Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord McAvoy

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the principle in my noble friend’s amendment, because it would bring a discipline into what has happened ever since this Government took power, which has been the continual tampering with the constitution for petty party-political advantage. That is a fact of life. I do not like to be provocative, but I am trying to find the words that would best describe this matter. I have mulled over words such as “sleazy”, but if I continued, my words would probably be unparliamentary, and I would not wish to be responsible for any more damage to the office furniture. However, as a former business manager in the Commons, I consider that we are dealing with a completely foolhardy approach to the constitution. We have conventions here, but ever since the advent of this coalition, particularly for the party advantage of one of the partners in the coalition, the majority party opposite is being driven along to stay in power. Precedents are being set that are damaging to the conventions of this House, the other House and the constitution. I appeal to Conservative Members of the coalition, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose comments are welcome, that it is past the time that they should put a stop to the roughshod treatment of the constitution.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord McAvoy said; I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Grocott; and I support the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is worrying when everyone who knows anything about this says—and I do not include myself; I refer to three distinguished ex-Members of the other place—that the effect of there being no control over the Government on how long a Session lasts means that they can play fast and loose with however long it takes them to get the legislation that they want through Parliament. That weakens the power of Parliament. A lot of the constitutional rhetoric of this Government was on strengthening the power of Parliament.

I wish to ask a specific question, because it would appear that the Government understood this position on 25 May 2010, when the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons said in relation to the Bill:

“There is a strong case for pre-legislative scrutiny, but I do not want to extend the consideration of this legislation into the following Session, because that would not be appropriate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/4/10; col. 152.]

He understood the importance of Sessions. He said that on 25 May 2010. Happily for him, on 13 September 2010, the Session was then extended until May 2012, thereby getting rid of the one problem that stood in the way of pre-legislative scrutiny. Can the noble and learned Lord specifically answer as to why the Deputy Leader of the House broke that promise? “Promise” may be overstating it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord should characterise what the Deputy Leader meant. Was it wild musing as to what might happen? Why did he not go ahead with what he had said?

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I apologise for rising again, but I should have made a declaration of interest; I made it at Second Reading but I should make it here, too. I was Lord Chancellor—I do not know whether anyone noticed—and therefore am covered by the judicial pension arrangements. However, none of this would affect me. Secondly and separately, I have close relatives who in future might be affected by this. I apologise profusely to the Committee for not making that declaration before. I also apologise if I have to leave before the end of the Front-Bench speeches. I hope that I will be able to hear them but I am also supposed to be in the main Chamber for the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I rise as a former Unite shop steward to come to the rescue of my trade union colleagues among the legal fraternity. I am impressed by the campaign launched by my fraternal trade union colleagues. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would have made a wonderful shop steward in Unite.

I started off by listening to the point, the sums and the principle. I am sure that it was not organised, but the turnout of legal colleagues had perhaps a whiff of vested interests about it—legitimate vested interests, but vested interests nevertheless. The more that I listened and thought about it, though, the more I thought that there is a trade union principle involved in this that has led me to support the amendment. That principle is that when you come to an agreement with your employer, it should not be changed in this manner. I hope that my saying this does not result in any more furniture being damaged but there is a principle here, a wonderful trade union principle, and I am delighted to be able to support my comrades.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 112C. There are two types of people in particular that this amendment would help. There is still what is called a three-shift pattern in factories and elsewhere of 6 am to 2 pm, 2 pm to 10 pm, which is known as a back shift, and 10 pm to 6 am on a night shift. I worked that pattern myself for many years. The 6-to-2 shift sounds great—you get into work at 6 am, finish at 2 pm and have the rest of the day to yourself. Unfortunately, most people who have worked that shift will tell you that they spend most of the afternoon lying asleep on the couch, trying to catch up with the disruption to the normal sleep pattern and normal shift pattern. You can wake up feeling disorientated at times. It may sound a bit silly but I can assure people that the disruption to your normal pattern, in working that three-shift pattern, can have that effect on you.

There is also the back shift between 2 pm and 10 pm. It sounds great—you can get up in the morning and have time to do plenty of things before you start work at two o’clock. But you can have quite an extended travel time to get to work for 2 pm and, with other things to do in the morning, you may find that by the time you finish work at 10 pm the polling station is closed. As for the people who do the night shift, again it sounds great, as you have plenty of time during the day, but ask anyone who works the night shift and they will tell you that their day is disrupted. If there is a constantly changing shift pattern, working a different shift each week following the 6-to-2, 2-to-10 and 10-to-6 three-shift pattern, I can assure your Lordships that there is a disruption to the patterns of sleep and behaviour.

