Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will make some progress.

The House of Lords has now asked us to consider the matter again, after voting to reinstate the original provisions. It is only right, therefore, that I briefly report the reasons that it gave for doing so, and explain why I do not believe that those reasons are sufficient to change the clearly expressed view of the House of Commons. First, though, let me deal briefly with the suggestion made by the Lords that it was necessary for this House to consider the issue again because we had not given it proper scrutiny.

The House of Commons has debated the issue of thresholds on a number of occasions, and has voted conclusively against the principle twice. We specifically considered the merit of Lord Rooker’s proposal. During the Lords debate, Lord Falconer suggested that I had misrepresented it, but I thought that I had made myself clear when I said that his amendment sought to make the referendum result indicative should turnout fall below 40%, rather than ruling out implementing the result altogether. My point was that this proposal is a threshold nevertheless, and I make no apology for making the case against it yesterday.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

The Minister has just referred to two occasions on which the House has debated thresholds. Both times, the amendments under discussion had been tabled by me. I believe that thresholds are appropriate in the context of such matters as referendums. However, I accept that my amendments were defeated by the House of Commons, and that the will of the House of Commons must prevail. The House of Lords should accept that too.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. I am sure that her clarion call will be heard at the other end of the building.

This morning Lord Wallace made the important point that when a referendum poses a yes/no question, a turnout threshold effectively makes every abstention a no vote. A number of noble Lords supporting Lord Rooker’s amendment suggested that that would not be the case with the kind of threshold that he had proposed. Let me make it clear that it would. Under his amendment, abstentions would still mean that a yes vote might not be upheld. The amendment would still create an incentive for those who favour a no vote to stay at home. Those who favour a no vote might well think that abstaining could create a low enough turnout to see off a yes vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend is right. I shall come to that point.

The Minister is still trying to obfuscate over the threshold and suggest that in some way it would negate the proposals in the Bill. What is unusual about the proposed referendum is that the Government are making it binding. Normally under our constitution, referendums have been advisory to Parliament, not binding in their outcome, and that includes the devolution referendums that were mentioned. The difference in threshold in the Scotland and Wales Bill back in 1979 was that it required 40% of those voting to vote in a certain way.

All the amendment does is say that if 40% of people fail to vote in total in the referendum, Parliament should reconsider the matter. That is an entirely different and reasonable position and in keeping with the traditions of our constitution that referendums are advisory and not binding, particularly when turnout is so low.

The amendment that we are sending down to the House of Lords is an insult to the other place. The Minister’s puerile explanation of it and the cursory way he dealt with the amendment that he is now asking us to vote for was a complete insult to our intelligence and that of the public.

I am afraid that when one lifts a stone in this place, procedurally what one sees underneath is sometimes quite unpleasant. Constitutionally, the Minister had to table an amendment, but instead of putting down a serious amendment that attempted to meet the House of Lords somewhere along the line of compromise, he tabled the parliamentary equivalent of a colouring-in book; he had to fill it in with something and so produced this puerile and meaningless amendment. It is an insult to the other place and to our intelligence. They sit there on the Front Bench, hairy man and smooth man, abusing our constitution. The Government should try to meet the other place somewhere on the spectrum of compromise. That would have been the reasonable thing to do and in line with our constitution.

As someone who will vote yes to AV in the forthcoming referendum and encourage as many people as possible to vote, I think that the idea that this House should not even have the constitutional right to look at the outcome of the referendum if only a very small number of people vote is an insult to democracy.

[Mrs Laing]

The arguments of Lord Lamont and his colleagues in the other place are absolutely right, as was everything the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said this evening; I would repeat them in my remarks, but time will not permit me to do so. Sadly, those two rights are incompatible, because the choice before this House this evening is no longer about AV referendums and thresholds. I hate AV and do not want this £100 million referendum. I have always been in favour of a threshold and have said so many times in this House, but that is not the choice before us.

Sadly, the choice before us is between a Labour Government who ruined this country’s economy over 13 years and a coalition Government between the Conservatives and the Liberals that will give the country the stability it needs to recover from the dire economic situation. This referendum on a simple majority, which is stated in the coalition agreement, is a high price to pay for that stability. I, for one, agree to pay it with a very heavy heart.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am slightly troubled by my hon. Friend’s remarks, because I was unaware that this had been put down as a confidence motion.

[Mrs Laing]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. It is not a confidence motion, but sadly it is for some of us who have loyalty to the Prime Minister, because we are Conservatives first and foremost and want to see the stable government that is now being provided in every area other than constitutional development. We want to see that stable government and so must support our Prime Minister and his coalition. For some of us, it is done with a heavy heart, but that is the price that the Liberals have sought in order to improve their party political advantage. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton is absolutely right that we ought to have a threshold, but it is too late. The Bill is at its end. Let us just get on with the process of having a referendum and ensure that the British people see it for what it is and do not vote to change our constitution.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, for whom I have great respect, I think that that is one of the saddest contributions that she has ever made in this House.

Earlier today, the Home Secretary came to the House and said that, in the making of laws in this country, Parliament is superior to the courts, but here we are, going for the lowest common denominator—the survival of a coalition Government. In reality, however, that cannot be so. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that, over this issue, for which there is no appetite in the country, the Liberal Democrats would actually pull down the Government? Is she suggesting that, in actual fact, the Deputy Prime Minister would leave his gilded office over such an issue? I suggest that he most certainly would not.

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman is right; I do not disagree. He is right also about it being my saddest speech. I hated making it, and this is a dreadful situation to be in, but my suggestion was not about the Deputy Prime Minister, but about the Prime Minister, who gave his word that there would be a referendum. I wish that he had not, but he did.

[Dr McCrea]

The Prime Minister giving his word to the Deputy Prime Minister is one thing; what counts is the Prime Minister’s word to the people of this United Kingdom. Our Prime Minister has no appetite or conviction for this legislation at all. This is a grubby deal simply to keep a party happy, and to keep its Back Benchers happy at this time, but on a major constitutional issue such as this, is that the way in which we run our country? Is that the way in which we are supposed to make our decisions? On a previous occasion, the question was asked, “Would the coalition collapse if this issue were defeated?” The answer, if I can remember, from the Deputy Prime Minister was no, so to try to suggest that it would collapse is not factual at all. If it were, I suggest that it would be blackmail, and we cannot blackmail hon. Members of this House.

What we are here to ensure is what we, by conviction, believe is best for the country, not the lowest common denominator. So, I ask this question: where is the pressure coming from for this legislation or for AV? It is certainly not coming from the Conservative party, or from the Prime Minister, because he takes the very opposite view. It is simply coming from a few members of the Lib Dems, who believe that, from now on in, they can hold the country to ransom. They hope that, as far as governing is concerned, they will hold the balance of power in any election that follows.

The hon. Lady had better remember, and let us make no mistake, that if the Lib Dems thought that, in order to keep their ministerial cars after the next election, a coalition would be better with Labour, they would join a coalition with Labour. They are not doing this out of conviction; they are doing it for personal, petty position, and I suggest that that is a ridiculous way of dealing with such a constitutional issue.