HL Deb 14 July 1998 vol 592 cc151-72

6.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sewel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]

Clause 4 [Candidates]:

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 3, line 3, leave out from ("election,") to end of line 4 and insert ("a person may stand for return as a constituency member and may also stand for return as a regional member.").

The noble and learned Lord said: After a long wait, we begin with a small amendment which I hope will not detain us very long.

Amendment No. 34 is a small drafting amendment to subsection (1) of Clause 4. As drafted, this subsection may not make it entirely clear, certainly to lay readers of the Bill, that the same individual can stand as a constituency member and as a regional member. Some Members of the Committee will be aware that there is a considerable body of case law in the courts as to what the word "or" means when it is used in an Act of Parliament.

It is most undesirable that there should be any misunderstanding or scope for dispute on an issue as important as whether or not one person can stand for the two forms of membership which the Bill provides. Amendment No. 34 makes it abundantly clear that one can stand for both. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I must warn the Committee that if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 35.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)

The purpose of this amendment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, stated, would appear to be to make it clear that a person may stand as both a constituency member and as a regional member.

In our view, the wording of Clause 4(1) does not prevent a person doing that. Even if there were thought to be scope for argument on that point, the position is put beyond doubt by other provisions of the Bill; for example, subsections (7)(c) and (8)(c) of Clause 4. Members of the Committee will see that registered parties' regional lists must not include a person who is a candidate to be a constituency member for a constituency not included in the region. That suggests by implication that it could include a candidate for a constituency which was within the same region. Clause 4(8) states that, A person may not be an individual candidate to be a regional member for a particular region if he is … (c) a candidate to he a constituency member for a constituency not included in the region". Again, the implication of that provision is clear. If we look at Clause 7(3) it will be seen that, An individual candidate already returned as a constituency or regional member shall he disregarded"— that is in the allocation of regional seats. In that situation, therefore, someone who has been returned as a constituency candidate is discounted in the calculation for the allocation of regional seats. That clearly indicates that he or she may stand for both.

There may be difficulties in the amendment since it may have the effect of providing that a person could stand as a regional member only if he or she were standing also as a constituency member. I do not believe that that limitation was intended by the noble and learned Lord; nor would it be desirable. With that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I am slightly disappointed with the response of the Lord Advocate. I have worked my way through all the other provisions of the Bill and I do not for one moment suggest that the correct construction was that one could stand only for one or the other. However, in a Bill of this nature it is important that lay people reading it should be able to look at an individual subsection and from that alone understand what the draftsman intended.

I am disappointed that my helpful suggestion is not accepted, but in view of the fact that we have not made much progress so far, I will not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 3, line 8, leave out ("or individual candidates").

The noble Lord said: This is a large group of amendments and I apologise to the Committee for that. I would have separated the amendments out, but was conscious of the fact that we had slight difficulties with timing this afternoon and so decided to put them together. They relate to the same underlying argument, although they address slightly different issues.

Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the voting system proposed for the Scottish parliament. Scotland will be divided into the European regions and in each of the regions there will be conventional first-past-the-post elections in the Westminster constituencies. That is fairly straightforward. On top of that, we will all have a second vote when we will vote for the party of our choice or for an individual. At the end of the day, all those votes will he added up and, using a formula devised by a Belgian mathematician—d'Hondt—the returning officer will give parties additional members. Up to seven additional members will be available.

The idea behind this is that, by the use of those additional members, any disproportionality in the first-past-the-post system can be remedied so that the final outcome is nearer to proportionality than was the first-past-the-post system originally. However, a problem arises which I want to address.

First, I am puzzled as to why, if the second vote is intended to ensure that there is proportionality in the total number of seats based firmly on the number of first-past-the-post seats gained, we are introducing individual candidates into the second ballot. Any votes the individual candidates achieve will be at the cost of the political parties. Proportionality in the first ballot may therefore be upset.

The problem is greater than that. If people shift their votes on the second ballot the proportionality on the first vote will never be achieved. I can, without too much trouble, produce examples which show that to be so. Parties that under-perform at first-past-the-post and yet have a sizeable vote, could easily find themselves very badly off if the second vote moves away from them. I do not need to remind your Lordships that I do not agree with any PR systems: I am now being a purist on the subject. If the additional member system is designed to "correct" any imbalance in the first-past-the-post, the second ballot and the individual member could easily frustrate that.

Last evening I did a rough calculation that if an individual candidate were to poll 8 per cent. in the second ballot—which is a huge "if"—the votes would have to come from the political parties who fought the first-past-the-post. In that case it could deprive one of the political parties of the very proportionality that the AMS system is designed to achieve. If the second ballot is designed to deal with party balance, it is inconsistent that individuals should be allowed to stand.

I doubt that any individual would be able to stand and achieve the 5 per cent. needed to win the very last place in the d'Hondt calculations. I suspect this was put in for Mr. Peter Peacock, the chairman of the Highland Regional Council, who wished to stand as an independent at the time. The Government wanted to keep him on side. They no longer need to bother about the Peacock amendment to the additional member system, they can forget about it. Mr. Peacock has decided to throw in his lot with the Labour Party. Looking at the opinion polls he may be wondering if he has made the right decision, but that is another matter. He is off the screen. The idea of individual candidates in the second ballot is a bit of a nonsense, partly because it is just pretending that individuals will achieve the 5 per cent. required in a regional vote of maybe seven, eight, nine or 10 Westminster MPs. We are talking about a lot of votes over a very big area. It is Cloud-cuckoo-land, but an individual candidate could poll enough votes to frustrate the proportionality.

