Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

My Lords, I will make a brief contribution. The noble Lords, Lord Lyell and Lord Rennard, are here as gatekeepers for their parties. It shows the interest that those on the Benches opposite have in the issue. The relative numbers on both sides are representative of the contributions to the debate. I begin by saying how much I enjoyed the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter, Lady Nye and Lady McDonagh. They paid a great deal of attention to the detail of the Bill. I will not do that; my concern is process, especially the process through which major change is taking place against a background of the democratic right of an affected community to complain at a public inquiry not being allowed.

I have not had a lot of experience, but when I was leader of Enfield Council, the London Government Act 1963 came in. I attended the public inquiry and made a contribution on behalf of the council. We were represented by Ashley Bramall, who was well known to London politics. His brother was a Member of this House.

[Lord Bach]

He is a Member.

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

Yes, he is a Member. It gave me a dramatic feeling of being involved in a major piece of legislation. For the life of me, what we have had, more than once, on this Bill and on others, is a tight timetable. The timetable has been fixed not by Parliament but by the political machinations of the coalition. It ought to be honest enough to say to the public that it is cutting corners because it wants to get the legislation through by a certain date, to benefit not the public but the programme and the timetable that it has set for itself. The public are rumbling the coalition and I hope it will get it its comeuppance.

I have no axe to grind on the alternative vote issue. I fought a number of elections: won some, lost some. The first parliamentary election that I fought was for Enfield West. My opponent was Iain Macleod, whose name is well known in this House. I remember saying to someone at a function, in Iain's presence, “Of course, I fought Iain at the last election”. He said, “Well, Ted, you may have done, but you never laid a finger on me”, which I did not because it was my unwinnable seat. The House has been invited to connive with the machinations on the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Maples, who is in his place, commented earlier on political gerrymandering. The Labour Party was upset because some benefits that we had were going to be taken away. The noble Lord is naive if he thinks that people on this side of the Chamber do not believe that people on his side of the Chamber are as guilty as we are in seeking an advantage.

Of course, all parties try to present their case as benignly as possible, but let us be realistic. In my view, the public are well aware of what politics is about, and at the moment it is about the credibility of the coalition parties. If they do not stand together, they will fall. So far as I am concerned, the legislation before us tonight is not in the best interests of the country or Parliament, and when the public realise what is being foisted upon them in the name of democracy, they will have second thoughts. I simply say that there is still time for the Government to reflect on the pace at which they are bringing about change.

Very little in the arguments is new. What we are talking about now is the substance of the legislation. The arguments are pretty well understood. Some people on this side of the House have said that they are in favour of one thing, whereas others have said that they are against it, and the same thing will happen on the other side. The Minister, as a person, has my respect and I know that he will be fair when he winds up the debate. However, I think he ought to take back to his masters the fact that democracy in this country is being ill served by this legislation and that it should be altered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, from the Opposition Front Bench, I thank all those who have spoken during Second Reading. Of course, a large number have been from my side, and I am very grateful to them, but there have been very worthwhile contributions from all sides of the House which have also been illuminating. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham just said, one cannot help being struck by the lack of support for the Government's position. From all sides of the House, there has been pretty outright opposition. Occasionally, a Peer has had a good word to say for the Bill; and, very occasionally, one or two have even shown signs of enthusiasm for it.

Indeed, the only noble Lord who showed great enthusiasm for the Bill—I am so sorry that he is not in his place, but I am sure that he will be in a moment—was the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He seemed in favour of his Bill—and quite right too—but I am not even sure about him. I admire him very much, and I very much regret that he is not sitting opposite me at present. I admire him for many reasons, but above all I admire him—

[Noble Lords]

Here he is!

[Lord Bach]

It is funny; I was just talking about the noble Lord. I admire him so much for his many qualities, but, above all, for what can only be described as his chutzpah. Anyone fortunate enough to hear him on the subject of Lords reform will know exactly what I mean—perhaps even those who saw him earlier today. For those who have not much experience of the noble Lord’s repertoire, we saw a pretty good example yesterday.

How could the noble Lord argue with a straight face that this is a proper constitutional Bill, one that has gone through all the procedures that he has so often told us—or, at least, he used to tell us when he was in opposition—are necessary for such a Bill? They are: extensive public consultation; pre-legislative scrutiny; a search for consensus; and perhaps above all, fairness and a lack of political partisanship. His speech yesterday was as good an example of both cheek and nerve as can be found.

The truth is that the Bill is rotten at its heart. It is rotten because it puts the party interests of the two parties that make up the coalition before fairness. It is rotten because no attempt has been made to consult the public or have pre-legislative scrutiny of its contents. It is rotten, too, because it seeks to decimate the role of the independent boundary commissions in determining appropriate parliamentary boundaries. It is, in effect, two Bills, and depends on a third yet to pass the other place.

