My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bach are also on this amendment. Clause 8 requires the Minister to make an order bringing into effect a new voting system if two conditions are satisfied—if there is a yes vote by a simple majority, with no threshold, in the referendum, and if an order has been introduced bringing in the first effects of a new review under the second part of the Bill. No further questions would be asked, once there is a yes vote and new constituency boundaries are introduced. This is not the way that any referendum has been carried out in this country, save in the 1979 referendums on Welsh and Scottish devolution.
Noble Lords around the House have pointed out that we supported a compulsory referendum last time and that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, supported a consultative referendum. On the basis of that, noble Lords will have to address this issue on its merits. Should the referendum be indicative or compulsory? I submit that there are two reasons why it should be indicative.
First, the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Hamilton, was that you do not need a threshold, but it is plain that there are certain levels of turnout and certain levels of yes vote that no one would regard as a sufficient mandate for the change. Those levels are best left to political judgment at the time. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, who said that the Liberal Democrats should have no fear if there is a clear majority on a reasonable turnout in favour. However, suppose there is a 51 per cent majority in favour of AV on a 20 per cent turnout. What then would be the view of noble Lords on whether there was a mandate? Let that be judged after the referendum, not before.
The second reason in favour of an indicative, rather than a mandatory, referendum is, as we discussed on the previous amendment, that the Bill contains one particular form of AV, when we know there are three respectable forms of it. Once the public have indicated a preference in a referendum for AV, the right course is for Parliament to debate properly the best system of AV to adopt—perhaps after some public consultation. This does not cost anyone any timetable, but makes it possible for there to be a proper debate on what the right system is.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 30 November 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c1423 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:38:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_687616
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_687616
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_687616