|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Lord Privy Seal agree that there is space in the new situation for the Churches to have a higher profile? We see so much of them in the context of reconciliation. We do not recognise how much they are doing behind the scenes in the political context.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I say how very much I share the view of, I believe, the whole House that it is extremely reassuring that such plain language has been used and that, for instance, the Government have not hesitated to condemn the whole of the IRA Army Council for Lurgan and have not accepted the myth that it was a maverick who got out of line. I believe that that will reassure people a great deal. It will also be very reassuring that, whatever passes between the Government and Sinn Fein should, as far as possible--as has hitherto been the case--be made as public as possible. That kills myths. In that context, I believe that in the talks that have taken place so far at Civil Service level, there has been discussion about confidence-building measures. It has been suggested in the press that such measures include reform of the RUC or changes in policing. Is there any truth in that? If not, it would be as well to kill that at once.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank rose to call attention to the case for electoral reform, taking account of the 1999 elections to the European Parliament, and to the need for the early appointment of an independent
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the time has long passed since electoral reform was guaranteed to provoke a yawn as a subject for serious political discussion. But never has a debate been so sharply focused as today's debate in your Lordships' House. The Motion refers to
So the main purpose of this debate is to provide Ministers with an opportunity to give a progress report to the House and indicate a timetable, even if a provisional timetable, on which its commitments will be honoured. From these Benches we shall probe gently, believing as we do in the Government's good faith. But in return--and I need to make this plain at the beginning of what I have to say--we shall expect a positive, unqualified restatement of the Government's position, together with clear evidence that progress is being made.
To the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I say with respect that it will not be sufficient simply to repeat the sometimes elliptical and rather muddling messages that have come from the Government in both Houses during and since the debate on the Address.
Let me remind your Lordships of the Labour Party's commitment to elections to the European Parliament on the basis of proportional representation. First, there was the endorsement by the then Labour leader, John Smith, in May 1993, which is over four years ago, of the recommendation of the Plant report for a regional list system for such elections. Then, shortly afterwards, at the Labour Party conference in 1993 came the statement of Tony Blair, the then Shadow Home Secretary. He said,
In these circumstances it was surprising that the gracious Speech contained no reference to European elections and no provision for legislation. But those of us who have served in government know that accidents do happen. It may well be that, in the excitement of the hour and with no clear departmental responsibility for the matter, it simply slipped through the net. But there have been plenty of opportunities since then to remedy the omission. The Prime Minister could have referred to it in the margins of Amsterdam--even perhaps when he was riding his bicycle--or yet another unattributable briefing might have emerged from the office of the Minister without Portfolio.
But I ask--and I hope that I shall receive a reply--into whose portfolio do the matters we are discussing today now fit? Is it the Home Secretary, as the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, today suggests, but who is cool, to say the least, about proportional representation in any shape or form? Is it the Foreign Secretary, who has the most direct interest in European elections and the most consistent record of support for proportional representation? Or could it be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whose authority, distinction and presence in this House is a great reassurance to us all? I ask the simple question: who is in charge and who is going to drive things forward and make this issue his own?
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships what has been said by Ministers in this House and in another place since the general election. I do not claim that it is an exclusive list, but it seems to me to be at least a representative one. In the course of the debate on the Address, I said:
Then in another place on 9th June, the Home Secretary was asked a question by Mr. Richard Allan, referring to the voting system for the European elections and asking whether the changes would be brought forward with the necessary urgency to get there by 1999. Mr. Jack Straw snapped back,
I said earlier that we have been given elliptical and muddling messages. On reflection, I should have said that, to a greater or lesser extent, they have all been discouraging messages. The wish and intention is repeated and there is a reference to a firm commitment, but there is no fresh start and no leading from the front. That is why--and I have given the Minister advance notice of what I am to say--we need a positive, unqualified restatement of the Government's position of the kind to which I have already referred. I make the obvious point that we shall assume that any such statement has been cleared with the Foreign Office and No. 10.
As your Lordships know, over the years a great deal of work has been done on electoral systems, not least by the Hansard Society. Then we had, in 1991 and 1993, valuable reports prepared for the Labour Party under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, who is sorry not to be present. For a useful summary of systems, I would recommend a House of Commons Research Paper Voting Systems--The Alternatives, published in February this year. The commission will need to initiate very little new work. At this moment, officials should be preparing bundles of papers for the commissioners to read. Then, if the right chairman has been appointed, it should be a matter of prompt discussion and an early decision.
The constitution unit attached to University College, London, which did some admirable work during the short two years of its existence, set out three possible options for the timetable for the referendum. Option A, described as a pre-legislative referendum, two Bills and a tight timetable, envisaged the establishment of what it called an advisory committee--that is, the Government's independent commission--in July (next month), reporting in January next year. Options B and C put the appointment in September. I believe they are the right parameters. I hope that the commission can be appointed before the Recess. But if the Minister says that it may slip a month or two, I think we should be content. As for reporting, I see no reason why it should not do so within six months. I hope that in announcing the appointment, Ministers will announce that timetable as well.
On the further timetable for the referendum itself, we on these Benches believe that it should and can be held within this Parliament. If it was held no later than the spring of the year 2000, there would be time for boundary reviews and, if this Parliament runs its full length, for the next general election to be held by proportional representation.
I recognise that such a timetable is tight. Once the Government have made their choice of an alternative to first-past-the-post there must be time for adequate public discussion before the referendum is held. There will be difficult political judgments, taking account of opinions in the House of Commons, about precisely when this should be; but there is no excuse for delaying the appointment of the independent commission. The whole complicated constitutional process must at least get off on time.
I turn briefly to substance of the matter and to opinion in the country. The latest figures that I have seen come from a MORI poll conducted in April of this year--two months ago. Perhaps I may quote the answers to two questions. The first concerned changes that a government might propose in the future and whether they should,
On these Benches, we believe that proportional representation is an idea whose time has come, but we are now ready to pass on to the Government the torch which so many of my colleagues have carried for so long. Constitutional reform is not about turning our backs on history, but about building on what is good in our parliamentary system and traditions and on changing what is not. That is surely the proper theme for the closing years of this millennium.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in substantial agreement with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I believe, with him, that there is an urgency about the subject if a new electoral system is to be in place for the Euro-elections in 1999. I confess to not knowing what is the margin of time available to us or whether it will be possible. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say about that.
I agree also with the noble Lord that the present system is less than fair, and that it discourages people from participating in the democratic process. Many believe that, by reason of the place where they live, they are condemned to a life time of frustration.
Indeed, a few years ago my own son, then in his 30s, commented that he had never voted for a winning candidate. Happily, he no longer holds that record, but that situation cannot be conducive to a healthy democracy. Even Walter Bagehot, who argued strongly for the simple majority system, confessed that for 20 years, living as he did in an agricultural county, he had always voted for losing candidates, and he understood why people felt that their vote was wasted.
In principle, I wholly support what was said by the noble Lord. I hope that he will forgive me--we have known each other for many years--if I now go on to spoil it by venturing one comment and two admonitions.
The comment is that one might have thought from the noble Lord's speech that some form of proportional representation was something which had always been urged by the Liberal Democratic Party and supported at best half-heartedly by the Labour Party. History does not bear that out. Keir Hardie himself argued for proportional representation, admittedly at a time when the positions were somewhat reversed, when he was concerned that there should continue to be a separate Labour Party which should not be submerged within the Liberal Party.
We have all had views on this issue from time to time. Some of us, admittedly, have been political Hamlets about the subject, but that of course does not preclude us from considering it now on its merits.
I turn to my two admonitions. The first is that we all have our views as to what should be in the Government's legislative programme. The Government have a very heavy programme for this Session. Quite a lot of the legislative time is to be occupied by constitutional measures. Some of them certainly, like the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, will receive the strong support of the Liberal Democratic Party. I should be the last to complain that we should be addressing constitutional reform.
But there are other demands on legislative time--some of them for measures of great importance. The House debated one such measure yesterday. Even the noble Lord and I must beware of overstating the importance of constitutional reform in that scale. For those of us who are concerned with constitutional reform, there is a temptation to believe that constitutional changes will be the answer to all our problems. I speak as one who is as addicted to them as the noble Lord. It was ever thus.
I speak with some deference in the hearing of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. During the struggle which led to the Reform Act 1832, supporters of the campaign spoke as though, if once it could be achieved, the people of Britain would regain all the liberties which, as many of them believed, they had enjoyed in the golden age before the Norman Conquest. Those who opposed the Bill predicted anarchy. The old ways would be trampled underfoot and Britain would become ungovernable. Neither of those vicissitudes took place.
I believe that it was a good measure, but within 20 years of its passing virtually everyone felt that it had not made all that difference. Wellington and Peel, who had opposed the measure, were regarded as benign popular champions. Those who predicted Gotterdammerung found that they flourished under the new system. The debate was replaced by arguments for the 1867 Act and again for the 1885 Act. Neither of those measures brought about Shangri-La or Domesday.
I do not believe that constitutional reform will ensure jobs for those who are unemployed, a more effective health service, shelter for the homeless, or a better education system. I do not believe that my former constituents, if asked what they most wanted to see from the new Government, would reply, "A different electoral system".
I am not even sure that proportional representation is all we need to restore public confidence in Parliament, and to motivate the 2 million potential electors who do not even trouble to register. There is a whole range of
My second admonition is that I agree with the noble Lord that it is often difficult to change an electoral system when once it is in place. So we had better get this one right. There are many options, as the noble Lord reminded us. I share his regret that we are not today to benefit from the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Plant whose commission explored them all so carefully. A system which is appropriate for European elections is not necessarily the system that we want for elections to a national parliament.
Today I make just two brief contributions to that debate. I would be troubled by any system which led to multi-Member constituencies. I was privileged for 26 years to represent a constituency which, subject to some changes, remained essentially the same constituency. I came to know virtually all the social activities in the area. I visited most of the churches and learned their various concerns and needs. I was familiar with most of the area's sporting activities and despite my insistence that I was not going to breathe down the necks of my successors, I remain president of a local football club. I came to know the historical societies, the choirs, the music societies, the operatic societies, the mentally and physically handicapped groups, and the various ethnic minority groups.
