Queen’s Speech

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Monday 14th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My noble friend Lord Hunt was absolutely clear. We will not vote for a Bill that does not solve the problem of the powers. We do not believe that the draft Bill does that. As my noble friend made clear, we will have to wait and see what is then produced. There was absolutely no lack of clarity in what my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said in relation to that issue.

Our position is clear. The Conservatives’ position is clear. I should also make it clear that I thought that two of the parties were divided internally as to what to do—the Conservatives and Labour—and that the Liberal Democrats were united. Imagine our surprise when we saw them today. First, we had the greatest exponent of Lords reform, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who, to his great credit, did not even mention Lords reform. We heard the excellent noble Lord, Lord Phillips, give an inspirational speech on how well the Lords performs now; we had the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, saying that more thought was required; and the two proponents of Lords reform were the noble Lords, Lord Ashdown and Lord Rennard.

The passion of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, for reform was so great that he did not allow history to get in his way; he did not allow foreign comparisons to be drawn accurately; and he was, on two separate occasions, corrected on the facts in relation to his speech. Nobody, particularly those in the Egyptian Parliament, could have doubted his enthusiasm for Lords reform. I wonder whether enthusiasm is enough. Surely it would be much more sensible if we got down to the arguments in relation to it.

I continue on the propositions: there is no doubt that the Joint Committee was divided on the way forward. The Lords is, by a very substantial majority, I would opine, opposed to the Government’s reforms. The Liberal Democrats, however, are, by a majority, in favour of reform but appear to have nothing to say on the detail. The current position is obviously a very bad basis for reform. I am very sympathetic to the position of the Leader of your Lordships’ House, who everybody admires and likes. Like him, I embarked on proposals for reform—but they foundered. The right thing for the noble Lord to do is to come forward with proposals that have some prospect of success.

We know that we all agree on certain things. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, went much further than the Steel Bill, and we can implement those proposals as quickly as possible. The answer for us, in terms of ensuring that we retain our effectiveness and status, is to come forward with detailed proposals that would be attractive to people. It is ultimately not enough to have the excellent passion of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and the position of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, but does he not agree that we cannot move on this subject in a sensible way until we know whether the constitution of the United Kingdom will remain one, or whether Scotland falls out—in which case, a completely different House of Lords or second Chamber would be required?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think that we could move on some proposals for reform—for example, the ability of Peers to retire, the ability to expel particular sorts of Members to deal with the hereditary Peers, and various other proposals made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. If there were a consensus and a genuine feeling that the Commons desperately wanted a democratic House of Lords, we should probably move on that basis, but that is obviously not the position. That being so, I completely agree that we need to consider what may happen in relation to Scotland before any final conclusions are made. However, the ball is very much in the Government’s court.

I want to comment on the way that the Government are behaving in relation to this issue at the moment. I particularly have in mind the remarks made at the beginning of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is preparing to lay the blame for the failure of these Lords reform proposals. If one starts to prepare the way for failure and to wonder where the blame lies, then we are really wasting our time looking at these proposals. Let us give up now if there is no commitment from the person who is supposed to be leading the process of reform on behalf of the Government. There could not be a clearer signal that the Government are wasting the time of this House and the other place and bringing the whole of Parliament into disrepute than that they should try and fail to amend the arrangements for the constitution.

I should be very interested to hear from the Minister when we can see a Bill on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made it clear that we have not yet seen the Bill that the House will consider when it comes from the Commons. I should be interested to hear whether the Government intend to impose a timetable Motion in relation to the Commons’ consideration of this constitutional Bill. My third question relates to the extent to which the door is closed on a referendum. If the door is closed and we are not going to have a vote on whether the second Chamber should now be elected, why did we have a vote on whether admirable places such as Doncaster should retain their mayors? Can the Minister explain the Government’s position on this?

I regarded myself as one of the greatest enthusiasts for the topic of Lords reform. However, having listened to 46 speeches stretching from Thursday to Monday, I have to say that my enthusiasm has waned a little. If the enthusiasm of an anorak such as myself has waned, imagine how the country will view the issue.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

First, I was not a member of the Government that put it forward. I think they were wrong not to have a turnout threshold in relation to it. Secondly, 35 per cent voting for the Government is approximately double the number that could vote for a change in the constitution. The critical point that I am making is that there is not a system in the world in a developed democracy that does not require something out of the ordinary before you make a change in the constitution. Why is that such a common provision right throughout democracies? It is because people understand that to make such a permanent change is much more important than changing a Government—you can throw the Government out in five years or four years, or in our system, even in two and a half years if they lose authority. You are stuck with the change for a long time. So please, on the Benches over there, think not about the result you want, but about what sustains our democracy. A change that comes about through 19 per cent supporting it may not be a change that has legitimate support. So our position—