Another more insidious problem is the split ticket. One of the problems of doing the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill is that I find myself treading some of the same ground. The audience changes a little, although not entirely. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is here, probably to check that I am consistent from one Bill to the other. As there are two votes there is the potential for political parties to register themselves as a sort of shadow party, although it is not really different from the main party. For example, the Conservative Party could register itself as the Conservative Party and as the Unionist Party. The Registration of Political Parties Bill as presently constituted would allow for that. There is no bar in the Bill to that. The Conservative Party would then stand in the first ballot and the Unionist Party would stand in the second ballot. I will explain further to your Lordships, but I shall not use the Conservative Party as a working example. The point is rather better achieved by looking at the Labour Party, given the fact that the Labour Party won a few more seats than the Conservatives in Scotland at the last election.

The problem started in a paper by Michael Dyer of the Department of Politics and International Relations at no less than Aberdeen University. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be well aware of the gentleman. We have to say in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that we treat anything an academic says from Aberdeen University with the utmost seriousness. Dr. Dyer wrote a very interesting paper which drew everyone's attention to this sleight of hand—for that is what it is—of splitting the ticket of an alter ego party. He illustrated it in a very interesting paper.

The paper was taken up by no less a person than Mr. Ian Davidson, the Member of Parliament for Glasgow Pollock. Mr. Davidson described what I am about to explain to your Lordships as not necessarily a manipulation of the system. He went on to say in Hansard on 28th January 1998 in the other place that it would be a good idea for the Co-operative Party to register itself as a separate party. That was the essence of the Dyer paper.

Let me explain. If the Co-operative Party registers itself as a separate party and stands not for any first-past- the-post seats but entirely in the list, and the Labour Party does not stand in the list but in the first-past-the-post, then serious distortion of the principle of proportionality—which is the object of starting this new system—is possible. I take the results in the city of Glasgow at the last General Election as an example. I have to make an assumption that the second vote would fall the same way as the first vote. I suspect that, by and large, in the city of Glasgow it might.

In the city of Glasgow, 10 first-past-the-post seats were won by the Labour Party with varying degrees of convincing victories—substantial victories in most cases. If that happened in the Scottish parliament, the Labour Party would have 10 first-past-the-post seats. There are seven additional seats. The total votes were taken and the Labour Party achieved over the whole of Glasgow 193,000 votes; the Scottish National Party 62,000; the Conservative Party 27,000; the Liberal Democrats 23,000, and others 8,000—largely for Mr. Tommy Sheridan and his Socialist Party.

Those totals are then divided to start with by one more than the number of seats achieved. As none of the parties other than the Labour Party has any seats, their original vote holds. The Labour Party has its seats divided by 11, which reduces its votes considerably to approximately 170,000. I shall not go through the d'Hondt system. Without an overhead projector it might even defeat my skills of explanation—unless I want to put your Lordships off proportional representation in a very big way, and the temptation is there. Under the d'Hondt system these devices are put in and we come to allocate seven seats. The Scottish National Party gets three seats; the Conservative Party gets one; the Liberal Democrats get one and the Labour Party get two. So we end up in Glasgow with 12 Labour seats, three SNP, one Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. They are not awarded in proportion to the vote. There is a German term for the problem: you have got too many seats; you have got more seats than you deserve under proportionality. I accept that is part of the game of having some first-past-the-post and I do not complain about that.

There is then the problem that the Labour Party has 12 out of the 17 seats in Glasgow. If however the Labour Party does not stand in the second ballot and the Co-operative Party does, the Labour Party can advise its voters to vote Co-operative on the second ballot—and they will have no trouble in doing that because its voters will see quite clearly that it is a wise ploy in order to maximise their parties' representation in the Scottish parliament. When that happens and the votes are distributed under the d'Hondt system, the Co-operative Party will get six seats, the Scottish National Party one and the poor old Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will get none at all. So the Labour Party ends up with 16 seats instead of 12; they gain four. It is Labour and Co-operative. People in West Central Scotland have been used to Labour and Co-operative for years and years and years. They will not think that there is anything strange about this. That is a real problem. Dr. Dyer has written an academic paper about it and Mr. Davidson and others have said that it is an attractive proposition. I believe that we should try to do something to prevent it happening.

At the last election, exactly the same kind of thing would have happened in central Scotland; it would have happened in the west of Scotland; it would have happened in Lothian; and it would have happened in mid Scotland and Fife. In the Highlands, where the Liberal Democrats do very well, if I may worry them a little about proportional representation, they would not gain any additional seats because, although they have done well under first-past-the-post, they have not achieved a very high percentage of the votes. They gain hugely by first-past-the-post. However, if the Liberal Democrat Party decided to form the Liberal Party and the Democrat Party, which it would be able to do without any trouble, it could gain many more seats in the Highlands and Islands.

During the proceedings on the Government of Wales Bill, the Minister accepted entirely the strength of my argument. He did not deny that what I was suggesting could happen and was perfectly possible. All the comfort he gave me, as did his colleague in another place, was a guarantee that the Labour Party would not do it. I achieved the same guarantee from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I achieved the same guarantee from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on behalf of Plaid Cymru. I gave the same guarantee on behalf of the Conservative Party. However, as I explained to your Lordships earlier today, I have enough experience of Ministers to know that one cannot trust the breed for ever and ever. Other Ministers come along who are not bound by the promises parties have given. Frankly, I think we should do something about it.

