Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Alderdice (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 February 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.


Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, I think it is only right for me to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was regarded with much affection during his time as a Minister in Northern Ireland. However, that also leads me to my questions about his amendment. He was famed for his plain speaking and uncluttered thinking, but sometimes the simple response to a complex issue may not be the right one, and I think that that is the case with this amendment. Two of the amendment’s components trouble me. The first is the notion that it should be a non-binding referendum; in other words, we say, ““This is so important that we must hear what the people have to say. But if we do not like what they have to say because of the numbers who turn out to vote, the Government will then do something different from what the people have said””. I do not think that that is a very advisable to ask the people what they think but then for the Government to decide whether they will follow through on that. However, it goes further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be very familiar with the fact that the only elections in Northern Ireland which are not held on a proportionate basis of some kind—in fact, all the rest are held on the STV system—is the election to the House of Commons at Westminster. I could very easily see a situation where the turnout in Northern Ireland was much higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom—that is not unusual—and where there was overwhelming support for moving away from the first past the post system, as it is not used for any other elections and no one in Northern Ireland seriously proposes going back to it. Of course they would rather have STV but that is not on the agenda at the moment. Northern Ireland could vote overwhelmingly for a move away from first past the post and the Government could say that the rest of the UK have not voted in such numbers—although the outcome is still clear—and have the freedom to ignore the situation or to espouse it. If this is what the people want, maybe we should move away from the first-past-the-post system in Northern Ireland—and perhaps in other parts of the UK—and argument could then begin to emerge that the Government had the freedom to bring forward different electoral systems for the one Parliament. That would not be a change because it is already the situation in our elections to the European Parliament. It would not help to bind things together in the United Kingdom if we had different forms of elections to the House of Commons. I am seeking to show that what appears a simple, straightforward, elegant way of addressing a potential problem in fact opens up a series of other matters which have not been referred to in today’s debate. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who is also a much distinguished servant of Northern Ireland.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c20-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Constituency size Alternative vote Broadcasting Age Australia Elections Eligibility Expenditure Electoral Commission General elections Local government Northern Ireland Scotland Voting methods Young people Wales Scottish Parliament Single transferable vote Party political broadcasts Mayors
Legislation
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk