LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 29 July 1998)

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A. With the permission of the House, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20 to 22.
These amendments are concerned with the electoral system. They would have the effect of allowing electors only one vote rather than two, as the Government proposed both in our White Paper and in this Bill. Another place has taken the view that your Lordships' amendments would unjustifiably restrict voters' ability to exercise a meaningful choice of their regional representatives—as was pointed out in this House, the effect of the amendments would be to create a method of indirect election of regional members via a constituency vote rather than allow electors to vote directly for the party or independent candidate of their choice.
We have debated this matter on several occasions. We are into the realms of hypothesis when considering the possible manipulation of the electoral system. We on this side of the House are, however, clear that whatever the validity of that hypothesis, the solutions proposed in this and other amendments would be worse than the hypothetical problem—and that view has been accepted by another place.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

§ Lord Roberts of Conwy
My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the noble and learned Lord who was until yesterday Solicitor-General on his translation to the Cabinet Office. We are grateful to him for his explanation of the Commons' rejection of our amendments relating to the PR system proposed by the Government. I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that I certainly do not intend to argue the case for these amendments yet again. That has been done superbly and refreshingly on several occasions already by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
One of the highlights of our debates was the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on the first day of Report on 1st July (col. 685 of Hansard) that he had been confirmed in his position that first past the post is "easily the best system". As I understand it, it is the noble Lord's diamond wedding anniversary this week. I am sure that there are many noble Lords in the House who would like to congratulate him and Lady Callaghan on that celebration.
Our belief on this side coincided with that of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. It was our starting-point in the debate about the PR system. Nevertheless, we acknowledged that the Government held a different view on proportional representation and were intent on the additional member system now proposed.
1513 We were also aware that there were defects in that system. We were particularly concerned about the "split ticket" or "alter ego" party problem highlighted by Dr. Michael Dyer of Aberdeen University, whereby political parties could manipulate the two-vote system to their own advantage by using different descriptions of themselves for constituency and electoral region elections.
We were anxious to assist the Government to avoid that pitfall in the legislation. I can vouch for the fact that some of my noble friends and other colleagues devoted much time, thought and argument to meeting the challenge posed by the potential abuse arising from that defect. The noble and learned Lord the former Solicitor-General, the Secretary of State for Wales, and the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office, Mr. Win Griffiths, all accepted that there could be a problem. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish also candidly acknowledged that there were shortcomings in his single vote solution, although, resourceful as ever, he had ideas for meeting those imperfections.
I say all that in order to impress upon Members of both Houses the sincerity and genuineness of our debates on this issue. Our amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with Conservative Party prospects under the PR system as alleged in Monday's Western Mail. That article was very wide of the mark. If any party should fear the two-vote system, I believe it is the Labour Party. If the latest BBC poll is to be believed, it stands high in the voters' favour, but of course the Labour Party must wonder just where its supporters' second preference will lie.
My major point is that throughout we have been concerned to ensure the integrity of the PR system proposed in the Bill. In the words of my noble friend Lord Mackay at Third Reading, Here is a problem that we all see; nobody denies that it is possible for it to happen. We should do something about it now".— [Official Report, 15/7/98; col. 263.] The Government have failed to offer a legislative remedy as yet and have contented themselves with the assurances given by all parties that they would not abuse the system. But such assurances, alas, may not endure in the face of obvious party advantage should that occur. We suspect that the assurances given both here and in the other place will barely outlive those who have given them. But we have received assurances, too, from the noble and learned Lord that the Government have given considerable thought to this matter and do not have a closed mind on the issue. We may therefore return to it when we discuss the Registration of Political Parties Bill. Meanwhile, we have no intention of pursuing our current amendments.

§ Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am happy to assist the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, as to where the second preference votes are going from the Labour Party according to the BBC poll. They are going to the Welsh Liberal Democrats. One would expect no less in the Welsh community.
1514 We have consistently supported the provision of two votes under the list system. The suggestion that the people of Wales are incapable of casting two votes has always struck me as entirely ludicrous. We are pleased that the matter has been resolved in the House of Commons and we support the Government's position.

§ Lord Elis-Thomas
My Lords, I am not ashamed to be standing here as everybody's second preference. I wish to congratulate my noble and learned friend the former Solicitor-General on his elevation. It seems to me that government Front Bench Ministers who are associated with the Wales Bill receive instant elevation. I can only hope that it applies to all of us, whether here or in another place.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and disagree once again with the baron who shares a boundary with me in our baronies in the Conwy Valley. As we say in the valley, he is once again flogging a dead sheep. He is repeating himself in the direction, as my noble friend Lord Thomas said, of trying to assert that the people of Wales are unable to make clear, rational decisions. I shall not refer to the BBC Wales opinion poll. However, I have a feeling about its meaning wherever I go. Its meaning has interest for him and for all parties. But that is not the issue. The issue is about making democracy as inclusive as possible. I was impressed, as I often am, by the statement by my right honourable friend Mr. Ron Davies in the article in the Western Mail that has already been mentioned. He said that it was not the issue whether or not certain parties were benefiting from the poll, because the assembly itself would be inclusive. That is what the polling system is all about. It is about allowing the opportunity for people to make rational choices. Those decisions are made within the electoral system. The attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and of his noble friend—who is not present because he is preparing yet again for the Scotland Bill—continually to change the electoral system are proving unsuccessful because the arguments, let alone the majority in another place, are not carrying any weight. Therefore, I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy intends not to insist on the amendment.

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Elis-Thomas, for their kind words of congratulations. Perhaps I may also wish the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and Lady Callaghan, many congratulations on their diamond wedding anniversary.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has reiterated his views in his characteristically careful and moderate way. Those words were written down in advance of him doing so, to show the respect in which he is held by those who formerly worked for him. However, I do not believe that he brought forward any new arguments to support his case. As has been made clear throughout, following the clear statements made by the representatives of all parties in this and another place, we believe that the type of improper manipulation talked of will not occur. Attempts to deal 1515 with it in the form of these amendments which another place has rejected produce a much worse result than the alleged problem. I ask the House not to insist on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.