Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

I hear what the noble Baroness says and I am sure that she is correct. I had the unfortunate experience of being chairman of the yes campaign in Wales and we lost heavily. However, there is no defence that I can raise in respect of weather, unfortunately. Coming back to the question, I think that a threshold is certainly called for. The point has been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that nearly all other democracies, particularly those that have a written constitution, have a provision for a threshold, so we would not be doing something out of line with democratic process and experience in many other countries. As noble Lords know, there are two types of threshold. One is the threshold relating to the minimum number in the turnout; the other threshold is the majority threshold. In 1978, there was the Cunningham amendment. The result of that amendment was that, for the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales to be carried, there had to be at least 40 per cent in favour of the proposition. The very distinguished constitutional commentator, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, has analysed that situation. You could achieve a 40 per cent majority in Scotland on an 80 per cent turnout if 50 per cent voted in favour. If the turnout went down to 70 per cent, you could still achieve it on 57 per cent of the vote. If it went down to 60 per cent, it would be 67 per cent—of course, a very high level unlikely to be achieved. Whether wrecking the referendum was the purpose or the desire, I know not. It may not have been, but that was certainly the result in Scotland. I make that point because many people have come up to me in the past few days saying, ““I’m not really for your proposition. This 40 per cent business was gone into in the Cunningham amendment many years ago””. However, this is quite different, as it relates simply to the question of turnout. The next question, then, is this: is 40 per cent right or about right? I doubt very much whether anyone could prove beyond reasonable doubt that 40 per cent was right or that 41 per cent or 39 per cent was wrong. I am completely flexible with regard to that. If 40 per cent is somewhere in the parish, I ask the Minister to look at it in that light. My argument in favour of 40 per cent is that, first, so far as I know, in no general election in the past 100 years has the vote come anywhere near as low as 40 per cent. Secondly, the 1975 vote was well over 50 per cent. Thirdly, when the independent referendum commission of 2006, chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne, considered this matter, it talked about thresholds of 60, 65 and 70 per cent as being entirely reasonable. Therefore, in the circumstances, and with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, who put her case with great persuasion and lucidity, I believe that 40 per cent is not very far from reality in this case. As I said, if you take the view that disasters cannot happen, you can well argue that this is unnecessary. However, if you accept the history of the real world—the world in which disasters do happen—it seems to be prudent and proper to insure against that eventuality. So far as I am concerned, there is no desire whatever to delay matters or, indeed, to wreck this part of the Bill. The Bill has to return to the House of Commons in any event because of amendments that have already been passed and I do not think that it would be delayed further by this matter. So far as concerns wrecking the Bill, I am sure that the noble Lord will accept my amendment in the spirit in which it is tendered. Speaking, if I may, as a Welsh lawyer, I put forward this argument from the point of view of an abundance of caution. I see that there are two former Chancellors of the Exchequer here, who also represent an abundance of caution. I understand that before long we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who will take much the same line. The case that I put forward is founded on the fear of the remote possibility of a referendum being a disaster. In the circumstances, it is a small premium to pay by way of insurance.