Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

A1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) If less than 40% of the electorate vote in the referendum, the result shall not be binding.”

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, it is best if I briefly state what this amendment does not do. It does not prevent the referendum taking place. It does not have a threshold that stops the proposed change in the Bill taking place. It simply allows the compulsory change in the Bill to be activated only if the turnout is 40 per cent plus. If it is less than 40 per cent, it still allows the change but requires the decision of a Minister to do so, which probably implies a debate in this House and the other place. In other words, if the turnout is 40 per cent plus, we get a binding compulsory change. If it is less than 40 per cent, it becomes discretionary. All my amendment does is to make the referendum effectively consultative if the turnout is less than 40 per cent. In fact, it takes in the debate that we had in Committee on an indicative referendum along with some of the debates on a compulsory threshold and compromises on both those issues—something that has been sadly lacking from this coalition—to try to put to the House an amendment that allows the Bill to operate in a more sensible way.

As I have said, I think that it would be controversial in some ways if the thresholds—on which there are amendments—were put in simply because people go back to what happened in 1979, which left a sour legacy. On the other hand, this is a major piece of UK constitutional legislation that affects every voter in the country. I am not clear that it is right to do this without more consensus than we have in the Bill. A high turnout and a small majority would be as bad as a low turnout with a large majority. Before we embark on this we should have an assessment of the result of the referendum. My compromise is that we can assess it only if the turnout is less than 40 per cent. If it is more than 40 per cent, there is no assessment and the result is binding. That is the way we have done it in the past. We have had a referendum, and then assessed the result before we make the changes. In this case there is a halfway measure—we do it only if the turnout is less than 40 per cent.

If the Government get their way—they want a high turnout on May 5—it is implied that probably the turnout will be higher. I do not prejudge that. If it is indicated by the people of this country that they are not actually four-square behind it, the amendment allows us, in certain circumstance, to have an assessment and to rethink the way forward.

The amendment is reasonable in the extreme—far more reasonable than anything I have heard so far. Twice in the past fortnight I have heard the Leader of the House mention at the Dispatch Box a package of concessions. There is no package of concessions on the Marshalled List as far as I can tell. Given what we said in Committee—we are not trying to repeat what we did but are taking part of two debates—I think that my amendment is frankly so reasonable that it should be passed on the nod. It would not wreck the Bill or the referendum and would allow a pause to assess whether the turnout is low. What is wrong with that? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for tabling his amendment and for allowing the House to have an opportunity to debate what I think has been recognised as an important issue. It was debated in Committee and we now have an opportunity to further debate it and other amendments.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, indicated, as have many other contributors, that this is a serious constitutional issue. Its seriousness is marked by the fact that there is going to be a referendum at all. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, made reference to this House’s Constitution Committee, whose report saw referendums as being used only for matters of the highest constitutional importance. It is fair to say that, with the exception of the proposal for a referendum on AV, the constitutional measures in the so-called CRAG Bill that we dealt with briefly before Dissolution last year were not deemed sufficiently important to trigger a referendum. The Government recognise the importance of this issue—hence the referendum.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would provide that, unless 40 per cent of the electorate voted in the referendum, the vote would not be binding. It would appear, therefore, that the intention is to make the referendum indicative should the turnout condition not be met. I am somewhat unclear what the consequence would be if the 40 per cent was not reached. I wonder, perhaps, whether the provisions in Clause 8 that mandate the Minister to make the order implementing the AV provision if there are more yes votes than no votes would remain unchanged if this amendment were taken alone. It is unclear what the ultimate effect would be. There is Amendment 10B, however.

[Lord Rooker]

Amendment 10B should have been linked to this.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is helpful. Originally it was linked and it seems to have been delinked. The amendment would change the obligation to implement the result of the AV referendum into a power to do so.

I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was suggesting that there had to be primary legislation, although I am not sure whether I heard him correctly. Amendment 10B deals with that, although I should say something about the difficulties there, because there is still a lack of clarity. In addressing these amendments, I never like to lean too heavily on the technical matters, but there are important technical issues here of which the House should be aware.