I believe that that was healthy for the area. It was certainly good for me. A system which presented a Member with a much larger constituency, as, for example, the constituencies of American senators, would not have permitted that. I suspect that a constituency shared by more than one Member, especially if they happen to be from different parties, would be tempted to play off one Member against another, and the Members would be tempted to indulge in a Dutch auction which might bear little relation to the merits of a proposal.
Secondly, I believe that we shall lose something of the relationship between Members and constituencies if we introduce national party lists. There may be individual occasions when a constituency party has behaved so irresponsibly that the whole national party is in danger of disrepute and when a local choice should be overruled. Furthermore, there may be occasions when efforts should be made to introduce a particular candidate with a special contribution to make. But I believe that the lifeblood of our system is the right of localities to make their own choice. I agree with the noble Lord that in European elections different arguments apply, but I would agree with the regional lists.
I believe that there is a whole spectrum of choices still to make and we will understand if my noble friend tells us that the Government may need more time to consult. But if I seem to have diluted my initial support for the noble Lord perhaps I may reassure him that I suspect that when the time comes he and I will be substantially on the same side.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for introducing the debate. I wish to say a few words entirely on the issue of elections to the European Parliament and at the outset I should declare my interest. I was elected three times to the European Parliament by the first-past-the-post system and I have been selected as the prospective candidate for London North West in the June 1999 European elections; that is, if those elections take place on the present basis.
I hope that I shall not be accused of too much bias in this matter because I also stood unsuccessfully for the European Parliament in 1994 under the present system. Afterwards, I was told by the Electoral Reform Society that if there had been a regional list in 1994 I would have won. Be that as it may, I hope that I have a lack of bias in this matter.
Many people believe that the present system of election to Strasbourg, as well as to Westminster, is unfair--and the word "unfair" is underlined. I suppose that that is particularly true about the Strasbourg elections. In 1979, the Conservatives held 77 per cent. of the seats in the European Parliament, having gained only 50 per cent. of the votes cast. Presently, as a result of the 1994 elections, Labour holds 74 per cent. of the seats, having polled only 44 per cent. of the votes. In 1984, the Liberal/SDP Alliance polled nearly 20 per cent. and did not receive a single seat. In 1989, the Greens polled 15 per cent. and were likewise unrewarded in any single case. It is argued that in simple justice the system ought to be changed. Of course, we are bound by certain treaty obligations eventually to introduce a uniform electoral system in elections to the European Parliament. I trust that that treaty obligation will be fulfilled in due course.
On the other hand, there are many continental colleagues in the European Parliament who are extremely envious of the British system and who tell British colleagues how much they wish they could have been elected on the same basis. It is useful for a constituent to have a Member of the European Parliament who is his or her's alone. It makes sense for each voter to have a representative in Strasbourg who belongs to him or her; to have a constituency office; to have an address to which letters can be written; and to have someone to whom he or she can refer. If one had a list system, particularly a national list system, that would be difficult to achieve.
Of course, we know how comparatively few members of the public know the names of their Member of the European Parliament. In France, Spain and Greece, members of the public do not know the name of their Member of the European Parliament because they do not have one. They are simply presented with a list of Members for whom they may or may not have voted. Whatever the Government decide in this matter, I beg them not to introduce into Parliament a national list system because it is pernicious. I have seen it and it does not work. It would be as bad as though, heaven forbid, your Lordships' House were to consist entirely of nominated Members. It is not good to have co-opted members; I believe that they should be elected.
The Member who is in Strasbourg on the national list is remote from the voters, much more than is the case in this country. The national list becomes a dumping ground for those who are owed a favour and it ensures discipline. It is very difficult to be an elected person in Strasbourg from France, Greece or Spain and in the slightest degree to diverge from the policy of the leader of the party. If they do the sanctions are immediate and drastic. The great leader, Joseph Stalin, said that members of the Politburo should be changed frequently. That is the attitude of many party leaders in Strasbourg to their Members of the European Parliament who stray slightly from the policies of the party on whose list they have been included.
Frequently I have sought support from French, Greek and Spanish colleagues in Strasbourg only to be told, "I would support you, but if I did I would be biffe de la list". In other words, they would be struck off the list, and it could be done without any why or wherefore. Mr. Papandreou and M. Mitterrand were great exponents of that particular art. Therefore, let us have Members of the European Parliament who are elected rather than co-opted and who are not given five years in Strasbourg like a parent gives a piece of chocolate to a child.
If the Government are to embark upon this enterprise--and I suppose that they will eventually--there are several versions of the system for them to take into account. I suppose that the favourite is the regional list system. It was, after all, the basis of the Bill put forward in the late 1970s under the Lib/Lab pact. The problem is that a candidate has to compete for votes against other candidates from his own party. From conversing with colleagues from Ireland and the Netherlands who have a regional list system, I know that great bitterness ensues when one has to fight an election more against one's own party colleague than against the party to which one is opposed. There is the famous anecdote along the lines, "Noble Lords opposite may be my adversaries, but noble friends can be my enemies". I am afraid that it works in that way, particularly during elections on a regional list system.
