Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

I think that my noble friend should arrange a special showing of that election broadcast in the House; I would like to see what I missed. On a more serious note, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. He has hit on an important point. It is worth remembering that there are different electoral systems within the UK for different elections, so it needs to be made clear that we are separating out the referendum from the party-political agenda. The second amendment is particularly important in this respect. I would have thought that there was a strong case for the Government simply to accept that amendment, although they may want to reword it. I hope that in due course they will say that the principle that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench is putting forward is right and ought to be protected.

[Lord Lipsey]

I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s amendment. The need for it reflects in part the baleful effects of the Government’s plan to have the referendum on the same day as other elections, because inevitably there will be a cluster of party-political broadcasts as part of the campaigns. That means that a ban of this kind is all the more essential because there will be a temptation at times for various parties to include the referendum in those broadcasts. Of course, it is possible that the referendum will not take place on 5 May—we shall see—but the circumstances in which it took place later could mean that the ability to use a party-political broadcast to campaign for or against AV could considerably prejudice the result of that referendum.

Let us take a case whereby the referendum is held at a time when the coalition has broken up, which seems a more likely prospect today than it would have done about a fortnight ago. In that circumstance, the Conservatives would no longer have any inhibition about campaigning flat out for what they believe in, which is that AV is a bad thing, and they could well wish to devote a party-political broadcast—or party-political broadcasts, come to that—to smashing into AV, if only in the hope of defeating their erstwhile friends in the Liberal Democrats on something that they greatly want.

The idea of party-political broadcasts, although they are propagandist things, is that they are balanced; everyone gets a go at one, so they cancel each other out. Within a referendum campaign, however, to allow for party-political broadcasts arguing one side of the case where it is a matter of chance whether or not there is a party-political broadcast arguing the other seems to be an extremely unfair way to conduct the campaign. I therefore support my noble and learned friend’s amendment.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment of my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. I shall start with my usual obsession and say that, on reading the amendment and indeed the Bill, I was motivated by my usual and, I would say, well founded lack of trust in the behaviour of Liberals in these matters. My noble friend Lady Liddell has mentioned various referendums—or referenda—but, being parochial and from the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen, I shall bring it down to the Royal Burgh level.

As I have mentioned previously, we had a local council campaign regarding local government reform in 1994-95. It was an all-party campaign. Everybody behaved themselves, except guess who? We had the local Liberals trying to slip in leaflets and bits about themselves as if the campaign was somehow theirs. It caused great annoyance among the rest of the voluntary committee and they were reprimanded.

No doubt somewhere in the Chamber somebody will jump up to say, “How parochial and petty”. I plead guilty to that. However, I am further reinforced in my position on this amendment by comments from my noble friend Lady Liddell. I have an awful guilty feeling that, as part of the Labour no campaign, I contributed to the finances to seek the interdict that she referred to. I am quite sure that she will have a word to say to me later about that.

As my noble friends Lady Liddell and Lord Foulkes pointed out, the election broadcast compounded or, even worse, took advantage of pushing the boundaries of what were the rules and what was policy. Though it is absolutely wrong, the temptation will always be there. This should be very well controlled in order to make sure that election broadcasts are not hijacked for narrow political purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I rise briefly to ask a further question to which I hope the Minister will address himself. The clause provides protection against something in a newspaper, other than an advertisement of course, or in a periodical or in the broadcasting media specified, being regarded as election expenses, but it does not say anything about expenses incurred via the internet. Does the protection extend to that medium?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The question about the internet is very important. Following on from the noble Lord’s point, can the Minister comment on information about the referendum that may be made available by the Electoral Commission on the internet? The Electoral Commission is entitled to issue neutral educational material concerning the referendum question but, in practice, I think that it is extremely difficult to be absolutely sure of the neutrality of any such material in such a presentation. The materials put out by the authorities in the New Zealand referendum led to considerable controversy, as there was an argument that, in listing the pros and cons, they were not impartial. I do not want to go on about this but I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments because the point about the internet and the Electoral Commission is very important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maxton]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned the internet. Perhaps I may give an example to follow on from what my noble friend Lord Howarth said about business people. Sir Sean Connery is a major benefactor of the Scottish National Party, but he is not a taxpayer in this country. He is not therefore bound by rules on expenditure if he is spending that money on advertising via the internet rather than by other means. I presume that there will be other business people, some from the Conservative Benches, who may be in the same position; that is, they are non-taxpayers but can use their money to influence the referendum through the internet in a way that is uncontrollable by the Act.

[Lord Lipsey]

A little while ago, Members intervening from this side said quite reasonably that they were not trying to delay proceedings by more than they needed to and were being as succinct as they could. The Minister said that it would speed things up if noble Lords would stop saying that. Will he consider an offer whereby we stop saying that if he stops implying that this side is trying to filibuster on this Bill, when it is trying to subject it to correct and proper parliamentary scrutiny?

[Noble Lords]

Hear! Hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, briefly, the very point that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has mentioned is the one that has particularly worried me: the rich men and women who have made plenty of money—worked hard and earned the money—and decide to influence the political process with an influx of money into either individual constituencies, as sometimes seems to happen, or on a national campaign. I do not think that is right. I am seriously interested in the response of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to that, because I am certainly interested in taking up his offer of widening and deepening the bonding that has taken place between the two of us.

I am also inspired to speak very briefly following the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who mentioned that he really cannot remember what he said a few years ago. None of us can remember everything we said a few years ago, but sometimes there is relevance in what we say. The referendum is being driven by politics. The date is being driven by politics. We are told that we should not revise and scrutinise because 5 May is set in stone and that we should not do anything to put that in jeopardy. It is our job to revise and to scrutinise legislation and we should not be accused of spreading things out. This issue is political. I shall briefly give a quote:

“I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster”.

That is the bit that interests me.

“What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say ‘Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum’”.

This refers specifically to the euro campaign. The quote continues:

“So during the last election campaign the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, Governments only concede them when Governments are weak”.

That was Chris Patten, now the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, this is proving to be a most illuminating debate. When the Minister replies, can he illuminate us further? I got rather confused between two arguments that he is putting, both of which are perfectly sustainable but which are simply impossible to run together.

One argument is that there is nothing wrong with the present law; it deals with absolutely everything. I do not think that that argument stands up because it has been destroyed by the arguments of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, but it is a perfectly sustainable argument by its own logic. Another argument which the Minister came to later, however, says, “Well, the law may or may not be right, but it would be totally confusing to participants if we changed it now”. That is a sustainable argument that leads to a clear conclusion: if it is going to confuse participants, we need to put the referendum date back, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, sort that bit of law out and then go ahead with the referendum.

The Minister can take either line as far as I am concerned, and the House will take its view on whether it supports it, but he really cannot run both lines simultaneously. I know that the late Jimmy Thomas said that if you cannot ride two horses at once you should not be in the circus, but it gets a trifle tricky if they are galloping in opposite directions.

[Lord McNally]

I know a little Labour Party history. It was Jimmy Maxton, not Jimmy Thomas, who said that. The noble Lord can have a large bet on that; I know that he is a betting man.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I completely agree. I find the idea that we should not be talking at some length about authorised participants and permitted participants entirely wrong. That is why the Minister’s response to the last series was so disappointing. The last series went right to the heart of the issues that relate to the funding of the referendum, because everybody around the House wants a situation in which the same rules are imposed on everybody. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, got a slapping from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for raising the question of the government leaflets, although it was obviously a slapping that he was quite able to cope with. That seems to be the one area where it is authorised to spend money that does not come from an authorised participant or a permitted participant.

I do not dismiss as a joke what my noble friend Lord Gilbert said. Presumably one of the most significant sources of what will be regarded as reliable information in relation to this referendum will be what the Government themselves or the Electoral Commission—I cannot remember which—produce in relation to these leaflets. That will probably be where one of the most significant amounts of expenditure will be. However, I return to my question to the noble Lord—

[Lord Lipsey]

Before the noble and learned Lord returns to his question, as he must, did he note that when the outbreak of violence took place on the other side—I think that he called it “slapping”—the Minister calmed it by saying that we could talk about all this when we get to Schedule 1? Has he noted that Schedule 1 makes no reference whatsoever to this leaflet and is of no relevance to it?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I was not sure when the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the Minister envisaged that we should have this debate. If they could identify on which particular issues we should have it, that would be fine. My question—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley]

I do not want to continue the discussions that we have had other than to close them down. This is all the fault of my old and noble friend Lord Gilbert, with whom I had the great pleasure to be an international observer at the first free elections in Mongolia, which was quite an experience for both of us—and an even bigger experience for the Mongolians. I should say, in case I misled the House or the Minister, that I did not intend to imply—and I do not think that I implied—that the Electoral Commission was passive, which was the word that he used. I simply tried to describe the dilemma facing organisations such as the Electoral Commission as to whether Parliament should make more detailed rules, or whether they should make them and keep things on a very simple basis. That is a very important debate, but it is one that we get to under Clause 9.

[Lord Lipsey]

In the same spirit, I think that I misrepresented Schedule 1, and therefore the Minister, because there is a proposal in there on which it would be possible to hang a discussion about a possible leaflet—namely, the public information measures. I apologise for that and ask the Minister to confirm that it would be fully in order for the House to have a proper debate about the very important issues raised about the leaflet when we get to Schedule 1.

