Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That was a very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He certainly does his homework very effectively. Like him, I wish that some Members of Parliament had done it. In the past few weeks, I have listened to a number of Conservative Members of Parliament and to some Labour Members of Parliament, and I am not sure that they know exactly what they voted for and its implications not just in terms of the voting system, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, but of the reduction in the number of Members from 650 to 600. That is something we will come to later. The purpose of a revising House is to try to draw attention to this, so I am really grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, as I am sure the House is.
I want to raise one point. What can we do to stop this misapprehension that everyone elected under this system of AV has achieved the support of 50 per cent of the electorate? We discussed this in a previous debate, and I think it was my noble friend Lord Rooker, in his usual eloquent way, who pointed out the various systems. As I understand it—I am open to be corrected if I am wrong because I do not want to go on if I am—if the system used is that everyone is required to use all their votes, so that if there are 10 candidates, they vote from one to 10, that does apply. However, as I understand it, in the system that has been proposed and that we are being asked to approve, that is not required. You can vote one, two or one, two, three or one, two, three, four and so on—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Or just one, which my noble friend Lord Grocott and I would prefer. Yet again last week, in spite of the fact that this House has said it on a number of occasions and other people have said it, the Liberal Democrats—and I absolve the Tories of this—were saying, and the Guardian was repeating, that everyone elected under the system being proposed will have the support of 50 per cent of their constituents. That is manifestly untrue, and it is about time that the Liberal Democrats stopped spreading these lies.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Lipsey
I understand why those on the Lib Dem Benches do not rise to their feet to dispute the amendments. But, as one who, on the AV referendum, agrees with them, I shall do and speak for a minute or two. I think that thresholds are a bad idea in referendums. I supported the amendment proposed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because it seems to me that, generally, a pre-legislative vote is a good thing, but I do not support a threshold.
If there is a vote on this, if the threshold proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is to be reached, it will require 264 Peers to vote in the Content Lobby for it to be carried. If that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is to be reached, we will need a total turnout of 316 Peers. And if that of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is to be reached—50 per cent, and 25 per cent yes— we need 395 peers to vote with 198 saying yes. I do not see why we should have a different test for the legitimacy of the vote in the country than we have for the legitimacy of the vote in our own House. Thresholds are arbitrary, they introduce bias, they distort debate and they have absurd consequences. I deal very briefly with each of these. As regards them being arbitrary, look at the range of numbers before us. They could be nice round numbers. As Sir Patrick Nairne, chairman of the independent Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, said, the main difficulty in specifying a threshold lies in determining what figure is sufficient to confer legitimacy. There is no answer to that. On the bias aspect, one side has to achieve only one thing—
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has done the Committee a good service by drawing our attention to the possibility that what we have seen is a cut-and-paste job. We have seen the transference of slabs of the 1983 legislation into this 2011 legislation. It would be helpful to know just how much thought has gone into this and whether the Minister thinks there is any case for reviewing these schedules before the Bill comes back on Report to make sure that he and his officials are entirely happy that in all aspects they make good practical sense.
Lord Grocott
I hope that this does not sound flippant, but an anomalous situation could arise, given what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours says about off-duty policemen being in any way involved in any kind of electoral activity, when we are shortly to receive a Bill from the other end of the Corridor providing for elected police commissioners. It would be rather odd, would it not, if one level of the police force was expressly required to involve itself in elections and all the activities associated with them, but not the bobby on the beat?
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend has a great talent for a kind of lateral thinking that is always fruitful in our debates. His point is a little wide of the amendment; I must reprove him to that extent. However, it would be rather curious if we were to be presented with legislation that proposed that in elections for police commissioners, police officers should not be entitled to play a part or exercise any persuasive powers.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I come back to a point that I raised on a previous amendment in relation to the fact that there are two different franchises in the election and the referendum. The Scottish parliamentary election is on the local government franchise and the referendum is on the UK parliamentary franchise, plus Peers. The Minister is right that we are the only ones having that special treatment. The schedule makes provision for either a combined register or two separate registers. Can the Minister explain how that will work, how the registers will be combined, and what the procedure will be?
As I understand it, if there are two separate registers, one for the Scottish parliamentary election, which includes European nationals, and one for the referendum, which does not include European nationals, it will be quite a cumbersome operation. When people come in, there will be three categories: people entitled to vote in the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary election; people entitled to vote in the referendum only; and people entitled to vote in the Scottish parliamentary election only. It will be much more confusing. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, raised the confusion in the Scottish local elections in 2007. I think it will be even more confusing than that because of the two franchises.
There is also the question of overseas voters. They will be entitled to a vote in the referendum, and it would be useful to know what arrangements are going to be made for them to be given the votes that they are entitled to, to be made aware of their entitlement and to get postal votes. Even in relation to postal votes, there will be three categories to be dealt with: those entitled to both, those entitled to the referendum and those entitled to the Scottish parliamentary election.
Keeping the registers, marking them, marking ballot papers and handing them out will be a very complicated exercise. With respect, I think the Government have underestimated some of the difficulties that they are creating for counting officers and returning officers by having the referendum on the same day. Since I raised this matter some weeks ago—I think the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was dealing with it on that occasion—I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will now be able to explain how these processes are going to be carried out, particularly the ones at the polling station.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, it often happens that you can see something in a schedule that raises quite an important more general point. I am referring to the cost of the combined polls, which is on page 137 in Schedule 5. It says quite simply, and I am sure that voters would regard this as common sense, that when two or three elections are taking place in the same area at the same time you divvy up the cost of delivering that election between them. I ask myself whether that is the building block that has resulted in the calculation that the Government have made, a very important calculation, about the cost of the referendum and, more importantly, the saving to national funds from holding the referendum, with all the difficulties that entails, which we acknowledge to be not insurmountable, on the same day as a number of elections in a number of different places.
Unfortunately, I have not brought my precise note, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has these details engraved on his mind. The Government and the Deputy Prime Minister have repeatedly told us a precise figure—from memory I think that it is £35 million but I stand to be corrected—which will be saved by holding the referendum on the same day as a number of local elections. I have always thought that using the word “saved” there makes about as much sense as saying that you buy a fridge for £150 in a sale, as opposed to paying £200, and that therefore you have saved money. You would save a lot more if you did not buy the fridge and we would certainly save a lot more if we did not hold a referendum. Sadly, that argument has now passed.
Clause 7 sets out the complexity of the way in which the referendum will be counted and the voting areas. I will not list them all, but they range from,
“a district in England … a county in England in which there are no districts with councils … a London borough … the City of London”,
et cetera. I want to ask a straight, factual question. How have the Government calculated what the saving will be to the Exchequer from holding the referendum on the same day as these other elections? As to the “cost of combined polls” under Schedule 5, page 137, the Government have obviously attributed to the referendum the whole cost of those areas where there are no local elections, which I suppose is intelligible enough, and I assume that they have divvied up—I may be making huge assumptions here—the proportionate cost of the referendum in those districts where other elections are taking place.
Most of all, I have always been wary about the glib statistic of how much is being saved by holding the referendum on the same day. If that is the building block of this calculation, which presumably somewhere along the line it must be—that is, the cost of combined polls—I would ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to give us a note on whether the calculation is built on these individual bricks. I rather fear that it might be a construction built on sand. But at least I should like to know the calculations that have led to this alleged saving.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, once again, interventions made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, seek only to extend the time being spent on this Bill. Time after time, the noble Lord questions the integrity of the scrutiny that we are having here. In the brief time in which I have been in the Chamber, this scrutiny is well within the spirit of the understanding that I believe we have. The questioning of integrity does not help matters. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to bear in mind that, as far as I am aware, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, does not have a clue because he was not present during the Scottish elections of 2007. Any comments he has about that should be discounted.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
I wonder if my noble friend would make a judgment if I offered him what I consider to be an impartial, unbiased and factual statement about the alternative vote system, namely that the system offered in this referendum is used by just three countries in the world and one of them is trying to get rid of it. That seems to me to be a statement of fact: is that something that he would recommend for a leaflet?
Lord Davies of Stamford
Indeed, as a statement of fact—I return to my philosophical discussion—that would be unexceptionable and unchallengeable. Of course, the way that a fact is stated immediately opens the author of the document to the charge that he or she has been selective and could equally well have set out the facts in an equally amusing or effective way that brought fire to bear on the other side of the question. My noble friend summarises brilliantly exactly the problems that will be encountered by anybody, however honest a man or woman he or she is, who sets out to produce something that will be characterised by the law of the land—by statute—as impartial and unbiased. That is probably asking something that no human being can do. None of us could produce an opinion that was genuinely unbiased and impartial. It is philosophically impossible and practically impossible in any political argument.
Therefore, while I totally agree with what my noble friend Lord Lipsey says, Parliament needs to place an obligation on the Electoral Commission to ensure that the public are properly informed about the choice that they must make, and about the characteristics of the two electoral systems. It is absolutely crucial that the Electoral Commission itself does not in any way risk its own credibility and integrity by putting its name to such a document. The suggestion that the Electoral Commission should distribute documents by the two campaigns would be a much better one as a result.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I had not intended to speak on this group of amendments, but, having listened to the nature of this debate, I found myself wandering down memory lane again because the debate has brought back strong memories of the run-up to the devolution referendum in Scotland in 1979. There will not be any Hegel in my remarks, but there might be some of the Krankies.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this should not be a partisan issue. Looking at the paragraph as currently drafted in the Bill, I think that there is a need for greater reflection on how the mechanics of the referendum campaign will be organised. There has been a lot of reference to the setting up of umbrella organisations. These umbrella organisations often do not take into account people who are experienced in the day-to-day work of informing people of choices in an election. I well remember that the 1979 referendum—like this one—involved an extremely rushed campaign. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his great wisdom and experience, made the important point that we are talking about a referendum that will be in three months time this week.
One of the huge problems that will be faced in the referendum is getting organisations together that will be in a position to advance the arguments both for and against the first-past-the–post and the additional vote system. It is very easy to get the great and the good to sit round a table and proselytise, but it is much more difficult to get people to go out and arrange for others to come out and go to the polling place. All the political parties, even the Liberal Democrats, will be divided. Some will take the position of Mr Clegg, who is in favour of the AV referendum; others will take the position that AV is a “miserable little compromise”. Therefore, there will not be the mechanisms on the ground to ensure that people are engaged in the referendum process.
The issue of producing a leaflet is very important. I am sorry to disagree with the former Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Martin, but because of the complexity of this issue many people would like something on a bit of paper that they can reflect upon and read again to get it clear in their mind exactly what they are making a choice about. Yes, that will be expensive, but taking a wrong decision that had to be revisited later would be even more expensive.
There is also a case for the Government to convene a discussion among the major political parties on the logistics of the referendum. I well remember the former Scottish Office—it must have been under the Secretary of State, Bruce Millan—bringing together the general secretaries of all the political parties at the start of the campaign in 1979 to try to find some kind of modus operandi that would allow a campaign to work. In fact, my great ally in that campaign was the organiser of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, because people who run elections know the nature of the difficulties that can be faced.
In summary, what is in the Bill at the moment is not sufficient. There is a need for greater thought about how the mechanics will operate. There is also a need to get impartial material into the hands of the electors, because my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is right to say that lies will be promulgated on both sides throughout this campaign. If we want to be certain of having an outcome to the referendum that everybody will accept, we have to do the groundwork.
I have seen the draft that the Electoral Commission has put together so far that explains the difference between first past the post and the alternative vote. I am not very good at reading instructions—I usually get rid of my washing machine whenever I have to change the programme—but, having vacillated on this issue and having believed in the need for a change to the electoral system, I have to tell my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that, having read the draft, I would now come down quite firmly in favour of first past the post. It is clear to me that the lack of certainty on how people can secure the outcome of their choice becomes glaringly obvious from the draft leaflet that the Electoral Commission has put together.
I have one final point. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said that AV does not automatically create coalitions. No, it does not, but, although AV can create the climate for coalitions, it definitely creates odd bedfellows. That is because the nature of AV and the nature of practical politics is that people have to choose who their partners will be. At national level, that is usually very easy, but at constituency level you can end up with some very strange bedfellows. When that happens on the ballot paper, we could end up with some people in our Parliament whom we would not necessarily wish to see.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I of course know that this Committee stage has to finish tomorrow and I am therefore reluctant to make a contribution. However, I am aware of the fact that this is the only opportunity we have had so far to discuss this hugely important issue of the kind of information that the voters will receive and how they will be able to obtain impartial information, if such a thing exists. This is against the background—I assume we all know and can agree on this—that there is absolutely no resonance whatsoever, anywhere in the United Kingdom, about the issues that will be raised in this referendum. The public are either not interested, which I think is almost certainly the case—
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My noble friend is a very experienced parliamentarian, one who knows the grass roots and has campaigned on many occasions. Can he indicate to the Committee whether he believes that there will be door-to-door canvassing on this campaign? How many people will be sufficiently enthused by this issue to go out from door to door? How many public meetings are likely to be held on both sides? Does he see any prospect of people being so interested in this question that they will indeed do that sort of leg work, which is a feature of our elections?
Lord Grocott
No, I do not see any real prospect of that happening on any big scale at all and that should be a real concern to all of us. As someone who will be as active as I possibly can be in the no campaign, I am aware of the big disadvantage that the no campaign has, which is that everyone in the country at least knows something about first past the post but next to no one can answer serious questions about the mechanism of this particular form of the alternative vote system. That is why any impartial leaflet trying to tell the public about a system for which there is no evidence they know a great deal about must include the information as to where this is used. If it was not used anywhere in the world, presumably that is a valid factual piece of information to give to the electorate.
I am aware of the time, but I want to spell a point out and get a grievance off my shoulder. One must not bear a grudge, but I am still smarting under the advice that the Electoral Commission gave indirectly to the House, as it went to all Members of the House, when it was commenting on the various amendments as they were going through. The House may not remember Amendment 40B in my name but I do. It was a very simple amendment to allow the results of the referendum to be published constituency by constituency. It was a very simple proposal and I am sorry to say the House rejected it. I am not going to go into the merits of it but I simply want to make this point: in advance of the vote, the Electoral Commission, whose job it is under this legislation to provide information, made a mistake—believe me, the Electoral Commission can make mistakes —in respect of the advice it gave on my amendment.
As I said, my amendment was about publishing the constituency results. The commission said:
“We do not support this amendment … making such a significant change to the rules for the referendum this close to 5 May”.
In other words, it was assuming that the referendum had to be held on 5 May, which is a contentious piece of information to begin with. That is a date chosen by the Government, and the Electoral Commission is not necessarily obliged to give information which helps the Government to achieve this contentious advice as to when the date should be held. More seriously, and perhaps more factually, this piece of information came to the House after the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rooker, giving flexibility as to the date, had been approved by the House. So the referendum, according to the Bill as it then stood, did not have to take place on 5 May; in fact, it could take place any time between 5 May and some time in October, and that is the Bill as it stands.
I do not dispute for a minute the good intentions of the Electoral Commission but it was at the least a contentious piece of advice to Members taking part in that debate. If on a fairly straightforward, simple proposal like that it could be contentious then I would suggest that, for anything that tried to explain how various electoral systems worked and the merits thereof, it would be almost impossible to get a non-contentious document out to the voters.
Lord Wills
Now that my noble friend has got this particular grievance off his chest, may I say he is right to raise the central importance of the information given to the public on this crucial vote that they are going to be faced with in a very short space of time? What role does he expect public service broadcasting organisations, notably the BBC, to play in providing the public with this information, bound as they are by considerations of fairness and impartiality and trusted as they are, particularly the BBC, by the great mass of the British public to be fair and impartial? What role does he think they will play? I would also be grateful if he could inform the House what role he thinks they should play.
Lord Grocott
I find it easier to answer the second question than the first because, although we all complain about the media from time to time, believability tests are regularly conducted about different forms of media outlets—in other words, what the public trust in terms of the information they receive from the various media outlets. Always near the bottom in believability tests, I fear, are party political broadcasts. Somewhere near the top are always programmes such as “Crimewatch”; people believe what they hear when someone in uniform tells them. That is the scale. The broadcast media always come out better than the print media. My short answer to my noble friend is that broadcasters have an enormous responsibility to provide the information because the public trust the information that they get from broadcasters more than that which they get from newspapers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I have just one question. Will my noble friend give thought to the fact that in the Welsh referendum campaign, for example, results were announced constituency by constituency? I remember it well because Carmarthen’s results came in last and that was the constituency I had campaigned in. If misleading information was put out in one area of the country, would that then lead to a request that the whole thing be done again; or would it relate only to individual constituencies where such misleading information had been put out?
Lord Grocott
That is a very good question from my noble friend, to which I do not know the answer. No doubt, given the great resources of the part of the Civil Service that deals with this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to give an answer that satisfies my noble friend.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I will move and speak to the amendments in this group on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker. There are three of them, two of which seek to deal with the chaos at the end of the general election. On page 32, paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 2 to the Bill, “Rules for the Conduct of the Referendum”, provides that:
“The counting officer must provide a sufficient number of polling stations and, subject to the following provisions of this rule, must allot the electors to the polling stations in whatever manner the officer thinks most convenient”.
My noble friend Lord Rooker proposes that that be amended so that,
“no polling station shall be allocated more than 1050 electors”.
If you put a limit on the number of electors sent to a polling station, you reduce the chance of there being the chaos that there was at the previous general election.
The next amendment in this group is Amendment 120. At page 35 of the Bill, paragraph 17(1) says:
“The counting officer must provide each presiding officer with however many ballot boxes and ballot papers the counting officer thinks are necessary”.
My noble friend Lord Rooker proposes amending that to ensure that the counting officer in every ballot station has as many ballot papers as there are electors allocated to that polling station. That is sensible because it means that they cannot run out of ballot papers. Again, it is a way of reducing chaos.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment 121. On page 35—I know all noble Lords are following this in their own copies of the Bill because it is so completely fascinating—sub-paragraph (7) says:
“In every compartment of every polling station there must be exhibited the notice—
‘Mark one box only. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may not be counted’”.
If noble Lords turn to page 61, they will see that, instead of “Mark one box only”, the wording in the second paragraph of the notice given there is:
“Vote in one box only”.
If noble Lords go to page 67, line 25, they will see the phrase:
“Vote in ONE box only. Do not put any other mark on the ballot paper”.
If noble Lords go to page 74, they will see in paragraph 2:
“Vote in one box only. Put no other mark on the ballot paper”.
My noble friend Lord Rooker says that “Mark one box only” and,
“Vote in one box only”,
say the same thing; that it is confusing to have different phrases on different notices; and that we should use the same phrase,
“Vote in one box only”,
right across the notices given to electors. That seems extremely sensible, so his amendment, which affects page 35, rule 17(7), is to take out the words “Mark one box only” and put in the words
“Vote in one box only”,
because that is the phrase used everywhere else. It is difficult to imagine—though I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord will have some clever answer for this—why different phrases were used.
The first two amendments avoid the chaos. The third amendment—I am not sure why it is in this group, but it is easy to deal with in this group—is to ensure consistency in the instructions given to electors. I beg to move.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, one rarely sees an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker that does not have a huge amount of common sense within it. We all remember what happened at the general election, where people were queueing at polling stations because the flow of people simply could not be accommodated, and we can all agree that at this referendum election there is certainly going to be more confusion than there is at a normal parliamentary election, where everyone understands what is required of them. It is the simplest possible thing to have to do—put a cross by their favoured candidate—and we all accept the result; at least, the vast majority of us accept the result.
What the noble Lord proposes here would be desirable in any event, if we were just going through the same system as we did at the last general election, but given that we are going to have polling stations where there is more than one decision being made and where electors will confront, for the first time, the option of the alternative vote and have to understand what is involved, there is bound to be confusion. I predict with complete certainty that, should we go down the road to AV, there will be far more spoiled ballot papers than there normally are—that has been the case with every move away from first past the post. Staying with the referendum, there will be people who will seek the advice of polling clerks. I do not know what the law is if they seek that advice. Are the polling clerks expected to explain what the choice is, or are they supposed to keep quiet about absolutely everything if a potential elector is confused?
I hope that the Committee will accept my proposition that this is going to be more complicated than a general election. I hope that the Committee will accept the evidence of their own television sets that, at the last general election there were polling stations that simply could not cope with the number of electors coming at a particular time. It must therefore follow, surely, that we need to make special provisions for this very unusual election where there is bound to be more confusion. I cannot be confident that there will be large numbers of people voting, but we need to allow for that and we clearly were not allowing for that effectively at the last general election. Amendment 115 is presented with characteristic simplicity and common sense in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker and I strongly support it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I want, very briefly, to remind civil servants, when they are drawing up the wording as currently set out in the Bill, of what happened with the ballot paper in the first mayoral elections in London. We had made recommendations as to what should be on the ballot paper; the civil servants basically took over the agenda and wrote the question; I objected very strongly, but of course as usual, I was overruled on the detail; and the result was that a lot of ballot papers in the first mayoral elections in London were wasted because of the framing of the question.
Wording is crucial and I think it has to be politicians who decide on that wording, because it is only we who understand how electorates respond to certain language. Therefore, I hope that a debate takes place within the department about whether the current wording in these areas of instruction is right and whether the wording that my noble friend wishes to introduce for the benefit of people voting in the referendum might be better. The Minister should take this as a very serious amendment: it might not be the final wording, but let there be a further debate, because if it does not take place, the danger is that the events of the first mayoral elections in London may well be repeated.