The second category is a new and developing pattern to which my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock has referred. This is the growing number of people who manage two jobs, particularly women. It always seems to be women who get landed with the part-time jobs, though they are not quite cheap labour thanks to the Labour Government’s national minimum wage law that was opposed by the Liberals and Tories at the time. Nevertheless, these people are trying to keep two jobs going and are rushing between them. An extra hour’s voting time at the end of the day will give people an extended opportunity to vote.

I believe that that category of part-time workers is growing. Again, I do not like it but they are mostly women workers because they have got to snatch a job of two or three hours to cope with child care and all the rest of it. They have to dive back, run a house, and probably get their man fed and out to work. There are some areas in the world where women still do not have a proper place in life. Keeping family together falls harder on women than on men, and I regret to say that a sexist society still operates like that. I would certainly support anything that can help women and part-time workers in that category. I would indicate my strong support particularly for Amendment 112C.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My noble friend Lord Rooker has Amendment 113 in this group, but he has had to leave. It is effectively the same as the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Foulkes in that it proposes that the polls should shut at 11 pm. The point has already been made but it seems a good thing that the time should be extended for people to vote. There may be reasons why that is a bad thing. I will wait to hear what the Minister says.

The next group of amendments, which would have been moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker, but which I will move because he cannot be here, seek to deal with the overcrowded polling stations issue, which we have already discussed and in which there was an impressive intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. There was quite broad support for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The amendment that proposes that the polls should shut at 11 pm, as opposed to 10 pm, might, subject to the information that the Minister has, be of assistance in relation to that. If the number of people who would vote between 10 pm and 11 pm was quite low—even though there might be a late surge—it would reduce the likelihood of what happened in the previous general election happening again. It might, for that additional reason, be worth contemplating.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I suspect that not for the last time in the debates this evening I take a different point of view from my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. The relevance of that is to do with her comments on the record of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. She says that it is relevant to what we are discussing now because it has been quoted as an example or a way of working or because the information that came from it is relevant. I do not wear quite the same rose-tinted glasses in relation to that organisation. I did not intend to speak, but as usual I failed to resist my annoyance—no, that is too strong a word and I would not say it, or not in your Lordships' House—or my reaction to the jibe from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the time that noble Lords are taking to revise and review the legislation. I hope that nobody on any side of the House is intimidated by these continual jibes. We are here to revise and, I hope, to improve the legislation.

I bring myself to the relevance of the Scottish convention’s record, to which my noble friend referred. Once again we had a situation where the great and the good got together and where everybody was all caught up in an atmosphere of being nice to each other and trying to work together for Scotland. I do not criticise that, as it was with the best of intentions, but in doing so they allowed the Liberals to sucker them because the Liberals gained more out of that system than anybody else. They gained an infamous list system—infamous is the right word—of electing MSPs in Scotland. It is not even just about electing them. These list MSPs, especially the Liberals, wander all over the Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies, plucking the cases that suit them for political purposes and ignoring the rest. Also, instead of concentrating on the regions which they supposedly represent, lo and behold, guess where they seem to spend most of their time? Again, this is especially the Liberals. It is in the constituency where they stood as a first past the post candidate. We should not let anyone get carried away, in my opinion, by the eloquent words of my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale because it is just not right.

I also tell my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock that I am still not quite sure about the primacy that his amendment would seek to give the Boundary Commission—advice or guidance on taking more account—because the Westminster constituencies are the true measures of how the commission should go about its work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, made a relevant point. There are indeed many communities, or more communities than one, in a Westminster constituency. The one that I know best, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, has about five or six with the three core ones being, as I have said before, Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway. I have to tell my noble friend that I am not convinced that the Scottish parliamentary constituencies are the real thing to take account of here. I remain to be convinced. I may come back in again once I hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, with the benefit of his experience, and my own Front Bench but at this stage I certainly reserve my position regarding my noble friend's amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, this amendment, put down by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, proposes that:

“The Boundary Commission for Scotland may take into account the boundaries of constituencies of the Scottish Parliament”.

Three specific points emerge from this amendment. First, it is worth while to look at the experience of the Boundary Commission for Scotland in dealing with the drawing of the boundaries for the Scottish Parliament. The experience of those involved in public inquiries was that the rules were “too rigid”. The rules, although much more rigid than previously, are less rigid than the current rules.

