Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has made a powerful case for why his amendment is in the interests of the Liberal Democrats. I shall make a case, probably not quite as powerful, for it being in the interests also of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives to whom I talk are all absolutely confident that AV will be defeated in the referendum. I do not happen to agree with them, but they are very confident.

Let us just think what the situation would be if the Campbell-Savours amendment, or “Jessica’s law”, did not apply and the Liberal Democrats were defeated in the referendum. What would then be the situation of the Liberal Democrats? They would have lost AV, which they are relying on to deliver them extra seats at the next general election, as everyone agrees it would. However, coming along the line will be the 5 per cent rule and the equalisation, and what is also agreed is that those rules will hit the Liberal Democrats much harder than any other party. According to Democratic Audit’s calculations, they would lose 11 of their 57 seats, whereas Labour and the Tories, with many more seats, would lose 18 and 17 respectively. It would be a real reduction in the proportion of Lib Dem representation in the House of Commons.

I do not know what bedlam the coalition will be in if and when we get to such a stage. I do not expect that the coalition will be very politically popular; it will need to last to have any chance of regaining its political popularity. In those circumstances, what will the Lib Dems do? If the Boundary Commission review comes into force, as it will in 2015, they will be faced with a loss of seats as a result not only of losing votes but also of the redistribution. The sensible thing to do, therefore, would be to find the nearest and quickest excuse to bring this coalition Government to an end and to adopt a sauve qui peut stance in a general election where they might preserve more seats than they would in a general election eventually to be held under the new system proposed by the Government. It would not suit the Tories to have a general election in the middle of this Parliament, because they would be extremely unpopular, and no doubt deservedly so. I come to the conclusion that it is very strange indeed that this side is arguing for the amendment, although I see no nods of agreement on the other side with any of the arguments that we have put forward.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The amendment would mean that you would get the constituency boundary changes only if the AV vote was yes. I do not support that, but it is an inevitable consequence of the loose language in which the coalition puts this. On 20 December, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said:

“Indeed, as my noble friend Lord McNally has said on a number of occasions, this Bill is about fair votes and fair boundaries. It shows that the two are, in fact, linked. It shows how the two will be linked because it will shape the way in which the other place will be elected in 2015”.—[Official Report, 20/12/10; col. 882.]

My understanding of this Bill is that, if the AV vote is no, you still get your constituency boundary changes. Am I wrong? Please confirm that. If I am right, why did the Minister say that on 20 December?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

58ZA: Clause 10, page 8, line 39, leave out “may” and insert “must”

[Lord Lipsey]

Perhaps noble Lords may take this as a sign to take their tea break—at this time of night, they might require something a bit stronger—as Amendment 58ZA is really a probing amendment. The amendment seeks to probe what to me is a puzzle.

If the Boundary Commission makes proposals for a change to the draft order in council, would it not be right to say that the Minister “must”, rather than “may”, accept the Boundary Commission’s proposals? In all our efforts on the Bill, one of the great things that we are trying to protect is the independence of the Boundary Commission. However, the Bill is drafted in a way that suggests that Ministers would have the discretion—the word used is “may”—on whether to accept the Boundary Commission’s recommended modifications. I suspect that the word “may” is used by accident, but if its use is deliberate it is disgraceful.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for Amendment 58ZA. When I first read the amendment, I immediately identified what he was driving at and had some considerable sympathy for it. He is absolutely right that, if the Government could simply disregard a modification that the Boundary Commission suggested, that would not be acceptable.

I am afraid that the issue comes down to textual analysis. Amendment 58ZA proceeds on the assumption that Clause 10(6)(5B) confers a separate discretionary power whereby the Government may decide whether to include a modification that has been requested by a boundary commission. However, we do not consider that to be the effect of new subsection (5B) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Rather, new subsection (5B) explains how the modifications referred to in new subsection (5A)—the two subsections need to be read together—can come to be included in the order in council. On that basis, the inclusion of requested modifications is part and parcel of the requirement to give effect to the Boundary Commission’s recommendation, as provided for in new subsection (5A). Therefore, the Bill requires the Government to include such modifications in the order in council.

I should perhaps also point out that the noble Lord’s amendment might make it less clear that the Government are not permitted to make any modifications other than those requested by the boundary commissions.

I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that answer. I readily acknowledge that the matter is textual. After reading the subsection several times, I was persuaded that new subsections (5A) and (5B) need to be taken together and that there is nothing malign intended. No doubt the noble Lord will want to read what I have said, but I am certainly prepared to consider—although I am already satisfied with the wording, which we have discussed through—satisfying myself further on the matter. However, on that basis, I ask the noble Lord to reflect on what I have said and to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is perhaps a good reason for us to examine it again. I have indicated what the intention is and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for flagging this up. It will give us an opportunity to be satisfied that the wording reflects the intention.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord and if I gave any impression that I seriously thought that there was an attempt to get away with anything, I withdraw that unconditionally. I accept that it is, as he says, a textual matter. In fact, he has kindly promised to reread the clause and check that he is satisfied with it, as will I. Actually, I have found it more effective than taking two Sleep-eze to get off at night—so, after tonight’s debate may be a very good time for him to apply his mind to it. After I read his remarks, I will return to it on Report if I want to. In the mean time, I thank him for considering this so carefully and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58ZA withdrawn.