Lord Grocott
I am not asking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to respond further; I just want to put the record straight. I am not sure that I made it clear that my concern was not about holding local elections and a referendum on the same day but about the fact that the referendum itself was something entirely new. The question voters are going to be asked is whether they support the first past the post system or the alternative vote system. However, a lot of people will be confronted with that question for the first time in their lives and it would not be surprising if they found filling in their ballot paper rather more confusing than normal.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his detailed response. However, unfortunately, it did not quite hit the mark on any of the three amendments. I completely take his point that it would be ridiculous to have two stations in certain places because you might have a village with 1,051 electors. However, I wonder whether that would not be best dealt with by saying that the norm should be 1,050 electors, save where there are exceptional circumstances, because generally you are trying to get to a figure of 1,050.
Secondly, I was confused by the noble and learned Lord’s answer in relation to what the chair of the Electoral Commission intends to do. I understood him to say that she intends to direct that 100 per cent of ballot papers be printed, but that she wants flexibility. But what does she want flexibility for if she intends to instruct that 100 per cent of ballot papers be printed? Why not put in the Bill what I understood the first part of the noble and learned Lord’s answer to indicate what she intended to do? That would give certainty.
Thirdly, in relation to the difference between the notice and the form, the noble and learned Lord took a good shot at this but I do not think that he said that there was any particular reason why they were different. As my noble friend Lord Grocott says, this will be a completely novel experience for voters to vote on whether there should be first past the post or an alternative vote system. There needs to be clarity. Yes, he is right that the chief counting officer has the power to change the forms but the wording of the Bill is mandatory. For example, paragraph 17(7) states:
“In every compartment of every polling station there must be exhibited the notice—
‘Mark one box only’”.
If I were the chair of the Electoral Commission, although I had a power to make changes, in the context of mandatory language I would feel safest, legally, in not making a change. We agree that it is much better if the wording is the same right across all the material. One of the purposes of scrutinising this Bill is to make it better, so let us make it better and make it consistent in relation to all the places where its provisions will be applied. That would make for a better organised poll and would get rid of any difficulty or risk in that regard for the chair of the Electoral Commission.
I absolutely respect the effort that the noble and learned Lord has made but my noble friend Lord Rooker may bring all three of these amendments back, with a slightly different amendment in one case and broadly the same amendment in the other two. In the case of the third amendment, it would help greatly if he were willing to go through the Bill and ensure that the wording is consistent, as his officials can do that much more quickly and much more consistently than we can. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am a bit surprised by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I have a list here that I got from the Printed Paper Office. Even by my calculations, we have actually got through a majority of the groups for today. I understand that we will finish this Committee stage tomorrow and I cannot see any problem with that whatever. Secondly, on the question of schools, although I heard the comments from my noble friend Lord Myners, we should be looking to get out of using schools as polling stations completely, if we possibly can. That would avoid children losing a day in school.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, there is one problem with this schedule, which I want to refer to briefly. I am sure that it will make us wonder, in the light of us looking at it in some detail, whether there perhaps should have been one or two amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, I think wrongly, that there had been no discussions on this schedule at all.
The real problem with this schedule is that we can sense in it that the parliamentary draftsmen—whom I do not blame, as it is a very difficult job—think that it is about the procedure relating to any election. The whole point is that this is not any election. It is fundamentally different, so far as the voter going into the polling booth is concerned, from all the elections that he or she is familiar with, where they know that there will be names there and have, obviously, put their cross by the favoured candidate. However, this is about asking a question and it will not do, for a number of reasons, simply to lift huge chunks that are clearly from existing legislation—I do not blame the draftsmen, as I have said—about the conduct of elections, thinking, “Well, we can just lift this and stick it in and this will be okay for a referendum to change the constitution”.
I shall give one example. I do not know the answer to it but it is quite significant. A relatively small part of this schedule has the totally innocuous information about the,
“appointment of presiding officers and clerks”.
We all know the job of a clerk in a polling station, but I submit to the Committee that in a referendum on changing the voting system, that clerk is likely to be presented with difficulties that clerks in polling stations simply do not face. The elector will go in, thinking that he or she is voting principally for a local government candidate. Certainly, in the areas that I am familiar with, it is on who should be their local councillor. They will then be presented with a second ballot paper which will ask the question:
“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?”.
I put it to the Committee that many people will be going into a polling station for the first time. I am not patronising people or saying the electorate do not understand these systems, I am simply making the straightforward point that the change in the electoral system to the alternative vote system is not high on people’s radar, as we all know from our own experience. I would be very surprised indeed if no more than one elector then left the cubicle where they were about to vote and asked the clerk who distributed the ballot papers what they were being asked to vote on. That is perfectly plausible and indeed an almost inevitable consequence of what is happening.
I asked the question—I do not know the answer—whether it is within the law for the clerk to give advice to the would-be voter about what the alternative vote system is. I assume it probably cannot be because presumably I could be a clerk if I applied to be one and I know what I would tell them about the alternative vote system. So presumably it would be completely out of order for clerks to give advice in that way. If that is the case and a confused elector goes to the clerk on desk and says, “I am puzzled about this second ballot paper, I understand the first one”, at the very least I would suggest that in the appointment of clerks and counting officers on page 33 a script should be offered to them out of courtesy. They would need to know what to say to someone who came to them with that question.
I doubt whether the Leader of the House when he sums up will have given any thought to this as it is only a small part of the Bill but it illustrates the point that you simply cannot lift the rules that apply to every other kind of election and apply them to this most fundamentally important election of changing the way we vote and thereby changing our constitution. So please can we be told whether there is any law relating to what clerks can do when faced with this question? If there is not, should there be or, at the very least, should there be guidance as to what should happen in the polling station when this kind of eventuality arises?
Lord Campbell-Savours
As my noble friend was speaking, something dawned on me which has not been referred to in any of our previous debates, and I cannot see it marked under Schedule 2 in the list of referendum rules under Part 1.
What happens in the circumstances where in the referendum campaign the “no” vote and the “yes” vote decide to put huge hoardings up outside polling booths, saying vote “yes” or vote “no” or whatever? It might well be that some rather keen, over-eager young turks who think that they can push their case might erect rather aggressive advertising material outside polling stations in the referendum to push their case. One would have thought that under Schedule 2 there would be some restriction on the kind of material that could be used in the vicinity of a polling booth.
On advice from the clerks, I wonder if the Minister might care to comment on what the position is and, in the event that it is not covered, perhaps he could say so and perhaps on Report we could return to that matter. There are circumstances in which precisely that could happen. There are some very strange people out there who do very strange things and they may well turn up during the referendum campaign.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the last Labour Government famously had a referendum in London on the London mayor on the same day as the London local elections.
I am impressed—
Lord Grocott
The Leader of the House quotes previous referenda, but I think he is making a fundamental mistake in terms of public awareness of what is happening. In the European referendum in 1975, there was not the slightest doubt in anyone’s mind about what was at stake. It was a choice about whether we stayed in or not. Neither was there any serious doubt about what was at stake in the referenda on Scottish and Welsh devolution. I am simply reflecting, I am sure, what is the truth—that large numbers of people will not know any detail about how the alternative vote system works. In this draft piece from the Electoral Commission there are four pages of notes with bar charts on how the alternative vote system works. If he really thinks by 4 May, or whenever it is, we will be able to go down any street in Britain and people will instantly be able to say how the alternative vote system works, he really does inhabit a different world from the rest of us.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
For a very long time, my noble friend represented a constituency that was essentially in the centre of Birmingham, apart from the period that he was talking about: when it was adjacent to Sutton Coldfield, which by that time had itself become part of Birmingham. He might feel differently about his lack of objection to cross-county boundaries if he was trying, for example, to represent part of the city of Birmingham and a bit of Worcestershire or part of the city of Birmingham and a bit of Staffordshire or Warwickshire. I think he would find that an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. That really is one of the main reasons why, for all the rough justice involved in some of the judgments that Boundary Commissions have had to make in the past, trying to abide by local authority boundaries is a common-sense thing to do, both for the MP and more importantly for the people whom that MP represents.
Lord Rooker
I fully accept that, and that was made clear in one of my previous speeches: that the local authority might be reluctant, if some issue comes up that transcends the boundaries, to get their MPs up to speed and briefed to lobby and kick in doors in Whitehall to put their case. At the same time they are thinking, “Hang on, that MP represents part of the area that we are a bit negative about, and complaining about”. So there could be an issue here—whether it is a new air field or another infrastructure issue—that crosses boundaries; I fully accept that. On the other hand, I accept there should not be a massive disparity between sizes of constituencies. The point is that there is no easy answer to this. This Bill provides an easy answer because of its rigidity, but because of that it is unfair.
The issue of the 10 per cent is important, but the other point is that, if the Bill is allowed to go through without any sort of compromise, the only discussion of these issues is actually here. Those discussions will not be held in public inquiries because the citizens of this country are being denied the right to go to a public inquiry to make the points, some of which I have alluded to and some which others have. That is the problem; if only there could at least be that safety valve so that some of these issues could be vented at a constrained public inquiry. I am not in favour of sending people from London around the country because that becomes open-ended. There could be a public inquiry on any constituency changes in a maximum of 15 working days—three weeks; I guarantee that that could be done. You put the constraints in place, limit the political parties so it cannot be abused, bring in genuine citizens and other bodies, including business and the church, and you could do it, but you have to have that safety valve, otherwise the pent-up difficulties that will arise at the next election will be on the heads of the Liberal Democrats.
I do not live in Birmingham; I live in a shire area and I am not proposing that we cross the Shropshire border boundaries because I would be in a spot of bother there. I have found it remarkable that, in the past six months, watching stuff go through my door in Ludlow from the Lib Dems, I have yet to see a single leaflet that hints that they are in coalition with the Tories in central government. It is disingenuous and unbelievable. As it hots up towards the election and the boundary issue comes up, these things will come back. I would rather that that did not happen, by the way. I would rather we get this right. I do not seek any advantage in this; I think there is a good case, as the Leader said this afternoon. I heard the word “concession”, and I make no bones about that; there are concessions to be made. Let us get it out into the open so that we know where we are—the sooner the better, because I want progress on this. I repeat, having proposed the amendment that would in effect have given flexibility on the date for the referendum, that there is no problem with the referendum being held on 5 May. My amendment would not have stopped that; all it would have done was give the Government a backstop if things went wrong. Little did I know when I said that back in late November or early December that we would still be in Committee at the end of January.
We do need to make progress, and we need that safety valve so that the only debate on constituency changes, splitting wards and crossing boundaries is not held in the unelected part of our Parliament. That is barmy when you think about it. All we are asking is that the people get the opportunity, when the changes are proposed for their area, at least to come forward and say, “I agree”, “I disagree”, “We have been trying to do this for years”, or “Thank heaven we are getting some changes”—at least to have the chance to say so themselves and for it not just to be left here.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble and learned friend’s amendment is the best way to encapsulate the basic philosophy of this part of the Bill, as far as this side of the House is concerned. It has to be acknowledged that that philosophy is very different from the philosophy of the side opposite. However, the amendment is certainly an attempt to do what is, surely, consistent with our philosophy, which is that the best way of determining constituency boundaries is broadly to follow how it is done at present. That is to say that it should be on the basis of guidelines—and they are guidelines—within which a Boundary Commission, in public consultation with local people, determines what the boundaries should be. To me, that is a flexible way of determining boundaries while totally accepting that one of the key factors ought to be, as the Government keep insisting, having as close to equality as we sensibly can get in the electorate in each constituency. Essentially, however, it is a bottom-up system with flexibility.