Why are measures to set up a referendum on the electoral system in the same Bill as measures to set up new parliamentary constituencies? If it is appropriate to join them together, why is not the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill included as well? I am afraid that the answer is obvious: this is a Bill that is not primarily based on principle. If it were, how could either coalition partner press for a referendum that asked a question about, of all things, the alternative vote, but not about proportional representation? As has been said so often in the debate over two days, the Bill is based on a political deal. Of course it is. I would describe it as a kind of Faustian pact. The Helen of Troy in this Faustian pact is a share of political power. I must admit that I am not sure who at this stage is playing Doctor Faustus—the good Doctor Faustus—and who is playing the devil, but I think I can make a shrewd guess.

Part 1 is the offer for the Liberal Democrats although, frankly, to have settled for a referendum on AV—described by the Deputy Prime Minister in the phrase, almost now a cliché, that we have heard so often, “a miserable little compromise”—does not seem a great result, more a 0-0 draw, at least for the time being, rather than a win. Part 2 is the Conservatives’ prize as part of the deal: an unthought-out proposal to cut the number of Members of Parliament to a certain, fixed, strict, unbending, inflexible, unalterable figure of 600 to cause the coalition’s political opponents the maximum damage. All this low politics is hidden under the cover of political principle. It is described as a “new politics”, while the Deputy Prime Minister claims it is the most important political reform since 1832 and that he is the greatest reformer of them all. Stand aside Disraeli; stand aside Gladstone; stand aside Lloyd George, Churchill, Macmillan and Attlee. Bring forward the new hero of the hour, the new kid on the block, the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not unusual to hide motives under the cover of high-sounding principle, but here we see the art form at its most blatant and it needs, I would have thought, a great political writer to catch the flavour of it. Trollope! You should be living at this hour.

As to Part 1, one question stands out from many others and has been asked many times. Why the rush? Why the haste? We are to have a referendum as early as 5 May. Why combine the referendum with other elections in a large part of the United Kingdom but not everywhere? Why have the rules for the referendum been shoved into the Bill at the last moment and not been dealt with in the usual way? Why so little consultation? I ask again: why the hurry? I suspect that the answer is depressingly party political yet again: the Liberal Democrats desperately need an early sign that they actually matter in the Government. Perhaps they feel that they have more chance of winning the vote for AV if the referendum is held early, but perhaps they should listen rather more closely to my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who is a strong supporter of AV and who believes that a positive vote has much more chance if the referendum is held on another date. So often have we been told in this debate, and so often has the question been asked: is this really the way to change something as important as the electoral system of one of the oldest and most respected democracies in the world? I think the answer has to be no.

When we come to Part 2, I believe that we see the deeply partisan nature of this rushed legislation. We have heard of distinguished Conservative MPs during the course of this debate. We heard twice about the honourable Member for where we are tonight, the Cities of London and Westminster, who said:

“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”.

It was not some idiot or some fool saying that, but a Conservative Member of Parliament.

Indeed, I am sorry to quote the Member of Parliament of my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who is an independent-minded, respected MP, but it is important. He said:

“When introducing this Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister dressed it up as the beginning of new politics … it is old politics exercised at its very best or its very worst, according to one's disposition. It is about the Executive—the Government of the day—seizing more power for themselves. Let us not be coy about this … The arguments for reducing the size of the House of Commons by 50 are nothing more than very flimsy. We are told that cutting 50 Members of Parliament will save £12 million. Well … that is what 350 years of settled parliamentary democracy adds up to—we are going to save £12 million. Why stop there? Let us get rid of 300 Members of Parliament and save £72 million. There may be many good reasons for reducing the size of the House of Commons, but saving £12 million is not one of them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 98.]

Finally, I remind the House of the words quoted by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark from the Liberal Democrat MP, Greg Mulholland. He said:

“Redrawing the boundaries every five years, for every Parliament, is simply not sensible. I am happy to support the principle of having more equal constituencies, but the proposals as they are now worded show no recognition of the reality of … introducing boundary changes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/10; col. 882.]

Hear, hear, to that. Greater equalisation is a good thing, but at what cost?

With this Bill we know that something is wrong. This does not look or sound like serious, well thought-out constitutional reform. It lacks that thought-through quality and that achieved consensus that come from proper pre-legislative scrutiny, and the reason is not hard to find. This is a constitutional measure that breaks the long-established and fundamental convention that such measures should not be taken for party gain.

I want to test this view by putting a number of questions to the Minister. First, why is there the need to undertake such an enormous boundary review by the next election? We have just been through the fifth periodical review, and new and important changes were made for this year’s general election. Why is there the rush? Secondly, crucially and without apologies, I come back to why should there be 600 seats. This is the first time in modern history that a Government have sought to set down a number that cannot be altered. Rule 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 states:

“The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613”.