The way to do something about it is to say that there will be only one vote—a constituency vote. Then one adds up the constituency votes for all the parties and distributes them using the d'Hondt system. There is then no prospect of a party dividing itself into two, like an amoeba, and therefore getting round the system. There is then no prospect of that happening 10 or 20 years down the road. Equally, it resolves the question of independents standing. It also means that the proportionality is based on the number of first-past-the-post wins. Therefore, we are doing what I thought the whole system was devised to do—making sure that the wrinkles, so to speak, and the unfairnesses that could happen in a first-past-the-post electoral system are ironed out. I think I have shown that, while they can be ironed out in some circumstances, there are circumstances in which they will not be ironed out. In fact, any unfairnesses will be reinforced by the additional member system.

I accept that the Government will have the additional member system in the Bill. Therefore, that is the system we will use. But I should like to think that we could find a solution to this problem. Another version of the solution will come up later, but, for now, because it ties in with the individual person standing in the second ballot, I am offering the Government the solution of the single vote. It removes the problem of the individual person standing; it removes the problem of alter ego parties—split parties; and I also believe that it will achieve in a more guaranteed way, if I may put it like that, the proportionality on the first-past-the-post seats that the Government wish to achieve by having AMS.

Perhaps I may point out that, initially—I fully accept that it was initially—West Germany, as it then was, used one vote. It then went to two votes. But in Germany the regional constituencies are huge and it is a 50:50 system. Half the members are elected by first-past-the-post and the other half are elected on the additional member system. So I do not think it would be quite so easy in Germany for parties to do that. I accept that it could be done; I believe it has not been done; but that does not mean to say that it would not be done.

When we pass legislation, especially legislation such as this, it is the duty of both Houses to look at how people might abuse the legislation and see whether there are ways of preventing that happening. I offer my amendment to the Government in good faith. I assume that I shall be given assurances that the Labour Party will not perform this operation. I assume that I shall be given assurances that the Liberal Democrats will not perform this operation. I can give assurances for the Conservative Party. But there is a party represented here which, as far as I know, has refused to give that assurance. That, if nothing else, should worry the Government. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has made his usual persuasive case. However, the great snag of using the first-past-the-post system and simply counting the votes is the fact that one then adds to the party the responsibility of providing a list of people who have not stood for Parliament, who have not gone to the electorate, and who are simply party nominees. One can point to cases in all kinds of parties where the crony system would work. We think that is a bad thing. Although there are anomalies in the system proposed, it is better than leaving the nomination of half the members of the parliament to a party headquarters. That is our objection to that system.

We also do not see why an individual should not stand in a region. He will be required to get massive support in terms of people nominating him and he will have to put up a great deal of money, but if he wants to, and if he can obtain that support—there are individuals who could—I think that is a democratic alternative. It may not be taken up but it is a reasonable one to offer.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is probably on stronger ground when he says that precautions should be taken against fiddling the party system. I do not think that we would have a good case in the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps he will explain how we could take advantage of it. But, seriously, there is no case for the splitting of parties. It is certainly true that there is a Co-operative Party in the Labour Party. I never knew that there was a separation between the unionists and the Tory Party. However, we need to take precautions. I shall be interested to hear what the Government say. I am convinced that we have to work out a decent system of proportional representation and voting. Later amendments will address that point.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I think there is a real danger. To me, looking back over a number of years of fairly hot local government politics as well as observing the scene from this House, I do not give great credence to assurances for the future. I do not think you can do that. It seems to me that you could manipulate the question of individuals standing. You could work out what might happen in a region and what the result might be and then talk to sympathetic individuals and suggest that your party will vote for them.

There are many ways in which the system could be abused. I have not been into it in great detail, but it sounds to me as if my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has an answer. There is a price to pay and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has explained what it is. If it prevents abuse and gets the kind of result that the Government are trying to achieve in terms of proportionality, we should consider it.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is addressing includes the words "or individual candidates". He said that he could not envisage any single individual being elected under the proposed system. That very much depends on the form of the ballot paper. If the party lists do not appear on the ballot paper at all it would say, for example, "Liberal Democrats", "Conservatives", "Labour Party" and the "Scottish National Party". Then one would turn to individuals such as "Mr. Billy Connolly", and "Mr. Sean Connery". There are people with known views who are popular figures in Scotland who might find themselves elected as individuals. One has to think only of the recent Irish presidential election to appreciate that people well known in other fields played a part in that election. The Government should take on board that individual candidates may declare themselves as individuals and be sufficiently popular to be elected, but nevertheless have known political affiliations.

The noble Lord also addressed the issue of phantom parties. He suggested that they might split themselves into two. As a party the Liberal Democrats have given an undertaking as regards Wales that we would not do that. My noble friend Lord Mackie has also given such an undertaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats for Scotland. It seems to me that the public are not so easily fooled as to ignore breaches and undertakings that are solemnly given by political parties to Parliament in the passing of this Bill. Knutsford is an example of what can happen where there is a complete turnround in a political party, where the public take a strong view about the activities of a candidate or of a party.

