Single Transferable Vote

HL Deb 05 January 2004 vol 657 cc54-72

5.46 p.m.

Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the possibility that the introduction of the single transferable vote might increase the level of public participation in politics.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must declare an interest as president of the Electoral Reform Society. I shall speak as much in that capacity as 1 will as a member of my party. Although there are certain broad similarities between the views of my party and those of the society, it is on behalf of the society that I shall speak today.

There is a general sense of dismay at the lack of value being placed on the vote in many quarters. By contrast, I vividly remember going into my newsagents on the day of the first South African election. My newsagents were Natal Indians and I shall never forget the sense of pride that suffused the whole of their expressions on that day. That has been felt here. It does not seem to be felt nearly as widely now.

The point about the vote is that what is significant is not what happens when you have it but what happens when you do not. It is what my wife used to say about cancer. It does not make much difference if you do it but it makes an enormous amount of difference if you do not. If you do not have the vote, people can oppress you with as much freedom as they like. That does not prove that they necessarily will, but to give them the opportunity is not always wise. So there is a degree of safety in possessing the vote, of which people are not always aware.

At the same time as we are hearing more and more complaints of lack of interest in the vote, more and more people are complaining about the rise of interest in single-issue politics. Voters have a right to be interested in single issues if they want to be. In a democracy, that right cannot and should not be taken away from them.

I admit that those who deal in single issues must at the same time learn that single issues, uncontrolled and unplanned, get a little like driving on the dodgems: you tend to get a rather bumpy ride. The relationship between single issues is something to which people must learn to pay attention, but if single issues are where their interest begins, I do not see why it should not. After all, not every political interest takes the form of a ready-made, off-the-peg commitment to a party philosophy. That is especially true at a moment when the philosophies of all the parties are in the garage for their 100-year service. Political parties will never cease to need that.

It is important that the range of issues on which people feel capable of having an opinion, and on which they are interested in having one, is much wider and much less exclusively national than previously. The debate on GM crops, for example, is much more than a national issue and must be pursued, whichever side you are on, in something beyond the national forum. A single national political party, therefore, is not necessarily the best vehicle for pursuing the issue.

We are getting into a situation in which people no longer take their political parties by inheritance. Even when I started canvassing—not that long ago—people almost always voted in the same way as their families did. I even heard, "I must ask my husband", as recently as three years ago. That was quite a shock three years ago, but it reminded me of how common the attitude used to be.

Hereditary politics are disappearing. Their disappearance must lead to a decline in off-the-peg commitments to party philosophies as a whole, as the two things are logically interlocked. If the interest is individual, it will begin in interest in an individual issue. Issues such as Europe or those arising in some of the recent debates in this House on public morals and the law create alliances on both sides of the argument which create passion across the Chamber far beyond the boundaries of parties. I do not see how one can hope to run a live and vibrant political system that does not allow for those interests which are outside, above or beside parties.

Only one electoral system allows people to express their opinion on a single issue. There are many different forms of proportional representation, with different virtues and different uses. The particular distinctive use of the single transferable vote is that it allows you to vote across party boundaries for the supporters or opponents of a particular cause.

In our recent debates on questions such as the age of consent or gay adoption, for example, one could think of plenty of people who would have wanted to vote perhaps for three people from three different quarters of the Chamber, and who would have wished to do so in all consistency. In a national election, I do not see why that should not be a democratic right. If it is not a democratic right, it will be much harder to get people interested in participation than it would be otherwise.

If we have the individual conscience working on individual issues, I do not see why that should not allow votes for individual candidates in preference to other candidates from the same party. After all, the present system has been described as a closed list of one. There are problems in that description, but I can see perfectly well what it is getting at. If the object of democracy is to discover the opinions of the voters—and there are strong opinions among the voters that go across party boundaries—I do not see why that should not be heard. I am not suggesting that it should be mandatory, and I fully accept the whole of Burke's argument that an MP is a representative and not a delegate. However, I think that before an MP represents, he, or she, should have had the chance to listen to what he should be listening to. I see no way that this can be done except through the single transferable vote.

If it can engage more people in the political process, it can do only good. I think that this will be particularly true among the young, because they are the extreme example of the departure from hereditary politics. The proportion of my own pupils who voted for the same party as their parents was remarkably low. In fact, they were making choices as they went along, often for reasons of which their parents knew nothing and cared less.

Indeed, if we try the parties by the standards of their ancestors, a great many of them fail to measure up. If we want a free-thinking, free-voting, lively and independent democracy, there is a strong argument for saying that the single transferable vote is likely to be the best way of getting it. That way, since the concern about the small number of people voting is deep and genuine, we just might kill two birds with one stone. It is a rare achievement, but it is nice when you can do it.

5.57 p.m.