I find all this pretty astonishing. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are, I acknowledge, in their different ways normally on the same rhetorical side, at least in these arguments, and say that they do not agree with top-down solutions. How many times have I heard that on other subjects, not least the health service at the moment? The Liberals pride themselves on localism. A great chunk of the coalition document is about the importance of localism and local communities.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, how does the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, manage to suggest that the amendment to which he is speaking is not a top-down solution and is not prescriptive, if he looks at its proposed sub-paragraph (2)(b)?
Lord Grocott
What, that,
“no district or borough ward shall be included in more than one constituency”?
In my book, that comes under the great heading of common sense. I recommend that to the Committee as being splendid. It is not exactly severely top-down and not nearly as top-down as what is in the Bill, where, irrespective of boundaries, the history of communities, mountain ranges or rivers—if we had any deserts, they would no doubt be subdivided into several constituencies—there is what I call a top-down solution, which aims simply at precise numerical conclusions.
There is no doubt about where I think the determinations of our boundaries should come from. It is precisely as I have described. However, an essential ingredient of it—we are not yet there in the Bill and I am certainly not going to talk about it now—is the crucial importance of local inquiries in which local people can participate. I have sat through nearly all our proceedings on the Bill and, as ever, my noble friend Lord Rooker has encapsulated why we are where we are. As he rightly said, it is the certain knowledge that we are not going to have these local inquiries that makes this Committee stage so important. This is the only point at which sensible local opinion can be expressed at a national level.
I am sure that some will correctly and energetically argue that the views of local people should be taken into account. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will do so when we come to the debates on the county boundaries in Cornwall. Like everyone else in this House, I have been getting lots of e-mails and messages from people in Cornwall and there is almost an air of desperation in them. I was prompted to think that by the comment of my noble friend Lord Rooker— that this was essentially the local inquiry going on now, precisely because the people of Cornwall know perfectly well that, if we decide in Committee that county boundaries will be ignored, this will be their last chance to have anything sensible to say about that. To me, that is an indictment of the approach that the Government are taking, which is—I know that they will deny this and find ways of explaining it—essentially to end local community involvement within flexible rules, not within rigid rules, to determine local constituency boundaries. I plead for more flexibility.
I will not trespass too far on to other legislation, but when I thought about it I realised that this desire to make all the rough edges smooth, to apply a straitjacket to our constitution and to make it all work according to rigid rules seems to be an almost pervading view of the Government in a lot of the constitutional legislation that they are bringing forward. I do not know whether that goes right across government. In fairness, the Liberals have been quite consistent about this, but we are now saying that constituency boundaries should be very rigidly drawn and shortly we will be told the dates of all future general elections—presumably until the sun swallows up our planet. Every five years there will be a general election, come hell or high water, on a precise date. There will be no flexibility. I will not go into those arguments, but, my word, I will want to develop them when we reach the Bill about fixing the term of Parliaments.
I think that I am right in saying that the Liberal Democrats are very keen on us having a written constitution, which will lay all these things out and, of course, lead to the interpretation of the rules being adjudicated on by the courts. The beauty of a lot of our electoral and constitutional arrangements—this certainly applies to the drawing of constituency boundaries—is that they have been flexible. They apply the greatest principle that you can apply in any constitution, which is the principle of common sense. They allow for rough edges not to be smoothed out. This is particularly true in the case of the four nations that are the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. We all know that it is a slightly unusual arrangement, whereby one of the four countries totally dominates all the others numerically, but there are all sorts of accommodations, one of which we shall come to later, in respect of Wales, which is severely affected by the Bill.
I cannot write a constitutional doctrine explaining how the British constitution operates in relation to the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom, but I can say that it has worked pretty well, that people are pretty free within it and that they understand the system in which they operate. If there are a few anomalies here and there, so be it. I fear that what we are seeing in the Bill in relation to constituencies and constituency boundaries is yet another step along the road. I may be alone in this; I have been called a constitutional conservative by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who, sadly, is not here. If that means someone who believes in common sense in the operation of the constitution, then I plead guilty. My noble friend’s amendment passes the test of common sense for me. It allows flexibility locally and that is why I support it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I noticed that the Minister did not respond to the question that I asked him and my noble friend Lord Bach about whether the flexibility regarding numbers that has already been determined by your Lordships’ House, with the decision on the Isle of Wight, will be allowed to affect the number referred to by the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as “a nice, round figure”. It is important that we should know that when we are debating different views about the terms on which new constituency boundaries will be drawn.
I make the passing comment, in light of my experience in local government, that it is not only for MPs to be able to work with the local authorities in their area. My noble friend Lady Henig, who was on Lancashire County Council at the same time as I was, will recollect that there were many occasions when we sought to influence our Members of Parliament serving Lancashire. There could have been difficulties had the boundaries of those constituencies crossed county boundaries. On the whole, we had a good working relationship, to the point where, on one unique occasion, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman lobbied me to find a way around the ban by her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, on our giving children free school milk. That remains a unique memory for me. Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman was very concerned at that time about EU milk subsidies.
The sense of locality among political activists is important. There is a mistaken belief out there in the country that the political parties have thousands and thousands of political activists who ought to knock on their door every time there is an election. If we can do anything during the passage of the Bill to explain that it ain’t necessarily so, it would be a good thing. I remember knocking on the door of one Labour supporter in a county council election and being told, “I have been waiting 10 years for someone from the party to knock on my door”. I said, “That is because you, as a party supporter, are not out knocking on doors”. He said, “What do you mean?”. I said, “Tonight, there are about 18 people out”. This was in what was then the borough of Preston. The public will not understand the debate about the importance of place in terms of political activists, but your Lordships will, from experience.
The sense of place and of belonging is critical. In my experience, having lived in London, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire and Leicestershire—I was born in Leicestershire—the sense of place in the major conurbations is less, particularly since the abolition of the GLC, although I found, when talking to schoolchildren there, that the sense of place of West Bromwich overrode the new title of Sandwell. The sense of place is critical in building political interest, activism and co-operation around a community, not only within the parties but between the parties. The sense of place matters and in that context, and because of my previous experience—this is a former interest—as leader of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales, I have to say that certain parts of the country, such as Wales and Lancashire, have a very strong sense of place.
My noble friend Lord Grocott made the point that this is the only opportunity to debate these issues, because the Bill deprives local communities of the opportunity to put their case. As somebody who has attended most of our proceedings on the Bill, I feel bitterly resentful that I am accused of filibustering for being here and debating this, when I would very much like to go home, because the Government have conceded that local people could do the job that we are attempting to do here. I am surprised, although I intend no discourtesy to the Minister, that the Liberal Democrats are giving up the opportunity that, in our experience, they have taken so often in the past to make a very full presentation at a public inquiry into constituency boundaries at local level. If we want an active democracy, people need to feel that they are part of the system that creates the constituencies and determines boundaries. The Bill is going in absolutely the opposite direction.
I shall sit down now, but I shall come back to this subject in other parts of the Bill. The Minister may go away and think that my speeches are not necessary, but he could stop them at any point by accepting that the people in the areas that I have referred to and lived in—Leicestershire, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Shropshire, Wales and London—can make their own case, because this is not the place where that ought to be done.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, every noble Lord who has so far spoken in this debate, and indeed in the debate on the previous group of amendments, has put forward the view that it is highly desirable that parliamentary constituencies are aligned as far as possible with local authority boundaries.
The only noble Lord who has demurred from that to any extent is the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. He did not deny that, all other things being equal, it would be desirable, but unfortunately he makes the factor of numerical equality between constituencies paramount. He therefore spoke of there being a conflict of factors with which the Boundary Commission is obliged to wrestle. I would not put it in those terms; I would say that there is a tension between a variety of legitimate factors—numerical equality, community, history, geography, and of course alignment with local authority boundaries. The Boundary Commission’s task is to do its best to reconcile those factors to arrive at a judgment that holds them in an appropriate balance, as my noble friend Lord Grocott stressed, in consultation with local people. The present system is a good one, and it seems reckless to upset it in this way.
Local authority areas, like constituencies, ought to contribute to defining and expressing people’s sense of their local community. That is a point that we have been arguing and no doubt will continue to argue in proceedings on the Bill. Unfortunately, they are too much discounted in the Bill. If members of the Government consider that questions of identity—people’s sense of who they are and where they belong—are negligible considerations in politics, I respectfully suggest that they are seriously mistaken. Indeed, any system of parliamentary representation that systematically discounts those emotions within our national life will not last. Supposing that the Government are successful in legislating to bring this into effect, the system of frequent boundary reviews, within the straitjacket of numerical equality that the Government are designing, might work once or even a second time, but I fancy that after the 2018 boundary review the people of this country will say, “This won’t do”. I very much doubt that the system will survive, should it be legislated, and we will do our best to persuade the Government that it is not, after all, a very good idea.
The Government ought to understand that themselves. As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton just mentioned, the Government make much play of localism and the big society, but how can you seriously advocate the virtues of those things if at the same time you design your political structures to inhibit and distort localism and disregard people’s own sense of where they take their place within society?
If the Government think that these considerations are too sentimental or imprecise, I appeal to them at least to consider the practicalities of the working relationships between MPs and elected members of local authorities. My noble friend Lady Farrington wisely advised the Government to look at this from the point of view of local authorities. The reality is that local authorities take decisions overwhelmingly within a context of policy made by central government—of legislation and policy emanating from Whitehall and Westminster. Unfortunately, we have a highly centralised system of government in this country. Indeed, until we have radical decentralisation and greater autonomy for local government in this country, we will continue to need more MPs.
That is partly because so much policy-making and legislation comes from the two Houses of this Parliament; therefore you need an adequate number of Members of the other place to do justice to the policy-making and legislation. It is also partly because local authorities, rather than being free, as they ought to be, to get on and do their work on behalf of their local communities, must endlessly look to the centre for authorisation and make representations to the centre to see whether they can persuade officials and Ministers to modify their policies so that they make more sense for their local concerns. Key intermediaries in that process of frequent negotiation between local and central government are local Members of Parliament. It is therefore very important, in practical working terms, that Members of Parliament have a satisfactory operational relationship with their colleagues and counterparts in local authorities.
Equally, it is very important that elected members and officers of local authorities know to which Member of Parliament they should turn. It is better, therefore, if the constituency boundaries can be drawn so that whole local authorities are contained within them. Local authorities then know exactly which individual Member of Parliament they need to work with. The more MPs they have to deal with, the more confusing, expensive and time-wasting it is for people in local government. Equally, the more confusing and difficult it is for Members of Parliament to maintain the kind of working relationship that they need. Neither the local authority nor the Member of Parliament should need to duplicate, triplicate or otherwise multiply representations, meetings or the dialogue that they have with their colleagues at the other level of government.
A Member of Parliament should champion the place he represents. He or she can champion a local authority area if he or she has a clear-cut relationship with that local authority area. How much more difficult it is for a Member of Parliament convincingly to champion a hotchpotch of different local authorities that happen to fall within different parts of his constituency.
Lord Grocott
What on earth would happen in a constituency that, let us say, crossed county boundaries, where counties could take diametrically opposed views on major regional planning issues, or on school placements and applications to different schools? What on earth does the constituency Member of Parliament do in representations to central government on that? He will seriously let down half his constituency if we go by these rigid rules.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend is absolutely right. I was just about to make that point; the Member of Parliament is liable to be conflicted if he owes equal loyalty to different local authorities, which might themselves be at odds on important policy issues. Under the provisions of the Bill, as my noble friend suggested, it would be difficult for a Member of Parliament to deal with elected county councillors in two different counties that overlapped with his constituency. In the previous debate I quoted Dr Lewis Baston on the danger that, with the narrow 5 per cent tolerance—or, as the Minister likes to call it, a 10 per cent tolerance: both ways from the norm of 76,000 voters—wards would all too frequently be split.
Lord Touhig
I do not intend detaining your Lordships very long but I should like to refer to the impact that the legislation is having on Wales. As a Welsh Member of your Lordships’ House I feel strongly about this because not one amendment about Wales was debated in the other place. The use of the guillotine ensured that none was debated and yet Wales is the part of the United Kingdom that is most adversely affected by the Bill.
Paul Wood, a member of the Boundary Commission for Wales, in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee in the other place, produced a report on the Bill and said that,
“issues such as local ties and historical ties, which may have had more weight previously, are clearly subsumed in the legislation to the numerical issues”.
In other words, community-based representation will fail and disappear if the Bill is not amended. Indeed, the creation of large, rigidly defined constituencies based on numbers will put an end to it.
I think of my part of Wales, and the south Wales valleys in particular, as being like a hand: the valleys are the fingers and the palms are the cities of Newport, Cardiff and Swansea. There is movement from the valleys to the cities, but there is hardly any movement across valleys from one valley to another. That is historical and something that we have understood for many decades.
Perhaps I can relate my concerns on how Bill will impact on my former constituency of Islwyn. The Electoral Reform Society has produced a paper in which it has redrawn the electoral map of Wales based on 30 parliamentary seats. In its proposals my former parliamentary constituency of Islwyn would disappear, which would have certain consequences. Under the Electoral Reform Society’s proposals, which could be a blueprint for whichever body follows, the community of Abercarn will be put into the new constituency of Caerphilly. Abercarn is in the Ebbw valley and Caerphilly is in the Rhymney valley, separated by two mountain chains and three rivers. They are distinct and separate and there is no community interest across the valleys. It is proposed that the community of Cefn Fforest will become part of the new constituency of Merthyr Tydfil. They are in separate counties and there is no community of interest whatever between the two.
Lord Grocott
I assume that the Electoral Reform Society’s map was applied to the whole country, as we had the same in Shropshire. Was there anyone at any level of representation in the noble Lord’s part of Wales, such as a local authority, who thought that the proposals made any sense whatever? No elected representative or official in Shropshire thought there was any sense at all in what the Electoral Reform Society proposed.
Lord Touhig
I am more likely to find someone recruiting for the band of hope in hell than to find anyone in my part of Wales who supported it. It will not happen, frankly.
The point that I am trying to get across is that there is not the community of interest that has to exist if we are to have huge constituencies based on numbers. If the Bill is enacted as it stands we will not need to employ the Boundary Commission to do this work. Anybody with a map, a pencil and an abacus will be able to draw up the new parliamentary boundaries. We might as well hand it over to the Flat Earth Society for all the good it will do for locally based parliamentary representation.
This is so important and fundamental, and it is a matter that I will return to perhaps at greater length when we debate the amendments affecting Wales that are in my name and those of other noble Lords. It is important to recognise that there are particular difficulties, especially across the south Wales valleys where simply having constituencies based on numbers will not work in terms of the community of interest. There will be no link whatever between the Member of Parliament and the constituent. That will be a retrograde step, so I hope that with those few remarks the Minister will get the impression of how strongly I feel, as do many people in Wales. I know how people on all sides, including Cross-Benchers, feel about this. Wales will be adversely affected in that 20 per cent of all the reductions in the number of parliamentary seats in Britain will be in Wales. It will lose one in four of its parliamentary seats as the Bill stands. That cannot be right and I will return to that debate later.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Martin of Springburn
The noble Baroness is perfectly correct. She reminds me about the single-track roads. The difficulty is not only in getting around the islands but in getting around the great sea lochs of Argyll, such as Loch Goil. For getting landward from these, it would be easier to go by boat because of the single-track roads.
No noble Lord should be thinking “Well, this is a nice, rural area and it will be just rural problems that have to be looked at”. There are pockets of poverty in these areas, because people cannot travel to their work. There is also a great whisky distilling industry on Islay, which gives a great deal of money to the Exchequer. The present Member of Parliament would have to take representation from the whisky industry and come to this House and the other place to highlight the difficulties that that industry has.
I thank your Lordships for listening to me. My case is not selfish but, knowing the constituency as I do, I think that some special pleading should be made.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 85A in my name, which adds to the list of preserved constituencies the constituency of Telford, which I represented in the other place. The immediate reaction of the House, I am sure, when anyone starts his or her remarks with something like that is to say, “Oh, this is a purely parochial point, and we can think about breakfast or whatever takes our minds off the passing speech”. That is not the case. I am doing so because it illustrates at least three serious weaknesses in the Bill. I do not need to repeat that I think that this is a very bad Bill with little support in the House of Commons, despite the votes which in no way reflect what members of all parties in the House of Commons are actually saying about it.
I will admit five seconds of self-indulgence. I never thought that I would have the opportunity to put my former constituency on the Marshalled List. I would love to see it in Hansard, and so I will have to mention it: the constituency of Telford, comprising the wards of Brookside, Cuckoo Oak, Dawley Magna, Horsehay and Lightmoor, Ironbridge Gorge, Ketley and Oakengates, Lawley and Overdale, Madeley, Malinslee, The Nedge, Priorslee, St Georges, Woodside, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench. No doubt that will be interpreted as gross filibustering; I point out to the House that it took about five seconds.
On the substantive point—much encouraged as I am by the decision of the House to add one more name to the list of preserved constituencies, which gives me a bit more confidence in making my point—the Bill proposes boundary redistributions every five years, which is a bad decision in any case. It was only at the 1997 general election that at long last we got five Members of Parliament for Shropshire. There was a pretty overwhelming case for that happening over a longish period of time. We had always had four, but we were given five. That was welcomed across the political spectrum and by representative bodies across the country. If this Bill becomes an Act we will undoubtedly go back down to four constituencies.
I issue a gentle piece of advice, if not warning, to the government Front Bench. While they may find large numbers of people and Members of Parliament who are in favour of, and can argue the case for, reducing the number of MPs by maybe 50, I challenge them to find any substantial local government area, town, city or county across the United Kingdom that says, “We want fewer Members of Parliament representing us in Westminster”. They never say that, and they certainly did not say it in Shropshire. It will come as no surprise to the House that when a draft set of constituency boundaries under the Government’s proposals was published, goodness knows why, by the Electoral Reform Society—other Members may have seen this; they drew a map of how the country might look if there were 50 fewer MPs—they predictably enough gave us four MPs in Shropshire. If someone had drawn pretty randomly on a map, they probably would have made a better job of it.
I simply mention this to remind the Government of the reported reaction of local MPs and their parties. My good friend David Wright, who succeeded me as the Labour MP for Telford, said:
“The speculative proposals by the Electoral Society are nonsense–and the danger with the Government’s approach is that local communities will not be allowed to have any input in the process”.
If your Lordships are tempted to think that he would say that as a Labour MP, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury and Atcham, Daniel Kawczynski, said that it would be,
“an outrage and simply unacceptable”,
to cut the number of seats in Shropshire, and that:
“The county is actually under-represented in Parliament”.
The Conservative MP for Ludlow, Mr Philip Dunne, said that he supported a reduction in the number of MPs to make Parliament a fitter, leaner place, but added:
“I am firmly of the view that Shropshire deserves five MPs. The county’s growing population justifies five MPs”.
I do not ask the Government to tell me the result of their survey, but I put it to the Liberal Democrats that they should consult their own Members of Parliament as to whether they favour their constituencies being made bigger and, in particular, ask them whether they think that in their own county or city, or wherever the happen to live, there should be a smaller number of Members of Parliament. It would be wonderful if they did that and reported it to the House, but I predict that they will do neither. They would not like the result that they got.
The disadvantage from our point of view, having argued long and hard for five MPs and now being told that we are almost certainly going to get four, and the knowledge that right around the United Kingdom there will be people making points of this kind—“By all means get rid of a few MPs, but not in our area”—should be taken into account by the Government if they have any sense. I have always known that there is a big majority of Members of Parliament, particularly Conservative Members of Parliament, who are totally opposed to Part 1 of the Bill. I increasingly realise that there is a large number of Conservative Members of Parliament who may be in favour of Part 2 of the Bill for everyone else, but not for their own area.
I conclude with this appeal. The three exempt constituencies so far are Orkney and Shetland, which is Liberal, the Western Isles, which is SNP, and the Isle of Wight, which is Conservative, so perhaps in the mood of generosity that we have noticed once or twice in ministerial responses today the Government will take the magnanimous decision, in the interests of harmony right across the House, to exempt a constituency such as Telford, which is, of course, a Labour seat.
Lord Tyler
I am not sure whether that was an intervention or an extension into a new speech. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, has agreed with the principle I have advanced, but he has taken it into a different development. I accept that, in his inimitable way, he has made a speech to develop the point I was making. I accept too that he has a perfect right to do so, but although it was very interesting, it was not exactly what I wanted to say.
Lord Grocott
I am not intervening on the noble Lord and I do not expect him to respond, but we are in the Committee stage and he has raised an issue that lies absolutely at the heart of one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Bill. I could not believe it when I saw that a paragraph in this Bill is headed “Exempt constituencies”, although the word used may be “Excepted”. Without any attempt to relate them to any other part of the Bill, two constituencies were going to be exempted just like that. As soon as I saw that, I must say that I and a number of noble friends thought, “This Bill has a very big piece of hybridity in it”. It has all the basic characteristics of a hybrid Bill because one group is being treated separately for no discernible reason. The Bill gives no explanation of why it is being made into a category.