As regards the single vote as opposed to a vote for the constituency candidate and for the region, to say that only one vote should count for both elections is to deny choice to the elector. I had hoped that both in Wales and in Scotland we were moving to a less adversarial style of politics so that the voter could choose perhaps an outstanding personality in respect of one party, but nevertheless give his support to another. To have a single vote for both the constituency and the regional candidate suggests that the vote of an elector must be fixed in stone for one party or another. It is rather like every person, born into the world alive, Is either a little Liberal, Or else a little Conservative! That is not the case: people think and they choose. I hope that both in Wales and in Scotland the electorate will consider more than a single party. It would be a missed opportunity if we were not to allow a full choice to the Scottish electors.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Howie of Troon

I have made my views clear on a previous occasion as regards the party list system. I regard it as totally deplorable. I cannot stand it at all: it is wholly wrong. I shall not rehearse the arguments again because once is quite enough. The way to get round this particular problem of dealing with party nominees and individuals is to utilise the single transferable vote. There would be no problem and none of that worry would afflict us here.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has spoken of phantom parties. I know he is a Highlander and they go in for phantoms, but I am a Lowlander and I do not go in for that kind of thing at all. I believe that he is whistling in the dark. It is wonderful stuff, but there is no reality about it.

He is a great advocate of the first-past-the-post system. He must realise that there have been peculiarities in that system as well. People have stood under the same name as other candidates. I remember a man who called himself "The real Liberal" or something of the kind. He caused an upset in the European elections a year or two ago. Most systems have these problems, but all of them can be ironed out if one uses the single transferable vote. As I have pointed out before, it has precedents in the other place.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

With such a large group of amendments it is important to cut through to the main effect of this particular group, the main effect being to restrict the electorate's choice in two ways. The first way is by preventing independent candidates from contesting regional seats and, the second, by proposing that electors should have only one vote instead of two. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, ranged over wider issues about phantom parallels—whatever one would like to call them—and other parties. These matters will be dealt with in much greater detail when we reach Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 46. In the very next group of amendments we shall be dealing with what goes on a ballot paper.

I would like very much to concentrate on what this particular group of amendments will achieve if it is carried. I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 37, 44, 45, 51, 58, 59, 60 and 65, which hang together as one particular group. The Government are completely opposed to these amendments because they would prevent independent candidates from contesting regional seats in the Scottish parliament.

I find myself more than a little astonished that Members of the Committee would want to bring forward in, of all places, this House, which prides itself on the independence of mind of many of its Members and on its Cross-Bench traditions, amendments which deny the Scottish parliament the opportunity to have independent candidates elected to it in regional elections. Why should the electorate be denied the choice of voting for an independent MSP as these amendments try to do?

As we have said before—there have been echoes today from the Liberal Democrat Benches—the Government are keen to ensure that there is an inclusive parliament which represents the diversity of Scotland. Allowing independents to stand in the regional election where it is likely they will have a more realistic chance of success, is one way in which that can be ensured. We want parliament to be able to draw on the widest range of talented people. We recognise that not all of them have a party political affiliation, but we are keen not to exclude them from standing as independent candidates just because they do not have that affiliation.

It has been suggested that that would lead to another category of MSP. I do not agree with that. They will have just as important a part to play in the parliament because they will be representing those who elected them. It has been claimed that there is little prospect of an independent candidate being returned. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay or Ardbrecknish, put forward that view. I am surprised that Members of the Committee are so pessimistic. Clearly, much will depend on the pattern of voting. However, using last year's general election results as a model, an independent candidate who secured some 25,000 votes, which in some regions would be around 5 to 6 per cent. of the electorate, could have been returned as a regional MSP. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that that could happen.

These provisions have received considerable support particularly in those parts of Scotland where there is a long tradition of independents in local government. Many people, for whatever reason, do not feel properly represented by the political parties. By allowing independent candidates to stand in the regional election, we can ensure that the electorate has as wide a range of candidates to choose from as possible. The Government believe in giving the electorate more choice. Noble Lords opposite would by this amendment restrict that choice. I do not believe it would do credit to them to say to the electorate that it cannot return an independent as a regional member if that is what the electorate wishes.

Amendments Nos. 47 to 49, 52, 53, 56, 57, 74 and 75 propose that voters in Scottish parliament elections should be entitled to only one vote where they vote for a constituency candidate standing for a party. The vote for a candidate representing a political party in the constituency elections would then be deemed to count as a vote for that party in allocating the additional regional seats. The Government cannot agree to that approach. It is quite simply another attack on voters' choice. The Scottish electorate voted overwhelmingly in favour of the electoral arrangements set out in the White Paper. Voters endorsed our proposal that they would be entitled to two votes: one for a constituency candidate and one in the additional member section of the poll, for a party list or individual. The proposed amendments greatly limit their right of choice in the additional member poll.

It may well suit the larger political parties to limit the opportunity for electors to switch their votes in the two polls, but is it right to deny voters that democratic choice? For various reasons not all electors may want their constituency vote also to count as a vote for the candidate's party: for example, they may consider that a particular candidate would make a good constituency MP and vote accordingly, but their natural political sympathies may lie elsewhere and they may revert to them in casting their second vote. It would be wrong to deny the electorate this opportunity.

The amendments would also tend to work against the smaller political parties which may be able to gather more support for regional candidates than they could achieve in the individual constituencies. The amendments would force such parties to contest all the constituencies in a region when it might be more sensible for them to focus on the regional poll.

