My Lords, I will speak mostly about the principle of the referendum proposed in the Bill. I would like the House to imagine an organisation with 650 consultants working for it, each of them on a fixed-term contract. What would we think if that organisation gave the 650 consultants the exclusive power to determine all the details over whether to renew their contracts? We would say the organisation was barmy, yet this is effectively what happens at present with the House of Commons. It is a closed shop of the sort that employment law some time ago rightly prohibited trade unions from operating. At present, only Parliament has the power to determine the system by which MPs are elected. Unsurprisingly, MPs in the past have tended to support the system that got them there and that they feel is most likely to keep them there. However, the people who pay for their services have had no say in how their representatives are chosen.
I will look briefly and in turn at the positions on this referendum of the Constitution Committee of the House, of the Labour Party and of the coalition Government.In my view, the Constitution Committee was right to be sceptical about the legitimacy of the widespread use of referendums, but in its report, which we recently debated, it accepted that, if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues, of which this must be one.
Secondly, the commitment to holding a referendum on AV was of course a core item of the most recent Labour Party manifesto. It said: "““To begin the task of building a new politics, we will let the British people decide on whether to make Parliament more democratic and accountable in referenda on reform of the House of Commons and House of Lords, to be held on the same day, by October 2011””."
The Labour Party manifesto said six months ago: "““To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons””."
Thirdly, it is greatly to the credit of the Prime Minister that he agreed, as part of the coalition agreement, to allow people to have their say on the fundamental constitutional issue of making a change to the voting system. The coalition agreement says: "““We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies””."
I do not propose at this stage to enter into the subject matter of the referendum itself but I will say that I think it is right that it should be held. I will address briefly two areas of controversy relating to the referendum. First, there is the timing issue.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rennard
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 November 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c621-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:42:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_681391
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_681391
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_681391