That is a weakness in terms of how Bills ought to be drafted. Here let me say quite clearly, especially knowing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is to wind up the debate, that I do not object in the least to the Western Isles or to Orkney and Shetland having their own constituencies because of their characteristics. I fully support that and think it is absolutely right, but as soon as you trespass into that kind of territory when drafting legislation, it is obvious that there is not a single constituency in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland that could not make a case for their unique characteristics to be treated as a constituency in its own right and being one of the excepted cases. It is bad drafting and bad politics because it would be so easy to put down an amendment for every single constituency.
I am sure that, at his convenience, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, could draft a clause that would allow for Orkney and Shetland quite properly to be a constituency in its own right. He could write it in general terms, which is how you should write legislation, and it would probably include a number of other exempted constituencies, but at least there would be some rationale for what is being done. There is none in this paragraph as it stands. It is yet a further example, but a particularly glaring one, of why this is a bad Bill that has been badly drafted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, that exchange at the end goes to the heart of the issue in relation to these amendments. I should indicate which amendments I understand we are considering, starting with Amendment 78B, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, that argues for a classification of constituencies that fall in the special authorities category. I think the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is on that, as is that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. We are considering Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, which says that there shall be five constituencies in the city of Edinburgh. We are considering Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, which argues that a constituency called Argyll and Bute should be preserved. We are not, obviously, considering Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, which is in the group, because it is about the Isle of Wight. We are not considering Amendment 85 because it is about the Isle of Wight. We are considering Amendment 85A, which is my noble friend Lord Grocott’s amendment dealing with Telford. We are considering my noble friend Lady Hayter’s Amendment 85C, which argues that there should be a constituency that includes the whole of the City of London. We have not had argued my noble friend Lord Liddle’s amendment in relation to Cumbria. I will only deal with the amendments that I have just referred to, going through the list.
The Government have consistently argued that the core principle underpinning their proposed new rule for drawing parliamentary constituencies is equality. The Bill is designed, within a very narrow tolerance, to create equal-sized seats. As we have said repeatedly, we on this side of the House agree with the principle of creating more equal-sized seats but, as we have consistently pointed out, the Bill sets out this objective in a clumsy and unfair fashion. As we have heard, and will continue to hear, it aims to equalise seats on the basis of an unequal electoral register and it aims to do so in a way that will override all other factors such as geography, community and history, which ought to be taken into account in some way when designing patterns of representation. Yet, a curiosity about the Bill is that while the principle of numerical equalisation is deemed to be the trump card in almost all cases, there are some places and some circumstances where the iron law of uniform statistics has been disregarded.
For example, a new rule on the maximum territorial extent of a constituency has been invented, accompanied by a “get out of jail” free clause for at least one Scottish Highland seat from the requirement to adhere to the electoral quota. Alongside that, in new paragraph 6 in Clause 11 is a further exemption from the electoral quota, which we have heard a lot about, for two Scottish island seats—Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles are to be preserved, as it were, in aspic. Despite having substantially fewer voters than the proposed new quota of 75,000—in the case of Orkney and Shetland I think the electorate is around 37,000 and in the Western Isles it is just 21,000—these constituencies are deemed to warrant a special status in the Bill. I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Grocott that it is obviously sensible—but I also strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that where you are dealing with any public Bill, but most especially when you are dealing with a constitutional Bill, there must be some principle involved. What is the principle involved such that these two should be preserved constituencies? Is it that they are island constituencies? That cannot be the Government’s principle, because the Government explicitly rejected exemptions for both Anglesey and the Isle of Wight. Is it unique geographical circumstances? It cannot be, because there are more islands that are populated in Argyll and Bute than there are in either the Western Isles or Orkney and Shetland. Is it because of the particular historical status of these two constituencies? It cannot be, because the City of London has been mentioned in electoral legislation for more than 100 years and the Western Isles was first mentioned in electoral legislation only 70 years ago.
Without a principle, it is very difficult to understand why special favours have been granted. I do not know whether noble Lords remember—many noble Lords were not in the House when it happened—but at the very beginning of this process I admitted to the House that this is a hybrid Bill because two constituencies were being taken out, not on the basis of principle, but on the basis that they were being treated differently from the rest of the country. I do not want to go over the argument of whether it is hybrid. My own view remains that it is hybrid and that it is absolutely clear that hybridity can come not just from property interests, but from interests such as a desire to live in a particular place, as occurred in the previous case concerning Gatwick Airport. Put all that to one side. The consequence of the Government resisting the hybridity Motion and the consequence of there being no principle underlying these two exceptions mean that we are now in the position that we are in.
Distinguished Members of this House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, make persuasive arguments for special treatment for other places. The argument that he makes, that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, makes for the capital city of Scotland or that the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, makes are all incredibly persuasive. With respect to my noble friend Lord Grocott, I am not sure that the argument for Telford was quite as strong as the others, but those ones were very persuasive and that is because there is no principle that one can legitimately identify. There have been a lot of attempts to identify a principle. I have distilled the two that have been given so far by Mr Mark Harper in the other place and by Mr Nicholas Clegg and I understand them to be island communities, geography and history. They just do not stack up as an explanation.
I understand the foundation of the Bill to be a pamphlet written by Mr Andrew Tyrie, Conservative Member of Parliament, who is described as the brains behind the boundary review policy. In his pamphlet, Pruning the Politicians, Mr Tyrie wrote that special considerations,
“should be abolished … The principle of equal representation is too important to be compromised by get-outs”.
Not for the first time, I disagree strongly with Mr Tyrie. Although we should create more equal-sized seats, we should do so in a way that, in special cases, continues to allow factors other than pure statistics to influence the shape of constituencies. The best solution would be for the Government to bring forward the proposal that some independent body identify a very small number of exceptions to preserve the principle of equality, rather than the situation we have at the moment, where two political parties have come together and agreed these two exceptions.
I do not know the basis on which these two exceptions were agreed. Were they agreed in the coalition agreement talks? Were they agreed separately? What was the basis on which the agreement was reached? I think that one is a Scottish National Party seat and one a Liberal Democrat seat. I think that the exception in relation to size particularly helps two Liberal Democrat seats in the north of Scotland, so it would appear that two of the exceptions help the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
No, I think that we have heard quite a bit on this matter. I turn now to the other capital city, Edinburgh, which was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and indeed, with due deference to his native home, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, declared his interest as a supporter of Heart of Midlothian Football Club—perhaps he just took it that it is a well known fact. If the additional five constituencies all contained in the Edinburgh council area were to be excepted, which would be the consequence of the amendment, from the 5 per cent above or below the rule, they would be projected to diverge on average from the electoral quota by just over 12,300 electors—that is, just over 16 per cent. Again, I do not think that that ties in with the concept of fairness and equal votes, as we believe that constituencies should be broadly of equal size.
I do not believe that there are the geographical challenges that we find in the two constituencies that have been preserved. I know Edinburgh reasonably well and I do not think that there are geographical challenges there that would make it particularly difficult for MPs to see their constituents or for constituents to see their MPs. Nor, indeed, is this a case in which there is an issue of sparsity of population. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, mentioned that, for the Boundary Commission, the Edinburgh East constituency had sometimes included and sometimes excluded Musselburgh, which I believe lies administratively in the county of East Lothian. Therefore, Edinburgh has expanded its boundaries in the past for parliamentary purposes.
Ultimately, it will be for the independent Boundary Commission to take account of all the factors. I say this only because I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that in every circumstance he would want Edinburgh to have five seats. If Edinburgh, in order to thrive and flourish, as we would all wish to see, merited six seats, I am not sure why in statute we should restrict the number to five. There is a problem in going down that road. However, I have no doubt that the Boundary Commission will be able to secure equality of votes between constituencies within the 5 per cent margin and that Edinburgh’s standing as Scotland’s capital city will in no way be impaired.
I turn to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, and supported by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on Argyll and Bute. As I have already indicated, Argyll and Bute already combines islands and the mainland, which I think distinguishes it from the two that are reserved and which, as I have already indicated, we do not believe could incorporate part of the mainland very readily. Argyll and Bute is already very close to the range that will be required under the Bill. Although I recognise noble Lords’ concern about large areas, I have already referred to the fact that there are rules in the Bill that would ensure that the size did not become unmanageable. It is not just at 13,000 but at between 12,000 and 13,000 square kilometres that there is a sliding scale.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned Helensburgh, which is currently part of the Argyll and Bute constituency. I believe that in parliamentary terms it is a recent addition, although in local government terms it has been part of the Argyll and Bute council area for some time. Helensburgh, of course, is historically part of the ancient county of Dunbartonshire, so its boundaries have already changed and it is now familiar as part of Argyll and Bute. I was a sufficiently political anorak in my youth that I can remember when Argyll and Bute did not have Bute and that Bute was part of a north Ayrshire and Bute constituency, so Bute has migrated backwards and forwards. In areas such as these, there has been no fixed boundary. Therefore, given the safeguards to prevent its size becoming too great, and the fact that the islands are already incorporated in the mainland, it would not qualify for a preserved constituency in the same way as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland do.
As to the island area of Telford being surrounded by the rest of Shropshire—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says, the Labour island. He referred to this because it gave him an opportunity to make some important points, but he will readily recognise the arguments for preservation. I do not think that even he would start to claim that it has a special extreme geographical situation. I understand what he is saying, but a Boundary Commission will be able to devise and recommend seats within the parameters of size defined in the Bill that give proper and fair representation and a fair vote and fair value to the people of Shropshire, including the people of Telford.
In any of these matters, we should not lose sight of the fact that while, yes, primacy is given in the legislation to securing fair votes and fair values as best we can, the Boundary Commission still may—I acknowledge that the numbers within the margins take primacy—take into account, to such extent as it thinks fit, special geographical considerations, including the particular size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; local government boundaries as they existed at recent ordinary council election days; and any local ties that would be broken by changes in the constituencies. These are important factors, which will help to address a number of the concerns that have been raised not only in this debate but in other parts of the United Kingdom.
In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. We are certainly conscious of the concerns expressed and we recognise the strength of feeling, but we are confident that the variation of up to 10 per cent between the biggest and smallest constituencies will lead to a reasonable balance between equal value votes and have proper regard to locally meaningful boundaries.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said. He is always a powerful advocate, but he must think that we are a bunch of idiots if he thinks that those of us who have been watching what has been happening are not aware that there has been a filibuster. The Cross-Benchers will probably be in the best position to judge that. As a result of Fenian tactics at the end of the last century, a filibuster is dealt with in the other place by a guillotine and closure procedures. In this Chamber, we are fortunate because we have never had to employ those procedures, but we have never had a filibuster. In the 16 years that I have been here, I have never seen conduct like this.
I am not concerned about this Bill but about the future procedures of this House, which transcend any concern as to whether there should be one Bill, two Bills or no Bill. What matters is that we should be able to conduct ourselves in this House in a reasonable way. I do not think that we have been conducting ourselves in a reasonable way. What, therefore, is the choice now—for those on these Benches simply to collapse and give way to in effect an ultimatum or to have to use, I am afraid, the time taken night after night, if necessary, to see Committee completed?
