistent with the coalition agreement? That turnout provision could be put at whatever level the House decided. It could be quite low. It could be in accordance with the recent turnout in local elections—in the high 30s or higher than 40 per cent—which would mean that, to get a yes vote, you would have to get the votes of 20 per cent of the electorate as a whole.

Some people object to a turnout threshold on the grounds that it encourages people to abstain but, first, the referendum is to be held—this is a subject of controversy—on the same day as local elections, when people have every reason to participate. Secondly, in order to encourage someone who would have voted not to vote as a gesture with political meaning, you would have to have some sort of campaign. I do not really accept the argument that having a turnout threshold would simply encourage people to stay away and would invalidate the whole idea of initiating a debate on this subject. The result of the referendum vote would be much strengthened if there was a provision for a minimum turnout. That would lend much greater legitimacy to the outcome of such a referendum, and I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give it serious consideration.