Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he presents a very tricky and complex issue. I think I indicated that one of the difficulties was the possibility of limiting the ability of a party to show how its position on the referendum formed part of a wider policy platform. The point I have been trying to make is that broadcasters have experience in this matter. It is probably invidious for Governments to decide what goes too far and what is on the right side of the line. There is also a question of whether legislating to such specificity on the content of party election broadcasts could risk limiting a political party’s freedom of expression. I do not think that anyone here would wish that to happen.

[Lord Tyler]

I have had experience of this matter. Is not the reality that anyone preparing a broadcast will always err on the side of caution as it would be a very expensive scenario if broadcasters were told, “We think you are infringing the requirements of the 2000 Act”, and they therefore had to amend dramatically, or even withdraw, the intended broadcast? Therefore, I should have thought that the present flexibility is much safer than the provision which the noble and learned Lord is trying to include in the Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes a fair point. The last thing any political party wants is to find that, after having spent money, the broadcast has to be pulled. I shall discuss in a moment approaches that have been made to the political parties by the chair of the Broadcasters’ Liaison Group. I suggest that the appropriate place for further rules on the content of party election broadcasts would be under the framework established by the Communications Act 2003, where existing regulation of political broadcasts lies. The chair of the Broadcasters’ Liaison Group wrote to the political parties in November 2010, highlighting the existing provisions and opening lines of communication on the subject. It might be useful to read the content of the letter into the record. It states:

“If you are considering including any references to the referendum in your PEB, then we draw your attention to Section 127 of the PPERA. This section prevents broadcasters from transmitting any broadcast where it’s purpose, or main purpose, is, or can be assumed to be, to further a referendum campaign for a particular outcome other than by the designated RBCs. Therefore if you intend to include any references to the referendum in your PEB, I’d be grateful if you could contact me well in advance so that the BBC is able to make a judgment about whether the proposed PEB may put it in breach of the statutory provision”.

It is the Government’s view that this established mechanism of communication between the broadcasters and the political parties will effectively manage the situation and answer queries from the political parties as to what they can and cannot include in their broadcasts. The broadcasters’ guidance is the most appropriate place to deal with this matter, as for other aspects of political coverage.

These are important amendments. I again apologise that the noble and learned Lord saw the letter at a late stage, but I hope that, given what I have said, he will recognise that a lot of consideration has been given to this, including engagement with the broadcasters, the DCMS and others. I hope that the House will agree with the Government’s conclusion that, after careful consideration with relevant stakeholders, the current provisions, along with the broadcasters’ guidance, are the right way to deal with party election broadcasts during a referendum period, rather than amendments to the Bill. Against that background, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, this amendment is one of a group. Now that the amendment has been moved, I assume that we can speak to the amendments in the group, of which two stand in my name. I have no intention of saying anything about Amendment 12A, which would require a 50 per cent turnout in order for the referendum to be carried. Technically, I could probably push it a little further but I accept that my noble friend’s amendment is an improvement on that and that it is probably more acceptable to the House, so I do not intend to say any more on that amendment.

However, I do intend to say a couple of words about Amendment 12B, which is not as printed on the Marshalled List. The gremlins got into that somehow. The way in which it is written in the Marshalled List makes no sense whatever. It basically states that the referendum will not be carried if 25 per cent of those who have voted in the referendum have voted yes. Obviously, by definition, if only 25 per cent of the people who have voted in the referendum have voted yes, the referendum would not be carried. The amendment as it stands is nonsensical, which is why there is a manuscript amendment that contains what I intended to say—that the referendum would not be carried unless one in four of the electorate voted yes.

I try to take a common-sense approach to legislation in a debate about a major change to our constitution. We have already decided that the electorate are not the real electorate but the people who are on the electoral roll; they do not include the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who are not on the electoral roll. However, leaving that aside, I simply suggest that 25 per cent—one in four—of the total electorate should vote yes in order for the change in our constitution to take place.

I have done this at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in Committee. He is looking startled and I am not surprised. He put forward an objection to my amendment that required a 50 per cent threshold on turnout. He asked what would happen, given the 50 per cent threshold, if 49 per cent voted yes in the referendum and no one or less than 1 per cent voted no. He is looking puzzled. The point that he made is that, in those circumstances, according to my amendment, the referendum would not be carried. I hope that I am carrying the House with me at this stage. I am not even carrying the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, with me, which is particularly worrying.

I shall try again. His objection was to my 50 per cent turnout threshold—in other words, the referendum would be dead if half the electorate did not vote. He asked what would happen if 49 per cent of the electorate —which was wildly optimistic from his perspective—voted yes and no one, or one or two, voted no. He said that in those circumstances my amendment would be grossly unfair to the yes campaign because, despite getting 49 per cent of the electorate’s vote, it would not carry. That was his point. Has the penny dropped?

[Lord Tyler]

The penny dropped a long time ago—many hours ago. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is wrong about the arithmetic. I was talking about the circumstances in which 45 per cent voted yes and 4 per cent voted no, so there would be no qualification. However, if 44 per cent voted yes and 6 per cent voted no, then it would carry.

Once you get into this game, the noble Lord’s colleague in the other place, Mr Christopher Bryant, was absolutely right to say:

“I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/10; col. 846.]

In fact, with one exception—the Scottish case—thresholds in referendums are a new development in our constitution and I honestly think that we should give them very careful consideration. Mr Bryant was right: this is just as much a change to our constitution as the big changes that we keep being told that this referendum is introducing.

[Lord Grocott]

I am quite hurt. I have brought forward an amendment that precisely meets the noble Lord’s objection, which was—I repeat—that a huge number of people could vote for the yes campaign and it would still not carry if it was less than 50 per cent of the total turnout. So—having established that point, I hope—I have therefore brought forward this amendment which meets his objection. It states that it would require 25 per cent of the electorate for the yes vote to carry, which obviously completely removes the problem he identified in relation to my 50 per cent turnout threshold.

After my long preamble, far longer than I had intended, perhaps I may point out that all the amendment suggests is a change in our electoral system—which the Liberal Democrats, throughout my adult life and probably before then, have been saying is what the electorate is desperate for. I say simply that it would be a good idea if you could get one in four of the electorate to vote in favour because that would validate the referendum. Apparently, they are resisting that commonsense proposal as well.

We are in a silly position, unless someone wants to intervene from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I cannot believe that even Liberal Democrats would argue that if only three people voted in the referendum—two in favour and one against—that would be a valid basis on which we could change our country's constitution. If any of them thinks that that would be fair, right and sensible, will they please intervene? I am not filibustering; I want to get this over with as much as anyone else does. If they cannot tell me, the only difference between us is the level at which the threshold should be. In the absence of any intervention, I must assume that they are in what is, frankly, a silly position.

That would not matter to me too much, were it not for the fact that this referendum will not necessarily be the last one of this Parliament, because I have to take Nick Clegg at his word, confusing as that seems at times. He has described this as just part of the greatest reform package since 1832—greater than women's suffrage, universal adult suffrage, or anything of that sort. We have two more Bills coming down the line: one to establish fixed-term Parliaments and the other to abolish the House of Lords in its present form and replace it with a fully elected House.

It seems that, under the Bill, if three people in the United Kingdom vote in the referendum—two in favour and one against—we change the constitution. I ask those noble Lords who say that this is not as important a constitutional issue as abolishing the House of Lords in its present form the following question. Would any of them be happy with a referendum, should it come—and my word it ought to; it would surely be indefensible to have a referendum on a change in the voting system but not on one which effectively abolishes one of the two Houses of Parliament—on a two, one vote in the country? Or do they think, as I and other noble Lords do, that there should be a rather more convincing demonstration of the public will on abolishing one of the two Houses of Parliament? The danger of the present situation is that we have no threshold, which means that the precedent will have been set that future referenda on changing the constitution, however big that change may be, could be done on a very small turnout and a very small yes vote.

It is late, I do not intend to press this to a Division, but I am intrigued to discover that there is no one, apart from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tankerness, who is highly skilful and whom I assume will respond to the amendment, can explain that. I assume that the noble and learned Lord has a graphic explanation as to why he would be comfortable with a very low turnout and a very low yes vote changing our country's constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about Amendment 14 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. Her amendment would provide that if there is not a majority in support of changing the electoral system,

“in any one of the four parts of the United Kingdom”,

the proposition should fall for the United Kingdom as a whole. I certainly hope that there is common ground around the House that we wish to strengthen the Union and bind the peoples of the four parts of the United Kingdom in one coherent political system and, as far as possible, in one political culture. It would be singularly unfortunate and divisive, were the referendum to be lost in one of the four parts—let us suppose, for example, that the people of Wales were to vote no but those of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland were to vote yes—if the people of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland were then to impose their preferred version of an electoral system on the people of Wales. I think that that would be divisive, traumatic and very unfortunate.

[Lord Tyler]

Is the noble Lord really saying that it would be divisive in those circumstances when it is clear that what would be much more divisive is that if one part of the United Kingdom was able to veto the clear majority of the decision of the rest of the United Kingdom? That is a complete nonsense.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Lord sees things in a mirror glass world and he is entitled to look at them from that perspective. However, I invite him to consider what the impact on the sentiment would be in Wales if, having voted against the proposition that, say, the alternative vote system should be used, it was none the less to be imposed by the rest of the United Kingdom on the people of Wales. I think that that would create a grievance and that it would be an unhappy development. The amendment in the name of my noble friend is well worth the House meditating upon.