Lord Norton of Louth

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on raising this Question. There have been reports of private discussions between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats on electoral reform. I therefore welcome the opportunity to put on the public record why changing our electoral system would be detrimental to the health of the British polity, and why the proposal put forward by the noble Earl will not address the root of the problem of declining public participation in politics. Rather, utilising the single transferable vote for parliamentary elections has the potential to make the problem worse. As such, it would constitute part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I shall address first the basic problem inherent in adopting a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections. One of the fundamental attributes of our present political system is that it delivers accountability. The late, distinguished philosopher, Sir Karl Popper, argued that the most important feature of a political system was not how it enabled a government to be chosen, but rather how it ensured that a government could be removed peacefully from office. The electoral system of the United Kingdom, he argued, facilitated the removal of the government from office. Election day constituted judgment day. That is something that we should seek to preserve.

Under our existing system, one body, the party in government, is responsible for public policy. It is returned to office on the basis of a particular programme. If it fails to deliver, electors know that they can sweep it from office at the next election. Awareness of electoral mortality encourages the government to be responsive to public opinion between elections in a way that is often not encouraged in other systems, where politicians know they can engage in post-election bargaining in order to stay in office. Accountability is thus fundamental to our political system. That, I think, is worth protecting. I believe that electors take the same view. Surveys reveal that. when asked, electors tend to favour electoral reform. However, when asked about the consequences of electoral systems, they tend to favour the consequences that result from our existing first-past-the-post electoral system. I should also record that one should be wary of citing polls that show people favour electoral reform. Some years ago, in a poll where respondents were probed more deeply, it emerged that most did not feel strongly about electoral reform and twice as many had never heard of proportional representation as those that claimed to know quite a lot about it.

Accountability is but one reason why we should retain our existing electoral system. There are several others. The system that we have provides a direct and exclusive link between citizens and Members of Parliament. It tempers party control through giving MPs a local base. The constituency can, on occasion, provide a protective shield against the demands of the Whips. It also provides some degree of proportionality of power.

Supporters of proportional representation define proportionality solely in terms of the relationship of votes to seats. However, if 10 per cent of the votes deliver 10 per cent of the seats, they do not necessarily deliver 10 per cent of the negotiating power in the House of Commons. The result can be disproportionate negotiating power, far in excess of anything justified by the number of votes gained. If proportionality is defined instead in terms of the ratio of votes gained to the time spent in government, the UK system has proved more proportional than many other Western systems. Thus, there is a powerful prima facie case for retaining our existing electoral system.

Are the attributes that I have outlined outweighed by the benefits ascribed to the PR system of the single transferable vote? The answer is an unequivocal "no". One argument advanced for STV is that it retains the link between Members and constituencies. Members are elected in multi-member constituencies. However, that has generated a particular problem. STV in Ireland has contributed to the phenomenon of localism and Members of the Dáil devoting disproportionate time to their constituencies and failing to engage in the collective task of scrutinising the executive.

Eunan O'Halpin, in his chapter on Ireland in Parliaments and Governments in Western Europe, which I edited in 1998, records the claim that Members of the Dail play a subsidiary role in policy-making and scrutinising the executive and that, most dissipate their energies in electorally rewarding but nationally futile brokerage (interceding with central and local bureaucracy on behalf of individual constituents or groups of constituents)". Interestingly, in this context, there have been calls in Ireland for reform of the electoral system in order to reduce this incentive to localism. Indeed, Fianna Fáil has previously made the case for adopting the first-past-the-post system. In the United Kingdom, we manage to maintain a balance between constituency work and scrutinising the executive. We should not be going down the route of seeking to be like the Dáil, which is one of the weakest parliaments in western Europe.

But would not the introduction of a system of STV increase turnout in general elections? That is what the noble Earl is asking the Government to consider. Again, perhaps we may look at the experience of STV in Ireland. What has happened to turnout in general elections there? Turnout has fallen substantially over the past eight or nine general elections, from roughly three-quarters of the electorate voting to two-thirds.

Earl Russell

My Lords, Ireland is one conspicuous exception to the point that I was making about the greater range of issues that concern people. Over there, the whole of their politics is due for a 100-year service.

Lord Norton of Louth

My Lords, I shall come to the point made by the noble Earl about pressure groups, but I must point out that all the experience of STV in Europe is in terms of Ireland. My point is that it does not provide much of a basis on which we can consider going forward.

On that basis, the Government may find that there is not much to consider. But if that does not persuade the Government, perhaps we should look elsewhere. Let us not look at Ireland; let us look at elections to the European Parliament. In Britain, we have moved from the first-past-the-post system to a regional list system of proportional representation. What has happened? Has turnout increased? The answer is "no". Introducing a system of proportional representation has done nothing to increase public participation in politics.