A great leader of the Labour Party, Hugh Gaitskell, once said that we must fight and fight again for the party we love. I believe that we have to do exactly the same in this House today to save it from the kind of things that have happened in the other place and which have recently been imported to this House by some recent additions, some Ministers, who should know better.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, uncharacteristically, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, cannot have checked on the progress of Bills under the previous Government. I have the figures in front of me. I am happy to present them in the Library, should that be necessary. I shall mention just one—the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which took 19 days to go through the House. In no way am I minimising the importance of that Bill, but I think that a constitutional Bill should involve at least as much time as that.
I recognise and understand the problems faced by the business managers on the Front Bench. It must be much more difficult in some respects when there is a coalition. It is a difficult job managing government business—I can certainly testify to that—but, certainly during the six years when I was responsible, I can find only one occasion on which we considered the same Bill on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. That was overwhelmingly because of consideration of the needs and demands of those on the opposition Front Bench, who find it extremely difficult—understandably because they are part-timers—to do the necessary revision for three days in succession in detail on a difficult Bill. On only two or three occasions did we go through the night.
On all those exceptional occasions, it was because there was the imperative of dates. Usually, the imperative is the Queen’s Speech at the end of a Session. Of course, one cannot notify the Palace a fortnight before the Queen’s Speech is due and say, “Sorry, because Report on a Bill is taking a long time, could you put the date back a week?”. That date is imperative. Alternatively, as happened quite often under the previous Government, the imperatives for Northern Ireland legislation were unarguable. They were clear and demonstrable.
I concede totally to the Government that there is an imperative in this Bill, and we are conceding that publicly today. The imperative is not one I like, and the House knows my views on various forms of electoral systems, but the imperative for the Government is to get the Bill completed by 16 February so that there can be a referendum on 5 May. I acknowledge that imperative and it has been conceded.
However, I put it to the Government and to the House that there is absolutely no imperative whatsoever about Part 2 of the Bill. But before I move on from Part 1, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as my noble friend has said, that if he thinks six days on the Committee stage of a Bill that potentially fulfils the Lib Dems’ dreams of a change to the electoral system is filibustering, he does not know what a filibuster is.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Soley
I support my noble friend on the Front Bench. The Government could give important reassurance on this. The amendment does not ask directly for more funds now but recognises that what the Government are imposing constitutes a complex and continuing problem for the Boundary Commission, which already struggles at times to deliver what it needs to deliver on time. We all know that at present, when the Government are looking for savings in all these areas, there is a danger that the Boundary Commission will be expected to carry out a task that is beyond it. It seems to me that the wording of the amendment is so reasonable that it would be unreasonable for the Government not to give an assurance that if the Boundary Commission needs more money, it will be given it. It is important in that respect.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I seek some figures from the Minister, although he has indicated that he will not give any and has adhered to that stance so far when responding to amendments. Time and again before the election the parties that are now in government said that the reason for reducing the number of MPs was to reduce the costs of democracy. I was never able to work out how that would happen, principally because I knew the cost of a normal Boundary Commission review from Questions that I had posed to my noble friend Lord Bach when he was a Minister long before this was ever an issue. From memory, I was told that it was around £13 million. When pressed on the matter, Nick Clegg has said that the saving to the Exchequer of reducing the number of MPs by 50 would be about £12 million. As I knew that there would have to be an advanced Boundary Commission, it was obvious to me that the cost of the Boundary Commission alone would be more initially than the savings gained from that reduction in the number of MPs, so there are no savings in the costs of democracy.
What I did not realise in those early stages was quite how frequently Boundary Commission reviews would be required under the legislation. We now know, should the Bill become an Act, that because the Minister rejected our various proposals to extend the period between boundary redistributions, those redistributions would be roughly twice as frequent as they are now. They now occur between every eight and 12 years; if the Bill is enacted, they will happen every five years.
Unless my basic maths is completely wrong, the savings to the Exchequer from the reduction in the number of MPs will be £12 million, while the cost of a Boundary Commission review will, I assume, remain at about £13 million, but reviews will occur twice as frequently. I am even being generous to the Government in that respect, because if all these reviews are to be accelerated, they will presumably be costly. More commissioners will be needed to do things quickly.
It is therefore not unreasonable—although I fear that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, appears to indicate that he thinks it is an unreasonable request—for us to know the cost of the Boundary Commission reviews, given that they will occur twice as frequently. Given that the Government’s principal justification has been to reduce the cost of democracy, we ought to bear in mind that the cost of the referendum will be about £90 million.
We know well enough that all areas of public expenditure are being very closely scrutinised as to whether they are necessary, and it is reasonable to ask these questions. If I do not get a response now, I shall have to table a Parliamentary Question on the subject. If the noble Lord cannot provide the figures now, perhaps he would be kind enough to tell the Committee in due course what they are. What are the costs of the Boundary Commission? How much more will they be when the reviews are twice as frequent as they are at present? Can he confirm in passing—I am sure that it is easy for him to do—whether cost of the referendum will be £90 million? If those figures are anything like what I estimate, and I do not have the noble Lord’s resources, can I at least appeal to him and his colleagues on the Front Bench never again to say, as a justification for this legislation, that he is “reducing the cost of democracy”?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the weakness in this amendment is the first five words:
“For the avoidance of doubt”.
There is no doubt. The 1986 Act and this Bill already make provisions for the payment of the commission’s expenses, including any additional resources necessary to complete the review referred to in this clause. In evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the secretary of the English commission, which of course will have the most sizeable task to complete, told the committee that the commission has been working closely on the question of funding, in discussion with its sponsoring departments. Those departments are the Cabinet Office for England and Wales, the Scotland Office for Scotland, and Northern Ireland Office for Northern Ireland.
In addition, the secretary of the commission confirmed that he was confident that sufficient resources would be available to complete the review. It is the Government’s view that this is the best approach—a dialogue between each of the commissions and their sponsoring departments to ensure that their funding is appropriate. We have no doubt that the review will be conducted with a careful regard—I repeat, a careful regard—to public money. That matter, of course, can be examined at a later stage. However, there is no doubt that the commissions will have the resources that they need to complete the review, and the 1986 Act and this Bill already make provisions for that. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McDonagh
To save time for your Lordships, I shall speak to Amendment 56. I put my name to this amendment because of my understanding of politics and government, which is that what can go wrong will go wrong. It seems a complete folly to introduce a major change to the voting system when none of us knows whether the referendum will be carried or not, which means that we have to organise the legislation in such a way that it can be implemented at the same time as introducing the biggest boundary changes that any of us have seen in our lifetimes. Only one constituency in the United Kingdom is guaranteed to fight an election on the same boundary. Why do we need to do this?
I suggest that it was with some irony that the Minister from the Lib Dem Benches said that the constituency changes are important because of the great principle that one vote would be equal to one vote. We are about to pass a law that will put a system to the vote where, in some cases in some constituencies, some voters will have two votes, where, in some cases in some constituencies, some voters will have three votes, and where, in some cases in some constituencies, some voters will have four votes and up to five votes. It is not because of the principle that one vote is equal to one vote, otherwise we would be debating a referendum on a pure PR system, which we are not. We know already, because we can see it from the figures, that constituencies in the United Kingdom are largely similar. However, they also have one other facet, which is that they represent communities. I believe that moving this change to 2016 will preserve confidence in our democratic system.
It seems to me to be quite right and proper to want to reduce the timescale for the Boundary Commissions. Reducing it by half, within the current funding constraints, can be seen as possible. Reducing it to two years suggests to me that people are not being realistic about the deliberations that need to be undertaken. In addition to the cost for the Boundary Commissions, I want to ask the Minister what extra provision is being made for local authorities, as many of these changes will fall on them.
In life, big risks should be taken where there are big rewards. I do not understand where the rewards lie in introducing both these new systems at the same time when we could undermine the faith of this country in its democratic systems. An example of this at the last election was that a small number of voters were locked out of polling stations that they had attended before 10 o’clock. This caused huge uncertainty and concern among the public. What the Government are proposing to do here poses a much greater risk.
Lord Grocott
Amendment 56A, in my name, covers much same ground as the two amendments that have been briefly discussed today, so I do not intend to speak to it when we reach it. My suggestion is that the Boundary Commission should be required to report by 2017. It is not a date that I have picked out of thin air; it was chosen in anticipation of the time that a Boundary Commission would normally take to complete its work. Lest the Committee should think that I am a Johnny-come-lately on these issues, I point out that I am an obsessive. When you have had the experience, as I have had, of representing a constituency with an electorate of around 90,000 when your majority is around 360, you look very closely at parliamentary boundaries.
As soon as I saw in 2009 that the Conservative Opposition, as they were then, were thinking of reducing the number of MPs, my mind flew to how the boundaries would be drawn. I asked the then Minister—a splendid Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach—in a Written Question how long it took to conduct a boundary review. He said in his Answer of 3 November 2009 that the previous boundary review for England had taken six years and eight months and that for Northern Ireland it had taken three years and five months. I know from my experience of various Boundary Commission changes—many other people in this Committee will have had the same experience—that consulting local people and discussing whether their community should be split, joined or divided is a lengthy process. The job has been very well done by Boundary Commissions in the past and the time taken has been reasonable.
Although I knew that the Conservative Party was likely to go ahead with its pledge when it came into government, I did not think that it would substantially short-circuit the period of time required for a proper boundary review. I have proposed 2017 because I anticipate that the Bill will become an Act this year, which will give the Boundary Commission six years to do its work. I do not think that is an unreasonable period.
Anyone who has been an MP knows that boundary redistributions are pretty uncomfortable and difficult processes, as are the consequences of Boundary Commission proposals, which often mean colleague fighting against colleague from the same party for nomination for a seat. If you believe in first past the post, as I strongly do, you obviously have to accept that constituencies should be broadly similar in size and that they should be reviewed, because populations and their distribution change. However, they should not be conducted with phenomenal regularity.
I think I am right in saying that the House of Commons has an unusually, if not unprecedentedly, large number of new MPs. When they have settled into the euphoria of becoming a new MP—and it is a pretty euphoric experience—they will discover that they had not bargained for the fact that within a few months someone will come along and change the boundaries of their constituencies, probably substantially. That will put them in conflict with neighbours and all the rest of it. What is more, that will happen every five years. I almost plead with the Government for their own sake that that is not a good idea. You will not make MPs of whatever party—this is not a Labour Party partisan plea—very happy if you put them in a continual state of uncertainty about the democratic base on which they stand.
Lord Campbell-Savours
It is not just the sense of insecurity; it is the fact that it will influence the quality of entrants into the House of Commons because people make a judgment when they seek to be candidates. It is an important issue for many MPs.
