| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, intend not to move Amendment No. 170?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have to move it, do I not?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: All right, my Lords. If I do not have to move it, I am obliged. Can I move it at Third Reading?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, strictly speaking it is not for me to say, because it is within the scope and function of your Lordships' House to determine these matters, but informally--and, I take it, with the approval of your Lordships--the answer is that the noble Lord may return to it at Third Reading if he chooses.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 171:
- After Clause 101, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(1) Subsection (2) applies where a Bill is introduced into Parliament which--
(a) provides for the holding of a poll that would be a referendum to which this Part applies, and
(b) specifies the wording of the referendum question.
(2) The Commission shall consider the wording of the referendum question, and shall publish a statement of any views of the Commission as to the intelligibility of that question--
(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after the Bill is introduced, and
(b) in such manner as they may determine.
(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply where the wording of the referendum question in the case of any poll that would be a referendum to which this Part applies falls to be specified in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978.
(4) If a draft of the instrument in question is to be laid before Parliament for approval by each House, the Secretary of State--
(a) shall consult the Commission on the wording of the referendum question before any such draft is so laid, and
(b) shall, at the time when any such draft is so laid, lay before each House a report stating any views as to the intelligibility of that question which the Commission have expressed in response to that consultation.
(5) If the instrument in question is to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State--
(a) shall consult the Commission on the wording of the referendum question before making the instrument; and
(b) shall, at the time when the instrument is laid before Parliament, lay before each House a report stating any views as to the intelligibility of that question which the Commission have expressed in response to that consultation.
(6) Where any Bill, draft instrument or instrument to which subsection (2), (4) or (5) applies specifies not only the referendum question but also any statement which is to precede that question on the ballot paper at the referendum, any reference in that subsection to the referendum question shall be read as a reference to that question and that statement taken together.
(7) In this section "the referendum question" means the question or questions to be included in the ballot paper at the referendum.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 171A:
After Clause 101, insert the following new clause--
(" . Any proposition contained in a referendum to which section 99(1) applies shall be considered to have been carried only if--
(a) an absolute majority of those voting cast their ballots in favour of the proposition; and
(b) those voting in favour of the proposition constitute at least 40 per cent. of those eligible to vote.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed the issue rather late at night in Committee and we are now discussing it even later at night on Report. For that reason, I do not propose to go into great detail on the arguments for a threshold requirement for referendums.
The basic argument is fairly straightforward. In parliamentary elections, we elect candidates for a set period. In referendums we have often been asked to approve something that is intended to be in place permanently. We know that we can turn candidates out of office, but there is no mechanism for triggering a referendum to overturn the result of an earlier referendum.
Referendums are qualitatively distinctive. They are not on a par with elections to public office. Imposing a threshold would ensure that a substantial proportion of the population was required to turn out and support a proposition. It would prevent an active minority determining the outcome.
In Committee, the Minister argued against a threshold. He said:
Furthermore, we have had referendums in which thresholds have been imposed. There have been two referendums in which thresholds have been imposed and five in which they have not. There is, therefore, no consistent practice. It undermines the credibility of the political system if we have referendums in which different hurdles are imposed. I have no particular objection if the credibility of the use of the referendum is undermined, but I have no wish to see support for the political system itself undermined. I therefore favour consistency, which means having no threshold or a designated threshold. For the reason that I have advanced, I believe that a threshold is preferable to no threshold.
The other argument advanced by the Minister against a threshold being included in the Bill was that Parliament should decide whether one was appropriate on a case-by-case basis. He said:
I have advanced the contrary proposition. In my view, there should be a generic provision. We need to ensure that the provisions applied to the holding of referendums are consistent. Such an approach is perfectly compatible with this Bill, which is all about introducing generic provisions. This Bill tries to ensure evenness and consistency for those engaged in referendum campaigns. My amendment is part and parcel of that.
Leaving the decision to be taken on an ad hoc basis can serve only to undermine the legitimacy of the process. We should therefore opt for either a simple majority to
As I have said more than once, my favoured position would be to have no referendums at all. If we are to have them, the rules relating to them need to be consistent. For the reasons that I have advanced, I believe that a threshold is desirable. A 40 per cent threshold is a modest one and one for which there is a precedent. I therefore commend my amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall speak briefly to this amendment, without repeating all the previous speeches that I have made on the subject of thresholds and referendums. There are many references in the Scotland referendums Bill to which noble Lords can refer, if they wish. I firmly believe that if we are to have referendums, we should have thresholds. I do not agree at all with the Minister's view that it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. That would make it susceptible to variation due to the referendums, so that if the Government think that they will not get a very big turnout, they will drop the turnout; if they think they will get a big turnout, they will raise it. I believe that thresholds should be laid down in a generic referendums Bill. I would not impose high thresholds, and I fully accept all the arguments about that, but I believe that there should be some.
Noble Lords are always keen to look at other countries. I have previously mentioned that Italy has a threshold. In fact, the last two referendums failed, but not because huge majorities did not pile in on the side of the proposition, which was that the Italians should move to a first-past-the-post electoral system--I could not resist getting that in. The proposition was passed with a huge majority but the turnout did not meet their 50 per cent rule and the referendum was deemed a failure. I think that is right. I am almost agnostic on the level of thresholds; I am just keen to see them.
If government use referendums too much and too often and the turnout begins to fall, they will have to address the issue of thresholds. As my noble friend said, if these referendums are used for major changes, frankly, politics will be brought into disrepute if major changes come about when only a small proportion of the electorate have turned out. I know all the arguments about, "Well, if they did not bother", and so forth. However, I do not think that is right.
I know all the objections concerning the threshold of 40 per cent. We had them in Scotland in 1979 and I have gone over them. I had an ingenious mathematical proposition which said that with a high turnout, a simple majority would do. If the turnout began to go down, a qualified majority was necessary. A Government Minister, who has since departed from the Government, turned down even consideration of that proposal. Perhaps I may urge caution on the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. He should be careful
"Our parliamentary democracy operates on the principle that a simple majority of those voting is enough".--[Official Report, 18/10/00; col. 1179.]
Indeed it does. However, referendums are not an intrinsic part of our parliamentary democracy. It is because of a profound attachment to parliamentary democracy that I am opposed to referendums. As I mentioned a few moments ago, I would prefer that we did not have them. I regard them as a threat to, rather than a reinforcement of, parliamentary democracy. If we are to have referendums, a threshold is desirable, for the reason that I mentioned.
"That is a matter that should be addressed, if at all, in the specific legislation providing for the referendum in question. But it is not a principle to be conceded in the context of these generic provisions".--[Official Report, 18/10/00; col. 1180.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page