[Lord McNally]

I give that assurance and sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has it on his list to deal with that schedule.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Bill had said, “‘The Minister’ means, in this case, ‘the right honourable Nick Clegg’”, we would think that a bit odd. If the Bill remains as it is, it might as well have just done that. Why not do what is done in every other Bill that certainly I have been involved with, and just say that “the Minister” means “the Secretary of State”? I beg to move.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, this is not the greatest matter before us, but it is an important one and I support the amendment. If there is one rule that one learns in life, it is that making two people responsible for something is a recipe for it not getting done properly. There is not one person to blame or to take the lead and it leads to confusion and non-action. That is my first point. My second point relates to precisely the other side of the coin of the argument put by my noble friend Lord Bach; namely, the present occupants of this position. On the one hand you have the Justice Secretary, who is a passionate supporter of first past the post. On the other hand, you have the Deputy Prime Minister, the Lord President, who is a passionate supporter of AV. They have come together in this coalition and that is simply a fact.

But honestly, there is scope here for mischief-making—and I used to be a journalist. There could be real mischief: for example, the Justice Secretary waits until the Lord President of the Council has gone off for the weekend to make some amendment or order under the Bill to suit his book. More likely, there will be journalistic mischief-making, where the fact that these two gentlemen agree on the Bill when they do not agree on the subject of it is elevated and makes a good diary paragraph. I am sure this Government’s backs are extraordinarily broad. They probably do not read the newspapers at all and are not the least interested in the gossipy things that I suspect might arise from this, but it does seem a completely pointless goal to leave the matter without a goal-keeper so that anybody can have a pot-shot at it.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Does my noble friend agree that this is significant in terms of proper accountability to Parliament? Parliament needs to know which Minister within the Government holds responsibility, and the statute ought to make that clear.

[Lord Lipsey]

My noble friend makes clear in more formal terms what I meant by confusion. Parliament is indeed one of the bodies that could end up confused.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, one of my problems at the moment is that I can hardly stray into these debates without finding that somebody stirs me up. That has happened on this occasion. I was Lord President of the Council for five years, probably longer than anybody else since the war—with the possible exception of Herbert Morrison—or indeed, since the role was created.

I am strongly inclined to stick with my noble friend; he will be glad to hear that, I hope. The clue to this is what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which completely refutes what has just been said—I am somewhat surprised to say—by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. The phrase used in legislation—I do not know how it was done when there used to be Ministers as well as Secretaries of State—is “Secretary of State”. It is not “Secretary of State for Justice”; it is not “Secretary of State for this, that or the other”. It means that any Secretary of State, constitutionally, can exercise those powers. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, falls in my view, because any confusion that there is is basic and written in and just goes on.

My point therefore, and declaring my former interest, is that I do not see why the Lord President of the Council, who is certainly a Cabinet Minister and with the status of a Secretary of State, should not have the same ability to do what all other Cabinet Ministers designated as Secretaries of State can do. I stick with my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

When I took this Bill on holiday to read in the summer, it was 153 pages. When it arrived in this House, it was 300. Yet the Minister has the brass neck to say that the other place was time-wasting, when the Bill doubled because of 286 government amendments that were put into the Bill in the House of Commons. Come off it!

[Lord Lipsey]

Perhaps I might make a helpful suggestion to the Minister to move things on, because we are getting into other waters. He said something incredibly helpful just now: that this is intended to give part of the powers to be exercised by a Secretary of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Wales—by a territorial Minister; that is what the noble Lord said, as he will find when he checks in Hansard—and part of them to be exercised by the Lord President. That is perfectly sensible and a very good description. All he therefore needs to do is to agree to introduce at the next stage of the Bill an amendment that makes that clear and we can move on.

[Lord Soley]

I would not have intervened again, except for the way that the Minister addressed his last comment. That was not helpful. It is where he actually makes matters worse. My noble friend Lord Rooker is exactly right. The noble Lord talked about his vast experience but I know of many experiences of both kinds of Government increasing a Bill by piling in extra clauses that then come before this House. It does not help to try and score a party-political point. The other side of the argument is that on the last occasion we debated this—I forget which day that was—I quoted from a Conservative MP’s letter, which stated very clearly that he had only five minutes to discuss an issue of great importance and did not have time to speak at all on the main debate for it. There were members of the Minister’s Government complaining about lack of time.

My advice to the Minister is not to get into this party-political knockabout. A Bill like this, which is very important to the Government but very complex, will inevitably expand over time if it is hurried through in the way that the Government are doing. That is what has happened and that is why all those extra clauses, to which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred, have been added. It also explains why some people on the Minister’s own side who were opposed to certain aspects of it complained about the lack of time in the House of Commons. I simply say: for heaven’s sake, drop this idea that it is all one party’s fault. That is nonsense.