Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

I will speak to both amendments. The first is in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who has moved it so ably, and the second is in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Clause 8(1)(b) is an astonishing paragraph of this Bill. It is very remarkable. It was overlooked in debates in the other place, which perhaps makes it all the more important that we debate it properly in this House and in this Committee. Clause 8 informs the Minister what to do following the result of the referendum being announced. If more votes in the referendum are cast in favour of the answer yes than in favour of the answer no, the Minister must make an order that brings into force provisions to change our voting system for elections to the House of Commons from first past the post to this type of alternative vote system. However, that is not the end of it. An affirmative result in the referendum is not sufficient according to the Bill. The changes in the boundaries detailed in Part 2 of the Bill, particularly in Clause 10, must also have taken place before the alternative vote system can take effect. In Committee last Monday the Committee was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, tell the House that he and the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were joined at the hip on this Bill. I wondered what it is that joins them at the hip on this Bill. I now believe it sincerely to be Clause 8(1)(b) that joins them thus. It has been clear from the introduction of this Bill that this clause is the glue that holds the Government together. Part 1 of the Bill, as was said at Second Reading, is clearly and plainly the Liberal Democrat part of the deal. However AV may have been described by their leader in the past, the Liberal Democrats have decided that it is worth the candle and that it is best not to go searching for some sort of proportional representation, or certainly not at the moment. Part 2, which we will come to in due course, slashes the House of Commons by 50 Members of Parliament, from 650 to 600, with all the consequences for the quality of representation. It redraws every constituency boundary according to a rigid mathematical formula, and that is the Conservative part of the deal. The Conservatives sometimes appear haunted, indeed almost obsessed, by a suspicion that the current electoral arrangements are biased against them. This Bill is their fight back; their chance to get their own back. Of course biases exist, but electoral geography is merely an element of this. As has been debated in Committee and at Second Reading, other factors such as the efficiency of the distribution of parties’ votes, are, we would argue, much more significant. However, I do not think the Conservative part of the Government, or the Government as a whole, believe that—or will not acknowledge it. This Bill is the coalition agreement in miniature. It is vital for both sides to get their parts of the bargain. I assume that is why noble Lords on the government Benches, those who represent both parties that make up the coalition and whom one might have expected to speak out more on various elements of the Bill, have been so—I was going to say well behaved but perhaps quiet is the better word. As the high point of the coalition agreement, this Bill, and specifically Clause 8(1)(b) and Clause 8(3), accurately demonstrates the inequity, mentioned by my noble friend mentioned a moment ago, of the deal bartered out over those famous five days in May, about which so many books have already been written—and how many more can we expect? As it stands, even if 99 per cent of the population were to vote in favour of changing the Westminster voting system to this version of AV, this change could not come about until the Secretary of State had laid before Parliament the reports of the boundary commissions and a draft Order in Council giving effect to the recommendations contained in the reports of the boundary commissions. We know, or we will soon find out, that Part 2 of this Bill is controversial in itself, as was clear in the debates in the other place and from the lobbying that we have all received all the way from academia to the Keep Cornwall Whole campaign. The intended rules to redraw the constituency boundaries are unpopular, not least because they subjugate the sensible and logical needs to acknowledge community ties and geography when formulating constituencies. It is not beyond possibility that the boundary changes detailed in Clause 10 are delayed or altered in some way. What then for the alternative vote? What then if, for example, a large majority has voted for AV? Is that result of that referendum simply to be ignored? As the Bill stands, it seems to say yes to that question. Why did the Minister’s party accept this? Why did it not insist at the very least in writing a reverse bind into the Bill? We support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey.