Vol. 724 Tuesday No. 95 18 January 2011

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

(Continuation of Proceedings)

Monday, 17 January 2011 (continued)

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill Committee (9th Day)(continued)

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Introductions: Lord Edmiston, Lord Framlingham, Lord Wood of Anfield Questions Deficit Reduction Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre Birds: Farmland Populations Egypt: Religious Minorities Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill Committee (10th Day) Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page

£3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/110118.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords £6 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440; Lords £255 Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons, gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. Single copies: £1·50. Annual subscription: £53·50. All prices are inclusive of postage.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2011, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ 173 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 174

[Continuation of Official Report from col. 172, of Monday, How can you pluck a number out of the air, regardless 17 January 2011.] of how sophisticated the mathematics? I will have to show my husband Hansard tomorrow to prove that at 2 o’clock in the morning I was listening to a debate Parliamentary Voting System and about prime numbers, because he will not believe me—he will be sending for the men in white coats to Constituencies Bill cart me away. How can you randomly choose a figure Committee (9th Day) and try to make that fit the nature of the work in a constituency? An inner-city constituency is very different Monday 17 January 2011 from a constituency such as that of the late Ray Michie. In that constituency, she had a substantial number of electors for whom English was not their 2.15 am first language; a number of elderly people would have Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: My Lords, we have no English. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, heard a number of powerful speeches tonight, not was the first Member of this House to take the oath in least from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. My Gaelic. The scale and the nature of the involvement noble friend Lady McDonagh has posed a real challenge that she was required to have were very different from for me. She is an old friend whom I greatly respect, but the scale and the nature of the involvement that I had I am having great difficulty in accepting her amendment. to have. I used to think that I was hard done by when I As the debate has gone on, it has become clearer to me had to travel for an hour across my constituency, but that there is no way that we should engage in this the scale of what she had to deal with was much process that the Government have begun of dreaming greater. up a number and then trying to put a case to justify it. We will be talking about Argyll and Bute later, It is not the job of parliamentarians or politicians of because some sweetheart deals have been done about any ilk to get involved in the setting of boundaries. some constituencies in this legislation, not least in I share the views of my noble friend Lord O’Neill. I relation to Orkney and Shetland. I can see why a think that this legislation will come back and haunt sweetheart deal has been done there and it is not to do the coalition. One of the most powerful things that with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of you learn as a Member of Parliament is the respect Tankerness. There is an argument for special treatment that people have for their individual Member of for a constituency that is composed of a number of Parliament and the deep opposition that they have to islands and is surrounded by water. There is a similar any attempt to undermine the relationship between case for the Western Isles, but why not for constituencies that Member of Parliament and their constituency. such as Argyll and Bute or the Isle of Wight? Why is I was amused when my noble friend Lady Billingham there this aberration of putting Cornwall and Devon talked about Corby. I represented one of the steel together? towns in central Lanarkshire that provided a high That is one reason why my noble friend has put me proportion of the people who went to Corby. On a in an awkward position. I believe that these issues have Friday night in my surgeries, I would have people to be taken into account, but we are the wrong people coming off the bus from Corby to ask me to intercede to do it. I listened with great interest to the speeches of with the council because they were coming up to the noble Lords, Lord Soley and Lord Morgan, on the retirement age and wanted to come back home. I did previous amendment. They made powerful arguments. not particularly enjoy handling those cases, but I The view is inescapable that politicians should not be found that when I went to Australia as British high involved in setting parliamentary boundaries. Somebody commissioner I had people coming down from Newcastle said earlier that we are not Zimbabwe; we are not a in New South Wales to make the same point. They country that mangles its constitution to fit political had come from Corby and wanted to get back to the need. However, to go down the route of this legislation United Kingdom now that their working life was over, would put us into that camp. so I have a great deal of respect for what happens in I am undecided whether, if my noble friend presses Corby. The point that that makes is the strong pull her amendment to a vote, I can support her, although that people’s origins exert on them and the sense of I think that she has made a powerful point. In normal community that they feel. That point has been made circumstances, her amendment would be regarded as a on a number of occasions tonight. probing amendment, but we have seen by the action of I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lady Members on the government Benches that the normal McDonagh said about the equalisation of constituencies. conventions of this House are now suspended. That When the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, was talking means that it is difficult to go down the route of about the size of his constituency, I was forced to moving a probing amendment to get a detailed response. recall that, on a Thursday night, I would fly home The noble Lord, Lord McNally, love him though I do, from here, often with the Member of Parliament for has never yet given us a straight answer on the criteria Argyll and Bute, the late Ray Michie. We would usually for the establishment of these constituencies other get the last plane, which got in at about 10.30 at night. than plucking a number out of the air. I hope that my I would be in my bed before she would have her car noble friend will forgive me if I feel that I cannot defrosted, after which she would have a couple of support her in the Lobbies tonight, but I think that she hours’ drive to get to her home in Oban. Her constituency has done a very useful job in exposing this issue, as the of Argyll and Bute was so huge that she could visit noble Lords, Lord Snape and Lord Kennedy, are bits of it only once a year. doing by also choosing numbers out of thin air, although 175 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 176

[BARONESS LIDDELL OF COATDYKE] separate occasions, the Boundary Commission has the fact that Labour Members are choosing numbers supported the retention of six Members of Parliament out of thin air does not make it any more acceptable for the county, even though on a strict application of than coalition Members doing so. the present quota there would only be justification for five. It has done so on the basis precisely of its ability Lord Kinnock: Before my noble friend sits down, I as a Boundary Commission to respect community ties ask her to reflect on the fact that, during this debate, I and historic traditions. have had an illuminating thought that has instructed I will expand on this point. I recognise, of course, me on why the Government have adopted the figure of that simply increasing the size of the House of Commons 600. I hope that, in his response to the debate, the is itself insufficient to deal with this problem, but it is noble Lord, Lord McNally, may be able to say yea or necessary. We must also secure amendments on the nay to this rationale. It appears to me that the charm, Boundary Commission’s degree of discretion in fixing strength and, indeed, magic of the figure 600 is that it constituency sizes and the criteria it should take into is not 585, which was the figure chosen by the Conservative account. Party to include in its manifesto at the last election. The situation in Cumbria illustrates this point. It is However, in the context of coalition, it would have no good the noble Lord, Lord McNally, sneering at been unacceptable to the other part of the coalition to this point, because it is the heart of the argument adopt in legislation that manifesto proposal. Clearly, about representation. It is very important that the there was no possibility of the Conservative Party Government explain why they feel that they can sweep accepting the bundle of changes that were offered in aside how the Boundary Commission has operated the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto undertakings of 500 over decades, and why they can say that they have the plus PR plus devolution in England, as well as many wisdom to substitute some arbitrary system in place of other things. the Boundary Commission that has worked with a We have consequently arrived at a figure of 600, great degree of consensus over time. which is a kind of orphan. It had no parentage in anyone’s manifesto and is entirely the illegitimate offspring of a shotgun wedding. For the sake of the House and 2.30 am the constitution and security of this country, I hope Cumberland used to have five Members of Parliament: that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be able to the ancient borough of Carlisle, the industrial demonstrate, if I am wrong, why I am wrong, or constituencies of Whitehaven and Workington on the accept my reasoning. It will be the first time that we west coast, and the agricultural and rural constituencies have had a rational explanation of the 600 figure. of Penrith and north Cumberland. The number of agricultural and rural constituencies was reduced to Lord Glentoran: So what? one in 1950 when the present constituency of Penrith and The Border was created which went on to be Lord Trimble: Will the— represented in a distinguished way by the late Viscount Whitelaw. Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: Imaybeanew In 1973, there was a similar, top-down reorganisation Member of this House, but I know that you do not get of things. Top-down reorganisations are never a good sequential interventions without a response. I am grateful idea, as I am glad to see the Leader of the Labour to my noble friend for raising those powerful and valid Party, Mr Ed Miliband, now recognises. The local points. I have long wondered why, if one party wanted government reorganisation led to the creation of the 500 and the other wanted 585, we did not have 542 and county of Cumbria, merging Cumberland and half. So this is a random figure that has been plucked Westmoreland with the Furness and Lonsdale parts of out of thin air. It ill behoves the noble Lord, Lord Lancashire. In the 1983 boundary review, Penrith and McNally, to keep avoiding the issue of why it is 600. The Border, which had been geographically entirely Or is it exactly as the Leader of the House said, a nice, within the county of Cumberland, was extended to round number? If he thinks we believe that, he must include north Westmoreland. The constituency of think that we are demented. Westmoreland was extended to take in parts of what had been Lancashire. Lord Liddle: My Lords, I support the amendment. I That set the present pattern whereby Cumbria has strongly believe that we need a larger House of Commons six MPs. It is arguable that that represents distinct than 600. I recognise that, in advocating a House of communities. There is Carlisle, Workington and Commons larger than 600, one exposes oneself to the Whitehaven on the west coat, the constituency of criticism that one is not in favour of cutting the cost of Westmoreland based on Kendal, Barrow and the Furness politics. If that was the reason that the Government area in the south of the county and a big rural made this proposal, it is a poor one. We are trying to constituency of Penrith and The Border, based on the cut the cost of politics at the expense of better market towns of Appleby, Brampton, Penrith and representation of remote and isolated communities Wigton, now represented by the able and interesting and respect for the historic traditions which have Rory Stewart. always been taken into account by the Boundary When the Boundary Commission looked at the Commission in setting boundaries hitherto. numbers last time, as was the case the previous time I illustrate that point with reference to my home the quota only gave Cumbria an entitlement to fewer county of Cumberland, now Cumbria, in which I was than 5.5 Members of Parliament; I think the figure born in 1947. Cumbria is an interesting case. On two was 5.48. Despite being entitled to only 5.48 Members 177 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 178 of Parliament, they none the less agreed that Cumbria I do not think she is in her place, but my noble should continue to have six. If we were to have 600 friend Lady Billingham talked about her seven MPs, we would definitely only have five seats in Cumbria constituencies when she was an MEP. I mention her and the Boundary Commission would have hardly any particularly because I was the chair of the Euro- flexibility to take into account community considerations. constituency for that entire time, and what a magnificent As a result of reducing the number of Members of MEP she was. I was a bit disappointed when my noble Parliament in my part of the country, representation friend Lord Kinnock talked about the explanation of on the basis of natural communities would be completely the 600 seats, because I had been totally convinced just destroyed. The city of Carlisle would have to take in a half an hour before by my noble friend Lord Harris’s vast and different rural area around it. Barrow would explanation. I do not know which to choose now. have to extend outside its natural area of Furness. There must be an explanation, I am sure. I hope that Westmoreland would become enormous once again, we will hear about it from the noble Lord, Lord as it would have to take back the bits of Westmoreland McNally, but I will not hold my breath. in Appleby and that area that had gone to Penrith and The Border. As far as constituencies are concerned, there is an The constituency of Penrith and The Border, instead extraordinarily good quote from the late Lord Callaghan, of being one of the most rural and agricultural seats in who said in a House of Commons debate as long ago England, would become a strange mish-mash of an as 19 June 1969: old industrial area, probably Maryport, with some of “Constituencies are not merely areas bounded by a line on a the other market towns. map; they are living communities with a unity, a history and a I am not raising this point because I care about the personality of their own”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/69; political future of Rory Stewart. Actually, I do care, col. 742.] because he is an interesting guy. But there is the wider point that this reorganisation, which would be made We on this side say “Hear, hear!” to that, and I know inevitable by the rigidity of government by numbers that many on the other side really believe it to be true. that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, wants to impose Constituencies are much more than just a line on a on us, would completely ignore natural communities map. The great danger of the approach that gives an and be a great mistake. exact number of constituencies that there must be is I do not understand why the Liberal Democrats that the constituencies are in danger of becoming lines have gone along with this; or I do, because it is part of on maps. a deal on AV. What I find most extraordinary is that the Conservative Party should think that it supports All the amendments in this group and those that this kind of arrangement. The Conservative Party is follow are clearly better than what the Bill offers in completely careless with local traditions on this issue. terms of quality of representation, disruption to The Conservative Party claims to speak for the big constituencies and all the other arguments. However, society, and is completely careless with the notion of they all fall into the trap that an exact number of seats natural communities. The Prime Minister talks about proposed by the Government and passed by Parliament how we are all in this together but is completely is a grievous fault. We heard at the start of the debate careless in trying to create consensus on a local basis from my noble friend Lady Farrington that the last about what is a decent basis of representation. time that there was an exact number of seats decreed by Parliament was 1832. That may be some explanation The Government should think again. These are of why the Deputy Prime Minister claims that these serious issues, not just party political trivialities. The reforms are the greatest democratic reform since 1832; Government have as yet given us no credible explanation I cannot think of another explanation. of why they think it necessary to make these changes. We and the Government have been forgetting that Lord Bach: My Lords, the Committee owe a great Boundary Commissions and Parliaments in the past debt of thanks to my noble friend Lady McDonagh have been very careful in the language that they have for moving the amendment, to which she spoke so used in setting out the existing rules, as my noble well, as have others. Her analysis of the role of friend Lady Nye mentioned. If the Committee will constituencies and how important they are was worth forgive me, I will remind it of the existing 1986 rules listening to, and I hope it was taken on board on the passed by a Conservative Government: government Benches, as it clearly was on our own. It was a genuine attempt to help the Government get this “1.- (1) The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall vexed issue right. not be substantially greater or less than 613. (2) The number of constituencies in Scotland shall not be less Before I come to the Front Benches’ response, I than 71. accept that my noble friend’s amendment is partly a (3) The number of constituencies in Wales shall not be less probing amendment but also means what it says. It than 35. was great to hear from other noble Lords on this issue. (4)”— How proud the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, must be of his son who is here watching these proceedings, but this is a bit of a mouthful— not half as proud as his son will be of him, not just for “The number of constituencies in Northern Ireland shall not be being here but, more seriously, for the important role greater than 18 or less than 16, and shall be 17 unless it appears to he has played over the past years in making sure that the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland that Northern Northern Ireland is a proper and sane country. We Ireland should for the time being be divided into 16 or (as the case share that view. may be) into 18 constituencies”. 179 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 180

[LORD BACH] absolutely outstanding reasons why it should be changed. That is not quite as clear, but the rest of it is beautifully We do not think that there are such outstanding and deliberately phrased so as not to set an absolutely reasons. exact number. There is great strength in a system that The quotation I read from the existing rules, which says that Parliament sets out a rough guide of how suggested 613 seats for Great Britain, plus the 17-odd many Members of Parliament there should be, but the seats for Northern Ireland, comes to the 630 seats for independent Boundary Commission has the job of the United Kingdom, which is what my noble friend actually deciding how many seats there are. It is a Lady McDonagh is proposing in her amendment. Our strong argument and it diminishes the danger the view is—and we argued this in our amendment earlier Government find themselves in of setting an exact today—that it is best not to set a complete amount. If number and then being accused of trying to fix the it is wrong for the Government to set a fixed amount, system. I hope that is not what the Government intend it is also wrong for amendments to do so. But, as a to do. There is a danger that that is what they will be probing amendment, it asks what the Government perceived as doing if they do not move off this idea of intend to do; we asked at Second Reading, and will a fixed number. continue to ask, why 600? This debate is one that gives the opportunity for the Minister to tell us, finally, why Lord Rennard: The noble Lord suggests that it it is that 600 was reached and why they will not be would be “a grievous fault” for Parliament to fix a more flexible in their attitude to this issue. precise number of Members of Parliament. Would he not accept that in many countries, probably most Lord McNally: My Lords, hearing that the son of democracies, there is a written constitution with a the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is watching, I am fixed number of MPs that is invariably approved by reminded that the great and late Les Dawson used to Parliament? These other countries do not consider it occasionally during his performances turn and say, to be a grievous fault at all for Parliament to set a “And first a word to our viewer”. The word to our precise number of MPs. viewer, just so that he should fully understand it, is that the official Opposition is fighting line by line two 2.45 am interconnected reforms. These have been resisted by a Lord Bach: Well, other countries, as the noble Lord party which, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said knows, work under a written constitution, and to earlier today, less than a year ago introduced a change the written constitution requires in each country constitutional reform Bill with 13 unrelated constitutional certain statutory measures, majorities et cetera. That reforms. So let us have fewer crocodile tears. cannot be compared exactly with the United Kingdom. We have heard a lot of assurances about the good We are extremely proud of our unwritten constitution. intentions of the Opposition. The noble Baroness said Well, some of us are; and in particular about this in introducing that she was insisting on decoupling, aspect of it, where we are very careful that Governments but anybody looking at this list of amendments knows through Parliament do not take upon themselves that that kind of decoupling works against any rational something so that they can be accused of fixing the examination at Committee stage of a Bill like this, or system. indeed any other Bill. I merely put that on the record. It is a really British way of doing it. I accept that As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggested, the that is what the noble Lord is saying, but it is the way constitutional historians and experts will be looking at that it has worked over many years, where the Boundary this matter. I ask them to look at the Hansard record Commission has the final say as to the number, based of how the Bill has been dealt with and to draw their on the rules that it has to work under— own conclusions.

Lord Kinnock: Could he also add that the British Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: Would the noble Lord system, as it has existed since 1949 in the establishment not agree that we should place on record what happened of the modern Boundary Commission, is the product to our legislation 12 months ago? At that time the of the experience of the long number of years between Labour Government had a majority in the Commons. pre-democratic Britain and fully enfranchised Britain, When this House dealt with these constitutional issues, in what can be recognised to be a modern democracy? on the occasions when the Lib Dems and the There was a conscious decision in the late 1940s by the Conservatives chose to come together, they had a very large majority Labour Government to introduce majority and defeated us frequently. the Boundary Commission to provide a safety measure against the possibility of the restoration of arbitrary Lord McNally: On those constitutional reforms, we decisions by Government majorities of a fixed number very rarely went with the Conservatives. On the CRAG of seats which suited the purposes of those in power. Bill, as those on the Front Bench know, we were willing to give them full support. They should not Lord Bach: That analysis also must be correct. It is come to me with arguments about the previous not something that any Government, of whatever Government’s position on constitutional reform. political complexion, should muck around with easily. It is repeatedly said that Labour seats and Conservative Sometimes during these debates, it has not been clear seats are different, and that that causes a distortion of that the Government have really understood why it is the vote. To a certain extent, the noble Baroness might that we are arguing from this side that this is a precious be right about that. There have been times in our past system and one that should be kept unless there are when the party that got the popular vote did not form 181 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 182 the Government. That was the case in 1951, when the Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan: The changes in the Labour Government got the greatest proportion of boundaries in my constituency, as in others, were the popular vote. It was also true in 1974, when Ted always subject to a clear set of guidelines. The Boundary Heath’s Government got the popular vote. However, I Commission often followed them. Quite often, however, say to her—this is outside any party political view—that as a result of public hearings, the changes that were I do not think that either our system or the people made resulted in something which was broadly accepted would long tolerate what was hoving into view in how by my electors and by other people in the surrounding our elections were working out. If a party won by, say, constituencies. None of those points is likely to be a clear 5 per cent of the popular vote, but another made given the character of the legislation we are party could have the most seats in Parliament, it was considering. clear that that distortion had to be addressed. I hope that those in all parts of the House would recognise that. Lord McNally: I disagree. There will be changes over the next 20 years, but I On the question of when Parliament last made such do not think it is very sensible to try to future-proof changes, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, rather legislation. My experience is that we should not put triumphantly—it happens to us all, Josie, so never trust in psephologists with regard to the impact of mind— changes. I think that psephologists are like economists; they are trained to predict the past. My feeling is that Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am listening. very few of us would put money on a view of what the impact of the reforms will be at the next election. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, may well be right that the Lord McNally: I know; that is why I looked over. If view of the electorate will sweep aside any advantage 1832 was the last time, I am pleased to know that there that the changes have, if indeed changes occur. is that precedent. In this House, a 180 year-old precedent I was slightly surprised that Lord Bach quoted is fairly recent. what Lord Callaghan said in 1969. As the House will We heard an extraordinary speech by the noble be aware, I see it as part of my role to defend the Lord, Lord Harris, in which he quoted half a dozen memory of Lord Callaghan, who was a very distinguished numbers and, Perry Mason-like, tried to finger me to man. In 1969, however, he delayed the Boundary come up with an explanation. This is part of the Commission report of that year until after the 1970 circular nature of this debate. It seems years ago—it election, in what many thought was a crude political might have been only a few weeks ago—when I suggested manoeuvre—and much good it did us, because we lost that, in terms of the size of the electorate, setting an the 1970 election. average constituency size of 76,000 produces a figure not unadjacent to 600. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Is it not right that part of the manoeuvring involved a Bill that attempted to Lord Harris of Haringey: I am quite happy to recast suspend the effect of the boundary changes, which my argument not in terms of prime numbers and was blocked in this House? numbers of seats, but to come back to the question of why that number of electors should be chosen. What is the rationale? Why that figure, as opposed to 75,000, Lord McNally: It may well have been, but the fact is 72,000, 80,000, 85,000 or 90,000? That leads to a that Lord Callaghan acted as he did at the time, subject which I am sure we will come on to: the degree probably—I am not quite sure—with the full approval of tolerance around that figure. of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. The point that I am making is that a remark made by Lord Callaghan in the House at that time, when he was trying to 3am intervene in respect of a boundary review, is not the Lord McNally: We may well come on to it, but most apt to pluck out now. 76,000 and 600 are sensible numbers which achieve the objective of this Bill: of fairer votes in fairer drawn Lord Bach: Does the noble Lord agree that what constituencies. I forgot who it was who was suggesting Lord Callaghan said was true, and that constituencies the usual thing, because we have had this debate so are not merely areas bounded by a line on a map but many times over the last few weeks. There is no are living communities with a unity, history and personality smoking gun. I have said before: I defy the psephologists of their own? It does not really matter when he said it; to actually prove it. For somebody with the experience is it true? Does the noble Lord agree with it? of elections that she has, she knows how positively daft it is to suggest that 600 is part of some figure that has come out of number-crunching by those in Central Lord McNally: To a certain extent, but even the Office. Even now, with all the resources, why don’t noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, having made the same sort they crunch their own numbers and try and prove that of point, then explained that Clackmannan was the 600 seats on an average of 76,000 is going to bring this only part of his constituency that survived integral massive advantage to the Conservative party or anybody during a whole parliamentary career. The noble Lord, else? We really do not know. It is simply a way of Lord O’Neill, saw boundary changes. My God, there setting this central objective of fairer votes in fairer are enough of them in the building. Everybody has drawn constituencies and that is what niggles the seen boundary changes. Oppostion. 183 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 184

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister is about how equal they wanted their votes to be. I can’t answering a question which his noble friend the Leader do the maths—it is too late for me to do that, if I ever of the House was unable to answer, by talking about could. The Minister has not answered my question. the numbers. I am now puzzled. His right honourable Why did they not stick to 585? We would all understand friend Mr Clegg talked about going towards the future it if they had stuck to 585. with the greatest reform Act since 1832. We now appear, given his reply tonight, to be going back to 1832, with Parliament and the Government setting the Lord McNally: I do not know. I really do not know. figure. Surely this cannot be what the Liberals mean You could then ask why we did not choose 584. We by localism. This is centralism by the standards of have put a number in the Bill to fulfil the objectives of anybody. the Bill. What we have coming next, which I think is an abuse of the procedures of the House, is an amendment going on about a figure of 640, and then there is Lord McNally: I hope people will read these another one on 650. Then you want to be treated interventions and make their own assessment of them. seriously in terms of not abusing the processes of this I do not read into this as the noble Baroness is doing. House. There is a modest saving of public expenditure as It is great to see the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, in noble Baroness, Lady Nye acknowledged. However it good form, it really is. It takes me back to our student is not the driving force of the Bill. debating days. Really, I can only go so far. I have explained and explained, and not for the first time at Lord Harris of Haringey: I apologise to the noble this Dispatch Box. Out of deference, I give way to the Lord and to the House if I seem to be labouring this noble Lord. point, but I do not understand what the magic significance is. Is he now telling us that the driver which produces Lord Kinnock: We used to be against deference as 600 constituencies is not the magic figure 600, but it is well, didn’t we? On a very serious point, does the 76,000? If it is 76,000, why 76,000? Why not 75,000, Minister recall that the original rationale for the figure which has a certain magic, or 80,000? What is the most of 585 was offered by the Leader of the Conservative important factor? Is it the number of constituencies or Party, David Cameron, in the middle of the expenses the number of electors, and why were those numbers scandal when, in order to demonstrate how radically chosen? different a Conservative Government would be, he said that there was a commitment to reduce the numbers in the House of Commons by 10 per cent, taking it Lord McNally: They were chosen because they are down to 585, in order to save public money? That was sensible for achieving the objectives of the Bill. There the original rationale. So why now, at this point in the is such a thing in theology as invincible ignorance. I debate on changing the numbers in the House of think the real objection of the Opposition is that those Commons, are we not still presented with that figure, two numbers will achieve what we want, which is fairer which at least had the legitimacy of being in one votes in fairer drawn constituencies. That is the heart party’s manifesto? And why, if it is not 585, is it 600? of the matter. That is what they do not like, and every May I underline, by repetition, the question that he time I tell them, they get madder and madder, but we has yet to answer? Why 600? If his calculation is based are going to do it. on rough equal numbers per constituency, why again has that number been chosen? There is no substantive Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Wenowhavea rationale behind it. new explanation that has not been before the House so far. Like me, the noble Lord knows Lancashire well. Can he tell me how 76,000 benefits the sense of community Lord McNally: I will try again. The two numbers in Lancashire? This 76,000 has suddenly appeared. are sensible numbers to achieve the objectives of the What exactly does it do to Blackpool, Burnley and all Bill. I was not going to delay the House. We have the other areas that he and I know well? What does it estimated that reducing the size of the other place will do in south Wales? What does it do in the north-east? save £12.2 million annually, made up of reduced salary Is it based on the average size of a community or the costs of £4.1 million and £8.1 million in reduced average size of the greed of the coalition? expenditure on MPs’ expenses. At a time when the whole public sector is being asked to do more with less, this is a relatively modest saving, but one worth Lord McNally: Wow, what a finish! It gives equal making. value to each vote—an objective that I would have thought the Opposition would be in favour of. We can carry on all night on this, or all morning, but— Lord Anderson of Swansea: The value of the saving that the noble Lord is talking about is roughly equivalent to the bonus of one or two members of Goldman Baroness Nye: The Minister was answering a point Sachs, or perhaps roughly equivalent to the value of a that I made in my speech. I should like him to help me property in certain parts of Kensington. Basically, my a little more. What I said was that once the Liberal point is that having heard the noble Lord’s explanation Democrats’ figure was not there, you had the figure of in respect of 600 or why one should have various 585, which the Conservative Party had gone to the figures, we remain somewhat confused, but at a higher election with. They must have done a calculation level of confusion. 185 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 186

The noble Lord deserves the congratulations of the House, because he has tried to answer the various Motion points that have been made in the debate. He has gone through them one after another. The way he has Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton treated the House is in marked contrast to the way in which the Leader of the House has treated us. After That the House do now resume. the previous, rather long, debate, he tried to speak for two or three minutes. That was arrogant and is in 3.15 am marked contrast to what the noble Lord has done in Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I beg to move that the this debate. House do now resume. It was three hours and fifty minutes ago that I made the last application for the House to resume. Taking the starting point as the Lord McNally: I have to confess that I go off at application to move into Committee, the House has 3 o’clock. The reason I was talking is that I had not now been talking about this Bill for twelve hours, less noticed that my noble friend from the morning shift an hour, for the UQ. The House is now, according to had come on, otherwise I might have wrapped up long the noble Lord, Lord McNally, sitting in shifts. I ago. understand that he is going off at three. There will be I have tried and I can only go back to respond to substantial proportions of the House that will not the noble Lords, Lord Kinnock and Lord Liddle. The hear half of these amendments. Government’s rationale for this is fairer votes in more We are debating these amendments in respect of a fairly drawn constituencies—nothing more, nothing part of the Bill where there is no stated urgency to any less. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, at the part. We are doing it at the dead of night. It is sixteen appropriate time we will take our conduct and our minutes past three. I do not believe that this is an approach to this matter to the country and we will let appropriate way for us to conduct business. This is them make a judgment. another opportunity for those on the other Benches to consider whether or not this is the right way to seek Baroness McDonagh: I thank the Minister for proper scrutiny of the Bill. I said on the last occasion responding to the points raised in the debate and I that I moved that the House resume that our unique thank everyone for their contribution. I intend to be feature—the thing that makes us a successful House—is very brief. I believe that the purpose of an amendment that we scrutinise Bills well. It is inappropriate and at this stage of the process is to probe the thinking of wrong for us to be doing a really important constitutional the Government and to raise points that the Government Bill that has no degree of urgency—because there is will consider before coming back on Third Reading. I no external urgency like there was in relation to, for always live in hope and I hope that they will do that. example, the national security or Northern Rock legislation—in the middle of the night. I want to explain the points that I raised about a rising 70 million electorate over the next 20 years and the potential for the voting age to fall to 16. They do Lord Grocott: Would my noble and learned friend not happen when you get to the end of 20 years. The comment again briefly? There was an accusation in problem with the electorate is that it rises every year the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about towards every general election. We will not get to 70 whether or not the procedures of the House were million; it will happen at each and every election. It being obeyed in respect of a decoupling of amendments. therefore makes much more sense to have a constituency It is worth reminding the House—not that the noble based on numbers of voters as opposed to an overall Lord, Lord McNally, should need reminding because cap, when you know that that is going to happen. It his party quite frequently decoupled groups of seems to me more sensible to have a 72,000-rising amendments in the many years that he was in constituency based on the May 2010 figures or 78,000 Opposition—that that followed a clear breach of the on the basis of all eligible voters. conventions of the House in calling for a closure on the previous group of amendments. In fact our Standing The point I was making about psephologists is not Orders make clear that that was a most exceptional set whether I believe they are right in saying that the of circumstances. It would not have been so bad if the figure of 600 gives the Conservatives the most proposal had come from the Opposition Back Benches— constituencies; the point is that that is what the which it did—and the Front Bench had chosen not to Conservative Party believes. That is how we have follow it but, quite deliberately, the Front Bench ended up with this figure. I am really saddened at this encouraged the Motion and went through the Lobbies point that the Government cannot explain why the in order to ensure that it was carried. figure of 600 is still in the Bill. That is why these probing amendments have been tabled, so that we can I will list the breaches to the conventions of this understand. House in some detail. For now I will be brief. The clearest possible breach of the conventions of this As I said at the very beginning, I hope that, over House is, as my noble and learned friend has said, time, the Government will consider the points that I when there is absolutely no time imperative whatsoever raised in moving this amendment and that we will see for this and for the Government to have determined movement at Third Reading. Therefore, I will not be that we should be sitting at this time and, even more pressing this amendment to a vote. significantly, that we should be considering the Bill tomorrow and on Thursday. I have not kept count of Amendment 61 withdrawn. the breaches in convention. 187 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 188

Lord McNally: This House has made these decisions. about the House in those days to know how it worked, It is not the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who decides but we sat until we had breakfast at 6.30 in shifts; we what has been breached or not. This House came to a then went on until 11.00 before we rose. I had some of proper democratic decision. I know that they do not the most hostile opponents—they were the like that. I suggest that he puts forward his Motion Government—but I was facing the government party, and we will try again. and I do not get frightened or nervous easily, but when I stood up there and got the baying and the shouting Lord Grocott: When I was Chief Whip, there was and the real unpleasantness from the Government, never an occasion when there was no time imperative frankly tonight is the first time I felt I was in the when we tried to drive legislation through. When I was House of Commons. Government Whip, there was never a single occasion when debate on a group of amendments was blocked Lord Greaves: I am not quite sure why the noble by means of— Baroness, Lady Farrington, calls me in evidence. The The Minister says it was because we could not get Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which was over agreement. ten years ago, was the last time before tonight that the House of Lords sat overnight on ordinary legislation. Lord McNally: No, because you got agreement. We have had overnight events on ping pong—the overnight sittings on the Terrorism Bill, or whatever it was, was on ping pong—but the last time there was an Lord Grocott: The noble Lord should make the ordinary overnight sitting, if there is such a thing, was intervention if he wants to do this, because, believe on the CROW Bill. That was the first legislation that I me— had really been involved in; I was very new here. I do not recognise the exact description given about it Lord McNally: Everyone sitting there knows that either by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, or by every Government has negotiations between the usual my noble friend. channels. I know how much co-operation we have had. However, what was absolutely clear during the passage You would not have got a single Bill through under of that Bill was that there was a significant group of your stewardship if this behaviour had been normal, Members of this House who were intent on filibustering. and that is the threat to this House. That is the threat In my belief, they were Conservative Back Benchers—the to the credibility of this House. The noble Baroness, Front Bench was not involved at all—connected with Lady Farrington, would not have got any business landowning interests. They were assisted by certain through either without— Cross-Bench Members with similar interests, which are legitimate interests, but they were determined to Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was a government try to delay the Bill as much as possible, because they Whip during the whole of the Labour Government, were against it. As I have said to some of my colleagues, and on every single occasion, we were advised that we the last time I experienced animosity of the sort there had to consult the Opposition about days when they is in the House about the Bill which we are discussing were available to deal with legislation. This was the was on that previous Bill, but it was coming from a case during the times of the noble Lords, Lord Carter, different part of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Lord Grocott and Lord Bassam. That is my first Glentoran, may not agree, but that is my recollection point. My second point is that the degrouping of of the history. amendments that occurred during the Countryside It is time that everyone in the House calmed down a and Rights of Way Act—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves bit. In particular, I inform noble Lords who think it will bear me out on this—dealt with the issues one by reasonable to spend 12 hours today—or yesterday, or one. The one thing that strikes me tonight is that in all whichever day we happen to be in—on three amendments my time as a government Whip when we were in that I believe that that is an abuse of the procedures of government, I never heard a Minister on our Front this House. I believe passionately that the most important Bench dealing with a constitutional Bill of this magnitude role of this House is to scrutinise legislation properly referring to “shift work”. and thoroughly. If that takes time, it takes time. People ask me about the actions of my colleagues and me Lord McNally: You never heard a government Minister during consideration of the Marine and Coastal Access from your side when you were trying to get through Bill. Indeed, we had 17 sessions considering that Bill, 13 different constitutional changes in one Bill coming but it was very important and complicated, and we did up with some of the arguments we have heard over the it properly. At no stage, however, except perhaps when last couple of days. the very first group of amendments was considered on the first day, did we ever spend more than an hour on a group. That was one of the targets that we set ourselves. Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Lords reform—I We decided that we would limit ourselves to an hour’s think the noble Lord, Lord McNally’s memory is debate as far as possible, as an absolute maximum on failing. a single group of amendments. On many we spent far less time. I believe that taking four hours over one Lord Glentoran: I very well remember the access to group of amendments, and then the same time over the countryside Bill, because I was sitting where the another group where all the same arguments are noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is now, doing the Front regurgitated, is an abuse of the House. Those noble Bench job for the Opposition. I did not know enough Lords who are involved should not be surprised when 189 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 190 they meet a great deal of anger and resistance. Some Hunt of Chesterton, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. noble Lords have asked why the Liberal Democrats Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Nye, B. are not listening to what they are saying. The answer is Jones, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. the way in which those noble Lords are behaving. Pendry, L. Kilclooney, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Kinnock, L. Prescott, L. Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I do not think that mutual Knight of Weymouth, L. Quin, B. recrimination is getting the Committee very far. The Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Rooker, L. Liddle, L. Rosser, L. noble and learned Lord has proposed his Motion and Lipsey, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. I would like him to confirm that he would like the Low of Dalston, L. House to consider it. McAvoy, L. Sherlock, B. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Simon, V. L. Smith of Basildon, B. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the McDonagh, B. Snape, L. noble Lord for that masterful intervention. Things got McFall of Alcluith, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. rather muddled because the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. intervened on me, then the noble Baroness, Lady MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Thornton, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. Touhig, L. Farrington, intervened on the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Mallalieu, B. Triesman, L. The previous time when the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, Morgan of Drefelin, B. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] and I had a discussion about this Bill, which was Morgan of Huyton, B. Winston, L. about three and a half hours ago, I said that we did not think in the same way, and I apologised at the NOT CONTENTS time. Now I am not so sure. In certain things—not Addington, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, everything—we have a similar outlook. With the greatest Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. L. of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the thing Allan of Hallam, L. Hooper, B. on which I think we most agree is the importance of Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Howell of Guildford, L. this House retaining its function as a scrutinising Ashdown of Norton-sub- James of Blackheath, L. House. With respect and affection to the noble Lord, Hamdon, L. James of Holland Park, B. Lord McNally, it is for the House an ugly picture of Astor, V. Jolly, B. the noble Lord wagging his finger at us and saying that Astor of Hever, L. Jopling, L. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. we must do what he says. It is the same noble Lord, Attlee, E. Barker, B. Kramer, B. Lord McNally, who said of the conduct of the Labour Bates, L. Lawson of Blaby, L. Front-Bench spokesman in the other place that they Benjamin, B. Leach of Fairford, L. were simply time-wasting in the guillotine debates Black of Brentwood, L. Lindsay, E. there. That worried me, because it tended to indicate a Blackwell, L. Lingfield, L. Liverpool, E. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, contemptuous view of scrutiny of this Bill. Lucas, L. I am afraid that I remain of the view that we should B. Luke, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Lyell, L. have stopped many hours ago, so I beg to move that Bridgeman, V. this House do now resume. McNally, L. Browning, B. Mancroft, L. Burnett, L. Maples, L. 3.31 am Caithness, E. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Cathcart, E. L. Division on the Motion to resume Cavendish of Furness, L. Marland, L. Chadlington, L. Marlesford, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Contents 77; Not-Contents 126. Courtown, E. B. Cumberlege, B. Montrose, D. Motion disagreed. De Mauley, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Deben, L. Moynihan, L. Denham, L. Neville-Jones, B. Division No. 4 Dixon-Smith, L. Northover, B. Dobbs, L. Norton of Louth, L. CONTENTS Doocey, B. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Alli, L. Desai, L. Eaton, B. O’Cathain, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. Dubs, L. Eden of Winton, L. Patten of Barnes, L. Faulks, L. Popat, L. Andrews, B. Elder, L. Feldman of Elstree, L. Rawlings, B. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Elystan-Morgan, L. Flight, L. Razzall, L. Bach, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Redesdale, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Fowler, L. Rennard, L. [Teller] Finlay of Llandaff, B. Freud, L. Ribeiro, L. Berkeley, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Risby, L. Bilston, L. Golding, B. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Rotherwick, L. Boateng, L. Goldsmith, L. Garel-Jones, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Bradley, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Geddes, L. Ryder of Wensum, L. Brett, L. Grenfell, L. German, L. Saatchi, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Grocott, L. Glentoran, L. Sassoon, L. Brookman, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Greaves, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Browne of Ladyton, L. Haworth, L. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. Seccombe, B. Crawley, B. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Hamwee, B. Selborne, E. Davies of Oldham, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Henley, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Selsdon, L. 191 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 192

Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. internet. I did not actually know how to plug a computer Shaw of Northstead, L. Tope, L. in when I was a Member of the House of Commons—I Sheikh, L. Trimble, L. had somebody to do all that sort of thing for me. I Shrewsbury, E. True, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] Tyler, L. found some difficulty in being transported to your Skelmersdale, L. Verma, B. Lordships’ House as I was expected to do all that sort Stedman-Scott, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. of thing myself. I managed to achieve that much and I Stewartby, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. can cope just about with the internet but my successor Stowell of Beeston, B. Warsi, B. in the other place can get 5,000 e-mails a week. Many Strathclyde, L. Wheatcroft, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Wilcox, B. of the people, if they e-mail him and do not get an Taylor of Holbeach, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. instant response—within, say, 24 hours—will denounce Teverson, L. Younger of Leckie, V. him in the local paper for failing to take any notice of his constituents. It is a vastly different world from that 3.40 am I experienced 37 years ago when I was first elected. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who is replying to this debate, will do so with regard to Amendment 62 the seriousness with which I am putting these points. Moved by Lord Snape One of the reasons that I have tabled this amendment is that the position, duties and workload of a Member 62: Clause 11, page 9, line 18, leave out “600” and insert “640” of Parliament are much greater now than in the days just referred to. Of course it could be argued—it Lord Snape: My Lords, I am now faced with a probably will be argued from the government Front rather impossible task. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, Bench—that secretarial facilities in the other place are who is about to go and have a lie down—fortunately, I much better than they were all those years ago, and if think, given the state of his temper—has already necessary those secretarial facilities could be increased denounced me for time wasting before I have got to to meet that burgeoning workload. my feet. Things are a little difficult. I hope before he goes I will not have him banging on the Dispatch Box, 3.45 am so I will try to introduce some new arguments into this My noble friend Lord Howarth mentioned the case. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey will be number of immigration cases. It will not come as any relieved to know that this is very much a probing surprise to him if I say, as someone who represented amendment and I tabled it in the hope that we could West Bromwich, that they provided a considerable have a debate about the duties and responsibilities of a proportion of my workload as a constituency Member Member of Parliament and, as my noble friend Lord of Parliament. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose Howarth of Newport amply demonstrated in the debate that that situation has changed since I left the other on the last amendment, how the role of a Member of place. Again, noble Lords will appreciate that immigration Parliament has changed enormously over the years. I matters in particular are extraordinarily time consuming. hope to be able to do so without provoking a phone It is not a question of a simple housing repair; there call from Trimble junior about any waffling from this are plenty of those cases as well of course. Some of my side of the House. I never went to university myself colleagues in the other place, much braver than I, said but to find students these days at 3.42 in the morning “Well, if someone comes to you with a housing case watching the Parliamentary Voting System and why don’t you refer them to your local councillors?”. I Constituencies Bill indicates to me that a university had a majority of 288 at one stage, so I was not about education is not all that it is cracked up to be. Certainly to alienate any more people than was absolutely necessary. I would find something better to do if I were in their I dealt with them myself at that time. Immigration position. cases in particular were, and are, extraordinarily In 1974 I was elected to the other place for the then complicated, and it might easily be argued that we new constituency of West Bromwich East—a constituency could increase secretarial allowances for Members of created by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind Parliament in order for them to meet that ever burgeoning the social conditions in West Bromwich at that time workload. because that is what Boundary Commissions did and The newspapers are reporting only this week on the do, which is why there has been so much concern on salaries of Members of Parliament. It is easier perhaps this side of your Lordships’ House about the future for us at this end of the building to defend a proper and particularly about the lack of local inquiries when salary for a Member of Parliament. Setting up a body new boundaries are produced, which is inherent in to take the question of Members’ salaries out of the this Bill. Chamber of the other place and place it in the hands During my early years as a Member of the other of an independent body would, it was said at the time place—coincidentally, although I see the noble Lord, by Harriet Harman and by other people, make the Lord McNally, has left the Front Bench now—I shared award of an increase for Members of Parliament the use of a secretary with a man called Andrew much easier to accept. “Oh, yes”, I said at the time, “I Bennett who represented Stockport North. In those will believe that when I see it”. days, it was sufficient for us to employ a part-time I go back to Harold Wilson’s days. He gave me my secretary who would come in on two evenings a week first job as a junior Whip. He said. “At least you get a to jointly do our constituency work. When I left pay rise”. I think it was about £3,000 a year that we the other place in 2001, I employed two full-time staff earned back in the 1970s. I had no doubts that, when and one part-timer. That was before the onset of the this independent body was set up, the first time it 193 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 194 awarded Members of Parliament a pay rise the Prime would expect a constituency to be, but it includes a Minister of the day, regardless of his political view, very rapidly expanding town. The electorate went would say, “It’s the wrong time”. Well, I have been down from 90,892 to 56,558. I have to say to the around this building for nearly 40 years. I have never House that although, like the vast majority of MPs, I known the right time for Members of Parliament to was very hard working and did my very best to represent get a pay rise. Certainly it will be argued—I expect it the people who had sent me to Westminster, the level to be argued by the government Front Bench—that, of service and the quality of job that you can do when given the current circumstances, it is an inappropriate you have 56,000 or 60,000 people to represent is time to award the £1,000 a year that this independent dramatically better than the service that you can deliver body has recommended. Does anyone seriously think when you represent 90,000 people. on either side of the Chamber that it will be possible At the simplest level, as far as I was concerned, it to give Members of Parliament adequate facilities to meant that instead of largely reacting to constituency do the extra constituency workload that they have at problems, complaints and grievances—because that present? Does anyone think that the Daily Mail would filled your time—and going to factories and schools, not say, “These people are costing us X thousands of for example, when they invited you along, I was able in pounds a year”? Being a Member of Parliament in the a reasonably coherent way to set out a programme of other place is the only job I have ever known where action within the much smaller electorate and geographical your secretary’s salary and her typewriter or computer size of the constituency to do these things on a much is added to your salary as far as the newspapers are more systematic basis. concerned. That is never going to change. I say in all seriousness to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I find it impossible to accept the argument that you who is going to reply to this debate, that I hope that should increase the size of constituencies. I would the Government will look at the numbers of Members describe this section of the Bill not as the reduction in of Parliament and they will move away from this belief the number of MPs, but as the increase in the size of that 600 is the optimum figure. We have never had an constituencies. Doing that weakens the link between explanation, after all this time and after all this debate the MP and his or her constituents. I find that pretty on the Bill, how that figure has been arrived at. I hope astonishing, particularly when it comes from members that the Minister will agree that to reduce the numbers of parties that were very concerned about the breakdown of Members of the other place, despite the problems of trust in Parliament—we were all concerned about and workload in a modern society, is nonsense. that—up until the last general election, when it was said that MPs and Parliament generally must reconnect I do not want to repeat anything that was said with the people. Now they are bringing forward a Bill previously on the debate as to whether this should be that makes that unarguably more difficult. 600, 640 or 650. I just ask the Minister, when he responds, to bear in mind that it is not popular to I suggest to the Government that they would save defend Members of the other place, but regardless of themselves an awful lot of difficulty—I know they are political party the vast majority of them are, in my not looking for suggestions—if they looked again at experience, hard working. To reduce their numbers at the proposal to reduce the number of MPs and present, given the social problems facing this country, concentrated instead on the mantra, which we have given the economic situation facing this country, and heard so frequently, particularly from the noble Lord, given the increased workload for all of them, regardless Lord McNally, about fair votes in fair constituencies. I of what part of the country they represent, would be cannot remember it, but it is some mantra of that sort. absolute folly. They should concentrate rather more on equalising I hope that the Minister will reply in the same spirit the size of constituencies, if that is their objective, and with which I have moved this amendment and accept rather less on simultaneously trying to reduce the that there are sincere concerns—I am sure on both number of MPs and increasing the size of constituencies. sides of your Lordships’ House, but certainly on this I was going to say, “If I was a betting man”, but I side of the House—about the future. We believe that am a betting man. I would bet that if, in the privacy of the present number—650—is about right and we ought their own party relationships, the Conservative leadership to keep it at that. I beg to move. and the Liberal Democrat leadership went to their own Members of Parliament—who now know that Lord Grocott: My Lords, I very much agree with my they will be in conflict with neighbours as the noble friend’s comments, although I would not be constituencies are redrawn, will for the most part have happy even with a reduction to 640, as the amendment bigger constituencies to represent and will have to face proposes. I shall speak briefly from personal experience. this upheaval every five years—they would not still be The only justification that I can think of—I really have very keen to go ahead with the Bill in its present form. been wrestling with this—for the Government deciding I would imagine that if the Whips do what Whips to reduce the number of MPs is that they must somehow have traditionally done, at their best, which is consult or other think that it does not make any difference to their Members, they would find widespread misgivings the way in which MPs can serve their constituents. about what is being done. When you get over the flush It was my experience as the MP for The Wrekin that of success when you are first returned and at subsequent when the electorate went up to 90,892 at the 1992 returns—we know there has been a terrific turnover in election, it was like the cavalry coming over the hill membership of the other House—they will begin to when the Boundary Commission said that the constituency realise that very substantial changes are coming their had to be reduced in size. It went down quite dramatically. way, probably to their disadvantage, which their own I acknowledge that it ended up smaller than you Government are whipping through. 195 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 196

[LORD GROCOTT] This is a really important issue for the House. For I have no problem whatever with this House spending example—maybe this has come up before, but I have time on a Bill that primarily concerns the House of not heard it—it seems to me pretty obvious that, given Commons, because very quickly, large numbers of the nature of an inner-city constituency with the their Members will object not only to the constituency deprivation that is likely to be present, a sitting Member part of the Bill, but to the change in the electoral is going to have a much harder task in servicing those system. So we have the astonishing situation that on constituents than someone in a rural area with perhaps most bits of the Bill, I have no doubt that there is a the same number of constituents. It happens, of course, majority in the House of Commons against. I am that most inner-city areas would be more likely to be certain that that is the case with respect to changes in represented by a Labour MP, but that is not my point the electoral system and I suspect that by now, in at all. My point is that it does not make sense to have a private, it would also be the view of many Members of blanket rule across constituencies; the amount of work the House of Commons in respect of the constituency in constituencies will naturally vary considerably. I boundaries part of the Bill. hope that while we are teasing out this issue of whether That is why the function of this House is so important. it is 650 or 640, we might actually address this, and It is to do the job that the Commons could not do that future speakers in this debate will do just that. because of the guillotine, but I also believe it to be true, paradoxically, that those of us who are concerned Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I had not about this Bill are more representative of opinion intended to speak in this debate, and I was hoping that across the House of Commons than can in any way be the noble Lord, Lord Snape, would address some of described by the votes that took place. the questions that I had from the previous debate. I Finally, I have seen Minister after Minister defending hope he will be able to come back. It seems to me, after the Bill and finding it impossible to explain why they listening to the debate on this issue—and we also had have picked 600 and why they have that size of electorate it on Second Reading—that there are two things missing, for the constituencies. They would not be in this both in the Government’s position and in the amendments difficulty if they had thought again about the wisdom that we debated earlier. The first is a justification for or otherwise of simultaneously changing the basis on the number that has been given, be it 600, 630 or 640, which constituency boundaries are drawn—we could and the other is a justification for the Government have a serious argument about making them more setting the number. I find myself in agreement with the equal—and taking a decision on reducing the size of noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, who spoke the House of Commons. They would not be in the earlier in that I am reluctant to accept from my noble business of having to explain the optimum size of a friends as well as from the Government why the constituency; they would simply be able to say that Government should be the body that sets the number this was what the independent Boundary Commission of Members of Parliament. If the Minister is able to had decided in the past. It may not sound like it, but if address that in his response, I would be extremely they could bring themselves to look again at the grateful. position they have adopted on some of these things, I know that the Government are exasperated with they would make life a great deal easier for themselves. this debate on the number of Members of Parliament, I have to say that I would certainly oppose any reduction but it would be very easy for them to end the debate in the number of Members of Parliament. and clear it up. It seems to me that, today and at Second Reading, the response has been inadequate. At 4am Second Reading, the Leader of the House said that Lord Winston: I do not in any way wish to be 600 was the figure because it was a “nice round political and I certainly do not want to be accused of number”. Tonight we have heard the noble Lord, Lord filibuster, which is not my intention at all. I tried to McNally, explain that it is a “common sense figure”. raise this point earlier, but it has not been answered by When we are looking at the quality and level of anybody on either side of the House. When we employ representation for the elected House, I do not think it people in most parts of the public sector, we make is adequate to talk about a nice round number or a certain that that employment is tailored to the job that number that makes sense. There has to be a proper is required, taking account of the number of people analysis and rationale behind that. Some of the comments who will be required to fill posts to do the work. that have been made fail to understand why there is so It seems to me that we have not yet in this debate much concern about plucking a number out of thin fully explained exactly what we are requiring of our air. I would like to hear from my noble friend Lord Members of the House of Commons. When I, for Snape whether there is a rationale behind 640, or has it example, do an experiment in my laboratory, I make been proposed simply because it is not 600? very serious mathematical calculations to try to predict The Merits Committee also raised this particular what I will need mathematically in order to get a issue with a lot of justification, and I think it would do satisfactory experiment or a satisfactory result or to the House no harm to take note of what it said: get something that is valuable. I use complex statistics. “We conclude that the Government have not calculated the It seems to me—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on any might be able to answer this, and I hope the noble basis of any considered amendment of the role and functions of Lord, Lord Snape, might come back to it when he MPs”. returns to his amendment in due course—that we are That seems quite an indictment of the Government’s not doing anything other than pulling out of the air position and further emphasises how poor an answer numbers which do not have any rationality. it is simply to say “a nice round number”. 197 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 198

We have to look at the role and functions of Members for those MPs to fulfil their duties to their constituents of Parliament—what the public expect of them and in the way that they want. They will not let that work what your Lordships’ House expects of them, and the slip. The relationship between MPs and their constituents relationship between the two Houses. Lines drawn on is a precious one and is valued enormously. But that a map in order to create a constituency can significantly then has an impact on the work that they do in the impact on a Member of Parliament’s workload. It is other place in terms of scrutinising legislation and not just about numbers: it affects the lives of constituents. serving on Select Committees. I can count a number of Prior to my election to the other place in 1997, the cases where Members of Parliament said to me, “I will constituency boundaries in my constituency were redrawn. not be in for Questions today or the Statement because For the 2010 election, the constituency boundaries I have to finish my case work. I have calls to make to were redrawn again, which may explain why I am in my constituents”. That has a huge impact on the your Lordships’ House and not in the other place. operation of the other place. We should never think Those lines had a real impact, particularly in 1997, that one part of a Member of Parliament’s work is because the seat that was known as Basildon then lost more important than any other. It is of equal value to part of Basildon and took in part of Thurrock. Those represent constituents in the other place. members of the public who lived in Thurrock took There is also the impact on the Executive if there great exception to being in a constituency where even are fewer MPs. Professor Anthony King raised the the name did not recognise their existence. In terms of issue in an article in the Observer last year. His concern workload, as the Member of Parliament—unlike the was that if there were fewer MPs, Ministers would be previous Member of Parliament for that constituency—I selected from a smaller gene pool. However, there is did not go and see one police force or one local another significant point that I do not think has been authority. To represent my constituents on issues that raised so far. If the number of MPs is reduced, the concerned them in meetings, I had to visit three local Executive will be proportionately larger and will have authorities, two police forces and two health authorities. greater power than at present. That is not satisfactory. Everything was doubled or tripled. The boundary In these amendments and government proposals, if we lines are therefore very important, not only to the are talking about reducing the number of MPs from workload of constituency MPs but to how members the current level, we should also be talking about of the public perceive their MP’s loyalty and commitment reducing the size of the Executive. to that constituency. For a number of reasons, the Government’s proposals The noble Lord, Lord Winston, probably made this have huge implications and are flawed. I would like to point better than I will, but the workload of a Member hear from my noble friend Lord Snape why any reduction of Parliament varies enormously. It can depend on the in the number of MPs is appropriate. How can we type of constituency, which depends on levels of justify Parliament setting the number of Members of deprivation and, in some cases, the level of articulacy Parliament? Where did the figure of 640 come from? of members of that constituency. I recall speaking What is the rationale behind it? with a Conservative MP from a leafy suburb who stopped me when I was collecting my post in the Members’ post room. My postbag was significantly Lord Rooker: My Lords, I would like to try to heavier than his. He said, “Do you have much post?”. I answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord simply picked up the sack that I was carrying. He said, Winston, because it is a legitimate one. Although he “I only get a couple of letters a day that I need to did not put it this crudely, he seemed to say that, in answer”. He then asked me, “Do you hold surgeries in theory and on paper, it is a good idea to write down your constituency?”. I said, “Of course I do”. He said, the job description. But that cannot always be done. “Does anybody attend? I sit in the village hall and The one thing about the membership of the other nobody is there”. Yet in my constituency, which place is that it is unique. Nobody else in the country is geographically was considerably smaller than his, the doing the things that they do. They are non-executive— workload was significantly greater. I mention that not they have no authority and cannot issue any orders to show how some MPs are hard-working and more except to their personal staff to answer questions. precious than others, but because the quality of They are ombudsmen, champions, ambassadors, marriage representation to a constituent is vitally important. counsellors and social workers. After my first 10 years Constituency boundaries are also important in terms I stopped saying that I had dealt with everything that of the work of the House of Commons and scrutinising you could think of, because the next week something the Executive. In my time as a Member of Parliament—I completely different, which could never have been was a Back-Bencher, a government Whip, PPS to the contemplated, came into my surgery or across my Prime Minister and a government Minister—I found desk. my role as a constituency MP informed by my work as I went through two boundary changes along with a Minister. Issues brought to the attention of Members my late friend Denis Howell, who was also a Member of Parliament by constituents are important in looking of this place. We had discussions about the size of the at policy and looking at the impact of government constituencies and the workload. Since then, I have policies. That link is vital. If constituencies are going taken more of an interest in matters outside the narrow to be made bigger at a time when MPs have fewer urban areas, but Denis explained to me why the workload resources and less money—less money for staff, offices in the inner-cities was different. My seat was largely and communications with constituents, since the last outer-city but also had a bit of inner-city. The workload election—and we increase the size of constituencies is great in terms of the social side of things, such as the after we have reduced the resources, it becomes harder deprivation and the individual casework of people 199 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 200

[LORD ROOKER] The only other point I want to make is the one with individual problems, but you then have to balance previously made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I that against the sparsity of population in other areas think, about the unsettling situation for Members of as well as what someone called the “intelligentsia”, the other place. When boundaries have gone through although that is not the word that I would use. About two changes, in the normal course of events—three once a month somebody would come to see me to talk elections, a boundary change, three elections, a boundary about policy. It was a shock when someone would do change—there needs to be a degree of stability. You so. I would think, “What is the problem? This is about always knew that at the next election there would be a policy?”. In other areas of the country, however, Members boundary change. There was an unsettling period, of Parliament are driven round the bend with questions even though you were not fighting colleagues and about policy from their electorate. They have the time, Birmingham was not losing seats. People retired, and the wherewithal, the knowledge, the expertise and the there was not really a massive conflict situation. However, curiosity to put their Member of Parliament on the rack. those things occurred in the rest of the country. This is It is very difficult to write these things down and going to be a big conflict in the other place now say that one is more important than another. I missed because they have just had a boundary change. This is part of the debate but made a short intervention not a point about taking the normal flow. It is true before the attempt to close the previous debate at that a lot of people have just come in, but the others about 7:30 am. However, I mentioned that my constituency are there as a result of a boundary change. Now they numbers increased from 52,000 to 76,000 in the 1983 are going to face another boundary change at the next boundary changes. I had not realised that 76,000 was election. If the Government think they can hold Members’ so important until I heard the noble Lord, Lord attention in the Lobby and on all the minutiae and the McNally, winding up the last debate. That is it: pick boring but necessary bits of legislation as we approach 76,000. That is the way to do it. My constituency, at the next election, when people are off trying to find a the best measure, was 16 square miles. Radnor was constituency and challenging their colleagues—because about 1,200 square miles at the time. I visited other that is the inevitable consequence of this—they’ve got constituencies. I was once in Rossendale and Darwin another think coming. I think that will cause unsettling. for some reason. I was the opposition spokesman and That happens normally, and I have no problem about was with the Member of Parliament. It may have been that. However, to have it happen with two elections Janet Anderson, I cannot remember, but we were running I think is going to cause major difficulties. driving down a road in a valley with fields adjoining. She said, “We still have another 20 miles to go”. I said, My final point is one that I would have made “I could put my whole constituency in this area that earlier, but it does go with the flow of the Bill. We have we are looking at now”. The time element of getting had constant complaining. When I left here last night, around and being available when you have sparsity of I actually watched the Leader of the House on Sky population is a factor that we underestimate at our Television. He gave a very intemperate interview using peril. quite extravagant language about the proceedings in this House, which I think he will come to regret in due course. No journalist ever questions the Government 4.15 am when they start to compare the Bill in the House I did not want to intervene earlier on the noble of Commons with the Bill in this House. When Lord, Lord Liddell, or anybody else, because I had not the Commons started on this Bill, it was 153 pages. been in the debate. However, the issue about Cumbria The Government put into the Bill in the Commons is not an unimportant one. He did not mention it, so I 286 amendments, causing it to leave the Commons at will. The only way you could put five Members in 300 pages. First of all, the Commons were under Cumbria is to stick a mountain range in the middle of guillotine—and we know that government amendments one of the constituencies. It is the only way you can do take precedence when the knife comes down. It is it, because on paper it has been looked at and dismissed. actually far less time that MPs have had to debate the When we had the last boundary review in 1992-93, the Bill and their amendments because of the time that one that came into force in 1997, at the boundary the Government took putting their amendments into inquiry in Birmingham we were faced with a situation their Bill to double the size while it was in the Commons. where Yardley, a Birmingham constituency, if we did I cannot understand why journalists never raise this it wrong, would be 52,000. We knew that it had been issue. the smallest constituency on mainland England. You could not justify the smallest constituency in the middle The worst thing is that it is not possible to table of the country because we were comparing it at that Questions in this place to find out about amendments time with Copeland, I think it was, on the west coast in the other place that were tabled but not debated, of Cumbria. That was the next smallest, I think, with with no time spent on them, because there is no something in the range of 49,000 to 51,000 constituents, accountability on the Government to answer such a quite a bit smaller than the average. The reason was Question. One cannot table it because the Government the sea and the mountains. If you want to take the cannot answer it. One can only ask about government view that, “No, everybody has got to be together”, amendments, which is how we know about the 286. that means that you put a mountain range in the They did not all come at once—there were more than middle of a constituency. That is the reality. That is 100 in Committee and more than 100 on Report. They not a hypothetical example, but that is what will were at it all the while. It is just as well that they cannot happen in the county of Cumbria. I do not think that amend on Third Reading in the Commons, but they anybody would think that that is a good idea. have come into this place to do this. 201 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 202

The Government might have lost on one technical result. If the Welsh people turned down the increase of issue that I raised on the date, which does not alter or powers, there would be no reason from that to change prevent 5 May—I am not seeking to prevent that; they the number of Welsh MPs. If they accepted the increase can still do it—but the Government have now taken in powers, and the polls suggest that they will, there the level of amendments to well over 300 on their own would be a case for looking at the number of Welsh Bill, and then they complain when we scrutinise what seats. we are presented with. The fortunate thing in this You would then want to say: should such a decrease House is that we do not have the guillotine—we do not in the number of seats be felt to be justified, should have the knife—so we will debate our amendments as this decrease be comparable to the scale of the decrease well as the government amendments. In the Commons, that took place in Scotland or at the Welsh Assembly? MPs were forced to vote on and debate government It would still have fewer powers than the Scottish amendments and were banned and prohibited from Parliament. Should that be rather less, or does it really debating many of their own amendments. not justify changing the number of Welsh seats at all? I In many of our debates ex-Members of the other do not know. There are circumstances in which a small place have shared their lifetime experiences. I fully change in the number of seats could be justified. accept that some of those experiences were from another Otherwise there would be rather a lot of disruption for world—I was one of the last to have a fax machine, let not a lot of gain. That is a circumstance which would alone e-mail and computers. The fact that we can best be considered by a Speaker’s Conference. share those experiences is fine, but we need to make up for the fact that, in the other place, they did not have the opportunity to do so. Lord McAvoy: My Lords, I would like to bring to the House some experience of having had to go through Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I rise relatively briefly, a purely numerical exercise in redrawing a constituency, certainly by the standard of some of the proceedings because the reduction of 13 in the number of Westminster that have taken place. I do not think that the noble seats for Scotland took place against a background of Lord, Lord Snape, would agree that his 640 was an the Scottish Parliament. I am sure the noble and absolutely precise figure based on a detailed application learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will correct of science, but I think that we can take it as quite a me on the timing of these things, as he was the first useful thing. It is interesting to consider quite a small Deputy First Minister in Scotland. The original section reduction instead of the largish ones that have been of the Scotland Act said that if the Westminster seats under consideration—to 600 or, as in the Conservative were reduced, the number of Scottish Parliament seats manifesto, I believe, beyond that. The arguments are would be reduced as well. However, come the time—I rather different from the arguments for a large reduction. think that the noble and learned Lord was still Deputy I do not think, on the whole, that a small reduction First Minister—such a row was kicked up that the is very desirable except in the circumstances that I proposal for a reduction in Scottish seats was abandoned, shall come to in a minute. However, thinking about it but the reduction in the Westminster seats still went does enable us to realise the virtues of an amendment ahead. Then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace that the House considered earlier and to which we of Tankerness, fought for the retention of the status will, I am sure, return on Report. Amendment 60, to quo on seats—God forbid that they reduced the Scottish which I am particularly wedded because it is in my Parliament seats. Along with some in the Labour name, proposes a Speaker’s Conference to consider Party, it has to be said, the then Deputy First Minister these things. I do not think that a Speaker’s Conference was in the forefront on behalf of the Liberals fighting would generally be very likely to think that 640 is the for the retention of every single Scottish Parliament right answer. However, there is one circumstance that seat, and the Westminster seats were reduced. a Speaker’s Conference might want to consider—I do Now we have the situation where the same noble not say what conclusion it would reach—and it is and learned Lord is fighting to reduce the seats. It something that has not come up in this debates. does not affect him or his party as much as it affects A number of Members are present from my own the Labour Party. There is an element of, “Don’t do as country of Wales. In Wales there is to be a referendum I do; do as I tell you to do”. It rankles a bit when you in March about increasing the powers of the Welsh have somebody behaving like that, because in Scotland Assembly. I am not an expert on the matter, and I do we were told it was going to be a numbers exercise not know if such increases in powers would make it only, with 70-odd thousand constituents. This is a considerably more comparable with the Scottish similar experience to what is going to happen to Parliament, or rather more, or not make an enormous boundaries and constituencies throughout England, difference. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if this proposal goes ahead. It has happened already in microcosm in Lord Anderson of Swansea: It would be a substantial Scotland. We were told it was only about numbers, step in the direction of the Scottish Parliament, but that communities do not count and that there would almost certainly not enough to justify the same as be lines drawn on a map to count numbers, and that is happened in Scotland—a substantial reduction in seats— what happened. The constituency that I happened to because the Scottish Parliament has a very wide range represent at the time—I had the core of Rutherglen, of primary legislative powers. Cambuslang and Halfway—was amalgamated with Blantyre and Burnbank. Then because of the numbers Lord Lipsey: I am most grateful to my noble friend; and drawing lines on a map exercise, to save the that is extremely helpful. If there were a Speaker’s Scottish Parliament seats being reduced—to save the Conference, there would, first, be the question of the party of the then Deputy First Minister having its 203 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 204

[LORD MCAVOY] connection will be destroyed. If anybody has any seats reduced—the town of Hamilton was halved, and doubts of that, they can come to the town of Hamilton. Hamilton West came into the Rutherglen seat and I will not need to set anybody up. Speak to anybody became part of Rutherglen and Hamilton West. The from Hamilton and they will immediately say, “This is other half of Hamilton town went in to join Clydesdale terrible. The town does not feel the same. We haven’t and became Lanark and Hamilton East. That is what got a united voice”. My parliamentary neighbour, happened, and I went at that time from 53,000 constituents Jimmy Hood, and I did our best to try to make sure to 74,000 or 75,000, and now that seat contains 77,000 that we co-operated to represent the town of Hamilton electors. as a whole. However, it becomes disjointed through There has been great discussion here about whether reality because you are going through different bits of it makes any difference or not. I went through it and it the constituency at different times. It affects constituencies does make a difference. I knew and know every single in the way that I have described. street in those three communities I have mentioned: I have a fondness for remembering the role that the Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway. I was the MP Liberals played, especially the then Deputy First Minister. for Rutherglen and Hamilton West for just under five The Scotland Act was the settled will of the Scottish years and I am quite convinced there were some streets people—that was fine—but the Liberals fought tooth in those three extra areas—Blantyre, Burnbank and and nail to retain their Scottish Parliament seats. Hamilton West—that I had never been in, whereas I Again, it is “Don’t do as I do; do as I tell you to do”. prided myself on having delivered leaflets in every All MPs—it does not matter whether they are street in the former boundaries of the constituency I Conservative, Labour or Liberal—will feel the effect represented. It may be an intellectual or esoteric thing on their constituents and there will be a backlash in but I thought that I lost something. I knew that part of years to come. my constituency much better. That was not just because I was born and brought up there. It was more compact. Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I am reluctant You could get around it easier and quicker. People to intervene in this debate because I have spent a lot of knew you and the area. The extra 25,000 constituents time over the last few days listening to people talk plus those from the extended area—because it was not about this issue. However, I think that the points that quite rural but it was certainly less urbanised than have been raised by my noble friends, especially those parts of the Rutherglen area—made a difference. It with experience in another place, should be taken very was only five years but I still believe that I did not get seriously. I have been moved by the trip down memory to know that area as well as I would have liked to. lane from my noble friends Lord Snape, Lord Grocott and Lord Rooker to remember many of the times that 4.30 am we had when we first arrived in another place in 1974, This is what is coming to constituencies. “Warn” is when there were 630 Members of Parliament. A few of a heavy word but I certainly advise that what MPs face us were new and we had to learn the ropes. At that is even worse than that because of what is facing their time we were perhaps the first of a new generation constituencies. The town of Hamilton has never been who actually understood what the role of MPs would the same since it was split between two constituencies. be in the future. I remember, when I suggested that I I always felt guilty that half of Hamilton town was put would have an office in the constituency, that many of into Rutherglen purely and simply to make up the my more senior colleagues told me I was creating a rod numbers. If you talk to people in Hamilton, they are for my own back and that this was not something that still annoyed and angry and they feel that their sense was done. I should go to Members’ Lobby and the of belonging to Hamilton has been badly damaged. post office, pick up my post and look through it, We are talking about a ruler across a map. The process discard what I could and do a cursory note to the rest was about numbers only and Hamilton was halved for saying that their opinion or their problem had been the first time in its at least 170-year history as a noted. Things have changed very dramatically, as noble Hamilton-based constituency. friends have explained. Folk might say that it does not make any difference. Part of the problem is that we are starting this I advise your Lordships’ House that I came through it. whole process from the wrong end. It is like looking I saw, experienced and still watch it and it is absolutely down a telescope. We are talking about what voting wrong. The impact on communities throughout the systems should be. We are talking about the number of country from this, as well as from the extra 25,000 or MPs and nobody is talking about the function of the 26,000 constituents—which might be less in England; House of Commons and the role that Members of I know that there are wide variations—will be quite Parliament have to, and ought to, play. When we come drastic. I like to think that people in Rutherglen, on to later debates, including the relationship between Cambuslang and Halfway could get to me any time this House and another place, all those fundamental they wanted. My phone number was in the book and questions will have to be asked again. The Government is still in the book. Folk knew where I stayed and came are introducing a whole series of piecemeal changes to the door. It was just like being a councillor—and which, put together, are totally rewriting the British they all knew me when I was a councillor. That is the constitution without anyone stepping back and looking identification that MPs and former MPs know they at the overall impact. I think that is probably one of have established with their constituencies. the most serious consequences and to discuss the I hope that I will not be accused of overstating the number of MPs in isolation from all the other issues is case but that is going to be, at the very least, severely just ridiculous. I am sure that the new Members who damaged under these proposals because the constituency came into the House of Commons last year—something 205 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 206 like 35 per cent of all Members were new at the last I was very interested, however, in what the noble election—do not yet realise the full implications that Lord, Lord Winston, said and the question he posed this Bill will have on them, not least, as has been about the statistics and how you work it out. This pointed out today, by the completely ridiculous suggestion again is part of the problem. We do not have the that you should have boundary changes every five essential building blocks and analysis in place to accept years. what the Government are suggesting or indeed to My noble friend Lord McAvoy has just outlined the reject it. We are taking ideas that have come from very dramatic consequences that can come from a nowhere, it seems, and we are being told that we boundary revision. I, likewise, have gone through should in fact have lines on maps. I agree with my boundary changes in both the constituencies I represented. noble friend Lady Smith that the Government should In Bolton West, which was my home town—very not be setting these arbitrary lines. In a sense it reminds much in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord me of days of empire when countries went round the McAvoy, was talking about the area he knew—identifying world carving up Africa and saying that a line should with your constituency was actually the key to providing be the boundary between two countries. Just think of the kind of service that was needed. Politics comes some of the problems that led to later. I think we are into this of course and unfortunately in 1983 I lost storing up many problems in the future and think it is that seat, partly because there were new boundary really very significant that many of the questions that changes. Then I represented Dewsbury, which is a have been asked cannot be answered. former textile town. It is very compact and very close As I mentioned earlier, Dewsbury is a small industrial to the next-door town of Batley. There is a great town with its own character and issues. Part of the rivalry but they are very close and have exactly the time I was the MP there—in one incarnation because same kind of problems—a declining woollen industry, the boundaries changed very dramatically—Dewsbury difficult housing issues and a lot of immigration and had attached to it two rural wards from another part consequent issues. When it came to the boundary of Kirklees, wards which actually had been in different changes in 1992, the Boundary Commission decided constituencies over many boundary reviews. This was that certain things should happen. a very middle-class area, very rural, and when I held In supporting my noble friend Lord Snape in his surgeries there few people came. Why? They all wrote probing amendment, I am not saying that the boundaries letters. Basically, they wrote letters about planning we have at the moment are absolutely perfect. We have issues, very often saying that they did not want things all had discussions or disputes or appeared at boundary to be built in that area. However, when I had a surgery reviews trying to put our views as to why certain parts in Dewsbury it was there for hours and there would be of a constituency should be here or there. What happens lots of people there. Have a surgery on a similar day when you have a boundary review is that those of us out of town in a rural area and somebody might who felt strongly about it could make the case. I could wander in to talk about something and have a chat, make the case as to why certain parts of Kirklees—because but basically when people had a problem there they under local government reorganisation many years wrote and later they used the internet, and now it will ago Dewsbury, along with Batley, had gone into all be the internet. Kirklees—should be in with Dewsbury or in with I think that this is a very ill advised Bill. It is going Huddersfield next door or even with Batley. Local to store up many problems in the future. It is going to knowledge, based on where people are working, where destabilise how Members of Parliament work in the children go to school and where the bus routes are, is future if they are going to be in a constant state of vital. What you should be creating is not a constituency revolution and I hope that my noble friend gets some with an arbitrary number of constituents but a answers to his questions. constituency that has an identity—a community that can identify with the Member of Parliament who is going to represent them. I think that is the overriding 4.45 am consideration. My overriding concern is not whether Lord Myners: My Lords, I speak as someone who the number is 650, 630 or—with due respect to my did not have experience in the other place. I have been noble friend—640; it is whether anyone as an individual struck throughout this debate by the number of Member of Parliament can serve their constituency contributors who sat in the other place and the informed because of that very significant constituency link. experience that they were able to share with this House There will still be problems. There will still be issues in talking about this issue. They have also demonstrated because boundaries at the moment are not perfect. I the great skills of those who have worked in the other have had the difficult experience—as I suggest many House—their ability to bring persuasive arguments others have had—where boundaries sometimes lose a together in a concise, efficient and articulate manner. little enclave and people in that area think that you are However, I did not sit in the other place; I joined your their Member of Parliament. You have to tell them Lordships’ House in October 2008, at the peak of the very carefully and often very cautiously, because they banking crisis. may be very upset, that actually you cannot represent I would like to follow up something that was said by them or take up their issue. However, if overall you my noble friend Lord Rooker. He mentioned the can identify with that area then I think that it is likely somewhat intemperate interview that the Leader of that you will provide a better service for your constituency the House gave to Sky Television. I was rather impressed and your constituency will know who to go to and by the Leader of the House when I arrived in this what to demand from you. I think that is key in terms House; he was then the Leader of the Opposition. He of what we should be doing today. was rather posh—the sort of person I expected to find 207 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 208

[LORD MYNERS] look at the way the two of them at the moment, and at in the Lords. He was courteous, considerate and various times up to five or six, have sat there looking knowledgeable of the etiquette and protocols of the very exercised about the act in which they are presently House. I fear that some of those qualities left him involved. during the early stages of today’s debate. I was struck Let me talk a little, when speaking to this amendment, at one point, for instance, when he said he had heard as I am, about my experiences as a junior Minister, “nothing new” from Members in their contributions which I have shared with some junior Ministers who to the debate. have recently been appointed to the Government. One I have sat on the Front Bench occasionally, taking of the things that struck me was that you spent the forward rather tedious but complex legislation, and first half hour of every morning topping and tailing the temptation to turn and natter to your colleagues letters. I was doing over 200 letters a day that had been alongside you or behind you is high. However, I always passed to Ministers from Members of Parliament on tried to resist this temptation, because to do so would behalf of their constituents. You got to know the have been a discourtesy to the House. Yet that was Member of Parliament as a result of this process. You precisely what the Leader of the House was doing, so got to notice that some MPs were very assiduous. when he said “I’ve heard no new arguments”, it was They followed up your reply. Others did not. I was probably because he was not listening to the arguments struck by the difference between the performance of that were coming from the House. That strikes me as a the best compared with the worst. The worst would great act of discourtesy to the House from the Leader. send you a covering letter that was pre-printed, with a I hope that if he is of intemperate mood at the pre-printed scribble on the bottom. Others would moment—and the Sky interview might suggest that—we already have read the letter, reviewed the issues and can look upon this as a short aberration, and the great sought guidance, and would then follow up on the respect I had for this man because of his poshness will responses. return in due course. Lord Snape: Some of us who wrote letters to Ministers Lord Anderson of Swansea: It would not matter if sometimes got the impression that Ministers never he were in an intemperate mood now, because it is not read the replies either. his shift. Lord Myners: I have to say to my noble friend that, Viscount Astor: Is the noble Lord going to address when I first came into government, I inherited nearly the amendment or just make a speech on a totally 3,000 unanswered letters. As I was the most junior different issue? Minister in the Treasury, these letters were pushed down the chain. Noble friends from the other place Lord Myners: Of course I am addressing the will realise how this game is played. As far as a junior amendment; it is good to see the noble Viscount in his Minister is concerned, those letters came to me. Whether place at this particular time of the debate. One of the they were addressed to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor things that I found difficult was getting into this of the Exchequer or the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, debate, probably because I kept waiting for the other they seemed to come to me, and I tried to move some side to stand up and express a view. Of course they did of them on to someone else, but there was no one not, and my own colleagues rose to speak. below me in the Treasury. If I did not read all the replies, it was not due to a lack of effort, although I was struck by the great difference between Members Lord Kinnock: Before my noble friend leaves the of Parliament who took this role seriously and those question relating to the Leader of the House, which is who did not. I see that in the context, as my noble directly germane to this amendment and the way in friend Lady Taylor has said, of this legislation being which the body of amendments have been treated, and carried through the Commons largely on the votes of is therefore, even in the strictest terms, very much in people who are very new to Parliament. order, I put it to him that a man who is innately courteous, considerate and convivial, as well as being Conservative—all the Cs—might not have changed in Lord Tyler: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his nature. What has changed is the environment in sitting down; I have the greatest respect for him as a which he is operating. Now in 2011, with contentious fellow Cornishman. He was lecturing the House earlier legislation before us, the Leader of the House has an about discourtesy. I wonder whether he recalls that it automatic government majority for the first time since is the normal practice in this House to address the 1999 and the departure of the hereditary Peers. This House rather than to keep his colleagues awake by can lead to a hubristic reaction to criticism and cross- turning to them. questioning. It might be followed classically by Nemesis, or the Leader of the House might learn better. Lord Myners: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for that assistance. I recognise that I am Lord Myners: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord very new, and there, once again, I have made a terrible Kinnock for that perceptive observation. In some mistake, for which I apologise. ways, some of the qualities that he has noted were equally evident this evening from those on the Liberal Lord Winston: I find it distasteful to criticise the Benches, who are clearly very uncomfortable. They are Leader of the House while he is not in the Chamber, not speaking to amendments but, goodness me, just but I think the Front Bench said something that was 209 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 210 very relevant to what the noble Lord was saying. I legislation on finance was the noble Baroness, Lady think the word that was used to describe our behaviour Noakes, who struck me in some cases as the only in the Chamber today was “irresponsible”. That is the informed opponent of legislation in detail for which I issue. It is completely responsible, because surely we was responsible. It certainly did not receive sufficient see a major constitutional issue here, and we feel that attention in the House of Commons. it is our duty to do what we can to oppose this. The I recognise that I bring a very limited perspective trivial intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is here, and there is much more that I will wish to say quite inappropriate when we are actually trying to later in the debate about issues relating to Cornwall, tease out what our responsibility is. I hope the noble where the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was a representative Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, but it does for many years in the other place, but from my perspective seem that we should make that point. as a Minister and as a person who is proud to be a Member of this new House, I am deeply concerned that an arbitrary figure has been picked out of the air. Lord Myners: I note the observation and the support I remember the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, putting that my noble friend Lord Winston offers in that his hand up and pulling that figure down on Second respect, but I am also sufficiently new here still to be Reading. I thought that that summed up the amount content to be guided by all Members of the House in of thought the Government had put into this matter. the appropriate courtesies of the House. I was speaking The people of this country should reasonably expect to the variable performance of Members of the other the number of constituencies to be determined carefully place as I saw it from a ministerial position, which led by an independent body, as in the past—a body whose me to ask what the appropriate size of a constituency decisions we can all support. was. Earlier in our debate this evening, we had an extremely interesting contribution from my noble friend Lord Lord Boateng: My Lords, I find myself energised by Davies of Stamford, who talked about the principles the contribution of my noble friend Lord Myners, at a that might determine the size of a constituency. I time when I thought only a double espresso would do. mostly come from Cornwall, as does the noble Lord, His contribution has woken me up and got me thinking. Lord Tyler. I had always understood that one reason We owe him a debt of gratitude for building on the why constituencies in Cornwall were smaller than contribution of my noble friend who moved this elsewhere was the geographical distance within the amendment. I hesitate to use the term “GOATs”, constituency and the time taken to travel to and from because it implies that the rest of us are sheep and the constituency. Of course, my political views were separating the sheep from the goats, but from time to formed in my teens when I was at school in Truro, time a fresh look at these issues is useful from someone when a journey from London to Truro would have who is not as inured to and hardened against the taken 10 or 12 hours on the A30, and it seemed to political processes as those of us old sweats. We have make good sense to have smaller constituencies. had that this morning from my noble friend Lord I find it very difficult to know where my decision Myners. will finally lie. I listened to the debate in the House on My noble friend got me thinking about the challenges the size of the other place, but it seems to me that this that we face in considering this Bill, particularly this decision requires care and attention to the colour, section of it, and in defining what exactly we want texture, features and particular needs of different from constituencies and from individual Members of constituencies. Parliament and their relationship with those constituencies. I make one final observation from my experience as It would be sad if those observing these proceedings a junior Minister in the previous Government about were to take the view that we were polarised across the the other place’s difficulty dealing with the detail of political process on different sides of the House about legislation. This is partially a reflection—I do not for the special relationship between constituencies and one minute suggest that people in the other place are Members of Parliament, and about the value of not diligent—of the additional burdens that are now proceeding not by arbitrary diktat but by considered placed on Members’ time in the other place. Members inquiry based on the evidence. of Parliament are now increasingly looked to by their constituents to solve every issue relating to local communities and families, and will probably be even 5am more so now that this Government are stripping resources I looked at what had been said by members of the out of local government. Is it not interesting that party opposite in the other place, who helped us in when government has abundant resources, it centralises, more reflective and considered times to address the but when government cuts costs, it decentralises in need for reform. There is a need for reform. It would order to push the burden of that cost cutting on to be quite wrong to seek to divide this House on the local authorities? The pressures on Members of Parliament basis that those on this side of it were against all in the other place will become even greater as a reform, were complacent and self-satisfied as regards consequence of the changes in economic management. existing conditions, and that the energy and drive for When it came to legislation with which I was involved progress and reform came only from the Benches on the Front Bench, I thought at first that it would be opposite. What does energise us on this side of the helpful to read Hansard from the other place to guide House is the need for reflection, evidence and a capacity me on what the issues were likely to be. I found that to be, as it were, almost above the fray in determining the only person who really challenged the detail of what the national interest is. 211 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 212

[LORD BOATENG] We on this side of the House are not saying there is I found a useful contribution to the debate in a no role for Members of Parliament—far from it—in paper presented to the parliamentary affairs journal determining the number of seats. Sure, we have concerns, of Oxford University Press entitled, ‘Far Too Elaborate which my noble friend has sought to tease out in his About So Little’: New Parliamentary Constituencies amendment, about the arbitrary fixing of those numbers for England, by Ron Johnston, David Rossiter and of seats, but we do not say that it is a matter for others Charles Pattie, three academic, impartial observers of apart from ourselves alone. However, we recognise our system. They examined very carefully the views that there is an advantage, as a Conservative Member across our Houses about how one should go about says, of the judgment of those charged with the care of identifying and defining constituencies and forming our democracy having a final and determinate say. He them around viable communities with a link with their goes on to say: elected representatives. “If it is the judgment of those charged with the care of our democracy that what is proposed is in the national interest, then, The article referred to a contribution from a provided they will give due consideration to our requests, so Conservative Member of Parliament in a Wiltshire be it”. constituency on the removal of wards from the large What is important is the proviso, Salisbury constituency. I think that I know who this particular Member of Parliament is but as his name is “provided they will give due consideration to our requests”. not cited in the document I do not want to embarrass What is so offensive about what is proposed by him by naming him. He loves his constituency and his some Members opposite? I do not believe that all party but loves his country and the parliamentary Members opposite actually believe in what they are system more than both those things. In his oral evidence putting before this House. I just do not believe it; to the inspector at the inquiry he said that he did not because if they have had the experience, which I wish to lose a single elector from the constituency. respect because I served alongside them for many That is something which all of us who have served in years—experience which we have all had with our the other place understand. Whatever issues we may constituencies—they know that provided there is an have with individuals who are perhaps persistent in opportunity to express local concerns to ensure that their letter writing—some of them use green ink, local conditions are taken into account, and that it is which is always a sign—and appear on a regular basis not arbitrary and not fixed, and provided there is a at one’s constituency surgeries, one grows fond of space to do that, at the end of the day they are them. They are part and parcel of the life of the prepared to take whatever it is that emerges from the constituency, they have a view and they care and you process. What is not acceptable is this arbitrary figure welcome them and do not want to lose such people arrived at we know not how. through boundary changes. Having quoted that Conservative Member of Parliament, I shall move on briefly. We do not want So the local Member did not wish to lose a single excessively to go down memory lane— elector from his constituency, but he accepted—and we have all had to do this from time to time—the absolute inevitability of the restructuring. He gave a Lord Myners: Oh! long historical account of the constituency. Frankly, for those of us who served in the other place—and indeed noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Lord Boateng: I am not going to rise to the temptation Myners, have observed those who served—you actually that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, casts in front of become quite attached to your constituency and its me. I do not want excessively to go down memory history. It is important when someone comes in from lane, although I want to go down it a bit, because it outside the area to adjudicate on the nature of the would demonstrate the point that I am seeking to constituency boundaries as to whether that person make. These are not always partisan matters in which, understands the history. One feels duty-bound to go in the course of a local inquiry, one party takes one on about it sometimes at length. However, having view and another party takes another, and the MPs given this long historical account, he concluded: divide accordingly. I think of the last inquiry that I was involved in. It was seeking to determine where a “It is not in my nature to resist sensible reform”. particular council housing estate with a lot of problems, All Members on this side of the House can empathise should finally fall in the revision of the boundaries in with that. It is not in our nature to resist sensible the London Borough of Brent. I put in my submission, reform, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues which was that it should not come into my constituency. on the Benches opposite accept that fact, stated in The then right honourable Member for Brent North, good faith. He goes on to say: the very distinguished Conservative, Sir Rhodes Boyson, put in his submission, based on his having represented “If it is a judgment of those charged with the care of our that part of the constituency in the past. The then democracy”— member for Brent East, Ken Livingstone, put in his That relates exactly to a point that has raised its head submission. time and time again in the course of our debates today. It was interesting that I, the Member of Parliament Care for democracy is not the business of Members of for Brent South, and the Member of Parliament for Parliament alone. There are advantages to having Brent North, took one view, and the Member of another source of influence and power outside these Parliament for Brent East took another. It was Houses of Parliament which has the final and determinate Conservative and Labour on the one hand and the say. Member of Parliament for Brent East on the other. He 213 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 214 arrived at his representations to the inquiry without openness are beyond the direct control of cities, many any reference to me, and I arrived at my conclusions are well within the control or immediate influence of without any reference to Sir Rhodes Boyson. However, city governments, and the city’s identity and character. the two of us took a particular view of the needs of In the course of this debate, not just in relation to that constituency in an area that we both knew very London but to a number of other cities in our country, well, because at the time both of us had done a lot of we have heard reference to identity and character as work in that ward. The Member of Parliament for forming an important part of the basis on which Brent East had not done as much work in that ward, constituency boundaries might be drawn up. They but he was absolutely determined that the ward should include housing, culture and, importantly, the kind of not pass into his constituency. local democracy it practises and the forms of participation That is the sort of representation that Members on that it encourages. all sides of this House will know and understand, For those of us who are London Members, and because it reflects the business of local democracy, those who are Members in large metropolitan cities, and meeting local needs and concerns. I wonder if the reality is that a large proportion of the population noble Lords on the other side of the House—I talk are foreigners who have no eligibility to vote but who not just of Conservative Members but also of Liberal are a welcome part of our communities. Quite rightly Democrat Members in the coalition—believe in their at this time, they draw on the services of Members of hearts that losing that link is a price worth paying for Parliament and elected representatives. There will not such political gain as they may arrive at in the short be a single former Member of the other place in the term. I suspect that some of them do not. One of our Chamber this evening who does not know that in functions in the course of our debate on these issues constituency surgeries, one is as likely to see somebody must be to tease out those Members on the other side, who is not eligible to vote—not just by virtue of and the issues that relate to them, so that they can appearance or otherwise on the electoral roll, but come clean about how they feel and there is no longer simply because they are not citizens or Commonwealth this omerta on their side, where they fear to speak out subjects—as somebody who is. However, quite rightly, for whatever reason and are encouraged to be absent those people find in a Member of Parliament in their so we do not hear the other side. constituency surgery someone who is welcoming, someone Before resuming my place, I draw to the attention who has time for them and someone who deals with of noble Lords an issue that has come up today and their specific problems. That contributes to making that I hope might persuade Members opposite to London the open city that it is, it contributes to pause and think a little. In today’s Evening Standard, making London top of this league table and it causes there appears the headline: other great cities in our country to be magnets for “London tops league table of cities open to foreigners”. bright, skilled, energetic people from all over the world who will, from time to time, have to call on the services It goes on to point out what many of us who represents of their local Member of Parliament. London seats know well: “London is the world’s most ‘open’ city because of its welcoming In the course of our deliberations on the Bill, we attitude to foreigners and liberal immigration policies, according will address this issue in a number of amendments. I to a new league table”. have proposed one that states that we should look at The article continues: the census rather than simply the electoral roll when we come to determine constituency sizes and boundaries. “The capital beat New York, Los Angeles, Dusseldorf and Toronto in an assessment by the British Council of cities’ ability This is not by any means a view that has not in the past to attract and benefit from international populations. Among the been given the care, reflection and consideration that 54 factors considered”— is it due in circumstances that were not charged with in arriving at this league table— the sort of arbitrary numerical approach that is now being adopted by the parties opposite. Most recently, “were ease of firms to hire foreign labour, entry into the relevant country, the rights given to migrants and their ability to bring in a report to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, family members … Announcing its findings today, the British The Electoral Commission and the Redistribution of Council … insisted that London’s current ‘open’ nature was of Seats, was submitted by David Butler and Iain McLean. significant benefit to the capital”. What they do, usefully, is to look at the arguments—the pros and cons—for viewing the census as the basis for 5.15 am redistribution in the future. They make the point—rightly, The article goes on to quote people—including the Members of the Committee may think—that the census Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson—who express concern should in principle provide a most accurate count of that anything should occur that would interfere in any the UK resident population. They go on to indicate way with this welcoming approach to migration. It where the move from electorate to population as the quotes London First and university chiefs and then basis for drawing up constituency boundaries would refers to someone else who is objective and independent; be hotly controversial. The authors refer to the situation namely, Professor Mike Hardy, the head of partnerships in Northern Ireland, where they believe there would at the British Council, who states: be considerable controversy if we were to make that “Openness is a real advantage for cities if they are pursuing move. Nevertheless, they say that this is something plans to be internationally connected and play international that ought to be out there—that the census, with all its roles”. limitations, will potentially have a role to play. The article goes on to look at some factors that The tragedy of the approach being taken by Members influence openness. This bears directly on the amendment opposite is that we will not have the opportunity to that we are considering. While some factors influencing have that debate. That cannot be right, and I ask, even 215 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 216

[LORD BOATENG] far. We will remember precisely what the issues are at this late stage and late hour, that, in responding, the about. I, for one, hope that the usual channels will find Minister goes beyond the negative and the narrow their way to their rightful place and deliver what is partisan and party-political point-scoring that I fear expected from your Lordships’ House. has, from time to time, characterised the response of some Members opposite. I ask that he goes to the Lord Bach: My Lords, I can be fairly brief. I thank merit of the arguments because, if you do that, you my noble friend Lord Snape and all the others who find that there is something to which we need to give have spoken so well in this debate. I know the Minister serious consideration—maintaining this country’s position came on shift just before this debate began; I do not in the global democratic league tables. That is what we know how much of the last debate he heard. I do not all seek to do on this side of the Committee and that is know if he heard my brief address before taking over. why I commend my noble friend’s amendment. I will make just a couple of points. From the many important points that have been made in this debate, Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, with my the real principle has been the relationship between a background, noble Lords will understand if I gaze at Member of Parliament and his or her constituency, the Clock and have in mind the working time directive. about which many—some with great experience of the Despite the allegations of filibustering levelled at this other place and some without—have spoken. side of the Chamber, I believe that the debate on the There are two points that I want to ask the noble Bill has been healthy and good—good for the House and learned Lord about. First, there is the issue, which itself. It has been healthy because it has explored some arises again, about the fact that Parliament has not set of the principles on which this House stands and an exact number of Members of Parliament since, we completes its tasks. Therefore, the tension in the debate believe, 1832. Rules that have provided pretty adequately on the Bill comes about because the Opposition are in earlier years—most latterly, in 1986—have been doing their job. They are rigorously scrutinising the very carefully and sensibly worded. It is not as though Bill and holding the Government to account, as they Parliament does not give a clue as to the area in which should. the number of MPs should be, but it refuses to give an In my relatively short time in your Lordships’ House, exact figure. On this side, we think that is an excellent I have heard many debates on the role and function of thing and believe that the exact number should be a the House of Lords. However, what we have not done matter for the independent boundary review. It also with the same regularity is to look at how the House acts as a sort of security key and means that the operates and delivers its remit. It is very clear that the Government cannot be criticised for having got through long-established conventions are recognised and Parliament an exact figure. Why is it that the Government understood. It is also clear that something is missing want to change that well-established principle? in the way that the Bill is being handled—it is that element called the usual channels. As a relatively new 5.30 am Member, it took me some time to understand the The second issue I want to raise is the one about importance of the usual channels. However, I now lowering the number of Members of Parliament to understand how they operate. The usual people meet 600. We believe that the policy of reducing the House in the usual place, they discuss the usual agenda and, of Commons to 600 seats has so far been proposed as usual, they emerge with agreement—not the usual without, I am afraid, any coherent explanation, any agreement but specific agreement. coherent analysis, or indeed any proper consideration. I have no problem with the usual channels. Indeed, Many voices across the political spectrum—in both I built a failed career around the usual channels. One Houses and outside—have criticised the Government’s of the issues before the House is the size of constituencies. failure up till now to explain why 600 seats is the As you look back, you think, “I’ve heard this before; appropriate level at which to fix membership of the I’ve read this before”. I recall that, in the charter other place. I repeat a quote that the Minister will have presented in another place in 1848 by Feargus O’Connor, heard before from the Political and Constitutional the Chartist Member of Parliament for Nottingham, Reform Select Committee of the other place, which equity of constituency numbers was one of the key concluded in October, elements. Indeed, it was quite revolutionary.He advocated “There may be a case for reducing the number of Members of annual Parliaments, which is a step too far for me. If the House to 600, but the Government has not made it”. you look at the charter, MPs’ pay was an issue. We The Government have not explained how this figure have been here before. What they did not have then, corresponds to the role of Members of Parliament, but we have today, is the advantage of the usual about which we have heard in this debate, or what that channels. Above all else, we cannot afford to lose that role itself should be. They have not explained how this mechanism for resolving issues and maintaining the figure will enable Members of Parliament to provide a culture and traditions of your Lordships’ House. That better service to their constituents or a more effective is absolutely sacrosanct. performance as parliamentarians. I say to the Minister I hope, therefore, that we can learn lessons from our that it is time that the Government at last make the predecessors in many instances. It is right that this case for why the number is 600, and why there should House and the Opposition should hold the Government be a lowering of the number of Members of Parliament to account. It is right that we should ask for justification from 650 to 600. One thing I am sure of is that the of all decisions that are being made. However, in the noble and learned Lord will, as he customarily does, end, I am sure that, as we move into another day and answer in his reasoned and measured way, unlike—I seek to look at today’s agenda, we will not stray too am afraid—some others on the Front Bench. 217 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 218