The new discretion in Amendment 10B, if it were to be carried, seems to apply whatever the circumstances and not just where the referendum is made non-binding by Amendment A1 because turnout is less than 40 per cent. We might, therefore, find ourselves in an odd situation if the turnout exceeded 40 per cent with the majority in favour of AV. One part of the Bill would suggest that the result was binding, but another would suggest that there was no obligation, because there would be a power rather than an obligation to bring forward the order. I am also unclear as to the effect of the amendment in the event that less than 40 per cent of the electorate voted in the poll and the result was against a change in the system. I strongly suspect that this is not the intention but, as it stands now, the provisions mandating the Minister to repeal the relevant clauses would still stand but the result itself would not be binding. I am sure that the noble Lord will have an opportunity to clarify that. There is a difficulty there at the moment.

In addition, the amendment offers no indication of what kind of process might be followed where less than 40 per cent of the electorate voted. Even if Amendment 10B were carried, there would be a heavy responsibility on the Minister and then on Parliament if there had been a yes vote. The Boundary Commission review would be complete but he or she may or may not bring the provisions into force. As we are all aware, the boundary review will not be completed until 2013 at the earliest. Is it really the case that we want to replace the current provisions in the Bill, which provide both clarity and certainty, with provisions that could leave us with no clear resolution for the two years following on from the referendum? I am not saying that that would be the case, but that is the possibility that we open ourselves up to with these amendments. I cannot believe that that lack of clarity would be healthy.

I assume that that is not the intention of the noble Lords who are making these proposals. Perhaps they envisage that the gap in their amendments would be filled by what the noble Lord, Lord Wills—I am not sure whether he is in his place—proposes in his Amendment 10C, which is that there would be a debate in Parliament. His proposal would introduce a statutory requirement for a debate in both Houses within 14 days of the referendum result, although as it stands it would not make the referendum indicative and so would have little practical effect.

Even if the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, provided for this or some other process, I would still find it necessary to oppose them. The Bill provides that the referendum result will be decided by a simple majority. We believe that that is right, because it is the simplest, clearest and fairest way of proceeding. When people make the effort to go to the polls on 5 May, they should know that, if they vote for the alternative vote, that is what they will get. To impose a threshold or to make a referendum indicative would be to offer some sort of consolation prize—people might get it at the very end.

Reference has been made in this debate and in the debates that we had in Committee to the 1978 situation, where, because of George Cunningham’s eloquence and, perhaps, the Opposition seeing an opportunity, a 40 per cent threshold was introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that there was a bitter taste. As one who campaigned in that referendum, I know that that bitter taste lingered for a very long time. To go out and campaign in a referendum and get a majority for the yes vote and then to be told that the majority did not count and did not matter was bitter. In terms of the cynicism of voters, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, there would be a real danger of cynicism if people went out and voted and there was a clear yes vote and somehow or other that yes vote had to be held in suspension or might not be translated into action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Indeed, and I do not think that that takes away from the point. As the evidence in paragraph 193 of the Lords Constitution Committee report said:

“Despite referendums in the UK being legally advisory, a number of witnesses pointed out that in reality referendums might be judged to be politically binding. Dr Setälä argued that ‘in established democracies, it seems to be very difficult for parliamentarians to vote against the result of an advisory referendum’”.

It might also have been advisory, but the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, recanting on his vote in 1978 in a debate on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill on 8 April 2003 in this House, referred to the vote after the George Cunningham speech and said:

“The result was a botched referendum in Scotland, which resulted in a "Yes" vote that could not get over the hurdle … We are now in the position where we are following the precedent set in Scotland, in Wales”—

that is, a more recent precedent in Wales—

“in Northern Ireland and in London. It would be absolutely crazy and unfair if we were to change the rules for any proposed regional referendums when we have already held referendums in so many other areas of the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 8/4/03; col. 188-89.]

The noble Lord spoke powerfully on that occasion.

The Bill offers simplicity. Above all, it offers certainty. Every vote will count and will not be distorted by any artificial barrier or threshold. My noble friend Lord Tyler asked the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, about abstentions counting in no votes. During our debates last week on postal votes and whether people could vote by post if they had voted in person, it was clear that a number of Members of your Lordships' House were registered in two places. They can exercise only one vote, so the other vote will technically, de facto, count as a no vote. Those who have died since the register was made up will count as a no vote, because nothing here allows the register to be recalibrated to take account of people with votes at second homes or those who have, sadly, passed on. I recall very well that these unfairnesses were highlighted time and again in the 1979 referendum in Scotland.

The certainty of the will of the people should be given effect without further complex procedures or further parliamentary debate or political wrangling, so that when people go to the polls on 5 May, whatever their view on the issue at hand, that view will be heard and given effect to. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I did not expect words that I used as a Minister from that Box to be thrown back at me during this debate. Given that it has been a bit of a rush since we finished Committee, I would have thought, to be honest, that the Minister’s advisers would have been better getting ready the package of concessions that we have been promised than trawling through my old speeches—which, I would add, were on regional referendums. This is different.

The other thing that I want to make absolutely clear is that this is not a threshold in the normal use of the word. This is not what the House of Commons voted on, or against. It is not the threshold. If it is not 40 per cent, it does not stop it going ahead. I do not wish to do that, but with all the arguments and permutations that one can think of, one can imagine lots of reasonable cases to be made to proceed accordingly after the result. All I am saying is that, given the binding nature of this, as others have said, and not knowing what is going to happen in only the second-ever national referendum, and on a key issue of changing the voting system—not like elections, where Governments come and go, as someone said—it just gives Parliament an opportunity to think again, and Parliament would be well advised to take the will of the voters. I do not argue with that at all, but I simply say that the Bill is too black or white, all or nothing.

By the way, I do not claim any credit for this amendment. I wrestled last week with how I could bring back the issue of a consultative indicative—which failed in a vote on, I think, 6 December—and deal with the idea of thresholds, which I am intrinsically against for the reasons that many noble Lords have explained. Nevertheless, we have to have this as a back-up. I was wrestling with this with a very bright young person in the back of a taxi when the solution was offered to me: join the two together—make it indicative only if the voter turnout is different. We can still proceed accordingly; we can still have the referendum, still have the result, still make the change to AV, whatever the voter outcome. I am just saying that if the voter turnout is less than 40 per cent, Parliament could say, “Hang on, we had better think about this again”.

We have come a long way since those who originally proposed the alternative vote—the Electoral Reform Society and company—actually said, “It is so small a change, you do not need a referendum”. That has been their case virtually all along—that we did not need a referendum on this. I do not support the AV system in the Bill anyway, but that is not the issue. I have back-up amendments, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, because I genuinely think that you have to get a yes vote in the four countries of the UK. That is not implied in this amendment; it is there in Amendment 11A.

I accept that there is clarity and certainty in the way in which the Bill is drafted. There is too much clarity and certainty when we are dealing with an electorate of well over 40 million. It is true that on election day, as has been said—I have not yet checked the figure— 84 per cent of people are eligible to go to the polls. When you have, among the 16 per cent who are not, a massive block here in the capital city—it is not as though they are spread out all over the country—we will end up with a massive block that will get the chance to vote only in the AV referendum.

I am simply saying that this gives us an opportunity. It does not wreck the Bill—I repeat this for those who will deliberately misunderstand and misreport what we say—it does not wreck the idea of the AV referendum, it does not stop the outcome. Whatever the outcome of the election, it can still proceed if there is a yes vote. All I am saying is this; let us give ourselves, as a Parliament, the opportunity to have a rethink.

My final point is that I know that it looks simple. It is a few words—and Amendment 10B should attach to this to give discretion in Clause 8—but the general will is there. Everyone understands what we mean. If this were carried, parliamentary draftsmen would knock the other clauses into shape tomorrow to make it work. I can give noble Lords a classic example of that. The next two amendments after this—

[Lord Alderdice]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It seems to me, and I am grateful to him for it, that in his remarks about subsequent amendments on the four separate parts of the United Kingdom, which would introduce a whole load of complexities such as vetoes, and on the question of the simplicity having to be addressed overnight by parliamentary draftsmen, he has said in effect that what I said is correct: that this is not as simple as it appears and that all sorts of complexities are introduced by opening this particular box. Therefore, I think it would be best for him to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Rooker]

I said that they were a back-up. I do not speak for anyone else. If this amendment were carried, virtually half the rest of the amendments to Clause 1 probably would not even be moved—I certainly would not move mine. I am simply saying, “Let’s give ourselves a chance to think again”. If we are not prepared to do that and the House is prepared to rollercoaster on to a binding referendum in which we do not know what the result is going to be and it could be carried by a majority of one on a small percentage, then I will say, “Hang on a minute, I think I want to build some more checks into this”. However, those amendments are a back-up. If this amendment were carried, more of my amendments would disappear, so the noble Lord’s point carries no weight at all.