There has been a decline in mainstream political activity over the years. There has been a decline over time in the number of people joining political parties. There has been something of a decline—although not the consistent decline that some critics claim—in turnout at general elections. Voting by young people, a body that traditionally has a low turnout, is even lower now than it was 30 years ago. However, I stress that the decline has been in what I have called mainstream political activity; that is, people engaging through the political parties and supporting those parties in the polling booths

There has not necessarily been a decline in political activity as such. Rather, people have found outlets for political activity other than through the political parties. As the noble Earl mentioned, they have joined interest groups, including single-issue groups, which enable them to focus on issues of particular concern to them. They have also proved willing to engage in demonstrations and to sign petitions. People will take to the streets if they disagree strongly with a policy, but they appear reluctant to engage in the process by which policy is made.

Why, then, the decline in mainstream political participation? It has nothing to do with the electoral process. I wish to suggest two reasons, one in respect of political parties and the other in respect of power.

Political parties have proved less attractive to people than before, at times because they do not appear to offer electors much of a choice, but more enduringly, I believe, because there are now far more competing attractions than there were in the 1950s and 1960s. There has been a significant growth in the number of interest groups and concerns about public policy are being absorbed by such groups. There has been a burgeoning of attractions outside the realm of the political, facilitated by the expansion of the mass media and now by the Internet. It is difficult for political parties to compete. Catch-all political parties, geared to discussing and generating public policy, can offer little to compete with the quick, easy and transient attraction of "Pop Idol".

Fragmentation of political power is also a problem. Where now is political power to be found? There are competing centres of power. There is what I have termed the paradox of accountability; that is, the more elected bodies you have, the less accountable each one becomes. There is confusion on the part of electors over who is responsible for what. There is a perception—in this case, perception is important—that a great deal of decision-making power has passed to the institutions of the European Union. Organised groups may know how to lobby Brussels effectively, but the ordinary citizen does not. As power flows to different bodies, especially upwards to the European Union, there is the danger that people will feel helpless in the face of this development and turn their backs on mainstream political activity. If power is seen to be flowing to other institutions, what is the point of voting?

What flows from this is that we need to address the causes of declining participation in mainstream political activity and to consider what might, if anything, serve to reverse the trend. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has noted the problem, but has not come up with a viable solution. Rather, if we have a system of proportional representation—destroying, as it is likely to do, the core accountability at the heart of our political system—that will add to the problem, denying electors the opportunity to call government to account. That is not the road down which we should be going. Other countries are experiencing similar problems. Adopting one of their electoral systems is not the answer.

6.8 p.m.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Russell, and I congratulate him. It is also a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who has made an extremely eloquent and interesting speech setting out what I would describe as the reactionary Conservative position, which of course he is entitled to do.

Lord Norton of Louth

My Lords, I rise on a point of clarification. To be reactionary is to support the status quo ante. I am being conservative.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, I am quite happy for the noble Lord to describe himself as he wishes. He is certainly a Conservative. While I am tempted to spend all of my time picking apart item by item what the noble Lord has just said, I shall try to resist doing so. However, I am bound to say that when he referred to accountability and the ability of the electorate to boot out the government in power, I am reminded of the general election held in 1951. The electors voted to keep the Labour government in power, but because of the quirks of the electoral system and despite the fact that Labour won more votes than the Conservatives, it was the Conservatives who secured a working majority. I do not consider that to be accountable.

It is also said that because the quirks of the electoral system have now shifted away from a natural bias towards the Conservatives—which existed for much of our lifetime—to a strong natural bias towards Labour, the present Government could receive as little as 37 or 38 per cent of the vote at the next general election and still retain power. So almost two-thirds of the electorate could vote against them but they would still be there. The noble Lord is entitled to believe that that adds up to accountability, but I do not believe that it does.

The noble Lord mentioned the situation in the Republic of Ireland where, at various times, the two largest parties have wanted to move towards a system of first-past-the-post. Fianna Fáil is consistent in wanting to do so. Of course it is. If the Republic was to adopt a system of first-past-the-post, Fianna Fáil believes it would get an overall majority on a minority of votes.

It is interesting that whenever the political parties in Ireland have tried to introduce the system through a referendum, the people of Ireland have said, "No. We like STV and we are going to keep it. The politicians had better operate under STV because that is the way in which we, the people, can maintain the greatest amount of influence and control over our politicians". As I will make clear later, that is what STV achieves.

Of course this not only concerns Westminster elections. We have local elections and European elections; we now have elections in Scotland and Wales to the Parliament and the Assembly; and there may soon be elections to the feeble regional authorities that the Government want to establish in certain parts of the country. It is interesting that there is a steady movement towards forms of proportional representation for these different elections. It is quite clear that the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, will introduce proportional representation—probably STV—for local elections in Scotland. There is a general view there that, if that happens, the Scottish parliamentary elections will not he long following.

If that happens, it could be the beginning of what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, would perhaps see as a rather slippery slope but which others would see as the opening of the gates to an idea which has been around for a long time. Those of us who, for a long time, trod the streets on behalf of the Liberal Party—Liberal Democrats seem to have been doing so for the party's lifetime—believe that STV's time is coming and may well come within our lifetime.

It used to be called the "British" system of proportional representation. It is interesting that when we started to adopt proportional representation for various elections we moved instead to non-British systems of lists and top-up lists, where the candidates are listed in order by the political parties. This represents the old political parties trying to exercise control through a system which prevents the people from having the control that STV would give them.

No system is perfect—there are defects with STV as with any other system—but STV gives power to individual voters more than any other system. It not only allows them to cast their votes for individual candidates and, as my noble friend said, to choose between candidates from a particular party according to their views on issues they think important, it forces them to do so. It forces them to put the candidates in order. If they want to vote for the Labour Party, it forces them to put in order the candidates from the Labour Party. If they have strong views about which of those candidates is better than the others, it allows them to do that. Parties do not like that, because they like to keep control of the process and to determine exactly who gets elected when they get so many votes. However, it is an old-fashioned idea that parties should have that kind of control and authority.

The second thing that STV does, as my noble friend said, is to allow people to vote across parties if individual issues are what move them to vote. It is true that individual issue politics has become far more important in recent years. STV would allow them to vote for the candidates who have those views, regardless of which party they belong to. It also allows voters to transfer their preferences from their favoured party to other parties later on, in order to increase the amount of influence that they have over the final result.

In local politics, that gives hope to independents. People say that independents cannot succeed under STV, but that is absolute nonsense. Strong independents will do well under STV. For example, in a five-member STV seat, a strong independent would have to get only nearly 17 per cent of the vote to be guaranteed to be elected. In practice, if they picked up lots of transfers across the board, they might well be elected with quite a few votes fewer than that. It would make it possible for people who are at the moment kept out by the party system to come in and add variety and interest.

Again, political parties do not like that—and I do not suppose that my own political party likes it too much, either. However, that is something that STV does that is very important. It increases dramatically the chances that people's votes will actually count towards the final result. In a five-member seat, probably more than 80 per cent and perhaps much more than 80 per cent of people who vote will have achieved influence over the final list of those who are elected. Under first past the post, the number can be as low as 20 per cent in very safe seats. The question then is whether it is worth people bothering to go to vote or even to send their postal votes back, because it will not make any difference to the result. Under STV, the way in which individuals vote is highly likely to have an influence on who gets elected. Surely, that would encourage people to take part in the system.

STV is surely the system that provides the greatest accountability between the individual voter and those who are elected. That is the most important thing. All the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, puts forward about electing a national government, even if they are valid, do not apply to any of the other forums.

I should like to end by casting some doubt on whether turnout in elections is going down in a permanent and significant way. Certainly, at the moment, turnout seems to be low. The question is whether it is a short-term phenomenon or something that will affect the body politic for a long time. From a graph produced by the House of Commons Library, in one of its publications, it is clear that in general elections turnout peaked in 1950 and that between 1950 and 1966, there was a gentle decline—if one draws some obvious straight-line graphs at the top of the bar chart. Between 1950 and 1966, turnout declined fairly steadily and gently, and in 1970 it was 72 per cent. Between 1974 and 1992, it is difficult to argue that turnout went down at all. It fluctuated, but there were highs at each end and slightly lower troughs in the middle. The phenomenon of reduced turnout possibly started in 1997—although we could include that in the series. However, it does seem to have happened at the last general election, and it has occurred in other elections.

In local elections, turnout in recent times peaked in 1990. Again, I am taking this information from figures in a House of Commons Library research paper. For those of us who remember campaigning in the 1990 local elections, turnout peaked then for very obvious reasons. It was the time of the poll tax, and that was the election at which the people of Britain rose up and said, "We don't want the poll tax and we're going to vote against it". Regrettably, most of them voted Labour as a result, but not in all places. But it does not matter—the result at that election was caused by the political circumstances of the time, not by the electoral system or anything else.

Although local election turnouts have declined almost year by year since then—there had not been that kind of dramatic local political context in most places—there is some evidence that that decline has now ceased and might be reversing. We will not find out until two or three more years have passed. But I advise against a counsel of despair—people should not say that electoral turnout in this country is going down and down and that this will be the case for ever and a day. It will not. When people really feel angry, and they feel the need to feel angry, they will vote.

Finally, STV provides the opportunity for people to be angry about a much wider range of issues and have more influence on the result. It is therefore, in my judgment, likely to encourage people to turn out to vote.

6.21 p.m.

Lord Alexander of Weedon

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this debate, not least because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the unfailing contribution that he makes to the work of this House. He combines an unrivalled knowledge of history with an acute sensitivity to contemporary events that enrich our work. It is typical of that sense of purpose that he has raised what is a priority for parliamentary reform.

The Government are planning yet further limited change to this House. They have decided to avoid their initial promise of providing a more democratic and representative House of Lords and their support in their last election manifesto for an elected element in this House. They are tinkering with a niggardly measure which—rightly, in my view—has secured cross-party rebellion. And yet, they are not showing any interest at all in change to the shape of the other place.

This is probably for a simple reason. It is probably because the House of Commons, unlike the House of Lords, is a largely subservient assembly. In the last Parliament, it was totally subservient to the Government. There were 1,000 Divisions, and the Government won exactly 1,000 of them. In this Parliament, there are more stirrings from the discontented and disaffected. But in the end, as over Iraq and foundation hospitals, the Government, after the dramas, get their way.

We have to think of some fundamental questions. How real is parliamentary accountability? How representative are Members of Parliament? That issue is beginning to strike some Members of this House when they consider the difference in attitude to fox hunting between the Members on the Government Benches in the other place and the public. How real is the old claim, going back to 1689, that Parliament is truly sovereign? Or is the reality that we increasingly have what Lord Hailsham famously described more than 25 years ago as an elective dictatorship?

In 1997, the Government had no doubt that the issue should be promptly debated and the people given a voice. They made a clear manifesto promise, as no doubt the Minister will confirm in his response, to set up an independent commission to propose alternatives to the first-past-the-post voting system. They made an unequivocal promise that there would be a referendum on the outcome of the work of that commission. They then recognised, rightly, that there was a need to offer the voters a choice whether they wished to change and improve the voting system.

The commission was established commendably promptly under the chairmanship of the late Lord Jenkins. I was fortunate enough to be asked to be a member. We were asked to report within a year, and we did. We did not seek to be revolutionary. We explored alternative systems, including that in the Republic of Ireland. We were wonderfully entertained on our visit to the Republic and the returning officers took the greatest pride in explaining that whether or not the voters understood the way in which STV worked, the returning officers did and all was well.

Our own suggestion for modest change was that as well as retaining the constituency system we should have an alternative vote within that system to give wider opportunity of choice to those in the single member constituencies, but with a top up, as we called it, of a modest 20 per cent proportional representation. We did not seek to go the full German route of proportional representation. We were concerned to adopt an evolutionary approach that might have some chance of acceptance. We considered that would mean greater fairness to the voters in the distribution of seats between parties and that everyone would feel that their vote would count for at least a little. The cogency of the report and the wonderfully readable style are a lasting tribute to the work of Lord Jenkins. But even—

Earl Russell

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for all he is saying. May I just put on the record that I breathe no word of criticism of the Jenkins report?

Lord Alexander of Weedon

My Lords, I am very conscious of that because the noble Earl and I are very much on the same side in this debate. We have slightly different views on the preferable means of improving the system but whether or not it brands me as an inadequate Conservative, I am fully supportive of changes to the electoral system.

However, even our modest proposal found no favour with the Government. Did we have a formal response? No. Did we have the whiff of a referendum? No. Was our report cynically tossed into the long grass where it continues to languish? Yes. The Government were by then already addicted to power. They had won such a victory that they no longer needed to woo the Liberal Democrats and unfortunately they became oblivious to the key issue of fairness to the voters. Here I must part company with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. He attaches immense importance to the old argument that the great benefit of our system is that it enables us to "throw the rascals out". That in my view is too negative and too modest a view of what is needed in fairness to the electorate. Fairness to voters is what it is all about; it is not about fairness to government or political parties or keeping an established system in place but about giving voters the opportunity to be properly represented.

In a sense I think that my noble friend's argument would have been convincingly advanced by Napoleon III in the France of the Third Empire in his support of a referendal democracy, but it ignores the fact that there arc acute anomalies which will, I think, be recognised at some future time when glaring practical inequities surface and arouse sudden concern. Perhaps I may briefly list some of them. In four out of the past five elections, governments of two political complexions—I am not making a party political point—had an overall majority of more than 100 with rather more that 40 per cent of the voles. At the last election, Labour had 44 per cent of the vote and they have an overall majority of 180. That disproportionate approach, whichever party it temporarily favours, is unhealthy, unrepresentative and also lessens the valuable need for governments to try to reach out for consensus in society.

The second issue that I shall raise was anticipated in the thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; that is. the distribution of votes. There is a mix of large and small constituencies. That means that an inappropriate advantage is conferred on the Labour Party. In the doctrine of electoral reformers, it is called systemic bias. That could be of immense democratic importance if, for example, at a coming election, Labour and Conservatives were to dead-heat at 38 per cent. Is it really acceptable in our society that Labour should still have a majority of 75 seats? Will that be comfortably accepted should that dead heat arise? If not, should we address it now?

In spite of that, there is little interest in my own party in any type of electoral reform or in any of the anomalies about which I speak. I would simply say as gently as I can to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I find that disappointing, although I am grateful for the way in which my differing views are, as they are on other issues, tolerated in the broad-church party that is the Conservative Party in this House.

My next point relates to Scotland. In Scotland, as we know, MPs in the UK Parliament have no vote on the wide range of devolved affairs, yet they vote on purely English issues. The time may come when there are more English MPs against a government proposal than in favour and the Government are saved on English issues only by the votes of those Scottish Members. Will that be accepted for very long? The West Lothian question, as it has historically been known, is compounded by the size of the seats in Scotland. They are small. The Government were to take action to reduce the number of Scottish Members, but, alas, that has been postponed. That inequity continues.

I move on to a point where I come very much together with the noble Earl, Lord Russell; that is, the value of a vote to people. In many constituencies—perhaps 400—there is never a change of party control or Member. If one lives in that constituency all one's life and happens to support a party other than that which wins that constituency, one's vote never counts at all. I cannot help thinking that that may be one of the reasons why the voting in general elections in this country has dropped to 61 per cent. I applaud what the Electoral Commission is doing under Sam Younger, its chairman, to try to make it easier for people to vote, but we have to look at the fundamentals as well. It is incontrovertible that proportional representation, or even a measure of it, would give some purpose to every vote. So although, because of my Irish experience, I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the STV, I agree with him strongly on the principle of fairer representation. It is right that all new systems are proportional, whether for Europe, Scotland or Wales, or in the London local elections. We are maintaining a dinosaur of a system that is so inequitable to the voters and excludes so many from a meaningful part in the democratic process.

I wish only that the Government would look honestly at the issue, and do so instead of seeking to tinker further with this House, where they have not come forward with a single argument to suggest that our work is not being done, on the whole, reasonably well. The time must come, and it should not be left to when a government feel that the only way to retain office would be to offer another party a douceur of a change to proportional representation. Fairness should begin now.

6.36 p.m.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising what has been a quite fascinating debate. There have not been many speakers, but those who have taken part have provided me with a great deal of food for thought. I also endorse the tribute made to the noble Earl by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon about his contribution to the House, which we all appreciate and have welcomed. In the time I have been in the House, I have certainly always enjoyed his speeches and the erudition with which he speaks.

I am conscious that there have been important speeches tonight, and I am delighted that I have had behind me the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Alexander. I am not so delighted that neither of them supported the view that I am likely to take, but there is the broad church of the Conservative Party, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said. We also had a very interesting exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the virtue of STV. I disagreed with most of it, but he certainly taught me a thing or two on the way. I agree with him—I hope that my agreeing with it will make it a certain fact—that the reduction in voting at the moment is not necessarily a long-term phenomenon. Of course, it has generated this debate.

The first message that I got about the debate was that it was on the single transferable vote—full stop—so I thought that my reply could be really succinct. I wanted to say, "We are against it", and sit down. However, when I looked at the full title, I realised that there was more to the debate than that, and that I would have to say a little more than that. However, my initial thoughts on a response were not too far off our position on any form of alternative voting systems. They all have one overarching problem, which is that they separate candidates and the elected from constituencies. In my view, none can guarantee the strength of government that we constitutionally currently have.

Perhaps that is rather odd. Given our current position in opposition, it might be thought that we would want to review the options for a quick return to power, but none of the alternative routes would provide the stability that we have and value in our current democracy or, as my noble friend Lord Norton said, that provides the accountability that we currently possess. We have a well tried system in this country—at least, we still have it for general and local elections, although the water has been muddied with some of the more recent interlopers into the democratic system, such as mayoral elections and devolved government. But we have a system that has brought stable government to this country for years and where people are selected by individual parties to put themselves forward to a particular electorate. Those people who are voted in represent that electorate.

I am slightly anxious about the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, which has been made elsewhere, that a vote is wasted in a constituency where a party does not win. A vote can never be wasted from that point of view, because if enough votes are cast a party will win. It has been shown on innumerable occasions, particularly in some noteworthy by-elections, that votes and voters are capable of overturning the status quo.

The advantage of the current system is that the representative has to concentrate on maintaining the support of his electorate, work for it and assist with its problems. In general, he has to be identified with that constituency and have a unique position within it. No other system has that direct connection between the two—not even the single transferable vote, which would result in a number of members representing much enlarged constituencies. The nearest is that espoused by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, the additional vote system, which maintains the one member one constituency connection but brings with it the distribution of votes on an elimination basis to reach the result. So voters do not and cannot have a transparent view of what their vote has achieved.

We have heard today the repeated concerns about the percentage of people who turn out to vote and falling numbers in all elections. The Bill that we will discuss on Thursday, the European and Local Elections Pilot Bill, is germane to the discussion about whether there are administrative and practical methods of encouraging those who want to vote to do so. But what we all have to admit is that there is a large percentage of the electorate who are disengaged from the electoral system—whatever system and for whatever reason. They will not vote whatever changes are made. Some of the reasons are obvious and my noble friend Lord Norton put them more elegantly than I: the perception that Parliament has less and less control over its own affairs as a result of the ascendance of the European Union; that laws are passed down and implemented without parliamentary intervention; that Members of Parliament consequently have less and less influence over policy—some people suggest that MPs are becoming self-seeking; that local government has lessening powers to look after itself; and that there are too many elections and people do not know what they are for. There is a feeling that the Government do nothing to "help me".

We have all heard those arguments, which, while we may not agree with all or any of them, are familiar to all politicians, even if we cannot at present see a way to improve the situation. The question today is whether a different voting mechanism would improve matters, or, perhaps, improve the lot of smaller parties and people with individual views, who receive fewer seats than they feel they are entitled to by the number of votes cast nationally on their behalf. The Liberal view. which has not necessarily been put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but may have been by definition, is along those lines.

The arguments put forward for STV—that it breaks the party hold on government; that it enables people with wide views to be elected; and that voters have a choice between candidates and do not need to support a candidate of their own party, but can swap and choose—is counterbalanced by the complexity of the counting system, the requirement for large electorates—up to about 150,000—with multi-member constituencies, and the potential for an inconclusive or finely balanced parliament unable to deliver on a manifesto commitment. Governments who put to the electorate their proposals for the policies that they wish to implement, so long as they do not "cheat" on that, at least enable a clear position to be held by electors on whether they have fulfilled their promises or have affected the country well or badly.

I am aware that the single transferable vote system is supported by the Electoral Reform Society, on whose behalf the noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke. But it is interesting that it was not the system put forward to the Labour Government by the Jenkins commission in 1997, when this was a "hot" topical issue. I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Alexander. who was a distinguished member of that commission, said about the not very great difference between the single transferable vote and the additional member vote systems.

Thus, there is little agreement, even among those who have taken an academic interest in the subject. about any realistic alternative to the one voting system that we have at the moment. Therefore, perhaps we should simply leave the matter alone because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is where we would stand in the absence of more compelling reasons than have been put tonight, previously or, most likely, in the future.

6.46 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I have enjoyed this debate more than I have enjoyed many in your Lordships' House. In a sense, it has been, much as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, a debate small in number but with a very distinguished cast list. I feel that I genuinely learnt something throughout the discussions on the issue debated this evening. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on introducing the debate in the way that he did, with many wise words.

Another feature of the debate has been its breadth. Two very different and equally distinguished views were aired from the Conservative Back Benches. One came from the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who, following his important and distinguished work on the Jenkins commission, offered us a view of that commission's contribution to the discussion about proportional representation systems. The other was a robust and hard-nosed view of the threat that PR in some variant form, perhaps of STV, might pose to the nature of United Kingdom parliamentary democracy.

I considered another interesting feature of the debate to be the use of the term "accountability", and different views were expressed on that. One came from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who spoke about the importance of accountability within the parliamentary system. The other view, expressed lucidly, came from the Liberal Democrat Benches and referred to the importance of accountability to those whom, after all, we are here to serve—the electors or voters.

I am aware of the considerable interest that exists in electoral issues. I am delighted that we focused a good deal of attention on the issue of the single transferable vote system not only as a model for improving the proportional nature of our electoral system but also as a means of encouraging interest in democratic and electoral politics.

It is interesting that, in a sense, the best example of STV—certainly the only example within the United Kingdom's system of government—is within Northern Ireland. It is ironic that it was the Conservatives who, when in government during 1970 to 1974, first introduced STV into our political processes when they implemented it for local government in Northern Ireland. STV was introduced in Northern Ireland as a means of ensuring that, in a divided society, the candidates elected accurately reflected the opinions of the voters so that the strength of each party in the Assembly, or council, would be proportional to support among the electorate.

While it is generally recognised that an STV system can produce what one might describe as a "scrupulously proportional" result, and certainly notwithstanding what the noble Earl has said, there is little evidence to suggest that the introduction of such a system is likely to increase the level of public participation in politics or necessarily to enhance voter turnout. We have had some debate on that issue. It is certainly the case that within the Dail elections there has been a decline in turnout, even though there is an STV system in place.

We have in this country a first-past-the-post system for general elections. but turnout has only fallen significantly perhaps in the last two general elections, and in particular in the last general election. For that reason, I do not think that turnout can be blamed on the lack of an STV system. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made the point that it is not necessarily the case that this is a long-term and continuing trend. We have too little evidence to suggest that. There is countervailing evidence to suggest that interest in politics is very much alive and well and some considerable evidence to suggest that interest in local government is beginning to revive, regardless of whether there is an STV system in place.

It is certainly notable that turnout for European parliamentary elections has remained good in Ireland in comparison with other member states. However, it is worth counterbalancing that by saying that traditionally voting has been popular there even before the introduction of STV.