Sheriff Principal Kerr, who conducted a public inquiry into the West of Scotland constituencies, said that the Act,

“introduced a rigidity which had not previously existed”,

and, in the foreword to his report, said:

“Too little attention has been paid in my view to local authority boundaries, to geographical considerations, to inconveniences resulting from proposed constituency changes and to the sundering of local ties; and too much emphasis has been laid on the requirement (although qualified by the other rules)”—

which is not the position here—

“of Rule 2 that numerical proximity to the electoral quota be achieved. This consequence”,

the Sheriff Principal said,

“came out very clearly in the present inquiry and it is I think necessary to remedy it so far as reasonable, at least for the West of Scotland, in order to avoid the continuance of a sense of grievance which appears to be widely or even universally felt in some quarters”.

Point number one: the effect of too rigid rules is, in the view of Sheriff Principal Kerr, to create a sense of grievance.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I was asked to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who asked me to express his apologies for not being here. I am sure that he is sorely missed by all noble Lords. This is a probing amendment. Nevertheless, it is a relevant role for a revising Chamber to scrutinise legislation, to point out flaws, hopefully to get them dealt with, and to seek more information from the Government on how they arrived at the composition of the Bill that they have put before Parliament.

I arrived with some trepidation to attempt vainly to fill the shoes of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I would have been filled with even more trepidation if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, had still been on the Front Bench. The fierceness with which he dealt with previous speakers filled me with fear and trepidation. I felt quite intimidated when my noble friend asked me to move the amendment. I have never seen the noble and learned Lord in such a—shall I use the word?—crabbit mood. He was very fierce and gave the appearance of being a wee bit intolerant and authoritarian in questioning a Member’s right to put forward amendments. I feel that I have escaped the hangman’s noose now that the noble and learned Lord is not on the Front Bench to deal with me. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be gentle with me.

My noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock was eagle-eyed in spotting something that reflects—perhaps I am dipping my toe into the pool of controversy here with what might be seen as a vicious attack on the Government—the rushed nature of the Bill. Why has the legislation not caught up with changed realities? To say that this should go to the Speaker of the House of Commons but not the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords does not recognise the new reality. Legislation goes through both Houses of Parliament. This is not a major thing that will bring revolution. Nevertheless, in terms of respect, thoroughness and exactitude, this seems daft. I am trying to clarify whether this has been missed or whether it is a deliberate omission—and if it is the latter, why has it been done? It does not reflect the fact that we are a bicameral Parliament. This should come before the Lord Speaker as well.

In asking these questions of the government Front Bench, I hope that I do not get torn to pieces or ripped apart because I have the temerity to speak to an amendment. The only thing that I can think concerning the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is that he has been working very hard and perhaps is a bit tired. However, the hour is not our choice; it is the Government’s choice.

I just want to be clear about what we are looking for here. Is the exclusion of the Lord Speaker from the Bill just an act of omission or is it deliberate? If it is deliberate, I should like to know the reason. If it is a mere act of omission because of the rushed nature of the Bill, will the amendment be accepted and placed in the Bill?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I congratulate my noble friend Lord McAvoy on his courage in moving the amendment. The absence of the reference to the Speaker of the House of Lords—the Lord Speaker—presumably means that it is not intended that there should be a debate on the report in the Lords. Presumably the argument is that, by giving the report only to the Speaker of the Commons and not to the Speaker of the Lords, the Government envisage a debate in the Commons but not here. However, it would obviously be important for both Houses to debate it. As we said earlier in our debates, this House has tended to be more effective in relation to Boundary Commission reports—1969 has been referred to. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is about to respond. I do not know where he was in 1969. He may well have been helping the then Home Secretary, who was perhaps responsible for trying to go round the corner in relation to the Boundary Commission report. I think that it would be good for democracy if both Houses debated such reports produced by the Boundary Commission. Is the fact that the Lord Speaker is not referred to intended to mean that the focus should be on the Commons, or is there no such intention? If the Government are happy for both Houses to debate the report, might a way of indicating that be by saying that the report should go to both Speakers?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord McAvoy

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

This new review could not start before every local authority had done that, but what would the excuses be? Why should one, two, three or four constituencies be prejudiced?