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Does the noble and learned Lord not accept that in the history of constitutional development in this country we have seen change—and we have seen progressive change. I ask him to listen to what I am saying.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I apologise. I should have been listening but I was distracted by fabulous information coming from the noble Lord, Lord Bach.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Perhaps I should make the point again, as briefly as I can. Does he not recognise that constitutional change and democratic legitimacy have been achieved in this country without public expressions of support at referenda? That history is far longer than is the history of referenda and there is very little precedent historically for referenda. No one considered that votes for women was not legitimate because it was decided by Parliament. Parliament does not cease to be sovereign because there is a referendum. That is true in respect of Europe and of devolution. It is also true in respect of the voting system. Surely the noble and learned Lord recognises that if there is a referendum result which does not give legitimacy it remains open to Parliament to react to that.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I have two points—I apologise to the noble Lord.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Parliament is still capable of introducing further legislation to take account of what has happened. That is not without precedent.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I have two points on that. First, the introduction of the referendum in our constitution effectively dates back to the European referendum. Once you have put the referendum into your constitution, it is very hard to go back on it—a point accepted by all political parties on this issue. Secondly, the position of saying, “Well, you can always change your mind if the level of support is not enough” would be legitimate if this were not a compulsory referendum, which requires the Minister to introduce the system of AV. If I may say so, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, what this indicates is his instinctive acceptance that there are inevitably limits below which you cannot go.

Suppose the position was that only 25 per cent of the country voted in a referendum and that there was a majority of 12.6 per cent. Would anybody sensible say that that was sufficient justification? If this had been a sensible arrangement, Parliament would have kept control of that, but no: it was decided by this House and by the other House that it should be a compulsory referendum. In those circumstances, it is right for Parliament to address what a satisfactory turnout on it is. One of the things that we are doing in this House is exploring what the effect of the changes in the constitution has been, one major change being the introduction of referendums in order to make major changes to the constitution.

My view on this, a view which I express on behalf of my party, is that having rejected the idea of an indicative referendum it is for this House to address what, if any, threshold there should be. There should be a threshold because, in my view, low figures of the sort that I have indicated are not satisfactory. I am much encouraged in this by the support from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, on the Cross Benches, and from the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Lamont. I did not realise that my noble friend Lord Bach had been chairman of that Labour Party constituency party but I now know why, for all those years, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was so sharp. My noble friend Lord Bach kept him so sharp in Blaby.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to reflect on the need and reason for a referendum. Will he explain to the House what he would do if there was a 25 per cent turnout, which is perfectly conceivable, with a very small majority in favour of a change to the alternative vote system? Does he regard a 12.6 per cent vote in favour of that change as something that gives it legitimacy? Will he please not say that he is not going to go into hypotheticals? He has got to deal with the issue. One of the problems and frustrations that I think the whole House is feeling, with the possible exception of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is the refusal on the part of the government Front Bench to engage with any degree of depth on the constitutional issues that the Bill raises.

Everybody agrees that the threshold issue is important. I will not support my noble friend Lady Hayter’s amendment because it is obvious that 25 per cent is too low a threshold, but it may well be that we shall support the thresholds in the other amendments. I invite the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to give us some idea of the Government’s thinking on this and how they say that the referendum could give legitimacy.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is right and I refer him to the comparison between subsections (1) and (2), (3) and (4). However, I have made my point and I earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to consider taking the government amendment away and coming back with a measure on Report to achieve his aim, should Clause 4 still remain part of the Bill after the Committee stage.

I wish to address what the noble and learned Lord rightly describes as the political aspects of this. Clause 4 is included to allow for the combination of polls. It is intended to ensure that a variety of elections can take place together. As a matter of principle, we think that that is the wrong approach to that issue. There is no dispute in any part of the House regarding the importance of the referendum. I cannot recall a referendum over the past 150 years—it is more a case of reflecting on history than personal recollection—which concerned the voting system. I think most people in this House would agree that we should hold referenda only in relation to very important constitutional issues. The referenda held since the Second World War concerned: the partition of Ireland; staying in the European Union; the 1978 referendum on devolved Assemblies for Wales and Scotland; and the 1998 referendum on devolved Parliaments or Assemblies for Wales and Scotland—all very important issues. As far as I am aware, each of those referendums has taken place alone, without there being any other poll on the same day. That is a sensible course whereby this country’s approach to referenda is that you have them only when there is an important constitutional issue. We heard from my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, who both said how important the issue is.