Some comment was made during the course of the debate about the role of political parties and politics itself. I would argue that the parties themselves have a large responsibility for reinvigorating the political system and encouraging voter participation. The independent Electoral Commission has indicated in its book on Election 2001 that public participation in politics depends to a great extent on, the quality and persuasiveness of the policies put forward by the political parties and their ability to motivate voters". In An Agenda for the Future, the commission warns: Responsibility for re-engaging the electorate with the democratic process must rest in large part with the political parties". So it is our responsibility. I do not think that it is one that we can shirk lightly.

I turn to the Government's record on proportional representation. I think that I can argue that our record is fairly good. We have shown a willingness to address the issues where appropriate and to take action when it is necessary, although the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may be disappointed that STV has not specifically figured in our efforts.

In the Government's first term, in line with our 1997 manifesto, we set up an independent commission to look at proportional representation for Westminster, a matter that was commented on many times by the distinguished and late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It produced a very interesting and illuminating report, which recommended, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, said, an alternative vote plus top up system—AV+ rather than STV.

We also introduced proportional representation for the European parliamentary elections in 1999, for the Scottish parliamentary elections and for the Welsh Assembly elections also in 1999—

Lord Alexander of Weedon

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Since he trails his coat about the excellence of the Government's record on proportional representation, does he agree that the 1997 manifesto promised a referendum on the outcome of what became the Jenkins commission? If so, can he say why such a referendum has never been held?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I shall deal with that point because I think it is important. I finish the point about where we have introduced forms of PR simply by adding that it was introduced for elections to the GLA in 2000.

Perhaps I may cover the noble Lord's point. It remains the position that if, in the light of political developments and the review which we promised of the electoral system in our 2001 manifesto, there were recommendations to change the electoral system, we would obviously abide by the commitment we made in our 1997 manifesto that there would be a referendum on that issue.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. At this stage, can he say anything more about the review to which he referred and the possibility of recommendations being made? By whom would the recommendations be made? Do the Government envisage a further commission sitting on the issue, in supplement to the Jenkins commission? Does he envisage this being a review in which other political parties participate? Does he envisage that it would be an internal review only, conducted by the Government, or one conducted by an individual? What is the nature of the review? When is it to take place? What will its status be? Will he acknowledge that it would be wholly unsatisfactory, in view of the great work that was done by the Jenkins commission, to have something of less standing producing the definitive position on this issue?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. It is worth revisiting what we said in our most recent manifesto, in 2001. It referred to the major innovations which I have mentioned; innovations that we have already introduced to the electoral systems for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. It confirmed that we would review the experience of the new systems and the Jenkins report to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons.

No decisions have yet been made on the structure and timing of any review and a number of options are possible. We are considering when and how best to initiate any review so that it can be comprehensive and can look at practical experience gained. We have already had some very useful experience in the real life working of various PR systems in various elections. Further experience will be gained in this year's European parliamentary and Greater London Authority elections. In both cases, this will be only the second time that elections to those bodies will have been run under their respective proportional, though not STV, systems.

Lessons learnt from experience on the ground are most valuable, which is why the detailed reports produced after elections by the independent Electoral Commission are so useful. Noble Lords may also be aware that another body, the Independent Commission on Proportional Representation, a team of electoral experts, has been carrying out a study of how PR has actually worked thus far in the UK.

The ICPR was set up by the constitution unit of University College London. It is jointly chaired by David Butler and Peter Riddell, the political correspondent of the Times, and its vice-chair is Professor Robert Hazell of UCL's constitution unit. The ICPR membership includes a number of well known MPs and MEPs from all parties, together with distinguished academics and journalists. Its stated aim is to conduct research to ensure that the Government's review of the electoral system for general elections, to which I have referred, is based upon the best available evidence. The ICPR produced and published an interim report on the experience of PR in April last year and it will produce its final report in March 2004.

Any review that the Government might initiate will certainly wish to draw on the findings of the Jenkins report, the reports of the independent Electoral Commission on particular elections and our own views of the experiences of the devolved legislatures and also the findings of the ICPR report. We have listened very much to what has been said about methods of proportional representation. We have taken careful note of the arguments for particular systems—in particular, STV and the different permutations of PR generally. There are arguments for and against each possible voting system.

This debate has been most valuable because it has attempted—perhaps sketchily—to make the link between voting systems and public participation in politics. That is a rich and interesting vein, although perhaps we should consider more generally ways to engage the electorate further to foster confidence and strength in our parliamentary system.

There can be no doubt that the first-past-the-post system is simple and easy to understand, while STV can seem convoluted and complex. On the other hand, first past the post may tend to discourage those supporting minority parties from voting, while a PR system can or could ensure that all votes carry weight— although some systems of PR give greater weight and create greater equality than others.

In general, the Government welcome wide consideration of those issues. I put on record our preparedness to learn from the results of research and experience. Indeed, no one can seriously question our appetite for considering and undertaking wide-ranging constitutional reform when necessary. Debate such as this about different PR systems and the participation of the public generally in politics play an important part in that continued and continuing debate.

House adjourned at one minute past seven o'clock.