It is in the House’s own interest to take the opportunity to give us the chance to think again. This amendment would not destroy the Bill or the referendum and would not stop the outcome being implemented, whatever the result. I think that we should test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

A2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) The referendum is to be held on 5 May 2011 unless before then an order is made under subsection (2B).
(2B) If the Minister is satisfied that it is impossible or impracticable for the referendum to be held on 5 May 2011, or that it cannot be conducted properly if held on that day, the Minister may by order appoint a later day as the day on which the referendum is to be held.
(2C) Where a day is appointed under subsection (2B), the Minister may by order make supplemental or consequential provision, including provision modifying or amending this Act or another enactment (and, in particular, provision modifying or amending this Act as regards the meaning of “voting area” or “counting officer”).
(2D) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, in moving Amendment A2, I wish to speak also to Amendment 7B, which I shall move later. In line with what I have said previously, I give notice that I shall not move my other amendments. I have to move Amendments A2 and 7B as they are government amendments to make the decision that was taken on 6 December to hold the referendum before 31 October 2011 work.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, interrupted me when I was winding up. I was about to say that when the House makes a change with a few words that we all understand, the parliamentary draftsmen have to draft a provision to make it work. Back on 6 December the House voted by four votes that the referendum must be held before 31 October 2011. I am told that to make that work parliamentary draftsmen have drafted Amendments A2 and 7B. The referendum is planned for 5 May. As far as I am concerned, that was always okay, but my view is that in case something prevents it happening on 5 May, the Government need a lifeboat to enable it to take place before 31 October. Therefore, on behalf of the coalition, I am pleased to move Amendment A2 now and Amendment 7B later.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rooker, who knows the mood of the House much better than anyone else in it. It was a splendid victory. Perhaps I may also say how much I agree with his request for the list of concessions. I can help him on that. I was handed them at 2.29 pm this afternoon, and I have to say that they do not amount to very much, I am afraid. I obviously support the amendments that my noble friend is proposing. In effect, they make whole the amendment passed in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, Amendment 2A is in my name and was grouped with Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker, who did not move his amendment. If I may say so, I think that he was right not to move his amendment, because I think that the amendment that has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is the best of the bunch of the amendments before us.

I think that it is helpful to voters to disentangle the two questions—first, do you want change; secondly, what you want to change to? That would enlarge the range of choices that could be considered. There is a difference. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours would have Parliament determine which of the other systems which was not first past the post should be the one to go for, whereas my noble friend Lord Rooker wants to offer an à la carte menu to the electors straight away on the day of the main referendum. I like the scheme that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has put forward.

It seems absurd that if we are to go to all this trouble, to have this enormous national debate, and to give the people of this country a unique option to decide whether or not to change our electoral system, a proportional option should not be made available to them. I find it bizarre that STV, which I have always understood to be the preferred option of Liberal Democrats, will not be on the ballot paper at the referendum.

Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have told me that I need to be more realistic, that it was not possible for the Liberal Democrats to secure that outcome in the negotiations in those few days when the coalition was formed last May. I do not believe that. At that point, the Liberal Democrats could have secured the inclusion of a proportional—in particular, an STV—option on the ballot paper.

The reality was that David Cameron and the Conservative Party had lost the election. The Conservative Party—and, I assume, Mr Cameron—was frantic to get into government. We know what the Conservative Party does to leaders who it deems losers. We have seen the fate of Mr Hague, Mr Duncan Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne. I do not think that Mr Cameron would have wanted to go the same way. I think that he would have been prepared to concede something that was dear to the hearts of —canonical to—the Liberal Democrats but which they apparently did not have the nerve or the skill to insist on in those negotiations. In failing to press their advantage at that point, they did the country a major disservice. If we are to have this referendum, let us have all the sensible and serious choices—or at least a selection of them—put before the people. If it is to be only a selection of them, surely it must include STV.