I have already said that one of the Government's aims is to encourage greater participation in the elections to the Scottish parliament. These amendments would prevent that and would restrict voter choice. I hope that on reflection noble Lords opposite will agree to withdraw their amendment.

Viscount Thurso

Before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, responds, does the Minister agree that the appropriate place to consider the question of hanky-panky and split names, to which the noble Lord referred, is the legislation dealing with the registration of political parties rather than this Bill?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

That is not necessarily so.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

In response to the noble Viscount, as currently framed the Registration of Political Parties Bill does not address this problem. Even as we speak some of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place are trying to devise amendments—whether or not the Government accept them remains to be seen.

Although we have had an interesting debate, far from my fears being allayed on these matters they have been increased. Despite the kind intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, say that his party would not indulge in this kind of activity. Before the noble Lord rises to his feet, perhaps I may outline to him the advantages to his party if in the Highlands and Islands it did what I suggested. The calculations before me may not be precisely accurate. In the previous election, the Liberal Democrats did extraordinarily well in the Highlands and Islands. The Liberal Democrats gained five seats; the Labour Party gained three seats; the SNP gained two seats; and the Conservative Party gained one seat. I apologise: the Conservative Party gained none. I am looking at the d'Hondt divisor. Phantom parties, phantom seats! One must take one off each of those results. I have told the Committee that PR is complicated! So, the Labour Party gained two seats; the Scottish National Party gained one; the Conservative Party gained none; and the Liberal Democrats gained four. Under the additional member system, using the results of the previous election and assuming that the first and second votes are the same, the Conservative Party would gain two seats (which is fair given its 37,000 votes, just half the Liberal Democrat figure, resulting in the Conservative Party gaining no seats and the Liberal Democrats four); the SNP would gain three seats; the Labour Party would gain two; but the Liberal Democrats would have none. They gained a considerable advantage under the first-past-the-post system on a minority of the vote.

However, if members of the Liberal Democrat Party are not men and women of high principle and if the party decides to divide itself, as I suggested it might, the Labour Party would gain one seat; the SNP would gain two; the Conservative Party would gain one; and the Liberal Democrats would gain three. By that method, the Liberal Democrats would gain three more seats. Having reflected on that matter, I look forward to hearing assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I am glad that the noble Lord has been able to explain it to me. I would have thought that the intended humour with which I asked for this would be sufficient assurance that we would never even think of it. We know quite well that because of the quality of our candidates in the Highlands we gained seats under the first-past-the-post system. We are perfectly well aware of the system. We would not gain extra seats in the Highlands in this way, but because we believe in proportional representation and a fair show we are willing to hand the Conservatives some seats in the Highlands.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, for that assurance. I am also prepared to give an assurance that the Conservative Party would not indulge in this little game. I did not hear the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, give that assurance on behalf of the Labour Party. I shall be happy to give way to the noble Baroness if she wishes to give such an assurance. That will certainly help me when I come to decide what to do with this amendment.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

I am delighted to give the noble Lord that assurance.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

That is fine as far as it goes. We have had assurances from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, but we do not have an assurance from another party that is not represented here. I do not believe that that party has given any such assurance. If I were the Government, I would be cautious about brushing aside this problem. The noble Baroness, the noble Lord and I may be great people in our time, but we shall not be here for ever. Our successors may not feel bound by the commitments that we have given today. That should worry the Committee quite considerably. However, we have made some progress on this issue.

The idea that parties could indulge in this practice is something that at least the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, recognised. He indicated that precautions should be taken to guard against it. I do not say that my precaution is necessarily the best one. I understand that it prevents people switching their vote between constituency and additional member, but no one should be fooled by this. The basis on which the current system is now devised means that the second vote is the important one. It is the second vote on which the proportionality will be built, not the first-past-the-post vote. I do not think that that is the principle underlying the additional member system but it is the reality.

The noble Baroness said much about restricting the electorate's choice by having only one vote. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said, if one wants to give electors choice, the additional member system does not give them much choice. We shall consider the open and closed list in a moment. If the Government wish the electorate to have choice, and they want proportional representation, as the noble Lord said, they should be going for the single transferable vote. But the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is now almost alone on that island because the Liberal Democrats have deserted the single transferable vote in the three variations of proportional representation before the House in the Welsh Bill, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and now this Bill.

7 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

The noble Lord goes too far. In Scotland we have been talking about proportional representation for 50 years.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

As the noble Lord knows, there are more varieties of proportional representation than even the 57 varieties of Heinz. I understood that the Liberal Democrats believed, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, explained, in the single transferable vote. They have now abandoned it.

Lord Howie of Troon

I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. However, in fairness I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, still believes in it as well, so there are two of us.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, finds that he has had to leave the Liberal Party.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

The noble Lord. Lord Mackay, should appreciate that the STV is the policy of the Liberal Democrats, and always has been. It is also the policy of the Liberal Democrats to have a Scottish parliament up and running as soon as possible. To that end we are prepared to go along with the system the Government propose.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

We know now that we are compromising on a single transferable vote, but we can have it in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. The Liberal Democrats could at least advance the case. It will be interesting to see whether they vote with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.

It is a bogus argument to say that I am restricting electors' choice and the Government are not. The Government are restricting electors' choice to a considerable extent, as we shall see when we debate the open list. As we shall see when we debate further amendments, by choosing the d'Hondt system they are choosing the system of additional member that is least friendly to independents and small parties, and most friendly to large parties. As for what the noble Baroness said in this debate, she will have to eat her words when we have further debates. If the Government wished to be fair to small parties they would not have chosen the d'Hondt system. They would have chosen other variations that are available and used elsewhere in the world to give the additional member seats.

There is no point in Ministers shaking their heads. It is a simple mathematical truth, which I shall explain after the dinner hour. That is what Members of the Committee might call a trailer!

There are two large groups. I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not seem to like the grouping. I grouped the amendments so that we could have one debate and make some progress on an issue which has an underlying relationship. The two problems are different but the solutions are the same. It was the solution that I was considering.

The double voting is not a problem. I am prepared to wear the proposal in respect of independents. I think that the Government tried to buy some support in those parts of the country which still have independents. But any independent who is able to add two and two and make four can see that there is nothing in this system for an independent candidate. Any successful independent will have to find a way to stand in the first-past-the-post system in a smaller constituency where fewer than 25,000 votes will gain. I doubt whether even Tommy Sheridan will gain a seat in Glasgow despite the efforts of the Labour Party in Glasgow to advance his cause by the incompetent way it runs the council; but that is another matter.

We shall return to the problem of the alter ego parties with another solution of mine later. I shall be interested to hear what the Government say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 3, line 12, at end insert (", and the regional returning officer shall publish the list at the earliest opportunity").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 38 provides that, the regional returning officer shall publish the list at the earliest opportunity". Amendment No. 39 states that the list shall appear on the ballot paper and that the order shall be determined by the party. I accept the closed list as proposed by the Government. We shall debate later whether or not that is a good thing but I accept it because I wish to narrow the debate to one issue.

When the party delivers the list to the returning officer before the election, where will that list appear? How will it be published? Will it be in general terms in the newspapers? Will it simply be put up on a notice at the polling stations? Or will it appear on the ballot paper? I believe that it should be published in newspapers, at the polling station—as is the ballot paper currently—and on the ballot paper. When those noble Lords who will have a vote vote on that second vote the names should be there. I know that there will be up to 12 names. But I have seen examples of European ballot papers where that can be and is done. The argument that the ballot paper will need to be rather large does not convince me.

If we can move, as we are doing in the Registration of Political Parties Bill, to putting the parties' symbols on the ballot paper, it seems to me important—the noble Baroness considers it important that people know for whom they are voting in the second ballot—that the names appear on the second ballot paper. The ballot paper should contain the list of candidates' names. If the electorate in whatever area it will be sees at the top of the list the magic name of Sewel in the Labour column, it will inexorably decide how it will vote. However, leaving aside the plug for the noble Lord, it is important that when the voters go into the polling booth they know for whom they are voting on the list.

I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment. It is straightforward and simple. I may be told that it will be in regulations. There is much in the Bill that is less important than the names on the ballot paper. I believe that the provision should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

Amendment No. 43 is grouped with the amendment. It is aimed at increasing the democratic accountability of the regional ballot.

I can agree with the amendments which call for the early publication of party lists and for the parties to determine the order in which the candidates will be elected if the party is successful in the regional ballot. A minor competition evolves between Amendments Nos. 39 and 43. The wording in Amendment No. 43 is more precise and almost incapable of being misinterpreted.

The latter part of Amendment No. 39, which provides that the list shall be ordered by the party, makes explicit an implicit feature of the closed list system. Amendment No. 39 falls short in that it does not require the parties to order their lists by a one member one vote postal ballot as practised by these Benches. The criticism of the closed list system is, as we have been regaled by some noble Lords, that the party bosses can fill the lists with their pals. Perhaps a further amendment is necessary to limit the range of methods of ordering the regional candidates.

Amendment No. 43 ensures that voters have the names of every candidate on each party list in front of them in the polling booth at the point of ballot. So far we are led to believe that these details will be available only wherever the returning officer decides to publish them, in campaigning literature and on a piece of paper pinned up on an internal wall of the polling station. I cannot see that as particularly informative. Polling stations are alien places at the best of times, with handwritten notices abounding; that is if Clackmannanshire polling station is anything to go by. The electorate have enough on their minds without trying to read the party list on the wall and find a booth with the correct combination of, presumably, coloured ballot papers.

Given the unfamiliar position of the regional members and the unhelpful comments of those proponents of proportional representation, I hope that there will be a government-led education campaign about their role and democratic validity. Our amendment calls for the name to be printed on the ballot paper, together with the party name and possibly the logo.

It may be worth mentioning a weak compromise to meet the Government's possible objection about the increased cost of printing the whole list on each ballot paper. That poor compromise would be to place a list securely—preferably by Sellotape—in each polling booth. However, it would be out of the direct focus of the voter at the point of ballot. The amendment would increase democratic effectiveness and would no doubt be opposed on grounds of political or financial expediency.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

The Government believe that the electoral arrangements for the Scottish parliament will ensure a fairer balance of representation than could be achieved by reliance on a simple majority system. While the constituency seats will be contested in the traditional manner, the regional seats will be allocated on the basis of proportional representation with a corrective element. Taken together, that should achieve a fairer distribution of seats.

The system for returning regional members is complex, but so far as the voter is concerned the voting process as envisaged in the Bill is relatively straightforward. Each elector will be able to vote for a constituency candidate and cast a separate regional vote for the party or independent candidate he favours.