[Lord McAvoy]

I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. Is he aware that the City of Glasgow Council recently conducted an exercise and, I am reliably informed, got an extra 30,000-odd voters on to the register? Does that not show that each council area can vary so much that it is not right or proper that we can have such variation in the country? Therefore, the measure of compulsion, if you like, on all local authorities to do what Glasgow has achieved should be in the Bill.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am absolutely clear that the Electoral Commission would be perfectly capable of setting out what it would regard as the criteria that had to be satisfied. If you impose a provision like this, I have no doubt—and I have experience of this having been the Minister involved in ensuring good electoral practice—that that would have the effect, as far as the local authorities are concerned—they are, in practice, responsible for registration—of lifting all the votes up. I cannot envisage a local authority that would want to be one of two or three in the country that were incapable of meeting the standard. I cannot envisage that anybody in this House does not want the standard that I have described to be met. If the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks I am imposing too high a standard, I am sure that he wants some standard imposed, and I would welcome his contribution about the margin of error that he would regard as acceptable as far as the Electoral Commission is concerned. I have detected no one in this House who has not supported the proposition that we should try to do all that we can to get the 3.5 million people—a broadly accepted figure—who are not on the electoral register on to it. The effect of my amendment is not that everybody has to get on; it is that the local authorities have to make a reasonable effort to get them on. If they do, and if the Electoral Commission certifies that they have done all that they can, then, and only then, can this process start.

My noble friend Lord Lipsey, who I am delighted to see in his place, made a speech before dinner in which he made the point that if we proceed with this very significant change in relation to the drawing of the constituency boundaries on the basis of the December 2010 register, which is what the Government are proposing, we are going to build in the bias. Who is the bias against? It is against young people, those in private rented accommodation and members of the black and minority ethnic groups. It might be said that that group would tend to favour Labour or even the Liberal Democrats, but that is not the point. You do not want to start with a great section of our population—the young people—being disenfranchised because they do not want to vote.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord McAvoy

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My noble and learned friend complimented the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, on being open and on making the figures available. He did not quite make them available; he produced them only after a Parliamentary Question was put down. He did not for the sake of being helpful to all concerned put down figures for the whole of the UK by country. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton requested the figures for England; I have asked in a Written Question for the same figures for Scotland, so that I may make the same comparisons. The fact that the Government have not exactly rushed forward with the figures suggests not that they were hiding them but that they were not contributing to a wholly informed debate on people missing from the register.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I had not spotted that the figures did not include Scotland; we had the information for Wales. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was not asked about Scotland, which is why he produced figures only for England and Wales. He is in his place, but does not tell us. I do not know why he did not produce figures for Scotland. It would obviously be worth while to see them. I am sure, knowing the noble Lord as the Committee does, that he would be very willing to produce the Scottish figures. I am not sure whether the Front Bench are nodding or shaking their head. It would be good to see the Scottish figures. No doubt they will be produced in answer to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham but only in the context of where we are with that system. I believe very strongly that the first past the post system should stay and I do not want anyone to say—although, of course, I cannot stop anyone saying it—that supporting the amendment in the context of where we are necessarily means that I am deserting my support for first past the post.

This is a modest amendment. On the other hand, romantic candidates, Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidates and the “independent with a cause” candidate can all sound okay but, in a serious parliamentary democracy, is it right that such a small proportion of the vote should be used elsewhere? We are running serious elections for serious and responsible elected positions and, although having the freedom to stand for election and to campaign and so on is an absolute right, I do not think that that type of candidate who polls less than 5 per cent of the vote should be allowed to distort the electoral system and the democratic process. Then again, I keep asking myself why people get involved in that kind of party when it is all a lot of nonsense. Nevertheless, speaking as a realistic politician, I have to say that the amendment is before us and it needs to be discussed. However, if anyone wishes to use their charms on me, I am still willing to be convinced by an objection to my noble friend’s amendment.

My noble friend Lord Lipsey is great to listen to and I admire him. He is a formidable person but I do not think that he came up with any reason why the amendment should be opposed. He came up with an intellectual reason, and it is right and proper that that is aired. However, we have to take the real world into account and I do not think it is right for a party with a small percentage of the vote to distort the vote. In the context of what we are discussing, I have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham basically says that, if a candidate gets 5 per cent or less of the vote, the second preference votes for that candidate are not reallocated. I do not think that it necessarily follows that, if you get a low vote, your second preference votes should be any less valid than if you get a higher percentage of the vote. In certain circumstances, one can imagine Green Party candidates, for example, getting a very low vote—well below 5 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, in regarding Green Party candidates as more worthy than those of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, is effectively making a value judgment about parties based only on the number of votes that they receive. It seems to me that it is very difficult to see a logical or intellectual basis for saying that 5 per cent or below is not an acceptable figure. Is there a political argument that says that 5 per cent or less is the sort of figure that extremist parties get? Possibly there is but, again, I believe that in relation to an electoral system it is dangerous to start characterising people whom you do not like as “extremist”. Of course, we all regard the BNP as extremist but there are other parties that some of us would regard as extremist and others would not. Therefore, although I understand the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment, I do not think that it stacks up, so I am afraid we will not support it.