That gives the boundary commissions the opportunity to use their independent judgment, balancing the need for equality of electors and other proper considerations, such as geography and community ties, before coming to a fair conclusion. This system has worked. It has almost universal support.

A convenient myth has grown up that the number of MPs has risen greatly since 1945. As Professor King argued, in Sunday’s Observer, this is just not true. He went on to say that, at a time when the number of people each MP represents and the workload of MPs have been greatly increased, the number of MPs has risen by 10 over 65 years. So why should we have 600 seats? We have not had a satisfactory answer from the Government. Neither Mr Harper in another place, nor our own Constitutional Committee, nor, with great respect, the Leader of the House has given a satisfactory answer. For him to say that 600 seats strikes him as “a nice round figure” is humorous and well meaning. We know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who will be answering, can be a cheeky chappie. But I would ask him tonight to take this question seriously and to give the House an answer. Why should the figure be 600? Why not 585, as in the Tory manifesto? Why not 500, as in the Lib Dem manifesto? Was it picked out of the air? Is it random? Is it some kind of magic number?

It is not a bad rule in politics that no decision or choice about a particular number or form of words happens by chance. There is always a motive of some sort—good, bad or in-between—behind it. It is not chance that the number that has been chosen is 600. Let me put forward a possible reason. At 600 seats, the main opposition party stands to lose many more seats than its opponents. At 585 and even at 500 seats, the party advantage evens itself out. Psephologists, I am told, agree on this. Is the Minister denying that conclusion, and if he is, what convincing reason can he give for the figure of 600? If we are right, and this is being done for political partisan reasons, is it not a constitutional outrage? Are not the Government using their majority in both Houses of Parliament to usurp the role of the independent boundary commissions?

In many ways, of course, the final clue to what we argue is a partisan Bill is to be found in the abolition of public inquiries. Why are the Government proposing this? For many years they have been a vital and integral part of the difficult and sensitive process, and it is that, of redrawing parliamentary boundaries. To abolish them is to remove at a stroke the key benefit of having the original proposals of the boundary commissions tested and argued in an open public hearing before an assistant commissioner with legal qualifications. Worse than that, it removes local involvement, the opportunity for ordinary people from the area under consideration to put forward their points of view. I reject entirely the argument that public inquiries are merely a vehicle for political parties. In any event, political parties are actually made up of local people. I want to let the House into a secret. It is not that unusual for members of the same political party to put forward different proposals to the same Boundary Commission.

In my experience, and I have appeared at quite a number of these public inquiries, many years ago now and for nothing—pro bono, because I thought I saw that look in the noble Lord’s face—there are always many other citizens who put their views across. Those views may be absurd or they may be brilliant, but that is not the point. The point is that local people have the opportunity to be seen and heard, to be agreed with or contradicted, and above all to be active citizens. Is not that what, as I understand it, the big society is supposed to be all about?

The alternative proposal set out in the Bill that there should be a written consultation is, frankly, an insult. What I do not understand is how two parties which both speak about localism and the need for greater influence to be given to local people can consider abolishing public inquiries, particularly when the boundary review that is planned in this Bill is going to be the largest and most wide-ranging for a very long time. The painful answer, of course, is that all these arguments come a poor second to the Government’s need for a quick fix, a radical redrawing of the boundaries by 2015, a cutting of corners and established well-proved practices, in order to give them an advantage over the opposition party. That is the uncomfortable truth about this Bill—not so much a con trick as a Con/Dem trick. If a Labour Government had brought forward these proposals, we would have been ridiculed and savaged, and what is more, we would have deserved it.

One of the roles of this House is to help Governments to avoid the follies and mistakes of their proposals. Let me tell noble Lords that if you are in Government, it can be a fairly uncomfortable sort of help. In fact, it does not seem much like help at all. I have been there. In our view, this is a Bill where the Government need assistance from this House—and not just from our side, but from all sides, to move away from proposals that, frankly, are not worthy of the great traditions of the two parties that make up the coalition. They are traditions which accept that constitutional changes should be made, but always under two guiding principles: caution and consensus.

The Bill is deeply unsatisfactory in many ways, as our own Constitutional Committee said in its withering report last week. It represents a genuine abuse of power. I cannot believe that the Government want to gain a reputation so soon after they have come to office. For what it is worth, my advice to them is to listen to what has been said, loud and clear, by the House in this Second Reading debate; otherwise they will deserve the reputation they will undoubtedly get.

I return to the proposition that the argument for bringing the number of MPs down to 600 is to save £12 million. The reputation the Government will get is that they will be accused of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.