We also have the report from your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, which is a cross-party organisation that spoke unanimously on the issue. The committee cited evidence that the effect of having elections on the same day as a referendum is that the referendum debate gets swamped by the election of individual people. If you look at America, where frequently referenda take place on the same day as elections—such as those in November this year—you find that no one pays much attention to the referenda and everyone pays attention to the election of individual people. If the Select Committee of this House is right, you are in danger of the referendum question being swamped by the election of people in the three—or even four, if there is also a mayoral election—other elections going on at the same time.

Why is this being done if it is such an important issue? Everyone in this House wants the constitution properly to be given effect to. I do not want there to be a sense of illegitimacy about the result. Whatever view one takes about this referendum, one wants it to be decisive—decisively in favour of either first past the post or the alternative vote system. The result could be close, but you would want a good turnout and the sense that the question had properly been addressed.

This is the second national referendum in 120 years. It is the first one to affect our electoral system—the one that will make people have a view about whether they trust their electoral system. This Government, as I understand it, justify bringing the referendum together on the same day as the other elections when there is formidable evidence that it leads to the question being swamped. The Government justify that on the basis that it will save some money. Money is important, but it may be that the legitimacy of our constitution is more important.

This is a fundamental point of principle, and it is not too late for the Government to change their position. I should have thought that everyone on the government side, whether they are for or against a change in the electoral system, would want the result of the referendum to be something that the country has confidence in. What we are doing on this side is, in effect, reflecting the arguments of experts who say that having the referendum on the same day as other elections is not a good idea. It deprives the result of legitimacy.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He gave an American example, because he could not refer to any British example or precedent. However, as recently as November, California—a state close to bankruptcy—decided in one day both to change the party in government there and have a conservative outcome in a referendum on gay marriage. I do not think that it is appropriate to draw any conclusions from the American example, except that people are intelligent enough to understand what they are doing—and they do it even when there appears to be some conflict between their decisions.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The American experience, which is part of the evidence relied on in these debates, suggests that in the polls in November, either in mid-term or general election years, the tendency of the public is not to focus on the proposition but to focus primarily on the people they are electing. In the coverage in November I did not spot the result of the proposition in California; all I spotted, which is where all the coverage was in America, was who was going to win in California. So the American experience tends to confirm what the Select Committee said—that the referendum question gets swamped in the question, for example, of who you want to be your Government in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Why is it being done like this? Is it only to save money or are there other reasons? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to which we have all agreed, has given the Government the opportunity to hold the referendum on a different day. In answer to my opposition to Clause 4 standing part, it is necessary for the Government to say why they think it is right that this critical question should be dealt with on a day when there are other polls; when it has never before been done in our history; when experience in other jurisdictions suggests that the referendum question gets swamped; when anyone who has any care for our constitution wants the result to be decisive. I do not want a situation where whichever Government are in power seek to change the electoral system; I want something that is settled as far as the people are concerned. That has always been the purpose of referenda in the past. Furthermore, quite separately from those points of principle, there is inevitably scope for confusion with so many elections going on with different electorates.

I shall listen very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, justifying why an issue as important as this is being dealt with in a way which seems to make it harder to come to a legitimate result than easier.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I was under the impression—obviously wrongly—that on previous occasions the noble Lord had supported AV+, as suggested by Lord Jenkins. Indeed, his party supported that, but I was obviously wrong.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his kind references to the agreements arrived at between Robin Cook and me. He will also remember in the context of his suggestions that this is just a stitch-up: that the Labour Party in Government did not implement the Cook-Maclennan proposals on electoral reform, despite a manifesto commitment to give the public the opportunity. In those days the Labour Party was not in favour of PR; yet it committed itself to giving the public a choice. Where is the difference now?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord is right. We did not implement Lord Jenkins’ proposals. We said that if we were going to implement a change, there would be a referendum. I fail to see how that justifies implementing a system of election which Lord Jenkins said would sometimes lead to greater disproportionality than the present system. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has said, that leads to the second party’s second preference votes having no say in the answer. Although he is absolutely right to condemn us for that, I do not think that it allows the public to have sicked upon it a system that absolutely no one wants. My position on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is that I admire his logic in proposing it, but I would not support it because of the technical changes. In a sense, I think he is wasting his time.