Lord Grocott
I can see my noble friend’s point, although I am not sure I agree. There will always be a lot of people who want to be a Member of either of these Houses—quite rightly because it is a wonderful privilege. There is no shortage of people who are keen to stand, for all the hazards of elections—and I know all about the hazards. I simply put it to the Government that it is not unreasonable to suggest that we should have a reasonable period of time—six years was my suggestion—before the next boundary review, not least because we have only just had the last one. The 2010 general election was fought for the first time on new boundaries. That was pretty unsettling, as it always is. The Government are wrong to propose another one so soon. If they want to change the mechanism of elections, obviously they can do that. They have a majority that will enable them to do that. If they want this Bill to become an Act, in whatever amended form, they will probably get away with that as well.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Before my noble friend concludes, can he help me with a question that I asked earlier, which is not rhetorical? Why does he think the Government are being impelled into this unseemly haste? What is the motive for doing away with what has been an accepted British tradition for a very long time: the boundary review and public inquiry procedure? What is the motive for throwing all that away and removing the strong degree of political legitimacy that derives from this process?
Lord Grocott
That is a question for the government Front Bench. I think I know the answer. It has something to do with five days in May, but we can wait for those on the Front Bench to answer that. If they want to look after their own Back-Benchers, let alone the Back-Benchers of any other party, my advice to the Government is that to have parliamentary boundary reviews every five years is not such a good idea as they thought when it was first put on the drawing board.
Lord Wills
I support all the amendments to this clause, but I incline most to the amendment to which my noble friend Lord Grocott has just spoken. They all speak to the folly of the unmerited speed of what the Government are doing with these boundary reviews. The risks of their approach are manifold, and we have heard some of them already rehearsed this afternoon. I focus on one: the statistical inadequacy of conducting reviews on the basis of what is universally acknowledged to be a flawed electoral register. The best estimate that we have is that 3.5 million people are eligible to vote but are missing for one reason or another from the electoral register. How on earth can the Government propose to rush through a boundary review on the basis of such a flawed register?
The Government must be aware that the Labour Government took significant measures and passed legislation to ensure that the flawed electoral register was repaired. It gave the duty to the Electoral Commission of ensuring that by 2015 the electoral register was comprehensive and accurate, and gave it significant powers to achieve that end—powers that I see the Deputy Prime Minister is now claiming as his motivation and responsibility. Actually, the previous Government passed the legislation that gave the Electoral Commission those powers.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I cannot help but remark that, although the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—who I assume will sum up the debate— both had long and distinguished careers representing their constituencies in London, their experience of boundary redistribution may not, I respectfully suggest, be very typical. Unless my geography is completely askew, the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, was surrounded on three sides by sea and the former constituency of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was surrounded on all sides by sea. To me, that suggests a security of tenure that I would have envied.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The reality is that the Boundary Commission added 25 per cent to the number of my electors. That did not give a sense of security.
Lord Grocott
Whatever the circumstances, being a Member of Parliament is not the most secure of roles.
I want to make two points. First, I have added my name to Amendment 58, in the name of my noble friend Lord Martin of Springburn, which would provide for Boundary Commission reviews every eight years. Certainly in my case, that number was not just plucked from thin air. The current law provides that the period between each redistribution should be between eight and 12 years. There needs to be some compromise—there is no tablet of stone that tells us how frequently redistributions should take place—but a requirement that redistributions should take place every eight years would have some historic precedent. I hope that our recommendation of eight years would go some way towards meeting the Government’s requirement to provide, on a continuing basis, for a rough equalisation of constituency sizes—a principle to which in general terms I certainly do not object. Requiring the review to take place every eight years would at least give Members of Parliament probably two terms in which they would represent the same area.
Secondly, I simply want to point out the sheer practicalities of the situation that my noble friend Lord Lipsey has described as a kind of permanent revolution. Members of Parliament would not be human—we have all seen this happen—if, having discovered halfway through a Parliament that they will lose a large section of their current constituency and gain another area from another constituency after the election, they did not start concentrating some of their activities and energies on the area that was to be transferred. They would not be human if they no longer attached quite the same level of attention as they had in the past to the bit that they knew would be going somewhere else in 18 months or two years. That is just a matter of sheer common sense and no reflection on the integrity or commitment of the vast majority of MPs. I have always believed that to have been the case.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Grocott Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am slightly hesitant in rising to speak to the amendment because I had hoped that we might hear a contribution from the other side of the House. No one could argue—perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, could respond to this point—that the issues that we are discussing today are not of profound constitutional significance. The provisions in the Bill will alter the relationship between MPs and their constituents, the overall number of MPs and the ways in which the public can be involved in determining the electoral areas from which they will send their representatives to Westminster. If those issues are not of profound constitutional consequence, I do not know what issues are.
I must also say—if I may get my retaliation in first—that I really find it offensive to hear continual references to filibusters taking place when discussions of this significance are before the House. In fact, I would say that there is negligence on the part of groups, parties and individuals who do not make a full contribution to this debate. No one could possibly argue that there was a full debate in the House of Commons. I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace—it is convenient that he is in his place—that it was his leader who described these changes as the most profound since the Great Reform Bill of 1832. I have not had access to those debates, but if they really consisted of only one party having anything whatever to say about those proposals, and if those proposals were shovelled through both Houses in next to no time—this is a timetable that I have never seen before—then I would be very surprised indeed. It is our duty to examine these issues. They are of profound significance.
As for my noble friend’s amendment, although I would guess that he and I disagree on a huge range of issues connected with constitutional reform, I regard this as a masterly amendment. I defy anyone in this House to explain in detail why this is the wrong way to go about major constitutional reform. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, when he sums up, will not read out what I would guess his briefing notes suggest—that this legislation must be passed by 15 February in order for there to be enough time to hold the referendum on 5 May. That is not a reason for rushing through major constitutional reforms, so I hope that he does not say that.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord also does not say that there has already been excessive consideration of the Bill. This Bill—a huge Bill, a constitutional Bill—has so far had six days in Committee on the Floor of the House. I would ask him to look through the record of the previous Government, or of any other Government, to see the amount of time that was taken on Bills of far less significance. That is not to say that those Bills were not important—they were—but they had far less long-term, irreparable and unchangeable significance than this one. If you are changing the constitution, it is very difficult to change it back. The noble and learned Lord will find several Bills that took longer than this one has taken. We have got through roughly half the Bill—through Part 1—in six days in Committee. If the next period in Committee takes six days as well, it will still be impossible to meet the deadline of 15 February. That is not filibustering—that is the minimum required scrutiny. In fact, I would regard that as far too slight a scrutiny of a Bill of this importance to enable us to say that it has been considered properly by this House.
I must confess to being politically naïve. When I heard that the Conservative Party was suggesting that there should be a reduction in the number of MPs, I did not like it, but I was relatively relaxed about it because I knew that there would be plenty of time for discussion. I knew that you could not hurry Boundary Commissions. I knew that the last Boundary Commission for England took six years, so I thought, “Well, at least I will have plenty of time to discuss whether this is a good or a bad proposal”. It honestly did not occur to me for a moment that they would be scrapping the whole system of democratically accountable local inquiries—it just did not cross my mind that they would do that. Nor did it cross my mind that they would want to spend £12 million or so having a rushed Boundary Commission report—which is what the last Boundary Commission for England cost—when they keep telling us that every penny has to be saved.
As for the Liberal Democrats, it did not occur to me in my wildest dreams that they would say, “The thing we must do first in this new Parliament is to ensure that by 5 May we are asking the people whether they want the alternative vote system of proportional representation”. We know what the Liberal Democrats think about that system—I will not embarrass them by quoting their leader yet again; I think we all know the answer to that one—but for them it is a temporary, short-term arrangement so that they can move on in due course to full proportional representation.
I say to the Government that if they are wondering why the Bill is taking a long time, as they seem to suggest, they should look at the issues raised in my noble friend’s amendment. They should give us some sensible answers to the questions about why there cannot be a commission, and about the relationship between the two Houses. Here we have a Government who are reducing the number of Members of Parliament by 50 but, let us get this on the record, since the general election the number of new Members appointed to this House—many of whom I am delighted to see here; I am not complaining about them—is 117 so far. I remind the House that this is what the Deputy Prime Minister has described as a hugely important series of constitutional Bills that are all interrelated, and that great brains have been operating on them in order to show the nuance of the balance between the various pieces of legislation that are being brought forward. If there is any rational overview that allows simultaneously 50 fewer MPs and 117 additional appointed Members of the House of Lords, please could the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, explain to me what it is?
I have a final plea but it is one not made in hope, or indeed in expectation. Maybe just once, in response to one of the amendments from this side of the House, the Government could do what most Governments do from the Front Bench—many of us have been there—and say, “Look, we don’t really like the form of this amendment”, but at least acknowledge that there is some really powerful argument or justification for the points that we are making. At least they could say, “We’ll look at some of it, and we’ll bring some proposals back on Report”. I ask the Government not to regard this botched Bill as an impregnable piece of perfect legislation that should not be subject to any change.
It will be a test for the Government to see how they respond to a totally justified and well argued amendment, supported by people on very different sides regarding electoral reform and the future of the House of Lords; my noble friend Lord Wills and I are certainly on different sides. Let us hope for something better from the government Front Bench than we have had on any amendment so far.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Grocott’s earlier remarks about the debates that we have had so far on this enormous piece of legislation. For the same reasons as my noble friend, I feel strongly about much of its content. Like him—perhaps I could put this slightly stronger than he did—I deplore the lack of speeches from the Benches opposite. Indeed, having attended every day of the Committee so far, I have to say that this is the largest attendance that I have seen from the Conservative Party. The flesh might be present, though, but the spirit is pretty weak; we are still not seeing any contributions of either support or opposition from the Conservative Benches.
The Conservatives are slightly shamed by their coalition partners who are here in strength, although we are not hearing a great deal from them either, other than expressions of cynicism and impatience from one or two of them so far. It is regrettable that they cannot bring themselves to put some coherent arguments together in support of this enormous and extremely important piece of legislation.
My noble friend Lord Grocott mentioned the fact that there are accusations—this has not so far been said publicly, but there have been attempts to give this impression—that there is somehow some sort of filibuster taking place on the Labour Benches. I was contacted during the Christmas Recess by someone purporting to be from the Sunday Times, not a newspaper that I am overly fond of these days. I understand that investigations were taking place into the contents of some of the speeches on this legislation from this side of your Lordships’ House. Nothing has appeared in the Sunday Times yet because, I fear, when the reporter concerned put this story together, as reporters do, they managed to give the impression that what had been happening so far was that the Labour Benches had been doing the job for which they were appointed to this House and the Benches opposite had not. That would not for a moment satisfy the editorial tendencies of the Sunday Times, so it is no wonder that we have seen no more. However, the constitutional outrages in the Bill ought to be properly reported. If we had a press in this country that reported proceedings in this House and in the other place, rather than paying braying public schoolboys to pour buckets of verbal ordure on those they consider to be their social inferiors, the country at large might be alerted to the coalition Government’s outrageous behaviour and their attempts to rig both Houses of Parliament under these proceedings.