We know the inadequacies of the alternative vote system—I will certainly not go into them in any detail—but the sheer unpredictability of the effect of using the second, third, fourth and fifth preferences on the part of voters casting their vote means that it would be more rational to have a lottery than to resort to this system. Moreover, there are varieties of AV. For some reason, the variety of the alternative vote system that those political parties and political leaders in this country who favour it have alighted upon is the system known as optional preference ordering. As my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours explained very tellingly in the first day of our Committee proceedings all that time ago, the evidence from Australia is that, once you cease to insist that everyone voting under the alternative vote system has to fill in all the boxes stating their preferences, the upshot is that you get a large proportion of electors only casting a vote for their preferred party. In practice, therefore, the optional preference-ordering version of AV is very little different from first past the post. It does not seem to be a sufficiently worthwhile alternative to offer the voters in the referendum. I do not mind it being there, but other serious choices ought to be on offer as well.

[Lord Rooker]

Although I am not going to move anything, I shall use my notes. When the New Zealand Electoral Commission looked at this in respect of AV, it said:

“while the alternative vote might represent some improvement over plurality … we do not consider this improvement would be significant and do not regard it as the best alternative to our present system”.

The introduction of this would not be so much a reform but a complicated reshaping of what it already had. That is why it ruled it out. It was not even considered. It was one of the four options, but as far as the Electoral Commission in New Zealand in the early 1990s was concerned, it was not even a runner.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

It must be wise to learn from the experience of other countries that have been ahead of us in considering these matters. I contend that STV, above all, should be a major option. My own amendment simply would have added it to the question that is set out in Clause 1 of the Bill: do you want first past the post?; do you want AV? I would have added the option: do you want the single transferable vote system?

I certainly do not intend to discuss at any length the merits and the demerits of STV. The virtues of proportional representation are that it is perceived by some as being fairer and that it tackles the problem—which I think is a very real problem and one of the explanations for the disaffection with our parliamentary system and our political culture that is so widely felt in this country—of the feeling that most people’s votes are wasted, that elections are determined by small minorities of voters in small minorities of constituencies, and that other voters hardly need to take the trouble to vote because it is not going to make any difference to the eventual outcome as to who forms a Government. That feeling of unfairness—the feeling that the system at the moment does not give adequate and equal force to everyone’s vote—is a real problem. To that extent, there is a case for STV.

People will not, however, agree about what fairness is. Some will say that a fair system is a system that creates representation in Parliament that is in exact proportion to the distribution of votes between the parties in the country as a whole. Others say that a fair and representative system is one that expresses and represents communities in Parliament. That has been our tradition. The defect of PR is, of course, that it ignores people’s sense of identity in their constituency. It means that you no longer have the single member constituency—the constituency in which one person of whatever party is elected to represent and serve all the constituents—which is a very precious and valuable part of our system.

Another unfortunate consequence of STV can be that it leads to a great deal of fratricide within parties as candidates seek to persuade people to vote for them rather than for other candidates in their own parties. I will not go on about the pros and cons, except to say simply that they are numerous on both sides.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

7B: Clause 4, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
“(8A) Where a day is appointed by an order under section 1(2B)—
(a) if that day is the same as the date of a poll mentioned in subsection (1), the Minister may by order make provision disapplying that subsection or any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of it;(b) if that day is the same as the date of a poll mentioned in subsection (2) or (3), the Minister may by order make provision disapplying the subsection in question;(c) if that day is the same as the date of a poll mentioned in subsection (4), the Minister may by order make provision disapplying that subsection or either of paragraphs (b) and (c) of it.(8B) Where a day is appointed by an order under subsection 1(2B), and that day is the same as the date of a poll not mentioned in subsections (1) to (4), the Minister may by order—
(a) provide that the polls are to be taken together, and(b) make provision for and in connection with the combination of the poll.(8C) An order containing provision made under subsection (8A) or (8B)—
(a) may make supplemental or consequential provision, including provision modifying or amending this Act or another enactment (and, in particular, provision modifying or amending this Act as regards the meaning of “voting area” or “counting officer”);(b) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”