I fear that the amendments would lead to confusion. I agree that printing each party's list on the ballot paper would not in itself change the voting system. But I maintain that it would certainly lead to confusion for voters who might reasonably conclude from seeing the list that they were supposed to express a preference from among the listed candidates. I have no doubt that there would be far more spoilt ballot papers if we went down that road.

On another practical note, perhaps I may remind the House of what was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish; that each party's list can contain up to 12 names. Bearing in mind that it is likely that the major parties will run large slates of candidates, it is not difficult to imagine that there could be 40 or considerably more party list candidates in each region. I invite the Committee to consider the piece of paper which would confront voters if all those names were included on the ballot paper.

Some of the candidates may also be standing as constituency members. In fact, I understand that the Conservative Party intends that all its candidates should do so. Voters would then face a name appearing on both ballot papers and that could well add to their confusion.

At a time of numerous changes to electoral systems, surely we need to make life as easy as possible for the electorate. Ballot papers should seek to make clear the nature of the voter's choice. In the poll for regional members, we are asking voters to choose between parties and independents, and that is the choice with which they should be presented on the ballot paper.

None of that is to deny the importance of voters being able to exercise their regional vote in proper knowledge of which individuals are being proposed by each party. I believe that in Amendment No. 38 the party opposite considers that it is going some way towards ensuring that. However, all we are saying is that such a level of detail is not appropriate for the face of the Bill.

The detailed provisions about the conduct of the elections will be made in an order under Clause 11. We will of course wish to ensure that regional lists are published in good time. It is one of the issues that has been considered by the working group on electoral arrangements. In addition to expert interested organisations, the group includes representatives from the four main political parties in Scotland. We fully intend that in addition to the formal notification by the returning officer, the contents of lists should be well publicised to electors; for example, by means of notices in polling stations. An order under Clause 11 will give us flexibility in deciding what provision would be appropriate. I can assure the House that there is no idea that the list should be kept secret. The question is simply how we provide electors with all the information to which they are entitled in a way which is most helpful to them.

The Earl of Balfour

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. As a result of what she said, there is considerable doubt in my mind about the position of people standing as independents. The intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is to allow the ballot paper to contain all the names of the political parties and individual candidates. I may be wrong, but her comments have confused my mind on that issue.

7.15 p.m.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

No, I was talking about the names of the parties. If someone is standing as an independent, his or her name will have to appear on the ballot paper, because it could be nothing other than the name of the person standing. We are arguing that printing on every ballot paper the names contained in every party's list is not the best way of informing the electorate and giving them a clear choice. In voting for a party, their vote will be for the party and not for any individual on the list. I hope that that clarifies the point.

The Earl of Onslow

The noble Baroness is saying that people are too stupid to understand the names on the list. I find that rather offensive. She also said that people will have to make up their minds for party and party alone. If you are a wavering party voter, it is possible to see list A and say, "He is a bounder and I don't want him. He is all right and I will change my mind because of the name on the ballot paper". Surely we should not treat people like children; we should give them the information they want. If they can read a leader in the Sun they can read a ballot paper for the Scottish regional assembly.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

I am sorry that the noble Earl gained the impression—I do not know where from—that I was in any way implying that the Scottish electorate were unable to read a ballot paper. We are talking about producing a ballot paper which gives the electors the information they need to make their choice of vote. Under the regional list system, that choice will be for the party. We have already said that we are looking at every possible way of publicising the names on the party list. All we are saying at the moment is that names on the ballot paper do not appear to be the best option. However, I have also said that an order under Clause 11 will give us the flexibility to consider the best and most appropriate way of dealing with this matter. I have said also that there is a working group on electoral arrangements on which all interested parties, including the four main political parties, are represented. It is working on all the issues which we are now discussing.

Lord Kirkhill

I thank my noble friend for giving way. I accept the premise of my noble friend's argument. I do not dispute at all her general propositions. I admit immediately that I am going back 20 years, so I speak with that proviso. I have some experience of the activities of the Scottish Office. Something which the Scottish Office did badly in my time—and now that I am out of it, I still believe that it does it badly—was to advertise clearly in the correct way, using the right point of media, the various propositions which it needed to convey to the general public. I hope that the noble Baroness will emphasise to the working group that it must keep a close eye on what happens after it makes its proposals because all too often such matters die an untimely death.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

I assure my noble friend that the working group will take every care to ensure that its decisions are carried out. We are all anxious that the greatest possible publicity is given to the names on the list and to the independents. Everyone who is standing will be given the greatest possible publicity.

However, we need the flexibility which the Bill provides to develop solutions to those problems, solutions which work. We believe that these amendments would complicate matters for the electorate. We believe that they would lead to confusion and an increased risk of spoilt ballot papers. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone

The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said that there may possibly be confusion. I have seen a sample ballot paper produced by the Electoral Reform Society. It is perhaps a matter of layout, but it is not necessary to be confusing. If the voters see only the names of parties, they may be given the impression that they are merely voting for someone who will be a party placeman. The voters will have no idea who they are voting for. That gives out a dangerous message because it is rather anti-democratic.

There must be a vital link between the voter and the candidate. A great deal of research has shown that voters feel very strongly that there should be a link between themselves and the candidate.

There is a second fear and worry that if the names are not permitted to go on to the ballot paper, the Government will be feeding the cynicism which already exists in relation to the political process in this country. There is a sense that we may be being manipulated by the party managers. That undermines the credibility and confidence which the Government should otherwise enjoy.

