---

Electoral System

My Lords, I join other Members of the House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for having generated this debate. I wish that he could have seen the faces on his Front Bench when he was making his speech, as we did. I am not sure that it was resonating entirely, but it was a brave and trenchant speech. I think that it is perfectly appropriate that it should have been made in this House; I fear that I shall be slightly out of favour with the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that it should not have been made here. I am also bound to respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that this House does not have much legitimacy because it is not elected—I have been longing to say this, so I shall say it now—by saying that I am not aware that anyone who is offered a Peerage has to accept it if they do not like the terms of the House to which they are being invited. We have also had quite an incisive and decisive discussion of the merits and demerits of proportional representation. My noble friend Lord Norton played his usual incisive part in that, and the noble Lord, Lord   Goodhart, has now responded, as have other members of his party. In today’s debate, we have ranged widely and much further than its terms, which concerned the 2005 election. I suppose that it is inevitable, once you start on that road, that the debate goes wide. We have had to ask ourselves why only 61 per cent of the electorate turned out this time—why the rest did not, does not and will not. In a way, discussion of various voting systems is probably still missing the point. Politicians—to a great extent, this means politicians in the other place—must devise policies and visions that appeal to the electorate. You cannot get people to vote for you if they do not like what is on offer. That has been the situation this time, when the Government, who have been in power for nine or 10 years, failed dismally to secure the wholehearted support of the population on the basis of the policies and the experience of them as a government. Having said that—I am very fair to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton—the opposition parties were also unable to convince. That is where we should be looking, rather than muddling with the voting systems. We must consider what it is that is not appealing to our voters. There are myriad reasons, but we should start with that, rather than worrying too much about how to get there. We have on many occasions discussed the need to encourage more people to go to the polls and how we can do that. It is clear that we are a long way from achieving a reasonable turnout. Inevitably, the sort of results that we have had this time raised the question of the first-past-the-post system. Despite all the blandishments to the contrary and all the suggestions put to us that that the Conservatives would fare better under other systems, we are still very much wedded to the first-past-the-post system. That is for the reasons stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale: once you leave first past the post, you disconnect the electorate from their Member of Parliament, the person who will represent them. That disconnection is a fundamental flaw. The whole business of not knowing who is your European Member of Parliament is serious, as it means not knowing who to go to, not having someone who is attached. It is one of the fundamental principles of the voting system that we should be able to recognise those who are meant to be representing us. Reference has also been made to the size of constituencies. There is a serious imbalance, which is   reflected in the disproportion in the number of votes to seats. The electorates are out of kilter in many constituencies at the moment. The Boundary Commission has made recommendations, but they will not be introduced until the 2008 elections. The time gap between the Boundary Commission’s reviews and their introduction will leave us with much the same situation as at present. The reviews do not take account of the fact that the population is moving fast between different parts of the country. We must ensure that constituencies’ electorates are broadly equitable. The Boundary Commission must keep its powers and policies up to date. We have only touched on the fact that part of the problem that we have encountered during the election has been caused by the Government’s endless fiddling with the postal voting system. That has brought about a complete lack of confidence about what happens to people’s votes. That is not only about postal voting now, it has become a canker within the democratic system. We have now managed to find a system that is flawed. One thing about this country has always been that in our method of electing Members of Parliament—first past the post—the secret ballot has ensured that people could, with confidence, go to the polls. I am bound to say that the fracas and concerns about the postal voting system, which have been replicated in the general election with fairly well rehearsed problems in Stoke-on-Trent and Bradford, are bringing the whole system into disrepute. It is worrying because the number of people seeking postal votes has increased from 3.9 per cent to well over 15 per cent. So there is a demand, but it is hopeless if it undermines the whole electoral system. I hope that the Government will take on board the Electoral Commission’s recommendations, referred to by my noble friend Lord Brooke, in Security of the Vote and that the legislation that is due later, though I do not know when, will at least try to address some of the problems and restore security and confidence between the postal vote and the electorate. The ability to check who people are must be introduced. If it works in Northern Ireland, it will work anywhere. It is about time that we looked at it. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness sitting there; I would not be nearly as happy if it were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because I do not think that he would tackle these issues with anything like the noble Baroness’s flair. It is an absolute travesty that anybody should suggest anything different. Will she indicate when the legislation to take account of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations will come before this House? If it is not introduced soon, it will not be enacted in time to affect the local elections in 2006, which are coming up fast, and others shortly afterwards. Responsibility for everything to do with elections has now passed into the capable hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I hope that that department will now drop any suggestion of encouraging all-postal voting. We have now had two serious demonstrations of why that would not be useful. It has been a most interesting debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part on my side of the House. As usual, they have made effective and thoughtful speeches, but overall the debate has been thoughtful. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for ensuring that we had the opportunity to debate these important matters.