One must look carefully at how that would be worked out. For instance, if one has in London a 10-Member constituency there will not be 10 votes per elector because if there were the party with the slight majority would scoop the pool and there would be no change from the first-past-the-post system.
I suggest that a fair result in a 10-member London regional election would be four Members if a party achieves 40 per cent. of the votes cast. In a normal year, that would probably apply to both the Conservative and Labour parties. That would mean that the 20 per cent. of votes cast for the Liberal Democrats would result in two Members being elected. I take that as a possibility.
However, it means that candidates will have to be chosen and will have to put themselves up for election, if they are numbers five to 10, on the understanding that they are extremely unlikely, almost definitely unlikely, to be elected. By the same token, numbers one to three are almost certain to be elected and there may perhaps be some argument over number four. But the election
Another possibility would be for the list and its order to be put together by party activists. But perhaps the best way would be for the electorate to have an opportunity to choose which candidates out of those on the regional lists it would most like to see representing it.
It has been mentioned that the Government are intending in due course to bring in that measure and to have proportional representation in elections to the European Parliament. I dare say that will come. We are treaty bound to bring that about. On the other hand, the Government may have more important matters to deal with in the next few months than changing the system in time for 1999.
Let us bear in mind the fact that, in the early years of the new millennium, there will have to be a substantial upheaval in the composition of the European Parliament as a result of enlargement. Several countries will join in the early years after the year 2000 and many dozens of new MEPs will be added to that assembly. I suspect that the members of the EU will find it impossible to keep on enlarging the assembly. It already contains 626 Members. It is a large House. Perhaps it should be capped at a figure of 700 Members. If that happens, the existing large members of the EU will lose part of their representation. I suggest that that will mean that the constituencies will have to be redrawn and become unacceptably large. As a result of enlargement, the changes will be considerable and it may be preferable to tackle those issues in the year 2000 or 2001, after enlargement, rather than this year or next year.
I have declared my interest in this matter and noble Lords will have to make a judgment. However, I believe that something must be done and a decision should be made by the Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that there has been equivocation on this matter in rather conflicting statements made about it by Mr. Cook and Mr. Straw in another place. The European Parliament has, up to now, been the sick man of the British electoral system. Whatever the changes are, I look forward to seeing the European Parliament playing a significant role, co-operating with national parliaments and not competing with them, each one bearing in mind the national interest.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with great pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who used to represent me in the European Parliament and, if I may say so, did so extremely well. I never actually voted for the noble Lord but the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, once tempted me very sorely to do so.
It is well understood that gratitude is one of the weakest of political emotions. That is perfectly right and proper because after all, gratitude by definition must relate to the past. But the activity of politics is a jostling for right of way in that very narrow gateway which leads from the present to the future. Therefore, the relevance of anything from the past must be extremely limited. For that reason, I shall not rehearse the arguments used by Mr. Peter Kellner in the Evening Standard today. Any decision taken by the Prime Minister on this subject will not be taken because of anything done on these or any other parliamentary Benches. It will be taken on grounds of sheer hard-headed self-interest. It is in those terms that I wish to address arguments to the question; to argue that it would be in his interests not only to go ahead but also to make a positive recommendation in the referendum.
We are told that the Prime Minister holds the view that the objection to proportional representation is that it gives too much power to small parties, though I will say only that that view is attributed to him. I go no further. There may be some truth in it. But it is a necessary part of democracy that the last brick which builds the majority has a very considerable weight. We have all taken part in votes with a majority of one; we have all claimed to be that one; and we all know the power that that confers.
My argument is that first-past-the-post confers power on even smaller parties. First-past-the-post does not always, as we remember, deliver an overwhelming majority to one party, although it often does. Somebody has to make up the majority. That person may not be a member of a party accountable to a substantial number of voters, but may be a member of a small regional or splinter group. I will not speculate on how much power the Ulster Unionists did or did not enjoy in the last months of the last Parliament. But I will say that in circumstances where we have had two Prime Ministers so admirably determined to continue a bi-partisan tradition in Northern Irish politics, it would be unfortunate if the balance of power were held by a Northern Irish party. It would make the task more difficult.
I remember the Parliament of 1964 when Mr. Wilson, as he then was, enjoyed a majority of four of whom two--Mr. Woodrow Wyatt and Mr. Desmond Donnelly--did not always vote with the majority. Therefore, in that Parliament those two people enjoyed a very large measure of power indeed. You cannot get much smaller than that; but you can get a bit smaller than that.
In 1979, as we all know, the Government fell because Mr. Frank Maguire, Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, attended the House and abstained in person. I shall not speculate on what might happen in the Parliament after next. However, it is not absolutely impossible that, after a string of unsuccessful
The Prime Minister might also reflect during the course of this Parliament on the proof of the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Pym, in 1983, that, "It is not good for a party to have too big a majority". I read in a newspaper report yesterday of a plan, first floated just after the election, for Labour MPs, in turn, to be sent out into the country, as it were, on progress, to keep them away from Westminster and out of mischief. That plan is ascribed to the Minister without Portfolio, but there is force in the archaeologists' rule that earth works of unknown origin are regularly ascribed either to the Devil or Julius Caesar. I make no speculation on which it might be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, just reminded us, we also know that the first-past-the-post system produces massive overswings. I am reminded of the Punch cartoon featuring my great grandfather and Sir Robert Peel on a see-saw. It shows my great grandfather up in the air saying triumphantly, "Hey, we go up; we go up", while Mr. Peel is saying, "Yes, and down again soon enough with a nasty bump I shouldn't wonder". So there are roundabouts that go with the swings on first-past-the-post, and they can be quite violent. Moreover, it does not always deliver victory to the party with the most votes.
Many noble Lords will remember the general election of 1951 when the Labour Party won far more votes than the Conservatives, yet won fewer seats and lost the election because those votes were concentrated in particular areas--like South Wales and County Durham--where they did not translate into seats. Those who study their information should reflect on the point made by Mr. Tony Crosland; namely, that all the governments that were in power in 1952 when the post-Korean war boom began were still in power in the middle 1960s.
The Labour Party may have lost out very heavily indeed through not having proportional representation in 1951, but I believe that it also suffers from the effect of not having PR in local government. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that Islington Council is worth far more to his enemies than to his friends. The same has been said of Sheffield Council. After discovering itself for practically the first time in its history facing serious opposition from my party in 1994, its leader made a most ill-judged remark when talking to the Daily Telegraph. He said, "Liberal Democrats are like fascists; they exploit discontent". I thought that that was called democracy, and one should not have had to wait so long
I also believe that the first-past-the-post system gives a great advantage to some, but not all, regionally based parties. I have with me a note of the number of votes that it took to elect a Member from each of the main parties in the present Parliament: Labour 32,420--a high rate of striking upon which I congratulate the party; Conservative 58,125; Liberal-Democrat 113,985--four times as high a rate of striking as 1983; SNP--and that party was one of the big losers of first-past-the-post--103,526; and Plaid Cymru 15,641. I have great respect for the party for which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, used to sit. Indeed, I once lived in the constituency that he used to represent, but I do not think that he is about to tell the House that he deserved to find it six times as easy to return a Member of Parliament as the Scottish Nationalists. I should add that that point is made in the friendliest of spirits.
We should also think about the question of legitimacy in the eyes of the voters. That is vital. It has been a nightmare of parliaments in all centuries that, as one Member put it in 1628, "They will not pay in the country what we give". So the belief that Parliament represents the people is vital to the strength of the government of any party, but that belief is now ebbing.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, spoke movingly about the frustration felt by his son at never voting for a winning candidate. When I took my seat in this House in 1987, I lost the vote and was quite dismayed to find how little I missed it. I had voted in every election since 1959, save one when I was out of the country. I only once voted in a seat which changed hands and only once voted in a seat which might have changed hands. It is a basic principle of legitimacy that all votes ought to count equally, whereas now we have heard it said that the 1992 election was decided by 100,000 votes. It makes it more important to chase Sun readers in Basildon or in Hayes and Harlington than it does to chase the many thousands of voters who happen to live somewhere else.
I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said about not turning our backs on history. However, the point about the first-past-the-post system is that it pre-dates party. It is a system devised by King Edward I for the Model Parliament of 1295 when party had not been so much as thought of. Of course it does not represent party; indeed, it was never designed to do so. That is why people in this country who want to choose a government can do nothing except vote for an individual MP and, in many constituencies, that can leave them very frustrated indeed.
The first move towards proportional representation was brought in by my great grandfather in the 1832 Reform Bill when he produced what appeared to be the absolutely revolutionary measure of linking the size of constituencies with the number of voters. Because that was an assault on electoral property, it caused a great
If we want all votes to count equally and if we want everyone to be able to have a say in his or her choice of government, we need a system which would make that possible. On 15th August last, Mr. Nick Brown was the Labour Deputy Whip in Opposition. He is now Government Chief Whip. I believe that he might legitimately be described as "sources close to the Government". He said then that,
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am, as always, delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He has kindly made my first point for me as in a sense I had a vested interest in the present electoral system for a long time when I was in another place. I voted for myself continually until I was disenfranchised, and won every time except once--that was the first time. However, I shall discuss the serious point that he made. I am grateful to him for his historical, learned and witty contributions to all our debates. I was relieved to hear it confirmed that it was indeed Edward I who established the present system, so clearly I must be against it!
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for introducing the debate and for giving this House the opportunity to support the principle of reforming the electoral system and to press the Minister in the gentlest possible way on where the Government are in their thinking on the issue.
The question of electoral reform is not just a constitutional issue. It has an implication for the whole conduct of politics and for our entire political culture in that the nature of the system determines the form of the representation, and that in its turn determines the attitude that potential representatives adopt to being elected. I suggest that the lack of proportional representation has had an effect on the nature of campaigns. The whole issue of so-called tactical voting has created a tendency towards negative campaigning. It has tended to create a campaign which concentrates not on the positive putting forward of programmes but on rubbishing others. The sooner we move to the more creative political debate that PR will bring about the better.
The other obvious weakness of the present system is that it reflects a form of majoritarianism. It is true to say that occasionally smaller parties can hold more than their fair share of the balance of power. I remember with great affection the evening when Mr. Maguire abstained in person. I remember the activities of my dear friend
It appears there will be proportional representation for the Welsh assembly and for the Scottish assembly although obviously we shall have to wait for the White Papers to confirm that. In announcing a referendum for both assemblies, the decision of the Government to consult the people is an important precedent for what they could and should be doing in the case of proportional representation. I believe that the two issues are closely linked because if the Government want a sure and certain victory both in Scotland and in Wales, and the sure and certain support of people who are not necessarily Labour voters--of which there are still some 40 per cent. of us on a good day, even in Wales--it is important that the Government should indicate their genuine adherence to the principle of real plurality. By that I do not mean plurality and the first-past-the-post system; I mean genuine political plurality in terms of the role of each party and each representative.
I am able, as always, to bring to my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn good news from Anglesey where last night there was a mass meeting of the Yes for Wales campaign. There were nearly 200 souls at Oriel Ynys Mon. I promised the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I would relay that news as soon as I could. I do so now. At that meeting the concern was raised--as it always is in such discussions--that a Welsh assembly would be Labour dominated. If the majority of the Welsh people vote for the Labour Party, clearly it should be the majority party in any assembly. However, it is equally important for the north and for mid-Wales and for other parties to feel that their voice is clearly heard and that their representatives standing for election are, as it were, of equal value to those of the main party. For that reason, if the Labour Party is seen to espouse PR in other levels of election, that will strengthen its position as regards the referendum on devolution.
I do not want to go into the detail of alternative systems--that can come later--but I support the principle that there should be a commission to look into this matter. It seems to me that all the options which are on offer and which are practised in other states of the European Union and indeed in New Zealand and elsewhere are ones that we can easily study and reach conclusions on. I am not so much concerned about the loss of the direct link between the member and his or her constituents, as was my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, because I think there is an argument for a multi-member constituency, not on the basis that constituents with problems can be
I wish to mention one more detailed point in relation to the European Parliament. This, again, is a point of history because we seem to come back to these matters in cycles of 20 years. I have not checked Hansard but I must have been present in 1977 when we had our free vote in another place on the question of proportional representation and election to the European Parliament. I certainly have had an opportunity both to study the political memoirs of the great Irish statesman, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald, and indeed to discuss with him the way in which the allocation of seats for the European Parliament was carved up between member states in the late 1970s. I mention that because the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, quite rightly mentioned the whole question of enlargement. At the time of the previous enlargement and the accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal, there was serious discussion within the Council of Ministers during the Irish presidency and later during the French presidency on the question of allocation. It involved members of the then Labour government. In his memoirs All in a Life, Dr. Fitzgerald said,
In that context I turn to my final quotation; it is hot off the press. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will have had his copy already, being an active member no doubt of the Institute of Welsh Affairs. A report was published yesterday by Sir John Gray, a distinguished ambassador of the United Kingdom, at one time in Brussels, and Mr. John Osmond. They refer to the European Parliament and representation. The group which produced the report includes a distinguished list of academics and experts. In relation to the European Parliament and Wales's representation, the report states:
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for introducing the debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for reminding us of the negotiations in 1979 to which Garret Fitzgerald referred in his book. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out, those discussions referred to an extra seat for Northern Ireland. Unless I missed something major in the Prime Minister's Statement earlier, I believe that we still remain a part of the United Kingdom. That means that proportional representation has been an operative system in the United Kingdom for a very long time.
Since 1979, all direct elections in Northern Ireland to the European Parliament have been fought under a system of proportional representation. Indeed, that third seat was introduced in order to ensure that nationalists were represented in the European Parliament, as they have been with such distinction by John Hume, now the leader of the SDLP, although not at that time. Proportional representation was introduced for the European Parliament for precisely the same reason: to ensure that there was fairness and that as many sections of the population as possible were represented.
That was not the first time that proportional representation had been introduced in Northern Ireland. When Northern Ireland was established, proportional representation was used precisely because it was understood that the only way one could ensure that all sections of the community were represented, and felt
While I understand that there can be times when matters of constitutional import are of particular interest to those who have a bent in that direction--the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, mentioned that it can be almost an addiction--from my part of the world it is not so much a mere addiction as a matter of life and death. Unless there are opportunities for people to feel represented, they turn away from politics.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said that as a constituency MP he felt at that time involved with everything that went on; he felt that he had his finger on the pulse. I have no doubt that that was the case. But let us consider it from the other point of view. Sometimes a Member of Parliament is elected with an overwhelming majority. But often he does not have even 50 per cent. of the votes. Do all those who did not vote for that Member of Parliament feel a similar identification with him? They certainly do not, as I can testify in Northern Ireland. Despite the fact that my party has consistently achieved between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent., it has never had a Member in the House of Commons. Instead we find ourselves represented by people like Mr. Peter Robinson, the MP for my constituency. I can tell noble Lords that not a single person who votes for my party in that constituency feels the slightest bit represented by, or identifies with, their Member of Parliament. With a multi-member system one is more likely to find at least one member with whom one can identify.
It is said that it is important to maintain the present system because if one has multi-members people will take their problems from one to another member. I fear that the governing party has not thought things through very well. With Scottish devolution, constituents will have the choice of whether to take matters to their member in the Scottish Parliament or the Westminster Parliament. That will create a novelty of competition which has not been much thought through.
I return to our experience in Northern Ireland. For a long time we had a Northern Ireland Parliament. Members addressed issues there, and at the same time, as part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland had Members in the House of Commons and in this House. There was a tendency, a convention, to move towards a division of labour. But without a proportionate system many people did not feel represented. All local councils are elected on a proportionate system in Northern Ireland and have been since the early 1970s. Various bodies--the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, participated in some--were elected on a proportionate basis. No one in Northern Ireland believes that it would now be appropriate for any new bodies in Northern Ireland to be elected by any system other than a proportionate system.
For example, in the recent Westminster election in the Mid-Ulster seat, because of the odium in which the Member at that time, the Reverend William McCrea, was held, and because of the first-past-the-post system, many nationalist people deserted the relatively responsible party of Mr. John Hume and voted instead for Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein. Why? Because only by such a tactical vote could they represent their antipathy towards Mr. McCrea. Had there been a proportionate system, that forced choice would never have happened. People could have voted for the SDLP, and subsequently for others. Instead, they were forced into an entirely invidious choice. Not only my own party, but now the SDLP and the Unionist Party, are looking very much to proportionality to get us out of this appalling forced choice that many responsible people have found themselves pressed to make. I should be rather surprised if the Conservative Party in Scotland, and indeed elsewhere, did not feel that it was in its interest. It is now a party that stands in all four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom but can get itself elected in only one. That is unkind, but it is the truth. It is unfair that Conservative voters in considerable numbers in Scotland do not have representatives with whom they can identify.
The situation is even more serious than that, not only at individual and constituency level, but at the national level. We can find governments repeatedly composed of minority support in the community as a whole--governments, regularly, even with large majorities on occasion, with much less than 50 per cent. of the vote. Sometimes that produces disastrous consequences. Let us take, for example, the situation in South Africa in 1948. The National Party took fewer votes than the United Party and yet, as a result of the first-past-the-post system, won the election and introduced apartheid. I rather think that the majority of people in South Africa at that time who had the opportunity to vote--that was in itself of course only a minority--might well not at all have supported what happened. A government with a minority of support in the community, because of the first-past-the-post system, had a majority of seats and were able to force through measures that had disastrous historical consequences. We have the experience in this country of governments with much less than majority support making extremely foolish decisions that would not have been made if the majority of the people had had a majority say in what happened.
It is true that colleagues on the Liberal Benches have a particular interest in such matters. The under-representation of Liberals, particularly at the European level, has been extraordinary. This is not just a party question; it is a national issue. Let us take, for example, the situation in the last European election. The Liberal Democrats in Britain took more votes than any other Liberal party in the whole of Europe--and ended up with two seats out of 43 and 26 per cent. of the votes
This is not merely a party matter, not merely a matter of propriety and fairness, not merely a matter of stability. It is a matter of national interest. I trust that the Government will therefore treat it with the urgency that a matter of national interest demands.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, other noble Lords spoke forcefully of the importance of a fair voting system. Like the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, my arguments are not on behalf of the third political family, as he calls my colleagues--indeed, one might say the second political family in terms of local government. They are directed particularly to a matter which is as important as those put forward by previous speakers, and at least as urgent, perhaps more so, than the examples they chose. I refer to the forthcoming consultation, referendum and, I hope, elections for an authority for London.
The Minister says--and we agree with him--that a new London authority should be inclusive; it should be co-operative and consensual. We on these Benches very much hope that that is what it will turn out to be. We recognise the value of a body that can work in that way. We heard that the Government want the members of that body to work on pan-London issues. That may be possible only with a system of proportional representation--at any rate, it will be considerably facilitated by such a system, one which will perhaps avoid the constraints of constituency ties.
We have heard that the authority is likely to be quite small. If it is less than 32 in number, by definition that will mean that there is less than one member for each London borough. That, too, argues for some form of proportional representation. And there are many more parliamentary constituencies; to use those numbers would only reinforce my point.
We on these Benches very much want the new London authority to succeed. We are aware of the need for a proper voice for London. We are especially aware of the need for that voice to be democratic and properly accountable. Those who watched even five minutes' coverage of the last election could not fail to see how far into disrepute our political system has fallen. The London elections present a major opportunity to reverse the process, to be part of the re-invigoration of democracy.
Consensual, not adversarial, politics are much to be commended. Having chaired a London-wide committee for a period of eight years following the abolition of the GLC, I have experienced the value and success of the work of a group of people where there is no overall
I shall not be the first--though perhaps the first today--to comment that we might not be in the position of having to elect a new London authority had the GLC not been abolished. It need not have been abolished if, at the time, there had been a different voting system. It rather seems that the then Prime Minister was concerned to get rid of the prevailing administration. That could have happened through a different voting system. She need not have abolished the GLC in order to get rid of its leader.
I believe that not simply to suggest but actively to promote proportional representation as the voting system for the new London authority is a key test of the bona fides of the Government. London's population is about a million. If one compares that to the populations of Scotland and Wales, one can readily understand the importance of the new authority and its system of election.
I have spoken of London, but PR is well suited to local government generally. Among other things, it would bring about the end of single-party states, like my own in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames--not the only borough where under 50 per cent. of the votes has consistently produced more than 90 per cent. of the seats. I feel particularly comfortable in using that example since in doing so I am speaking against my own party.
Having a different voting system would, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, re-enfranchise those who vote for the parties which come second and third. As a member of a local authority where the voting system has produced what I am tempted to call an idiosyncratic result but which, sadly, is not idiosyncratic, or at least not unusual, I am distinctly uncomfortable about the small voice that the other parties have on my council. I had wondered if the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, might speak in this debate. I suspect that he may share my feelings in that in his borough, the Borough of Croydon, in 1974 the Conservatives lost despite having something like a 4 per cent. lead in the popular vote.
In local government we already have multi-member constituencies, or at least multi-member wards. I hope that the Government will promote a new form of electoral system at levels of government which are already so well adapted for them.
All of us who have attended election counts will have seen ballot papers on which voters have attempted to rank the candidates in some sort of order, trying perhaps to use their own form of PR. They have been unsuccessful because, of course, they have failed to achieve a vote at all by perhaps writing the numbers one to nine against the candidates in a local election. I heard the tale of a ballot paper in the last election which was seen to have a note on it: "They think I'm voting but I'm not".
I hope that the Government will show in London and at local government level that they are keen to ensure that people are not tempted to make that kind of comment because of a lack of confidence in the electoral system to reflect the electorate's wishes.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, like other contributors to the debate, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this interesting topic this afternoon. Before I continue my remarks, I have to declare an interest in that I am a member and active supporter of Full Franchise.
An interesting contribution was made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who suggested that decisions made on this kind of topic would be made on the basis of self-interest. I think that we can detect that self-interest arising from different parts of the House. I ought to say that I too shall be speaking on the basis of self-interest, but not a party interest--the interest of the country as a whole.
I am particularly concerned about those members of our population who do not have the opportunity to vote, even though they have every right to do so. We must recognise the need to modernise our system of registration for voting in elections. Too many people who have the right to vote are disenfranchised because of our out-of-date system whereby the register of electors is compiled in October and comes into operation in February and is thus always between four and sixteen months out of date. People move house much more frequently than they did a hundred years ago, when the system was probably reasonably sensible. There is also the problem that many disabled people in our community experience difficulties because of the inaccessibility of polling stations. We face a horrendous situation in the residue of the poll tax, which drove people off the electoral register in the mistaken belief that, if they were not on the electoral register, they would not be subjected to the enormous demands of the poll tax. That belief was fallacious but it affected an awful lot of people, who effectively deregistered. We still have that residue because we have a system of council tax rebates, which encourages people to take the same course of action. We need to tackle that situation and clear up the whole damaging residue of the poll tax.
Yes, we need electoral reform. I have touched on a few of the matters which make it necessary. I am not against proportional representation; I think it is probably quite a sensible thing to have. But I do not want to see the kind of proportional representation--that system of fixing elections--that promotes small parties. I have no objection to the small parties arguing from their point of view to improve their position and power; they have every justification for doing so. However, we need to be very careful when we listen to those arguments. It is the small parties which benefit from the kind of proportional representation that we have mainly heard talked about this afternoon. It is interesting that the Liberal
I would argue that there is a need for what I would describe as real proportional representation, in which every United Kingdom Member of Parliament, every member of a local council and every Member of the European Parliament would represent the same number of electors as their fellow MPs, councillors or MEPs.
It would be very easy to make an argument against the kind of proportional representation about which we have heard this afternoon by pointing out that, if we had had that kind of PR on the 1st May, we would still have a Conservative government led by John Major. I believe the reality is that the country heaved a vast sigh of relief that there was a change of government.
I wish to argue the validity of single-member constituencies so eloquently described by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, not on the basis of being against the kind of PR we have heard about this afternoon but on the basis of being in favour of the merits. The system that we have had for many years in this country has the virtue of simplicity. It also has the virtue of coalition-building before the election rather than after so that voters know what they are going to get. Most importantly, it means that everyone has a Member of Parliament--I speak in terms of Members of Parliament rather than councillors or MEPs--and every Member of Parliament has the responsibility to represent the whole of his or her constituency.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page