Even if lists are spread about in polling stations and so on, it is impossible to ensure that every elector across the region has been given the same opportunity to examine the lists. If this amendment were accepted, it is one way in which to ensure that at the point of voting, the people have access to that information. It is a matter of openness, transparency and accountability, all the things which the new parliament is meant to stand for. I hope that it is worth more than the breath with which one speaks those words.

Lord Sempill

The concern which some of my colleagues and I have is in relation to the independent having his name on the ballot paper while the parties are just there as amorphous numbers. There is a strong possibility—and I put this slightly tongue-in-cheek—that an individual could be fortunate enough to be born with the name, or could have his name changed by deed poll to, Billy Connolly. I suspect that if he put his name down as an independent, he could well be mistaken for the genuine article and may win a substantial number of votes from people who believe that in casting their first vote, they have done their duty to their party and feel that the second vote can be used more emotionally. They may think, "He is a man I like. I will vote for him".

Therefore, I believe that an independent may have an unnecessary advantage over the party machine. I should appreciate it if the Minister would enlighten me on that point.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

I shall deal first with the point made by the noble Lord and then deal with that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater.

As I tried to make clear, minds are not completely closed on this issue. The working group on electoral arrangements is looking at the question of what are the best solutions as regards the introduction of the order under Clause 11. Everyone wishes to ensure that there is maximum publicity. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said. It is extremely important that whatever solution is arrived at—and I do not believe that to put the names on the ballot paper is the answer—we must keep matters as simple and as straightforward as possible for the electorate so that the people can see what is the real choice. At the same time, they must know exactly who is on the party lists. There is agreement on all sides of the Committee about that.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

If, on the second ballot paper, there are the various parties and Sean Connery, does not the noble Baroness agree that Sean Connery has a big advantage?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

I am not sure what I think about Sean Connery. However, I must repeat that the working group on the electoral arrangements is looking at the whole question of what is the best way to achieve what we all want; that is, that the electors of Scotland can see the choices clearly in front of them. They must know who is on the party lists. When that order is made under Clause 11, we shall have what is considered by the working group to be the best solution. As I said, on that working group there are representatives of all the expert interested organisations plus representatives from the four main political parties in Scotland.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

We have had an interesting debate and I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in it. It has brought together Members on all the Benches opposite the Government, which is quite interesting. My noble friend Lord Sempill made a very good point about the independent candidate. The one name which will be on the ballot paper will be that of the independent. I have read the Registration of Political Parties Bill and there is nothing to prevent an independent changing his name by deed poll and appearing as Sean Connery or whoever he may wish to appear as. I do not think he would wish to appear as John Mackay because he would not win many votes that way. However, he would be able to do that and the Registration of Political Parties Bill does not prevent it.

The real point of my noble friend's intervention is that the only names on the ballot paper will be those of the independents. Those standing for the political parties will not be there. The noble Baroness's best argument was that it would be too complicated, difficult and would lead to confusion. My noble friend Lord Onslow was quite right in his intervention. Do the Government believe that the Scottish electorate is not capable of understanding that? If it is capable of understanding the PR system, it will be quite capable of wading through a ballot paper. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said, there are layouts published by the Electoral Reform Society which are perfectly clear.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, will know, in Germany, although not all the 150 or so names are put on the ballot paper, the top clutch of names is put on the ballot paper. As we are talking about only 12 names, that is not at all impossible.

It seems to me that leaving the matter to the working group is not good enough. We could leave a great deal of the first part of the Bill to that group because it deals with the way in which the whole system is to work. I believe that this is sufficiently important to be on the face of the Bill and for that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

7.29 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Balfour, E. Lyell, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Belstead, L. Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Berners, B. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Blatch, B. Mersey, V.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Minto, E.
Burnham, L. [Teller.] Monson, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Carnock, L. Montrose, D.
Chesham, L. Mountevans, L.
Chorley, L. Northesk, E.
Clanwilliam, E. Onslow, E.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Palmer, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Cranborne, V. Patten, L.
Cross, V. Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B. Prior, L.
Dixon-Smith, L. Radnor, E.
Dundonald, E. Rawlings, B.
Fookes, B. Rowallan, L.
Harmsworth, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Hemphill, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
HolmPatrick, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Kintore, E. Sempill, L.
Lindsay, E. Sharples, B.
Skelmersdale, L. Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Stair, E. Trefgarne, L.
Vinson, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Waddington, L.
Strange, B. Wise, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Amos, B. Jeger, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Berkeley, L. Judd, L.
Blackstone, B. Kilbracken, L.
Blease, L. Kirkhill, L.
Borrie, L. Levy, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Lockwood, B.
Bruce of Donington, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Burlison, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]
Carew, L. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.] Milner of Leeds, L.
Chandos, V. Molloy, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Monkswell, L.
Davies of Coity, L. Montague of Oxford, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Nicol, B.
Dean of Beswick, L. Orme, L.
Desai, L. Pitkeathley, B.
Dixon, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Donoughue, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Puttnam, L.
Dubs, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rea, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gallacher, L. Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Gilbert, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Sefton or Garston, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Sewel, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Simon, V.
Grantchester, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Grenfell, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hanworth, V. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Hardie, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Hardy of Wath, L. Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Haskel, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Varley, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Whitty, L.
Hoyle, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Hughes, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Winston, L.
Islwyn, L. Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]

Lord Hoyle

I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.