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, at one of an individual Member of Parliament is. I think it is point in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, ultimately a matter of judgment as to what level MPs said that he wondered if Ministers would bring themselves can best serve their constituents. to look at it again. In responding to the debate for the The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked why the second time in this area of discussion, I am obliged to Government wish to fix the number; previously, the look at it again. It may come as no surprise that I still Boundary Commission has rules but the number is believe that the 600 proposed in this Bill is what the not fixed. The present legislation states: Committee should support. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, would reduce the “The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable”. number of current constituencies in the other place by 10 and result in 640 constituencies, which would reduce It could be argued that is a more stringent target than the number by 50. It was suggested—I am sure that it the range we put forward under the Bill, which is plus was just a slip of the tongue—that somehow or other or minus 5 per cent. However, this requirement is then the Government draw up the boundaries. That is balanced against other rules and factors. The result of clearly not the case. That will still be a matter for the the overall scheme is that the equality and fairness in independent boundary commission. Consideration of the weight of a vote, which is enshrined as a principle the workload of Members of Parliament has been a in rule 5 as it stands at the moment, ends up as one strong feature of the debate on this amendment. The consideration among many. Then, of course, when noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, talked about trips down Boundary Commission recommendations are debated, memory lane, and the noble Lord, Lord Myners, gave political parties, which are usually the principal players us a more recent trip down memory lane than some of in the consultation process, use any factor that they those who have served in the other place did. I can possibly can to advance electoral interests. It is also of understand why I might be tempted to follow that interest that the British Academy report on the Bill course, but I do not particularly want to go too far notes, down memory lane. However, I think it is important “This new set of rules that the Boundary Commissions must that this debate has been informed by that experience. apply is clear and consistent”, I identified with the first part of the speech of the and, noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the different range of “a very substantial improvement on those currently implemented what MPs are expected to do and the different ways in by the Boundary Commissions (they have a clear hierarchy and which they go about doing it. It certainly struck a are not contradictory)”. chord with me when he said, just as you think you have heard the last of what you might be asked to do, We have discussed on more than one occasion the something comes along the following week that you issue of the present arrangements whereby there has could not have conceived of; I am sure that most been continual creep—there has been one exception, Members in the other place have had that experience since 1950, when the reduction of the Scottish Members at some time or other. brought the number down; in every other location it has gone up. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked what we are McAvoy, that my recollection is that Hamilton was requiring of Members of Parliament and talked about split in two long before that reduction happened following the importance of mathematical formulae in his work. devolution, because I am sure that the noble Lord, However, I think it was made clear in a debate to Lord Robertson, was Member for Hamilton South, which I contributed almost 12 hours ago that and he stood down and fought a by-election before mathematical formulae do not actually work in situations there was any change in the Westminster boundaries. I like this. As the noble Lord, Lord Myners, said, there also point out that, whereas the reduction proposed in is variable performance. In some cases the variable this Bill, from 650 to 600, is a reduction of some 7 per performance will be because of different personalities cent, the reduction that occurred in Scotland following of the Members of Parliament or different circumstances devolution, from 72 to 59, was a reduction of some in their constituencies. If you represented a rural 18 per cent, which is twice as great as is proposed constituency, how could you ever factor in the possibility under this Bill. that there might be another outbreak of BSE or foot and mouth disease? It is simply impossible. At the end I said earlier that both parties in this Government of the day, the people who make the judgments as to made commitments in the election to reduce the number. how well or how poorly an individual Member of I will not go over in detail again the context in which Parliament discharges the many different responsibilities the Liberal Democrats made theirs because it has been on him or her are the voters. There is no job description, explained. Nevertheless, the background involved seeking as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said. That is why any to reduce the numbers. We have said that to go too far way of trying to boil it down to some mathematical may lead to even greater upheaval and disruption. On formula simply will not work. the other hand, as for the figure of 76,000, which I have mentioned before, about a third of existing seats are within 5 per cent of this figure—on either side—and Lord Howarth of Newport: If mathematical formulae this means it is within the existing range of experience do not work, why are the Government determined to of many Members of Parliament. I cannot accept impose a quota of 76,000 voters per constituency? what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said; that, somehow or other, the number of 76,000 weakens the link Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord is not between Members of Parliament and their constituents. comparing like with like. I said it is impossible to work The fact is that a third of existing seats are within 5 per out a mathematical formula relating to what the workload cent of 76,000, on either side, and no one has suggested 219 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 220

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] contributions, at least from this side of your Lordships’ that that particular figure means that that link does House. I am grateful to the Minister. It is a fact, as not currently exist. We have proposed a modest cut. someone commented a moment or two ago, that if we As I said, it is a reduction that was proposed in the do not particularly get enlightenment from this Minister, manifestos of both the coalition parties. I also note—and we get a bit more courtesy than we get from either the did not pick up before—that the noble Lord, Lord Leader of the House, who has not been seen—his shift Baker of Dorking, indicated before that this House obviously does not include nights—or from the noble has in the past supported a Private Member’s Bill to Lord, Lord McNally, who sometimes gives the impression reduce the number; but of course this particular clause, at the Dispatch Box of a grumpy version of Blackpool’s when it was in the other place, was substantially famous resident, Les Dawson. He sits there gurning, supported by Members in the other place. whingeing and banging about from time to time, and That is not an excuse for it not being examined in snapping nastily at anybody who has the temerity to your Lordships’ House in this Committee. Nevertheless, ask him questions, to which he quite obviously either those who are most directly affected by this actually does not know the answer or cannot be bothered to endorsed the proposal by a substantial majority. For find out. Therefore it is pleasure at least to listen to the completeness, I would also say to the noble Lord, noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of—I have Lord Rooker, who raised the point about the increase forgotten his title so I will just call him Lord Wallace. in the size of the Bill, this was done by government The noble and learned Lord is perhaps a better way of amendments adding schedules to the Bill, made in the doing it. other place, rather than being included in the Bill at introduction. It was to allow time to discuss the details Noble Lords: The nice Lord. of them with devolved Administrations, electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission. In any event, I think it is fair to point out—and this may be 5.45 am the reason why the press have not latched onto it—that Lord Snape: Yes, Mr Nice versus Mr Nasty at the the vast majority of time taken so far to debate this Dispatch Box. Lord Nice, fine. We will agree to that. Bill has been spent on the clauses and not the schedules, One or two questions were put to me, as the mover and the vast majority of amendments laid and debated of the amendment, to which I would like to reply. have related to the clauses and not the schedules. I First, any Member of your Lordships’ House, and think that it is not comparing like with like to suggest certainly any ex-Member of the other place, could that the doubling of the size of the Bill has led to the handle a constituency of 90,000 people, as my noble increased debates in the Committee of your Lordships’ friend Lord Grocott said. However, it illustrates that, House. I think that the addition of the schedules by even on five-year boundary reviews there is no guarantee government amendment in the other place did not add that a constituency that starts off at 76,000 will not to the time needed to debate the Bill there in any end up at somewhere like 90,000. The fact that my significant way. noble friend had that difficulty when he represented If I have repeated myself, it is because many of the The Wrekin illustrates the problems that could be arguments have been similar. I have not addressed the caused in future years. My noble friend Lord Winston, points made with regard to the relationship between who is not in his place, put the question to me. He the number of Members in the other House and the actually said that the blanket rule on the size of the number of Ministers. I have indicated before that the constituency does not make sense; and, of course, he Government do think that it is a matter of proper is right. No matter how well the nice Lord strings debate. There are other amendments which we can these replies together, the fact is that a constituency of come to and we can have a fuller debate. Likewise, I 76,000, whether in an urban or a rural area, makes no say to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, that the point real sense. As my noble friend Lord Winston said, about using the census he has indicated himself in his some of the social problems in an urban area are amendment, and I am sure that he will understand if I enormous. Those of us who served in the other place do not detain the House in Committee at this time know full well the variety of constituency problems when there will be an opportunity in a further amendment that one deals with at a surgery. I do not pretend that it to debate that. With those words, I rather hope that is any easier for predominantly Conservative Members the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will withdraw his amendment. of the other place who represent rural areas; it certainly will not be any easier with an electorate of 76,000. You Lord McAvoy: My Lords, I am not intervening on need a tank full of fuel to get round the constituency the Minister, but I am clarifying that in 1999, George on a Saturday morning. Robertson resigned the Hamilton South seat and Bill Again, there is no real explanation from the Tynan fought the by-election. The boundaries were Government as to how that figure has been arrived at changed for the 2005 general election, when I took and what is the common sense, if any, behind it. My over. noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon said, and I agree, that she disagreed with the other place, or any Lord Snape: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords Government, setting numbers for constituencies. However, who have participated in this debate. Again, it is if we are to debate matters here, we have to table instructive about the quality of your Lordships’ House amendments like this. I am not wedded to the figure of that, even at this unearthly hour of the day and on an 645; it just happened to be fairly close to the 650 amendment that followed a pretty similar one, we still proposed at present. My noble friend amply illustrated had an exchange of views and some knowledgeable the difficulty, which will arise more and more often in 221 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 222 bigger constituencies, of dealing with two local authorities, Lord Snape: Indeed. My noble friends may scoff, two health authorities and two different police forces. but it did me no harm at successive general elections, That makes the job far more difficult for a Member of so I will plead guilty to that. I am not getting involved the other place. in the spat between my noble friend Lord McAvoy and I do not want to repeat anything that I said in the nice Lord who responded; these Scottish matters moving the amendment, but seeking from public funds are not for me. My noble friend made his point as the proper and adequate staffing to deal with that elegantly as always. extra workload will not be an easy task. We can rely We have another similar amendment to follow, and on the Daily Mail and its fellow newspapers to talk I am sure that lots of new points will be made. Having about how expensive democracy is becoming if and listened to the Minister, I am sure that we can rely on when adequate resources are provided for those who his good temper and equanimity to get us through are to take on the extra workload. until breakfast. My noble friend Lord Rooker pointed out quite correctly that there is no real definition of the job of a Noble Lords: Lunch! Member of Parliament. Knowing that I was going to participate in this debate, I was throwing out some papers from my house and found some details of a Lord Snape: Lunch, indeed. Until dinner, as far as surgery I did on a Saturday morning 10 or 11 years some of my noble friends are concerned. Bearing in ago before I left the other place. It was not particularly mind the equanimity with which the Minister replied, busy; it was one of five that I did that day; there were I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. three housing cases, one about a hospital appointment, one case about bus services in the area, three immigration Amendment 62 withdrawn. cases and someone seeking my assistance in getting a cherished number plate. That is a fairly wide set of skills that Members of Parliament are supposed to Amendment 63 demonstrate on a Saturday morning. Moved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark 63: Clause 11, page 9, line 18, leave out “600” and insert “650” Lord Anderson of Swansea: No questions of policy?

Lord Snape: No questions on policy. In my Lord Kennedy of Southwark: The constitutional constituency, they were quite happy to leave that sort significance of the Bill cannot be overstated. It is very of nonsense to me. They regarded my job as solving regrettable that there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny their problems—quite rightly; in my view, that is what of a Bill on such important matters. The Government MPs’ surgeries should do. On the very rare occasion are in a pickle over this, and that is due to their way of that anyone came to discuss policy, they were usually handling the situation. That is clear in the tactics that from what my noble friend referred to as the green ink they are deploying to try to force it through. It has brigade, invariably from either the far left or the far been rammed through the Commons. I referred to right, and both of them got fairly short shrift in West members of the coalition in the other place who are Bromwich town hall. opposed to specific measures in the Bill in my contribution on Second Reading. It is most regrettable that, despite Lord Kinnock: Or from outer space. repeated offers from the Labour Front Bench, no one has come forward to negotiate to move things forward Lord Snape: Or on something, I think is the proper sensibly. We will come to issues such as that of the Isle description. My noble friend Lady Taylor rightly talked of Wight and Cornwall later, where there is much about the role of the House of Commons and how unhappiness on the coalition side of the House. individual constituents identify with their Member of The Government’s whole approach to this has been Parliament. They will have enormous difficulty with wrong. I wonder what the advice of the Foreign Office these bigger constituencies. My noble friend Lord would be to any Government abroad who had just Rooker will remember that in the 1980s, either Central been elected and said to us, “We are considering Television or ATV—I think it was Central Television changing the number of Members of Parliament elected at the time—conducted an opinion poll in the Birmingham to our House. Do you think that that would be a good and West Bromwich areas about MPs’ identities. A idea?”. regular opinion poll was done in my constituency, We have heard contributions from many noble Lords which was highly marginal, and in a marginal constituency who have been Members in the other place about the in the East Midlands. I was fortunate. My noble friend work of Members of Parliament on Second Reading, Lord Rooker and I scored the highest recognition, and in debates on amendments moved in Committee. I with about 70 per cent, in our respective constituencies. have heard nothing from the government Front Bench Seven out of 10 people approached knew the name of to convince me that the work of Members of Parliament their Member of Parliament. in the other place has not increased considerably. I was In his case, it was because he was an extremely never a Member of the other House, but I recall, as a diligent and hard-working local MP. In my case, it was young Labour Party member and a constituent of just that I was appearing on television fairly regularly Harriet Harman, helping her at her advice surgeries in in a programme called “Central Weekend”. the town halls in Camberwell and Walworth in the London Borough of Southwark on Friday nights nearly Noble Lords: We remember it well. 28 years ago. They were packed with 60 or 70 people at 223 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 224

[LORD KENNEDY OF SOUTHWARK] will have on those communities. The East Midlands is a time with a whole variety of problems: housing, a series of principal towns or cities and rural counties. immigration and many other issues. That has only The cities of Derby, Nottingham and Leicester are increased over time. That is only part of the important unitary authorities, and the MPs in Nottingham and work that a Member of Parliament undertakes. I Leicester are coterminous there. There are county cannot see how any elector—any constituent—is better towns, such as Chesterfield and the wonderful city of served by increasing the size of constituencies. The Lincoln. There are coalfield communities in constituency of Peckham where I grew up is bounded Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire and by the constituencies of Southwark and Bermondsey, there is the unique county of Rutland. My noble Dulwich and West Norwood, Lewisham and Deptford, friend Lady Billingham also mentioned and Vauxhall. All those constituencies have similar Northamptonshire, with its boot and shoe history— problems, and no voter living there could be served Doctor Martens in Wellingborough—and Weetabix in better by the proposals. Kettering. The Government’s proposals will do nothing I very much agree with the comment made by my for them. noble friend Lady McDonagh about the basis on In conclusion, my amendment would fix the number which the Government have selected the figure of 600. of seats at 650, which is a better number than that It is because that number benefits the Conservative proposed by the Government. I thank my noble friends Party—or it believes that it does. My amendment will Lady McDonagh and Lord Snape. ensure that county and city boundaries can be respected by the Boundary Commission. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, it is a great In the early 1990s, I was involved in the boundary pleasure for me to make my first speech of the day. I inquiry in Coventry.I saw how the Boundary Commission was just thinking, as my noble friend Lord Kennedy got it wrong. The number of seats was being reduced was speaking, about some of the work that I have seen from four to three, and it issued proposals putting Members of Parliament do. I served for nearly four together the Holbrooks ward of Coventry North West years on the Intelligence and Security Committee. A with the Longford ward of Coventry North East in number of other Members here have done that. We the same constituency. It made no difference in outcome met every Tuesday morning, and I used to see MPs whether those two wards were in the same constituency turning up there regularly, Tuesday after Tuesday, as or different constituencies. What the Boundary well as going in on a Monday to read the papers—we Commission had missed, looking at maps in London, could not take them away because of their security was the Coventry to Nuneaton railway line, the A444 level. That is inevitably some of the unseen work of from junction 3 on the M6 leading into the city, and Members of Parliament, yet vital work supervising the two fields either side separating those two wards. the activities of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. The inquiry brought that out, the commission understood I am not supposed to say much about the work of it, the proposals were changed and they remained in the intelligence agencies and the Intelligence and Security different constituencies. My amendment allows the Committee, but I can say that we got a list of things commission to do that. that were defined by the United Nations as unacceptable and degrading behaviour and torture. Just above Have the Government sought the advice of IPSA waterboarding came sleep deprivation. I know why on these matters? I understand that many MPs will now. After a while, you get disoriented, you get confused, not have a home, an office or staff in their constituency. you start repeating yourself and you are not sure what If the boundaries keep changing every four or five day of the week it is. I can see why it was used as a years, there could be a considerable waste of public torture and still is, allegedly. money with people moving around all the time to ensure that they are in their constituency. The last time I intervened, which was yesterday, I was thwarted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord I listened with great interest to the contribution of Wallace of Tankerness, who everyone has been praising my noble friend Lady Billingham. She set out carefully today, for reasons I cannot understand. He may have the importance of community of interest. I recalled, been nice today, but he was not so nice to me yesterday. as she spoke, the day that Donald Dewar came to Noble Lords may remember that, just as I got up to support her in her election campaign in Corby. I met make a modest intervention, he got up to the Dispatch Donald at Kettering station and drove him to Corby. Box in a slightly atypically aggressive way to try to Donald was a great campaigner and we had a wonderful conclude the debate. I had to come in afterward, by time. What made him chuckle was that he had travelled which time I was flustered and not my usual self and down from Scotland, had come to Corby and had met did not make all the points that I wanted to make. so many people from Glasgow and Lanarkshire. He That is why I am glad to be able to contribute to the knew some of the families and he got such a warm debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord welcome. As my noble friend Lady Billingham said, Kennedy, which I think is the best of the bunch, if I younger people living there who had never been to may say so. Scotland in their lives spoke with what I can only The one thing that I did say yesterday was in describe as a Scottish accent. That was because of the relation to flexibility for the Boundary Commission, nature and closeness of the community there. The particularly for England. I would like to elaborate on proposals would ride roughshod over those communities. that. I mentioned that Northern Ireland, Scotland and I worked for many years in the East Midlands. It is Wales were used to being given specific numbers, a wonderful place, a wonderful part of the country, particularly minimum numbers, but in relation to England, but I am very worried about the effect that the proposals if we say a rigid number, that will make it very difficult 225 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 226 for the Boundary Commission to fulfil its task, particularly two hours to drive across the constituency and I did where it is constrained to plus or minus 5 per cent—we not drive all that slowly. I had a huge variety of areas will come to that later. to represent. Muirkirk is an old mining area and there It will be very difficult for the commission to get it is a little village outside Muirkirk, called Glenbuck, exactly right, to go around the country trying to fit in, which was the home of Bill Shankly and Bob Shankly in an artificial way, a specific number of constituencies and which had a fantastic football team, the Glenbuck of a specific size and, at the same time, corresponding Cherrypickers, probably one of the best known football with natural boundaries wherever possible, so that we teams of its time. do not end up with constituencies which have one part Moving on a little, we find Auchinleck and Cumnock, on one side of the Tyne, or whatever river, and another both mining towns. I chose Cumnock as the territorial part on the other. We saw it in Glasgow. Noble friends designation for my title. Cumnock is where James Keir from Scotland will recall how the Boundary Commission Hardie lived for a while and is now buried—the cradle for Scotland was concerned about constituencies which of the Labour movement. Mauchline was one of the straddled the Clyde. I hope that we will give consideration places connected with Robert Burns—Poosie Nansie’s at some point, not to specifying the exact number, is there—and, ironically, also of the Leader of the whether 650, 640 or whatever, but to giving some House, who, sadly, is not with us today. I was hoping flexibility to the Boundary Commission. to be able to pay tribute to him and his home in Notwithstanding all that, I think, with respect to Mauchline, where I used to represent him and look the others, that the amendment of the noble Lord, after his interests extremely well. He does not often Lord Kennedy, is the best of the bunch because return the compliment and look after my interests, but maintaining the status quo will mean the least disruption I certainly looked after his. I represented all these—the for existing Members of Parliament. As I was saying villages of Coylton and Dalrymple, of Patna and earlier, these Members of Parliament have only recently Dalmellington in the Doon Valley, of Maybole and been elected and I must say, having been in the other Crosshill, between which two I now live. Maybole was place for 26 years and out of it for only five, I think the ancient capital of Carrick, a fantastic town, and that some of those in the last intake are the best we there is also the seaside town of Girvan. Any Glaswegians have seen for generations. I am sure that noble Lords here, or people from the central belt of Scotland will who have been in the other place will agree that it has know that they used to go, “doon the water” to the been a super intake. Even the Conservative intake has lovely seaside resort of Girvan. been full of talented people; the Labour intake certainly All of this was 700 square miles and then the has. I will leave the Liberal Democrats out of this. Boundary Commission added another 100 square miles—I had to represent 800 square miles after the Lord Kinnock: Everybody else does. Boundary Commission. Annbank and Mossblown came in, two mining areas, as well as Kincaidston and Belmont, parts of the outskirts of Ayr. Why am I Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: As my noble friend says, telling you this? everyone else does. These Members of Parliament are just beginning to find their feet, to get to know their constituencies Lord Kinnock: A maiden speech, obviously. really well, they are beginning to settle in and they face a major disruption. They could face minor alterations, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: A maiden speech, yes. I as we are all used to; we accept that from time to time. am taking noble Lords on a tour and I hope that some As my noble friend Lord Anderson said, after every noble Lords will join me on the tour because, in all three Parliaments you accepted that there would be a these towns, I had to have surgeries. In poor areas, the relatively minor review and that was all part of the job bus services were not very good. My constituents of being a Member of Parliament. However, to have could not come to me; I had to go to them. I once just entered Parliament and to face a review which, talked to constituents in Cumnock about Girvan and because Parliament is being reduced to 600, will inevitably they had never been to Girvan. They had never in their be extensive, is really quite destabilising. lives visited another part of my constituency. It was I think it was my noble friend Lord Rooker who astonishing. They had been to Mallorca, but that is accidentally stumbled across Conservative MPs being another story. They had not travelled, because the bus briefed to prepare for this. He assumed that others services were not particularly good, so I had to go would be doing the same and I am sure he is absolutely there. right to assume that Members of Parliament are Before the reorganisation in my constituency I had preoccupied about this. It is not just that they will face 20 surgeries every month. I took them in the morning competition from candidates from other parties—they on each Friday and Saturday and I moved from area first have to get selected for these new constituencies, to area. After the reorganisation they went up to 24 and that is quite destabilising. and going and sitting in a surgery is only part of the I want to speak about a boundary review that I work—you then go back and write up all your notes, went through. I was elected in 1979 for South Ayrshire, decide how to follow it through, acknowledge to the which extended to 700 square miles—a large, rural constituent that you taken it up. That was the revised constituency.People think of Labour MPs as representing constituency before my noble friend Lady Liddell of small urban constituencies. I represented this large, Coatdyke—it was not all her responsibility, but she rural constituency which stretched from Muirkirk in was the Minister—brought in the second reorganisation the north to Ballantrae in the south. It would take me of constituencies that I was involved in. 227 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 228

[LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK] Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Yes, we will have PPS We managed to keep all the boundaries within squared. Ayrshire. We had a big fight, by the way, to keep five On a more serious point, in one of the replies to an constituencies in Ayrshire. My noble friend Lord Reid earlier debate, it was said that in future Ministers was very keen to move part of Ayrshire into Lanarkshire might come not just from the House of Commons, but for the constituency boundaries. more might come from the House of Lords, or elsewhere. The implication was that there could be Ministers who Baroness Ford: Outrageous. were in neither House of Parliament. Will the Minister Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Outrageous, as my noble clarify whether that is the Government’s policy? That friend rightly says. We managed to keep four constituencies would mean the start of a move towards the separation in Ayrshire out of the original five, but that meant that of powers and the movement of the Executive away of five Labour MPs, one had to go, because we were from the legislature. That would be a very retrograde only going to fight four constituencies, and that is why step, but it may be something that the Government are I ended up here. I was the longest serving, the oldest considering. The Conservatives or, even more keenly, and I thought, the time is now right for me to give up, the Liberal Democrats may have that in mind. after 26 years representing that area. I gave up and, That separation of powers also raises a question. A thankfully from my point of view, if not from anyone number of Members have raised the question of the else’s, I was asked to come here. comparison of the number of elected Members in That, I hope, illustrates some of the workload of Britain with the USA or France. We have dealt with Member of Parliament. When I got down to Westminster the federal aspect of how in the United States of as an MP, as I said earlier, we had no mobile phones, America, every state has its own Senate, members of no e-mail and the burden grew over the years. I remember the House of Representatives, Governor and so on. talking to Tom Oswald, MP for Central Edinburgh—he My noble friend Lord Rooker gave us the exact figure used to keep a book with all his letters. He wrote down for the number of elected representatives per head in who he got the letter from, when he received it, who he the United States compared with the United Kingdom. wrote back to and he wrote all his letters in longhand, However, the separation of powers is also important. put them in an envelope, put on a stamp that he paid In the United Kingdom, Ministers have to be MPs as for himself and sent off the letter. That was what a well and they have the workload of Members of Member of Parliament did at the time. Parliament. Things have changed dramatically since then, but someone told me recently that one of the things we Lord Knight of Weymouth: I should point out that I should take account of in the workload of a Member am the last person to have attended full Cabinet who of Parliament is the increase in work due to government was a Member of neither House. It was a disaster and initiatives. It is certainly the case that Governments during the period when the two parties opposite hatched keep thinking of things which involve Members of their deal. I attended full Cabinet on the Monday Parliament in more work. They keep changing things. while the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives were At the moment the NHS in England is being changed talking to each other about forming a coalition. It is dramatically. I am sure that that will create huge not a course of action that I would recommend. additional burdens for English Members of Parliament. Governments, when they change constituencies, especially Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am grateful to my when they reduce the number and increase the size, noble friend. That was not the only disaster happening ought to think of the workload that they are putting at the time, as we know. on to these Members of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Kinnock, former leader of Lord Anderson of Swansea: There are some historic our party, is still with us. It is amazing that he is precedents. I think of CFG Masterman who, in about keeping awake and making such useful interventions 1915, as a Liberal at the time, was in the Cabinet but all through the night. With his sagacity he put my was not a Member of Parliament. I also believe that noble friend Lord Anderson and me on the Front for a short time Patrick Gordon Walker was a member Bench. I mentioned earlier the importance of the of the Cabinet but not in either House. work of Opposition Front-Benchers, doing this with very little support at the same time as being a constituency Member of Parliament and everything that that involves. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: They are not only unhappy A number of noble Lords have argued that the number precedents; they are unusual. I do not want them to of Ministers needs to be reduced if the size of Parliament become the rule as that would be a retrograde step. I is to be reduced, otherwise the power of the Executive have spoken for longer than I intended. Fortunately, becomes ever greater—and it has increased. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is here. He will probably earlier not just about the number on the payroll but be watching me on his computer and will have switched the number of Ministers who are not paid. Everyone me off after five minutes. I am grateful to my noble seems to have a PPS. When we started, as my noble friends for being here and for not switching me off. friend will remember, only Secretaries of State had PPSs; then Ministers of State got PPSs; now I understand Lord Kinnock: My Lords, I strongly support the that Under-Secretaries of State have PPSs. amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kennedy proposing that the figure of 600 should be replaced by 6.15 am 650. I only wish that it had been possible for my noble Lord Kinnock: PPSs have PPSs. friend, within the realms of order, to have added as a 229 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 230 starting point the words, “for thinking through the I do not intend to dwell on this, my 25 years of changes proposed for the elections of Members of the experience as a Member of the other House, representing, House of Commons”. That is the force of the argument at a time of radical and on occasions desperate industrial behind the previous two amendments, and certainly change, a constituency that had the characteristic of the force of argument behind this one—650, the current many former coalmining constituencies and far-flung number, as a starting point. communities inside that constituency—in short, combining That is not a defence of the status quo—not a small the problems of the inner city and separated only by “c” conservative attitude—but a defence that is based the hills in between. on a plea to the Government still to reconsider their The conclusion that was drawn by the Select Committee proposal in order to give this House, the other House on the basis of these representations from the objective and wider realms of interest a proper opportunity to interest shown by the Hansard Society, Democratic think how we should determine the number of Members Audit and Unlock Democracy was: of Parliament, in conjunction with dispassionate “We conclude that the Government have not calculated the independent bodies such as the Boundary Commission, proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on so that we absolutely guarantee the independence of the basis of any considered assessment of the role and functions the conclusion and the opportunity for public intercession of MPs”. that has characterised the boundary formation of our Could there be a stronger condemnation from an parliamentary constituencies since 1949, updated with all-party committee, which recently looked in a focused some sagacious rules that were established in, I think, and explicit way at the legislation before the House? It 1986. was not a Back-Bench Labour committee or a trade The guiding principle that I seek to recommend to union branch but, I repeat, a committee with a balance the Government, if they were to take advantage of of Conservative and Labour Members of this House, this amendment, would be the fairly fundamental two Liberal Democrats and two Cross-Benchers who management recommendation that structure should arrived at that conclusion. be a function of purpose. That maxim should apply Confronted with the arguments, the Minister has to business and to organisations and administrations given us courteous responses, but the noble and learned of every kind, because if those who are responsible Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has been as opaque for making decisions—especially about organisation, as he has been courteous. He has told us that the reorganisation, reform or equipping for the future—have manifestos of the parties that now form the coalition to accept the discipline of making clear from the had “a theme”. It is difficult to accept a community, a outset the purpose that they intend for an institution, commonality or even a similarity of theme when one a stratum of management, a department or a new of the coalition partners wanted a radical volcano of system of local government or of representation anywhere, reform in our electoral systems leading to a reduction they are obliged to say why they are arriving at the in the number of Members of the House of Commons, recommendation that they put to the corporate, one contingent upon the other, with PR and more democratic or voluntary organisation, or, dare I say it, devolution, especially in England. to some segment of the big society. If that principle is applied to Parliament, it requires only a very small With local government reform, the coalition could change from structure being the function of purpose offer a justification for having just 500 Members of to Members being a function of purpose. the House of Commons. I would probably have argued There is some difficulty in establishing what purpose with that figure, but at least there was a cogent package is and should be fulfilled by Members of Parliament of arguments to present in support of the idea of now and for recognisable years into the future. In this, reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 500. In we have some guidance from within this House. Your contrast, we had an announcement followed by a Lordships’ own Select Committee on the Constitution, manifesto commitment from the then leader of the comprising four Conservative, four Labour, two Liberal Conservative Party, now the Prime Minister, in the Democrat and two Cross-Bench Peers, reported towards midst of the scandal and the justifiable outrage about the back end of last year on their deliberations on the the abuse of public support for MPs, that one way to Bill. This has been referred to before in the Committee, combat this excess would be to cut the number of but I think it bears repetition for the sake of accuracy: Members of the House of Commons by 10 per cent, “The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee heard taking the number down to 585. evidence from bodies such as the Hansard Society, Democratic For the life of me, I can see only the merest scintilla Audit and Unlock Democracy”— of a theme being pursued, and it is that two parties all organisations of unquestionable repute and wanted, to entirely different extents, in entirely different detachment— contexts and on entirely different bases of argument—one “who argued that the choice of 600 was arbitrary, lacking a party wanted profound constitutional change, the other rationale and, in any event, put the cart before the horse. It was an arbitrary and populist declaration in the middle of argued that a more sensible approach would have been firstly to outrage about scandal—to reduce the number of Members review the functions of the House of Commons and secondly to form a view as to the appropriate number of MPs required to in the House of Commons. I do not call that a theme; perform those functions”. I call it barely a coincidence of convenience. It is a The only addition that I would have made, had I long way from being a theme. enjoyed the honour of sitting on that committee, In a later contribution, the Minister said that no would have been, “taking into account the perpetual one has a perfect answer for the size of the Commons. nature of change affecting the work of Members of Of course, that is absolutely right—as he said to Parliament”. That would simply have reflected, although the committee, there is no “magic science” to any of 231 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 232

[LORD KINNOCK] constituency in Parliament, not Parliament in the it—but that should be the overture to a whole opera of constituency. Could there be any more categorical consideration and consultation: trying to find someone difference after the passage of 41 years? Of course not, or something that is nearer an objective measurement which is why I reinforce the point about the increase in of what Members of Parliament now do and will do numbers in the electorate with a massive alteration in into the electronic future. Instead, we have had the expectations of Members of Parliament of servants of arbitrary conclusion to plump for the figure of 600, constituents—I believe rightly. despite the absence of any objective rationale, in the That is quite apart from the wider dimensions of words of the Select Committee of this House. the contact with Members of Parliament that is now We have had a response from the noble and learned facilitated by electronic communication as well as by Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, which was courteously the fluency of the electorate, the higher levels of put but again repetitive, that it is a question of judgment. education and the greater willingness to engage in the Because there is no perfect answer, it is a question of increased demands put on Members of Parliament. judgment. That, too, is absolutely right. So let us enter That is without looking at any external dimension or an objective consideration that has been put several the increased workload on Parliament, about which times in this Committee but has still not received a everyone in my view rightly complains, which arises cogent response. The consideration that I would put, from massive programmes of legislation that have among many others that we could cite, is that the emanated from Governments successively over the last number of Members of Parliament since 1950 has quarter of a century and which show no sign of risen by 4 per cent, and the number of electors by pausing, slowing or being diluted under the present 25 per cent. Government. In any other sphere, if you were to get an increase in The workload has gone up, in quantity and probably what I shall call, in neglect of my sisters, manpower of in expectation if not in quality, and the place has 4 per cent—and those people had to deal with 25 per changed. However, without taking account of those cent potential greater demand—you might commend realities, which are not mathematical exactitudes but them on their extra productivity and on the reduction nevertheless tangible changes of huge dimension, how in marginal unit costs. That might be acceptable, except can a Government arrive at the conclusion that the that the marginal unit costs of having Members of number of Members of Parliament should be cut Parliament have gone up and up. One reason is because from 650 to 600? There is no objective basis and no there is this disparity between the rise in the number of rationale other than perhaps the very feckless rationale Members of Parliament and the much greater rise not that I suggested earlier: that 600 has the advantage of only in the numbers to which they must be accountable not being 585, which was the number that the Conservative and for which they must be responsible, but, as others Party first thought of and which would have been have relayed at length, in the huge increase in workload. unacceptable in the course of coalition deliberations I am tempted to replicate some of my noble friends’ and negotiation of agreement. It appears that that is reports, but I shall not except to refer to one point the last negotiation that anyone in this Government made by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I knew her will enter into. father, Curly Mallalieu—he was a dear comrade and I make this final point in recommending that we friend of mine. He was a war hero and a man of great stay with 650. We should start from where we are and distinction, a brilliant sportsman and marvellous journalist have a process of consultation and deliberation so that and great company. He was also a very good Minister. it is possible for the Government and this Parliament I came into the House of Commons in 1970, together to arrive at a figure that reflects the nature of the work with my noble friend Lord Prescott, on the same day, of a dutiful Member of Parliament in 2011, 2015 and and we served with Curly for four years. He was a beyond. What will happen if a change is introduced fastidious constituency Member of Parliament who that does not secure consent by negotiation in this did surgeries once a month and answered all letters. House of negotiation, which is capable of operation He had a very high reputation. only through usual channels and where the absence of However, that was at a time, as my noble friend a guillotine is a product of the absence of a guaranteed Lord Prescott and others of our generation will testify, majority? That is the arrangement that has been sustained when total constituency engagement in the so-called and is sustainable because of the nature of this House. welfare officer role was not only hardly undertaken by The Government are contriving an unseen and the generation before us but was regarded with contempt unannounced but massive reform of the House of by the generation before us. I was upbraided by a dear Lords in the most retrograde way possible. friend for doing constituency work in the Library in a This has been a House of negotiation and arduously House of Commons in which having a desk was a won agreement—a House in which Governments have rarity—a real mark of the Whip’s privilege. It was a not used and not been able to use the final, conclusive, long time before I got a desk, and when I did so it was clumsy and heavy result of overwhelming majority to in a room that I shared, to my experience’s huge get their way. If on this very significant constitutional advantage, with the now noble Lord, Lord Bannside, Bill, which determines how the citizens of this country who now sits on these Benches. That was the state of are represented and governed, this Government are affairs then. not willing to take account of objective realities and What we encountered was unacceptable to our requests for rationales that have been submitted by generation’s commitment to the service of the community. detached, independent and respected bodies, let alone We were told that we were there to represent the by Members from this side of the House, they really 233 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 234 are a Government who have become tunnel visioned together by gossip—and the gossip is enormous. There and who will pay the price, although perhaps not in is a real strength of feeling between the various parts this Bill. of the village. It is something that I enjoyed. Of the During the passage of this Bill, loyalties have been trio who were on the Front Bench and appointed by relied on and understandings taken for granted, not my noble friend, I always thought of my noble friend on these but on the Government’s Benches. Tangible Lord Foulkes as Mr Nice. There was the danger of and in many cases terrible changes have been proposed having Amendments 61, 62 and 63 considered together, on benefits, on the volcano in the English National but they were quite properly severed. Health Service and on the termination of the education I recall that my noble friend Lord Foulkes talked of maintenance allowance. On those and a legion of his experience on the Intelligence and Security Committee other changes, such as in housing benefit and council and of what he learnt about sleep deprivation. When housing tenure, Members of this House on the Cross he said that, I was wondering whether I had last Benches and on the Government’s Back Benches who spoken yesterday or today and, indeed, whether I am are exercised about the difficulties that will be inflicted in serious danger of repeating myself at this stage. It is on people who are virtually powerless to resist these what people do when they are subject to sleep deprivation. changes will want some recompense for suspending I will go on because I seem to recall that I spoke on their judgment and going through the Lobby with the Amendment 61 only to make the point that I did not Government on this Bill. think it appropriate to mention a particular number. I As this Parliament moves into the next 12 and apologise to my noble friend Lady McDonagh but I 24 months, the Government will really earn the penalty did not think that 630 was an appropriate number. that they deserve for breaking the valued and sustainable Equally, I did not speak in respect of the amendment conventions of this House and not listening to arguments moved by my noble friend Lord Snape because I had but for sticking to an arbitrary figure that is unsupported already made that point on the earlier one. by cogent argument and for reducing the size of the I feel emboldened, however, to speak in respect of House of Commons because of their dependence on the current amendment moved by my noble friend welding two disparate parts of constitutional change Lord Kennedy for this good reason: that the onus is together in a way that has been entirely unnecessary. surely on those who want to make change to make the They can have their referendum, as my noble friends case for that change. This change, which is having an on the Front Bench have made abundantly clear, and electoral quotient of 75,000 and of having 600 seats, on the date on which they want to hold it, but they might, or might not, be justified. However, what the cannot justify ramming through this House that Government have clearly not done is made any serious undertaking in the coalition agreement at the same attempt at all during the course of this debate or time as undertaking a course of action that will earn earlier to justify those particular figures. What puzzles, them for ever the reputation of a gerrymandering surprises and, indeed, saddens me is that the Conservative Government. Party has departed from its normal principles and, at a time when it talks about the big society and, airily, Lord Anderson of Swansea: It was good of the about localism, it seems very ready to sacrifice community Leader of the House to pop in during our debate to on the alter of a mathematical formula. see how things were moving, because, as we all know, Some colleagues have already mentioned the carve-up it is not his shift. It was a very special favour to us that of Africa at the Congress of Berlin and those straight he came to see what was happening. I agree with my lines that separated community. For example, the Ewe noble friend Lord Kinnock that the basis of what we community is partly in Togo and partly in Ghana. I do are debating is the negotiation or lack of it on these not think that my noble friend Lord Boateng is here proposals, and that the only negotiation that is relevant but I would invite him to go with me around the to this debate generally appears to have been that borders of Ghana or Uganda looking at the way in between the two parties of the coalition. As a result of which tribes were separated. I think that it would not that Faustian pact, or whatever else one calls it, the be appropriate for me to go seriatim around the borders Government are unwilling to listen to argument, to of various African countries. unblock the usual channels or to make any concessions. Certainly, the normal pattern of Conservative They fear, Samson-like, that the pillars of the temple thought—which is very distinguished in our history—is will crumble if they make the smallest concession. to have any change broadened down from precedent I listened with great pleasure to my noble friend to precedent and to ask for an explanation for each Lord Foulkes, as I always do. He gave us a rather change. joyful odyssey around his constituency. I confess that I I recall Lord Hailsham’s marvellous book. I already was tempted to ask whether I might join him at some quoted him yesterday or today—I cannot remember stage. I was listening to him describe all those wonderful which because of sleep deprivation. I recommend the places with strange-sounding names and wondering book to every colleague. It was written in about 1948 whether I could better him by taking him around my and was called The Case for Conservatism. How well old city and around wonderful places such as Llansamlet, he put it in this book that, for Conservatives, politics Craig-cefn-parc, Ynysforgan and Llangyfelach, and was a second best activity. It prevents the nasties doing all these equally wonderful places with strange-sounding things and tries to keep the ship afloat—even if one names but with a wonderful community. What impressed did not have a particular destination. He had a wonderful me during the time I had the pleasure to be there was sentence about the Conservatives: that it was, indeed, a community. In the city of Swansea, “The simplest among them prefer fox-hunting—the wisest we pride ourselves on being a series of villages held religion”. 235 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 236

[LORD ANDERSON OF SWANSEA] Alas, perhaps the world has changed. Members of Politics was a second-best activity, which is light years Parliament do not have a pathway to Parliament through away from the ideological drive of the Conservatives being eminent lawyers or having had a substantial today, followed tamely by the Liberal Democrats, who career outside. Indeed, it is very difficult for parties to seem to be ready to sacrifice all their principles so long find an Attorney-General in the House of Commons as they can follow up the legacy of Lloyd George and because of the pressures of being in the House and the the unfinished business of the Liberals from before the difficulty of finding a lawyer with sufficient standing First World War. in the legal community. I accept that, at the moment, I am certainly ready to listen to all the arguments. I the Conservative Party has a sufficiently heavy lawyer am far more ready to accept—as I have indicated—the but it is becoming increasingly difficult because of the amendment of my noble friend for the 650 because pressures of Parliament to find people to fill the post. that is the status quo and because no serious attempt Nowadays, the pathway to Parliament is normally has been made to say why the status quo should be through being a research officer for another MP.People altered. Indeed, there is a serious argument, which I come along without what Denis Healey would call a shall seek to deploy, for increasing the number of seats hinterland—someone who comes with a career from because of the increased workload of Members of outside that they are able to use when in Parliament. Parliament. How do we define the job? This was the Nowadays one is expected to be a social worker. point made by my noble friend who has now left, the There is a deluge of e-mails. The expectations of the distinguished doctor. The job of a Member of Parliament constituents have changed and woe betide any Member has clearly altered very substantially over the years. of Parliament who tries to adopt the Duncan Sandys, Some colleagues have boasted about the fact that they or Aitken, approach in replying to their constituents. entered the other place in 1964 or 1979. Wait for it: I Indeed, there is, in my judgment, a real danger of the entered the other place in 1966. I recall being asked at House of Commons being somewhat parochial. This a selection conference what was my trade union. I said would be exacerbated if we have these regular boundary that it was FSBAA. Of course no one was prepared to revisions. Members of Parliament are analogous to admit ignorance as to what this particular trade union those 435 members of the House of Representatives, was. It was in fact the Foreign Service Branch A who are effectively in a state of perpetual electioneering. Association. Anyway, I was able to get over that If there is to be this recasting, like with Lego bricks—where hurdle as a result of my membership of a distinguished one is often putting things together in a fairly haphazard trade union in the foreign service. way and certainly not looking at the importance of At that time the world was very different indeed. community—different building blocks being put together One was able to have a career in addition to being a every five years or so, it is surely only natural that Member of Parliament. There were some very heavy every Member of Parliament would be looking over and eminent lawyers in the House at that time. I was a his shoulder at how he can cultivate that part that will member of the chambers of Elwyn-Jones, who became come into his constituency. Lord Elwyn-Jones, and of Sam Silkin—Lord Silkin— It will make it very difficult indeed to find Members whose PPS I became from 1974 to 1979. They were of Parliament who are prepared to travel, apart from able to have serious legal practices at the same time as coming to London. I have had the privilege of being being Members of the House. There was a wonderful on the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary piece in Elwyn-Jones’s autobiography, at the time when Association and, at different times, the Inter-Parliamentary he had prosecuted at Nuremberg, going to his seat of Union for over 30 years and, at times, boxing and West Ham and being told by the good constituents of coxing with my noble friend Lord Foulkes. It is more West Ham, “Oh, don’t bother to come for another and more difficult to find Members of Parliament year or so. You can just do that job in Nuremberg”. who are prepared to go abroad with the Commonwealth He feared that he might be going on in the caravanserai Parliamentary Association. Why? MPs are in a state of to the prosecution of Japanese war criminals and his perpetual electioneering, looking over their shoulders good constituents of West Ham would have been very to ask, “Have I done well? Am I feeding the great happy for him to spend a year or two there. I recall beast? Am I giving the constituents that which they that my noble friend Lady Mallalieu almost followed want?”. I think that it will be a sadder Parliament if him in that seat, when we were both in the same there are people who do not have the experience of the chambers. outside world and instead only those who are always going back to their constituents, trying to be glorified At that time, there were eminent members of the social workers. Some will ask: what is the job description? Bar and eminent businessmen, who were able to carry How do we explain that a Member of Parliament on with their position in the House of Commons part should be prepared to be a member of a Select Committee, time. That would not be possible nowadays. About should be able to learn about foreign climes and do all that time, I recall that Duncan Sandys was alleged these things? It will not happen. If there are these to have said to someone who wrote to him from regular changes, the pressures on Members of Parliament his constituency in Streatham, “I am Streatham’s will mean that they will be in a state of perpetual representative in Parliament and not Parliament’s electioneering. representative in Streatham”. A story was going around about one of the Aitkens, who was a Member of Parliament, and who apparently replied to every 7am constituent who wrote him a letter in the following Lord Thomas of Gresford: We have had the benefit terms: “Thank you very much for your letter. With of two distinguished and prominent Welshmen discussing, people like you, England has nothing to fear”. for 40 minutes, maintaining the status quo. I expect it 237 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 238 from the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, because he led serious and reasonable arguments at that time, and on the opposition to devolution against his own party in balance I was convinced—Mrs Thatcher was my tutor 1979, when, alongside the noble and sleeping Lord, in that—about the centralisation which came about in Lord Elystan-Morgan, I attempted to introduce the 1980s during the years of Thatcherism. I thought devolution. I forget where the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, it only proper that my country, Wales, should be was on that referendum. I suspect that he was with the safeguarded so far as possible, and therefore, although noble Lord, Lord Kinnock. Therefore, we have heard I did not become a strong advocate, in my judgment from two noble Lords who fought against devolution the balance had changed. I supported the argument for Wales—and we in Wales will never forget it—on and voted yes in the 1997 referendum. the basis that the Welsh Assembly would be dominated by Welsh speakers. Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way but the noble Lord, Lord Lord Kinnock: Rubbish! Thomas, mentioned the Welsh language and my noble friend has just referred to it. I find it rather strange Lord Thomas of Gresford: I will never forget it. That that there is this attack on my noble friend and on my was the basis of the noble Lord’s opposition to devolution. noble friend Lord Kinnock. I well remember going to It took his own Government at a later time to introduce a Welsh Labour Party conference in Llandudno at the devolution to Wales. Here we are talking about height of the devolution debate, with my noble friend maintaining the status quo with 650 seats without any Lord Kinnock and I having to sit on either of my reference to the effect on the workload of Members of noble friend Lady Kinnock, because she was our Parliament in Wales or Scotland. Therefore, instead of interpreter. Given that experience, I would find it talking all this rubbish—he knows that it is rubbish— rather strange if my noble friend Lord Kinnock had perhaps the noble Lord would spend another 10 or some antipathy towards Welsh speakers. 15 minutes assisting the people of Wales by addressing that issue. Lord Anderson of Swansea: Absolutely. I could write a book about our experiences at that time. I Lord Anderson of Swansea: I shall respond very could speak not just for the quarter of an hour that readily but shall perhaps not take as long as the the noble Lord has invited me to speak but at great quarter of an hour that the noble Lord suggests I take. length. Out of deference to the Committee, I shall not My opposition to Welsh devolution between 1974 and do that, but I would contend that the arguments that I 1979 was on the same basis as my opposition to deployed at that time, along with the so-called gang of change now—that is, that the onus is on those who six, were reasonable and rational. I changed my position wish to bring about change to make the case for such in the 1980s for equally rational and reasonable reasons, change. It would probably detain this Committee unduly and I certainly never used, and never have used, arguments if I were to go on at length about the reasons why I of any antipathy towards the Welsh language, of which and the so-called gang of six took the view that we I am immensely proud, having chosen to go not to did. However, as a former elapsed political scientist, I Oxbridge but to the University of Wales. I am proud took the view that anyone who wished to have a to be an honorary fellow of the two universities in my quasi-federal system in a unitary state would need to city of Swansea. I am a Deputy Lieutenant of Swansea think through very carefully questions such as what and a very proud Welshman. I would certainly defend the natural stopping point would be. I think that the that against any suggestion from the noble Lord opposite. slippery slope—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords— Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord is as reactionary today on this issue as he was in 1979 in that a moment ago he accepted that he was wrong on Lord Anderson of Swansea: Perhaps I may finish my that. While the rest of us were fighting for devolution, argument and then the noble Lord can come back. I for Wales and for the Welsh language, he was on the made the point, which I think is very valid, that with a other side. quasi-federal state there would be no logical stopping point. Therefore, at that time I personally became closer to the Liberal policy of moving more closely Lord Anderson of Swansea: I do not accept that I towards federalism. I felt that popular pressures would was wrong. I was right at the time, and I believe I was lead us inexorably along that road and possibly to right because the position that I and my noble friend independence for Wales. I was convinced that the took was mightily endorsed by the people of Wales in people of Wales did not want that and my view was the referendum by a majority of four to one. The facts vindicated in the 1979 referendum, when the people of speak for themselves. While the noble Lord and his Wales, by a majority of four to one, rejected what the cabal were speaking for just a small portion of the noble Lord was putting forward. However, I changed people of Wales, I and my noble friend Lord Kinnock my mind. represented real Welsh opinion at that time, just as we Perhaps I may also say in passing that I was never represented the movement of Welsh opinion in 1997. guilty of using the Welsh language argument. Although Therefore, I think that we were much better barometers I am monoglot, I have immense pride in the Welsh and indicators of Welsh opinion than was the noble language, so long as language is not used as a divisive Lord at that time or, indeed, now. It is hardly irrational matter, as it is in Belgium. Therefore, I tried to deploy or unreasonable to suggest that those who wish to 239 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 240

[LORD ANDERSON OF SWANSEA] That has absolutely not been a Conservative argument make a change should have the onus of adducing the at all in any of these debates or, indeed, in the lead-up evidence for that change, and evidence we have had to their manifesto. Those of us who were in the other none. place when the current Prime Minister was making his arguments about reducing the number of people in the Lord Touhig: I am grateful to my noble friend but is House of Commons know that he simply wanted to he not encouraged that this is the ninth day of the reduce costs and that that was a sufficient rationale to debate and the noble Lord is the first Welsh Liberal reduce the number of Members of Parliament. I find Democrat to have said a single word about Wales? that a difficult argument, partly because of some of When we get to the amendments that seek to protect the arguments that my noble friend Lord Anderson the number of Welsh seats and to ensure that Welsh has been making. He is right to say that, 40 or 50 years speakers have representation as part of the United ago, people came to the other place knowing that they Kingdom, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of would not be able to manage on the inadequate salary Gresford, will be in the Lobby with us. and that therefore they would be doing another job. I come to this place with a strange history. For Lord Anderson of Swansea: I hate making a partisan 23 years, I was a Member of the other place for the point but when I see Welsh Liberal Democrats I am constituency of North West Durham. It so happens reminded of the saying, “Those who are about to die that, before me, my father was also the Member for salute you”. I shall be brief, although I think that I North West Durham for 23 years. Uniquely, I took the have about seven minutes left of the quarter of an seat that my father had held, but it was not a matter of hour that I have been allowed by the noble Lord. I ask: inheritance. It is important to say that in this House. why the change? It is clearly not for financial reasons, But it means that I have 46 years of personal experience because the saving would be very small. Indeed, the of representation of a single constituency. I think that argument for an increase can be made, but certainly this experience helps explain why there are differences the arguments for the changes which the Government and trouble on the Front Bench. have put forward have not been made at all. I believe that I and my noble friends Lord Kinnock and Lord Before my father came here, he had been the head Foulkes have remained consistent, and I am waiting of a primary school, and he actually came to Westminster for the arguments to be put for the status quo. I am on a lower salary than he had been getting as a not wedded to any particular number but it is surely primary head teacher. There were no expenses and he hardly unreasonable to ask those who want to make a lived in extremely grotty circumstances in a B&B in change to adduce evidence for it and to make the case. Victoria. My mum and I were never allowed to go Therefore, if my noble friend takes this matter to a there because he was too ashamed of it. Indeed, in vote, I shall be ready to support him in the Lobby. those days he was one of a minority of Members of Parliament who returned home to their constituencies Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: I rise to speak to every weekend. Before that, it had been the norm for this amendment not having spoken before in any of Members of Parliament not to return to their the debates about the number of Members of Parliament constituencies every weekend. I remember great stories that there should be and what their role ought to be about Barbara Castle going to her constituency once a once they are elected. I speak now because I have month—doing meetings on the Friday, doing the party listened to three Ministers over the past however many meeting on Friday night and then going to the market hours, each struggling to identify why they have come in Blackburn on Saturday morning before she got on up with what they have in the Bill. In my view, none of the train to depart. She would do that once a month them has been able to address the issue adequately. and it was seen as perfectly normal and absolutely I was extremely bewildered when I first heard the what Members of Parliament did. Leader of the House. He was quite belligerent and aggressive, and actually quite offensive to some of my colleagues. I could not understand it. Then I heard the 7.15 am noble Lord, Lord McNally, sort of lose it a bit earlier, One of the reasons why my father gave up being an which I put down to lack of sleep and other things. I MP was that he knew his methods of doing things have also read in Hansard what the noble and learned were outdated and had to go and that they needed a Lord, Lord Wallace, said on previous occasions when new broom. I was lucky enough to be selected and I have not been in the Chamber. During all those then elected in that constituency. One of the reasons debates, I worked out why they cannot tell us, and it is why I decided it was time for me to go is that it was because they have come to this decision from very becoming clear that you had to start using things like different perspectives. Because of that, they really Facebook and Twitter. I know that some of my noble cannot reveal to the Committee why and how they friends are happy doing that but I was not. That was have done it. not what I was comfortable with and I was not going The noble Lord, Lord McNally, gave some of the to be able to provide that service for my constituents. game away when he said that he wanted fairer votes. But it was the way that things were going, and it is the We can argue about what fair votes are, and indeed we sort of thing that constituents now expect. They expect did so when considering the first part of the Bill. But I the full attention of their Member of Parliament. do not think that we will ever hear the Leader of the I wonder if that is actually part of what is in the House say that the rationale is that he wants fairer mind of the Prime Minister. I have listened with votes so that people are able to feel that their votes are increasing dismay to the Prime Minister talking about valued because of the changes that are taking place. the need for Members of Parliament to be cheaper. He 241 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 242 has suggested that Members of Parliaments’ wages and they wanted to chat about it. I had the most should come down and insisted that Ministers’ wages wonderful constituents. They were never aggressive or should do so. It is almost as if the only people who over-demanding and they did not think that I was should be involved in public service are those who there every week. Although I would go back every have private means. If you cannot obtain private means weekend, when they saw me they would think that I in any other way, you might find them by working in was there because something was wrong. None the business or in other areas while you are a Member of less, people knew what was going on, they wanted to Parliament. I want to be sure that no Minister thinks talk about it and they wanted representation. I believe that that is the right way to proceed—or perhaps they that is a strength of the British system and I want to be do think that that is the right way to proceed. It may sure that we are not on the slippery slope to something be that some of the Executive think that there should else. That might be the consequence of the proposals—and be a return to the time when Members of Parliament if the Liberal Democrats had got their way on the 500, attended Parliament and saw their role in the legislature it certainly would have been the consequence. We very differently from their responsibilities in the would have been moving that way. That is why I constituency. believe there are different motivations on the Front My dad rarely held surgeries but he went to local Bench opposite. That means that we cannot have the football matches every week. They knew him very well sort of clarity—dare I say honesty?—that we need in there, and they always knew that they could see him if this debate. Stanley, Crook or Tow Law were playing. He would be there, and of course he would also preach in chapel Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Does my noble twice every Sunday. He would go round all the chapels friend realise that everything she is saying is borne out in the constituency. They always knew that he would in the Liberal Democrat manifesto? The Liberal Democrat be somewhere at the weekend where they could find manifesto recommended lowering the number of MPs him. They say to me now what a wonderful and in another place to 500, but it did so on the basis of accessible Member of Parliament he was. But the job the introduction of the single transferrable vote electoral as it was then is very different from the job as it is seen system. I believe that the case that my noble friend has and experienced now. He used to handwrite all his made out is an unanswerable one and I very much letters, as someone has mentioned, and the stamps on look forward to how the Minister is going to address the letters he posted were paid for out of his own it. salary. I still go to houses where they show me the envelope and letter than Dad had written to them. I Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: I thank my noble went to see one lady and she actually had to get me to friend for that. I believe that as politicians—I was translate a letter. He had obviously been in a great concerned about how the Leader of the House addressed hurry and this letter was not written in his usual this earlier—we have a responsibility to be as clear as careful hand. possible, not just about the absolute nature of the The role of an MP has changed, but are we content legislation but on our thinking, which has brought us that it is the right role now? There has been much to this point, and, more than that, on where it is going written during and since the expenses scandal, with to lead to. What is going to be the effect of this? We several leaders in newspapers saying that the MP’s role have a responsibility to the public because that is what should be looked at again and there should be greater democracy means. consideration of it. I think that it is time to do that. I think that it is time to do that and then to legislate. My Lord Thomas of Gresford: Did the noble Baroness concern and my real fear is that there is a hidden support proportional representation in the devolution agenda because Ministers cannot be honest with us debates in Scotland and Wales? about why they want to reduce numbers. I believe the motivation of the Liberal Democrats is different. I intervened on a colleague earlier but I do not think Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: I was a member of that the Minister was here, so I will repeat what I was the Government and there is collective responsibility hinting at. If you support proportional representation in government, even though there are members of this you need to break the link of representation of a place Government who wish to refute that. I believe in and a community. While that link persists a form of collective responsibility. voting for one person to be the representative has got to be there. Many Liberal Democrats want to move Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Baroness has away from that, and I understand why they do. I do not answered the question. not want to move from the reality of having to represent a place because I think that it is a discipline which Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: I am answering the brings an accountability that simply does not exist in question. I believe in collective responsibility. I supported other countries. that because I supported devolution. I supported the I believe that the role of the MP should be to people who came through the convention in Scotland represent Parliament back to the constituency as well and asked for that. I personally did not agree with as to represent the constituency to Parliament. Going some of the outcomes, and I do not think that people back week in, week out even when you are a Minister understood some of the outcomes. Some of us raised is absolutely invaluable. When I would go home to that in Cabinet committees. However, because I believe Crook they had seen the telly, they had seen what in devolution and giving those who have responsibility people said, they had seen Prime Minister’s Questions for devolution the right to put forward the proposals 243 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 244

[BARONESS ARMSTRONG OF HILL TOP] You have to be honest with people about what you that had come from their convention, yes, I supported are doing and where you are trying to get to. I do not it. The noble Lord shakes his head. I believe that that believe that we have had the level of clarity that we was the honest thing to do. If I had not done that, I should have had from Ministers. I know that they have would have broken the principle of agreeing with what different positions, but they have a responsibility to be the convention on devolution had come up with. In straight with this House and the electorate so that they politics you have to take decisions where you do not are able to judge whether this will be in their interests get the perfect answer all the time. That is the problem or simply in the interests of the Government. for Liberals: they have worked in the past as though As my last point I would say that this is an issue they can have all of their cake and eat all of it. They that should be negotiated. There is no doubt about cannot. that. There is a difference between how this Government are approaching it and how the previous Government Lord Thomas of Gresford: There was a convention approached it. The only reason we are here at this in Wales. Did the noble Baroness support proportional hour is that the Government know that they do not representation in Wales? need to negotiate. They can get their legislation because they have the numbers, so they do not need to negotiate. A very fair offer has been made by my Front Bench, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: There was much which the usual channels would normally have taken discussion in Wales, and there were different groupings up. It has not been taken up because, as I say, the in Wales that brought that forward. Again, I respected Government know that they do not need to negotiate. that. That is a very bad position for them to be in when they are charged with nurturing our democracy. Lord Campbell-Savours: What the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is not admitting is that he is 7.30 am opposed to AV. He is in favour of proportional representation. He is one of those who are compromising Baroness Ford: I support my noble friend Lord on this matter. Kennedy in his amendment, which is the crucial amendment. I am compelled to speak today because I have heard so many interesting contributions from Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: I see this as an former Members of the other place. However, I will issue for democracy, which is under enormous threat not give the perspective of a former Member of in this country as well as others. We take our democracy Parliament. My life before I came to this House was for granted but we have to nurture it. That means that not in politics but in business and the voluntary sector. those of us who are responsible in places such as this I would like to speak from the perspective of a constituent. have a responsibility to be honest, as I say, about why I have lived, and still live, in the constituency in which we have come to the positions that we have reached, I was born. In those days it was called North Ayrshire, and what we think they will lead to. I agree that I have Arran and Bute. It adjoined the constituency of the painted some extreme end positions, but we cannot noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, of which we heard much nurture democracy and give people in this country earlier. I now wonder if we ought to check the Register confidence in what we are doing unless we properly of Members’ Interests to see if he has some connection follow the intellectual arguments. I do not believe that to Visit Scotland, such was his passion. this House has been allowed to do that because of the I must reveal to your Lordships’ House an important way that Ministers have responded—or not responded—to omission by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. He did not us about motivations. Therefore, we do not know tell noble Lords that in his constituency was the last where they want to get to in the long term. surviving cannibal in the United Kingdom—the family I am speaking to this amendment because I do not of Sawney Bean. Only in south Ayrshire could you believe that it is the role of the Government to set the celebrate the fact that the last cannibal in the United number of seats. It is the role of the Government to Kingdom lived there with a non-vegetarian restaurant. say that they would like constituencies to be of about a Such is the surreal humour of people in Ayrshire. particular size. It is the job of the Electoral Commission to get constituencies as near to that size as possible, taking into account distance, travel and so on. I will Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am grateful to my resist the temptation that other colleagues have taken noble friend for reminding me of that. The presence of to go around their constituencies. I used every weekend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to travel about 200 to 250 miles in my constituency. I also reminds me that I forgot to mention Maidens, to had one of the most beautiful constituencies in the where he came some years ago when he was Lord country, which was largely a secret because most people Chancellor, to open Malin Court. I am now able to never find out about the wonders of the Durham mention Maidens, Culzean and the whole area where Dales. Some people who live in the Dales are very Sawney Bean was reputed to ply his trade. grateful for that because they want to keep the secret to themselves. I lived in one of the most beautiful Baroness Ford: I thank the noble Lord for that. On constituencies but in the past weeks, while the snow a more serious point, I was born in that constituency. has been there, I have felt very sorry for my successor. At that time the MP was the late, great Sir Fitzroy It has been impossible to get around. Every weekend, I Maclean, a marvellous constituency MP.From listening would travel 200 or 250 miles, just in the normal to noble colleagues, he must have been the exception course of constituency business. in the 1950s and early 1960s. This was a man absolutely 245 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 246 devoted to his constituency. I speak from personal without any objective justification or rationale the experience of the help that he gave to members of my important link that constituents have with their MP. I family. He was an absolute champion in those days of am looking at it from the constituent’s end of the disabled children and children with special needs. He telescope, not from the MP’s end of the telescope. made it his life’s work to champion the needs of Why was it that Fitzroy Maclean, John Corrie, people in that constituency who could not speak up Brian Wilson and now Katy Clark could conduct for themselves. He was a magnificent man. My noble themselves so effectively as great MPs for the area? I friend Lord Anderson spoke about people with a think it was because the area of the constituency is hinterland. Sir Fitzroy Maclean, before he came into entirely manageable. They can get around to all the Parliament, was a member of the intelligence services important people in the constituency—and by “important and the Special Air Service, and was reputed to be the people” I do not mean VIPs, I mean ordinary people. inspiration for the key figure in most of Alistair MacLean’s They can get around all the clubs, the community novels. He was a quite remarkable man and greatly groups and all of the things that are really important loved across the political spectrum in that constituency. where people want to see their MP. They want to connect with their MP and put their case. They want Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: My noble friend to be there in surgeries. How on earth are they going rightly pays tribute to Sir Fitzroy Maclean. He was a to enable the really important constitutional and Conservative Member of Parliament and I got to traditional link which we have in this country and know him in his latter years. He and I went to Russia—or which we take for granted at our peril? How are we the Soviet Union, as it was then—together for a Burns possibly going to maintain that link if we have supper in the Kremlin. Not only was he much respected constituencies where MPs simply cannot do the job in Scotland, but I discovered that he was enormously that historically and traditionally people have expected respected in the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. them to do? There is no point shaking your head He was a man of enormous courage. about that. It is really important. Sometimes when those of us who are involved in Baroness Ford: The point about Sir Fitzroy Maclean the middle of politics think about this, we think about was that wherever he went in the constituency, he was it from our own perspective, but I want to talk about instantly recognised. I well remember him coming to this from a constituent’s perspective. I want the very our primary school on a number of occasions. I do not best service possible for constituents, and I urge the know how many surgeries he held in those days, if that Government to think really hard. I plead with the was the fashion, but he was a man who was deeply noble and learned Lord to give us in his answer some embedded in his constituency. He was a champion for sense of how we are to explain this to people. I find it everyone who lived in that constituency. After a minor impossible to explain to people why this arbitrary boundary change, he was followed by John Corrie, figure comes out. In his answer, will the noble and again a Conservative Member of Parliament—a very learned Lord please give us an objective, sensible vigorous Back Bencher, most notably remembered, I rationale for sweeping away what I think is the most think, for his attempts to row back the abortion legislation. important link—the ability of constituents to access He was an indefatigable champion for that constituency, their representative and the ability of elected and my God did he have a difficult job, because during representatives to do the very best job possible for the time he was representing that constituency in the their constituents? late 1970s, industry was decimated with the closure of the ICI factory in Stevenston which had hitherto Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, the noble Lord, employed 10,000 people across three or four towns. It Lord Thomas of Gresford, caused me a most unhappy was the absolute bedrock, but it was swept away. The flashback when he referred to the campaign for Welsh shipyards were closed. All of the industrial heartland devolution of 1979. I had the misfortune of being the of that part of the west of Scotland, which has still president of the yes campaign, which ended in very not recovered, was swept away, and he did his best to great disaster. I do not know exactly what the noble represent that constituency. Of course, it was no surprise Lord’s point was—no doubt it was done for utterly when he lost his seat and was replaced by Brian unmischievous reasons, to try to analyse what might Wilson in 1987. be called the previous convictions of many other Members in relation to that matter. All I would say is What Sir Fitzroy Maclean, John Corrie and Brian this: whatever the situation was then, or even 18 years Wilson, first in opposition and then as government later, a line can now be drawn under all that. When the Ministers, all had in common—and we have been so time comes, on 3 March of this year, we will all be fortunate in that constituency over the years—was standing in the same rank. that they were dedicated champions of the people of that constituency. People felt that they could go to Lord Thomas of Gresford: I appreciate that the them irrespective of their politics and that they would noble Lord was asleep when the noble Lords, Lord get a hearing. More than that, something would be Kinnock and Lord Anderson, were making their speeches. done about their plight. The current MP, Katy Clark, Could the noble Lord confirm that the language issue is following in that fine tradition. played an important part in the 1979 referendum? If you ask people in Scotland to pick an adjective to describe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Lord Elystan-Morgan: Many issues that had nothing Tankerness, they will overwhelmingly say that he is a at all to do with devolution did play a part. I can well very decent man. So I would appeal to the Government’s remember people saying very innocently to me, “Do sense of decency here. We simply cannot sweep away you know, Mr Morgan, I go to see my niece in Shrewsbury 247 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 248

[LORD ELYSTAN-MORGAN] However, that is not the point that I wish to make at once a month? I do not want to have to produce a this stage. All of us would wish to see confidence in passport at the English border”. There were dozens of Members of Parliament raised from the abysmally low all sorts of evil tales that were told, and it may very level at which it is at present. Do you think you can do well have been that the language was really one of that by giving the public the impression that in some them. way or another you will at random nominate 50 of them as hostages and say, “Off you go”? It is all but Lord Anderson of Swansea: The noble Lord, Lord the same as you marching into the bar of any public Thomas, is altering his tune now. His allegation was house in the United Kingdom and asking, “What do not that the language issue played a part in the devolution you think of these rotten fellows?”. Many people campaign, but that my noble friend Lord Kinnock might say, “Off with them. Get rid of them—50 of and I actually used that as a weapon. I said that was them in the next year”; and many people in the chorus not true and I hope that he will withdraw it. behind would say, “Why not say 100?”. In other words, you would be sending a psychological message that reducing the number of Members of Parliament from Lord Thomas of Gresford: I refuse to withdraw it 650 to 600 appeals to the ordinary British citizen. That because I was part of that campaign, and I know is a very unfortunate message. As far as they are perfectly well that that was an issue which those who concerned, you are saying, “These people are pretty were opposed to devolution used and used viciously rotten fellows. Let us get rid of 50 of them”. I believe against the people of north Wales, from where I come. that would be devastating. Whatever advantages there Similarly, in north Wales, we had those who were might be from bringing about that adjustment—maybe opposed to devolution saying that we would be attacked there will be a saving of £12 million; maybe the saving by those dreadful people in south Wales. The noble will be much less than that; maybe there will be no Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, knows that very well. saving at all for the reasons we have already heard; and there may or may not be a case for reduction—the Lord Elystan-Morgan: That issue was lost because psychological effect will be utterly disastrous along the Wales, in 1979, had no confidence in itself as a nation lines that I have suggested. community. That situation no longer obtains. In 1979, that vote was lost in every one of the Welsh constituencies, Lord Liddle: My Lords, I speak for a second time with one notable exception, and that was Cardiganshire, on the question of opposing an arbitrary reduction in where the vote was carried by a very slim majority. So the size of the House of Commons, this time in it had very little to do with the issue of the Welsh support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord language. In the end, it had everything to do with an Kennedy. When I spoke previously on the amendment absence of confidence and with an exploitation in a of the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, I strongly most ruthless and unprincipled way by those who were made the case that an arbitrary reduction would work against devolution. Let us draw a line totally under against the better representation of remote and isolated that situation and revel in the fact that when Wales communities and against respect for historic traditions comes to that momentous decision on 3 March, we in the way that constituency boundaries are drawn up. shall all—the noble Lords, Lord Thomas, Lord Kinnock In his response, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, and Lord Anderson, myself and the vast majority of essentially, “Too bad. This is all about making sure the people of Wales—be standing shoulder to shoulder that we have equal electoral districts”. in favour of that proposition. The problem with the position of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is that the Government have in the Bill 7.45 am recognised the need to take account of remote and My other point is this: if ever there was a time when isolated communities, as the noble and learned Lord, the confidence of the public in ordinary Members of Lord Wallace of Tankerness, well knows from his Parliament was low, this is it. I hope that I will never former constituency in Orkney and from the Shetland live to see a period when confidence is at a lower ebb and Western Isles. In seeking to find the logic of this than it is at the moment. I suspect that that is a arbitrary reduction, why is it okay to recognise the thought, a principle and an attitude that will be shared very special position of the Western Isles, Orkney and by every Member of this House. Shetland but to eliminate the possibility of the Boundary The question in my mind is not essentially whether Commission taking local community factors into account or not there is a case for reducing the numbers of by imposing this arbitrary reduction and then saying Members of Parliament because people will have different that it will have very little flexibility to deal with views about that. The case that I have argued in the community considerations? I raise that again because last few hours and over the past few weeks is that one the noble Lord, Lord McNally, gave me no satisfactory should not make a stab in the dark. One should come reply on the point. We need a House of Commons of to a decision in regard to this grave and weighty sufficient size for the Boundary Commission to matter based upon evidence. That evidence should be accommodate areas like Cumbria that have special collected by someone of high calibre who is utterly problems of representation because of their geography committed to giving a dispassionate picture of the and remoteness. situation so that Members of both Houses of Parliament The only rationale that the Government have given and the public can come to a reasoned, logical, informed for their arbitrary cut is the claim that it is a good idea judgment in the matter. That has been my case and it that cuts the cost of politics. We are told that the cost remains exactly the same. that will be cut is £12.2 million. I thought about what 249 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 250 this represents as a way of trying to keep awake in Lord Thomas of Gresford: So that we know where the hours of the night. One way of expressing the noble Lord is coming from—and we do welcome £12.2 million is that it is the cost of one hour of every him to this House from his days on the Liberal federal day of the National Health Service. It is a trivial policy committee—does he support devolution and amount of money and a trivial basis on which to regionalism, and does he still support proportional muck about with our democracy. The Government representation? must come up with a better argument to justify the reduction than that it saves £12.2 million. Lord Liddle: I have made my views clear on all of The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, put it well. those things since I have been on the Labour Benches. We all know why this reduction was put in place. It Indeed, I was just going on to say that there is a major was a populist response to the anger about MPs’ argument about reform of the Lords, and whether expenses, but it reduces the standing of Members of that would, as part of a package, lead to a case for a Parliament in the country because it gives the impression reduction in the size of the Commons. This is, as we all that we can go around saying that we need fewer of know, an extremely complex subject. However, I am these wastrels whom we have to subsidise. It is quite actually quite attracted to the idea of Britain adopting disgraceful that the Liberal Democrats should endorse the kind of “balance of power” system that exists in the populist nonsense that the Conservative Party the Federal Republic of Germany. However, I do not promotes and propagates. believe that there is much support in any of the political parties or that there are many people who If we had a serious debate about the size of the actually agree with me. House of Commons, one would want to take into account all kinds of other factors, such as the international evidence. I am not an expert on the world, but I know Lord Greaves: Would the noble Lord, at 7.58 am, be a bit about Europe. When I look at the situation in the fortified by the knowledge that I agree with him? European Union, I do not see that we have too many politicians by comparison with our European partners. Lord Liddle: That is a great comfort to me at this Germany has a very large Bundestag; it is a bigger stage of the day. I am very attracted to an arrangement country. It also has parliaments, governments and that would reduce the power of the Executive in Ministers in each of the länder. In Italy, the Senate is a Britain, which is overlarge. However, this measure—the large chamber and there is also a Chamber of Deputies. arbitrary reduction of the size of the House of We all crack jokes about Belgium, where there is a Commons—increases the power of the Executive, because federal Parliament, three geographic parliaments and it increases the proportion of the payroll vote in the three language parliaments. The crack about Belgium House of Commons. What is the answer to that point? is that there are more ministerial cars per head of What are the Government proposing to do? What are population than in any other country in the European the Liberal Democrat Members of the Government Union. proposing to do to make sure that the power of the I would like to see a proper paper on this. In a Executive in the House of Commons does not increase proper process, there would have been an opportunity as a result of this legislation? I look forward to an for experts to conduct a proper international comparison answer. These are important points of principle—but of whether we in Britain have too many elected politicians. where have the Government given any intellectual, If that had been done, it would not have made the case proper, thought-through justification for what they for what the Government arbitrarily have decided to are doing? I do not think they have at all, which is why do. I think many of us have been justified in staying up all night and arguing about this issue. These are major There are other arguments for reducing the size of issues, not trivial issues, and we have had no satisfactory the House of Commons. One is that you were going to answers. go in for genuine regionalism and localism. However, is that what this Government are doing? The only bits 8am of regional government that we have—the regional development agencies, which were originally envisaged Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I take a somewhat as coming under regional government—are being flexible view on the future size of the House of Commons, abolished. As for extending the powers of local authorities, although I support this amendment pending an we do have the Localism Bill—but are the Government independent inquiry on what the optimum size of the really proposing a major review of local authority House should be. I am going to produce some information finance in order to make sure that local authorities which the Government should take quite seriously. have much more independence of action than they While Members have been on their feet, I have been have had? No, of course not. And are the Government going through the Sessional Returns for the House of actually releasing local authorities from central controls? Commons Session 2009-10. The relevance of the House No, of course not. Eric Pickles goes round saying, of Commons’s Sessional Returns is that we are dealing “You have got to collect your bins every week”, and with effort and the ability of Members of Parliament “You cannot pay your chief executive more than this”. to carry out their functions properly. I think that the What kind of local freedom does Mr Pickles believe vast majority of the wider public would be very interested in? There is no argument for reducing the size of the in this document, if only it were to be made available, Commons on the basis that we are going in for regional but, of course, they would not read it. So I will extract devolution and much more independent local government the information which I think should be made more with greater freedom of action. widely available. 251 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 252

[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS] attending—is that there are conditions in which Members I shall start by referring to the contribution of my are committed to the work of that committee and they noble friend Lord Foulkes, although I was not here are prepared to commit their time to that procedural when he spoke because I was upstairs resting. My arrangement within the House of Commons. noble friend was a member of the Intelligence and When I was first elected to the Commons, the first Security Committee. The relevance of that committee committee that I was put on was the Public Accounts is that, while it is not a committee of Parliament but of Committee. I remember those early days. The chairman parliamentarians, it is an indicator of what happens in was the noble Lord— circumstances where a Member of Parliament is genuinely interested and is prepared to make the time available to ensure that they carry out their functions properly. A noble Lord: Lord Sheldon. I was a member of the Intelligence and Security Lord Campbell-Savours: No, he came after the— Committee between 1997 and 2001. What characterised the committee was the high level of attendance at the committee’s proceedings. In most of our proceedings A noble Lord: Lord Radice? everyone turned up. While I have not seen statistics recording the incidence of attendance, I would imagine Lord Campbell-Savours: No, before the noble Lord, that it must be 90 per cent to 95 per cent. Lord Sheldon. It was my noble friend, the former I should like to ask this House to consider the Treasury Minister. Sessional Returns of the House of Commons which deal with matters of attendance at its committees. One Noble Lords: Lord Barnett. has to remember the distinction between the House of Commons and this House. In the House of Commons, Lord Campbell-Savours: That was it. My noble Members are paid £65,000 in salary.They have substantial friend Lord Barnett was the first chairman, and he expenses, although IPSA is reducing them, particularly was followed by my noble friend Lord Sheldon. During those for administrative allowances, because of the the period of my noble friend Lord Barnett’s contribution that now has to be made to the pensions chairmanship, the attendance was almost 100 per cent. of employees. However, in this House, we volunteer It was a very well attended committee to which Members our services. We are not remunerated or paid and we of the House were prepared to give much of their have expenses. I draw that distinction because in the time. Yet when I looked at the Sessional Return for House of Commons you would imagine that, because 2009-10, the attendance rate had dropped to 42.5 per they are paid, they would therefore have the time to cent—in other words, a substantial reduction in attendance give to ensuring that they carry out their duties. over the 20 years following the period when I was first I shall divide the committees in the House of Commons elected. Even in 1990 when I came off that committee, into broadly two groups. The regional committees attendances were very high. were established by the Labour Government following Take other committees. The Science and Technology demands for greater regional discussion in the House. Committee has 41.4 per cent attendance. What is I want to go through the returns for each of the happening? Why has there been a substantial reduction regional committees. First, Conservative Members refused in the number of people available to attend House of to attend them. If you want to find out why they Commons committees? Take the Justice Sub-Committee: refused to attend the committees, all you have to do is attendance is just 23.8 per cent. Many members of the go back to the debates that took place in the House of Justice Sub-Committee in the House of Commons Commons when it was establishing the regional failed completely to attend any sessions of the committee, committees. Their case was, “We simply don’t have the I presume because they simply did not have the time time”. available to them. In other words, a committee structure was established The Regulatory Reform Committee had attendance in the House of Commons where Members were arguing of only 33.3 per cent. I was under the impression that that they were unable to attend. The result was that that committee in the House of Commons, chaired membership of these regional committees was only very competently by Andrew Miller, would attract the Labour membership. MPs of other parties felt unable interest of Members, but only one-third of the meetings to attend them because of problems of time. The were attended. result was that in the East Midlands Committee the attendance rate, which was from only Labour Members Lord McFall of Alcluith: I understand the point because no other members attended, was 64 per cent. that the noble Lord is making about the demands on In the London Committee, the rate was 73.8 per cent. Members of the House of Commons, but I chaired Let us remember that only Labour members were the Treasury Committee in 2001-10, and if he looks at attending. the Sessional Returns, which I looked at every year In the Yorkshire and Humber Committee, the rate because, like him, I found them of interest, he will find was 86.7 per cent. In the North East Committee and that the committee meetings were twice a week. In the North West Committee, it was 80 per cent. In the addition to those two meetings a week, there was a South-East Committee, the rate was 65 per cent and in sub-committee, chaired by the ranking so-called minority the South-West Committee it was 75 per cent. In the Member, and the attendance throughout was well over West Midlands Committee, it was 80 per cent. What 90 per cent; indeed, right up to the end of the 2010 that indicates—remember, only Labour Members were election, attendance was still well over 90 per cent. So 253 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 254 it has been my experience in the House of Commons Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My noble friend may that Members take their duties seriously, notwithstanding not be aware that we have had similar problems in the the fact that there are now many aspects that put past in this House. About four years ago, the Conservative pressure on them. Party was unable to meet its requirements to take up all its places and fill them regularly on the European Lord Campbell-Savours: My noble friend is correct. Union sub-committees. When I first came into this He is emphasising the fact that certain committees—I Chamber we had 12 members for the EU Standing referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee Committee and its sub-committees, but that had to be and the Treasury Committee—attract Members, but reduced to 10 for a period because there were insufficient when it comes to what some Members obviously regard Peers from the Conservative side to take up their as Cinderella committees, they simply cannot find the allocation. I presume, now that we have more people time because they do not have the time available to coming into the Chamber, that they will be able to fill attend them. the 12 places if we go back to that number. The point is that we did not have sufficient Peers to take up all Lord Anderson of Swansea: From my experience, it the places available and do all the work that needed to is certainly true that the popular committees—the be done. I presume that that applies to what my noble Treasury Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, friend is drawing our attention to in the Commons. probably the Home Affairs Committee—actually get a very good turnout. On the other side, there are therefore Lord Campbell-Savours: Yes, but there is a distinction, what my noble friend calls the Cinderella committees. which I drew attention to before, between the House Do his figures suggest on how many occasions these of Commons and the House of Lords: we are not committees were not quorate? remunerated. We stand here unpaid. They are paid but they cannot manage to man all the committees that Lord Campbell-Savours: I was going to come on to have been established in the other place. that. I have found references in the Sessional Returns I have done three Joint Committees dealing with to committees not being quorate; indeed, I have attended draft legislation. What is interesting about those committees in the House of Commons that were not committees is that they are invariably attended by the quorate. One of them, on one occasion, was the Commons Members of this House, but we have found a low level Privileges Committee, which has always been regarded of attendance by Members of the other place. When as an important committee. As I say, though, there are you ask them why that is, it is often because they other committees that over the years have not been simply do not have the time to attend Joint Committees quorate. I can remember times when Clerks have of the House, particularly when it comes to dealing actually had to appeal to members of a Select Committee with draft legislation. I make no criticism of that, not to leave for fear that the business might be lost because I know the pressure that MPs are under. because we had witnesses standing outside the door Let me take another committee, an interesting one waiting to come in and give evidence. If that is the to which people want to return: the Joint Committee kind of pressure that is being exerted on Select Committees on the National Security Strategy, where turnout is in the House of Commons, does it not suggest that we 79.2 per cent. That only emphasises the fact that if should be very wary about reducing the numbers of Members are particularly interested in an area they MPs without a full inquiry based on what I believe to will find the time for it, at the cost of other work that be the principal amendment that we have discussed they do. Meanwhile, other committees, which they over the past couple of weeks—that is, the Wills obviously regard as Cinderella committees, simply do amendment, which I hope the Government will seriously not secure a sufficient level of attendance. I could go consider as we proceed with this legislation? through all of these, but I have already been on my feet I come to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for 15 minutes and have made my case. Committee, of which I was also a member for a period. I see that attendance at that committee has now dropped to 49.2 per cent—indeed, there were 8.15 am members of that committee who did not attend any I often visit MPs in their offices in the other place. committee meetings at all, which I find quite astonishing. They loathe doing Statutory Instrument Committees. When I was a member of that committee it was The Government of the day—I understand that it regularly attended. I keep asking myself, “Why is it happens on both sides—often desperately ring round that the attendance of these committees has dropped?”. asking Members of Parliament to attend Statutory That is an important part of this debate. If we cannot Instrument Committees because they cannot find people man committees in the House of Commons, we have to sit on them. When MPs get there, they are invariably to be very wary about what action we take on membership. told by their government Whips, “Please don’t speak. I see that the Communities and Local Government Don’t say anything”. If they speak they will delay the Committee is now down to 43.6 per cent attendance. Minister who has to get back to his department to get The Children, Schools and Families Committee is on with his job, and other Members want to return to down to 46.1 per cent. The Environmental Audit their offices to get on with the sensible work that they Committee—a substantial committee in the House of do as Members of the House of Commons. Commons, with an important remit to carry out audits I now move to a conversation that I had last night on environmental matters—is down to 37.5 per cent over dinner. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is laughing, turnout. The Science and Technology Committee is as he is well aware of the dinners that we have in the down to 42.3 per cent. House; they are always very constructive. The one last 255 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 256

[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS] Lord Greaves: Nothing changes. I leave the Chamber night was particularly constructive as my attention and I have some sleep and it is like a bad recurring was drawn to the handling of this legislation in the dream, except that it is the noble Lord, Lord Campbell- Commons and the use of the guillotine on these Savours, speaking. He speaks with his usual originality amendments. I think that we were guillotined last and eloquence. However, he is now arguing about the night at about 1 o’clock in the morning when we had a benefits of self-regulation, which seems to be straying guillotine Division. from this amendment. Is he aware that the Companion Perhaps I should explain to noble Lords who have suggests that, in most circumstances, speeches should not been Members of the other House that in this not exceed 15 minutes and that he is now on 21 House all amendments tabled can be debated; however, minutes? Is it not the case that the self-regulation that that is not the case in the House of Commons. One of he extols—on which I agree with him entirely—requires the great joys of being a Member of this House is that a degree of self-discipline from all of us in adhering to we know that all amendments, when the House is the rules laid down in the Companion? working properly—which it is not at the moment because the Government are insisting on ramming through this legislation—can technically be debated. Lord Campbell-Savours: It is very easy interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, say that, because Lord McNally: I know how dearly the noble Lord I can think of innumerable occasions when we have appreciates that right. Does he realise that that right been in Committee in the Moses Room, and the noble was lost in another place at the end of the 19th Lord, Lord Greaves, has been on his feet amendment century by gross abuse of the freedoms of that House after amendment, with his own people complaining by the Fenians? Are there any lessons to be learnt from that they cannot shut him up. Yes, that happens. He that? might not be aware of that, but we are very well aware of it. Lord Campbell-Savours: The noble Lord got the century wrong—it was the 20th century. Lord Greaves: The rule that I am referring to is that you do not speak for more than 15 minutes. That is a Lord McNally: Sorry, it was the 19th century. Go to rule to which I attempt to adhere, and I do not believe the Library. that I have ever spoken for over 20 minutes on an issue in Committee. We have heard during the Committee Lord Anderson of Swansea: Does my noble friend stage of this Bill speech after speech going on for more construe that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord than 20 minutes, and in some cases more than 30 McNally, as a threat? minutes. This seems to me to be a breach of the rules in the Companion. As I say, in a self-regulating House Lord McNally: It was not a threat, but I have spent it is surely up to all Members, even in Committee all my political life learning the lessons of history. stage, which is fairly flexible, to adhere to the rules. Surely, however much Members opposite want to Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Whichever party you filibuster on this Bill, it does not require speaking for were in. more than the Companion suggests. Lord McNally: Whichever party I have been in. Lord Campbell-Savours: He seems to have moved Lord Campbell-Savours: I thought that the noble from the Companion to the rule book. I have always Lord was referring to the introduction or the greater seen a distinction between the two. I always understood use of the guillotine, which, if I had been a Member of that we proceed by way of agreement; the usual channels the House of Commons at the time, I would have talk, Members deal courteously with each other, the voted against. I strongly believe that you cannot proceed legislation is dealt with in a way that is constructive. with legislation if you insist on guillotining it. The Of course, the whole relationship only works in conditions problem with this Bill is that it is highly political. where the Government of the day are being reasonable. I return to what happens in the House of Commons I would argue that, on this particular Bill, the Government where amendments are not automatically debated. of the day are being most unreasonable. They are selected in what is called Speaker’s selection, At this stage, however, as I have a number of later whereby probably the majority simply are not accepted contributions to make—I understand we might be as debatable on the Floor of the House. That is the going on—I will take my seat and hope that the noble first hurdle that you have to get through in the House Lord, Lord Greaves, might be tempted to join in our of Commons when you table an amendment. The debates. He, like me, managed to grab a few hours in noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is probably thinking, “I bed upstairs, I presume. He will have come to the wonder whether we can do that here”. If we were to do House refreshed. We all await what he has to say. that in the House of Lords, it would completely transform this place. If you want to clear people out, that is probably the way to do it. The moment you start to Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, I have not had any interfere with the rights of this House of Members to hours of sleep during the night, I am sorry to say, but debate issues freely in the way that historically we have happily the Cross Benches are springing to life. I been able to do over the years, you create the incentive cannot match the floods of eloquence to which we for people to leave the House. have been treated through the watches of the night, 257 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 258 but when, at after eight in the morning, we are still Lord Low of Dalston: I am grateful to the noble debating the fifth amendment, after what must be 15 Lord, Lord McNally, for clarifying the situation. When or 16 hours of continuous debate, and with debates on I have finished, I hope he will take the opportunity to amendments weighing in at two and a half hours each, clarify it still further. In what he has said so far, it and sometimes a good deal more, it occurs to me that sounded as if what he was offering the Opposition in it may be time for a view from the Cross-Benches. It the talks to which he referred was something like a will not be lost on the Opposition that they have been guillotine. In any case, as I was saying, I am speaking the subject of criticism for time-wasting and abusing only for myself, but I feel confident that I am reflecting the procedures of the House in a way that tries the the views of a lot of my Cross-Bench colleagues when patience of the House and brings it into disrepute. But I beg the parties to get into discussion with a view to it takes two to make a stand-off. At the end of the day, putting an end to this stalemate, and sorting things it is the responsibility of the Government to manage out through the usual channels in the way that leadership the House so as to carry the House with them and not is normally provided to the House. alienate the Opposition to the point where they withdraw co-operation. 8.30 am In order to while away the time during the watches Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, perhaps I may of the night, I turned up The Coalition: Our Programme make a very short intervention. I was astonished to for Government. Paragraph 24 is on political reform. It hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, remind us how begins mildly enough by saying that, the House of Commons lost its right of debating at “The Government believes that our political system is broken.”— length by the introduction— It goes on, “We urgently need fundamental political reform, including a Lord McNally: Perhaps I may intervene. The noble referendum on electoral reform,— and learned Lord is a grand old parliamentarian who well, we all know about that, and it goes on, can spot an opportunity when he sees one. I made no “much greater co-operation across party lines,— threat to this House. All I did was draw the parallel and then it goes on to that if a party in this House makes it unworkable, “changes to our political system to make it far more transparent there are dangers for the traditions of this House. and accountable” That is only point I was making, so I hope he will not and so on. Much greater co-operation across party spin from it a 15 or 20-minute speech. lines? Whatever happened to that? It is perfectly clear to me that if the Government would only engage in Lord Morris of Aberavon: I have no intention of the usual kind of discussion which takes place through spinning and I have not said a word so far. I know that the usual channels, they could get their Bill and we the noble Lord is concerned about the interpretation could all go home for a rest. that will be made of his words. He will want to look at Of course, I am speaking only for myself— them extremely carefully. He quoted the Fenians and he said he was drawing lessons from history—although Lord McNally: Is the noble Lord, Lord Low, aware, he got the centuries wrong first time, but we forgive that before this Bill entered the House, my noble him for that—but the only interpretation I can make is friend Lord Shutt, the Deputy Chief Whip, tried to that he was warning us about what has happened in engage the Opposition Chief Whip in giving what is the Commons. I cannot for the life of me, being as usually given to a Government when a Bill enters this generous as I can, think of any other interpretation. House: a working timetable for dealing with the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at those words We have not succeeded at any time in getting into carefully so that at the end of the debate we can have a those kinds of negotiations. The usual channels have firm affirmation from the Government that, whatever not worked because the Labour Party have been the gaffe may have been, it was not intended as a determined from the beginning that they would not threat. work. If they want to have meetings in the lee of this Session, we are willing still to talk about how to Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Well, my Lords, this has timetable this Bill properly through the House using been an interesting debate, particularly so at the end. I the normal procedures which allow all amendments to shall deal first with the substance of the amendment be grouped properly and debated thoroughly. That moved by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark. offer has always been there, so it is not fair to say that The Bill as currently drafted states that the number of it has not, but it takes two to tango. constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600. The amendment seeks to delete 600 and put in 650. Lord Peston: I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Much of the debate over my noble friend’s amendment McNally, does not want to mislead your Lordships’ has revolved around three issues. What is the reason House intentionally, but I am under the impression for the Government to have chosen the figure of 600 that the Opposition have said that the Government as the size of the Commons? Secondly, if the number can have both parts of this Bill as long as they come as of seats is reduced from 650 to 600, does that improve two Bills. In trying to show how macho they are, the the governance of this country? Thirdly, is there legitimacy Government have behaved totally irrationally; they in what is being proposed? are behaving like spoilt brats, namely, “We will have I turn first to what is the basis for the change being both or we’ll have none”. Their mother ought to tell proposed. A number of reasons have been given by the them that they are going to have none. noble Lord, Lord McNally, the noble and learned 259 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 260

[LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON] in those circumstances to understand why it was not Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble possible to agree something between the two figures Lord, Lord Strathclyde. They amount to the following rather than something above it. suggestion: that a judgment has to be made and it Finally, is there party advantage involved in relation cannot be done on the basis of science. It is a legitimate to this? Independent studies have been done which judgment that will improve the governance of this suggest that more opposition seats will be lost than country. How the figure was selected is not suggested. any other. That increases the suspicion in relation to it, After the Leader of the House made his appearance in which is made all the worse by the fact that the this House on the issue, he went to the studios of Sky explanation given in television studios is different from News where he was asked the following questions by a the explanation given in this Chamber. man called Mr Martin Stanford. He was asked whether I shall deal with points that were made by the noble having 600 constituencies rather than 650 was a politically Lord, Lord Low. His strictures are absolutely correct. neutral move. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, We as politicians in this House should try to reach responded: agreement. We stated at the beginning of this Sitting, “Very much so, and for many people it isn’t enough. The which started 15 and a half hours ago at quarter past House of Commons has gone through a terrible period over the three, that we were prepared to consult and negotiate last couple of years. It is time to make amends and restore trust in on process and substance, and we heard nothing until politics. Part of that is to say that there should be fewer politicians around at the moment, particularly in the House of Commons, so the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, “Oh! We’re willing a reduction of 50”. to negotiate”. Let us negotiate about it now, not across this Chamber. We have been willing to agree the dates Mr Stanford said: that you want. Let us be grown up now and let us “Why stop at 50, then? Let’s have 200 fewer or let’s have negotiate a way through this because the noble Lord, 300 MPs”. Lord Low, is right: this requires leadership on both The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, answered: our parts. We are willing to negotiate, and I am happy to negotiate with the Leader of the Opposition and “There are people who argue in favour of a considerable the Opposition Chief Whip because that is what we reduction, but I think reducing it by 50 is in accordance with what need to do. most people would want their MPs to do. It doesn’t require them to do that much extra work, but it is still a substantial reduction. My noble friend Lord Kinnock made a very impressive It saves money and it creates a fairer system across the United speech, saying that this is the House of negotiation. It Kingdom”. is, and if self-regulating is to survive, it is important we So it appears that the reason given was rather as the reach an agreement. noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, not a reason I support the intervention of the noble and learned that had been given in this House hitherto—namely, Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, 100 per cent. Speaking that people want fewer politicians around at the moment, entirely for myself, I cannot think of any other reason particularly in the House of Commons, and a reduction that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would have mentioned of 50 is what people want. It is very hard to believe it, except for us to say to us, “Watch out or it might that that is the only reason, but it seems extraordinarily happen to you”. unlikely that simply reducing the House of Commons by 50 is going to restore trust in the House of Commons. Lord McNally: The noble and learned Lord just It seems, with the greatest of respect, an unlikely said, scenario and, until yesterday afternoon or evening in “if self-regulating is to survive”. the Sky studio, it was not suggested to this House. What does he mean by that?

I move on to the second question: does it improve Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I was referring to what governance? Again, that depends upon what we expect the noble Lord said. I cannot think of any other our Members of Parliament to do in relation to their reason why the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would constituency work and their work at the centre of blurt out in the course of our debate that we should government here at Westminster. Again, I do not mark carefully that the other place lost the right to think there is any dispute: no work has been done in debate every amendment. What was the reason for relation to that to work out what work should be done. that intervention? The third question is: does it increase legitimacy in relation to the state of politics in this country and/or Lord McNally: It is precisely the words that he the House of Commons? It may be what the noble used: “if self-regulating is to survive”. He knows, as Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was trying to convey in the would anybody who has managed this House’s business, short answer he gave to the debate before going to the that if Bills are treated as this Bill has been treated, TV studio to give another answer. It seems to me that, government is impossible. If self-regulation is to survive, first, some basis of choice has to be advanced, and this cannot be the normal procedure for the Opposition none has been advanced and that, secondly, it has to of the day. That is not a threat; it is an observation. appear to be disinterested. The flip reason given in the television studio, coupled with no intellectual argument Lord Morris of Aberavon: Stop digging. and no independent justification, makes it very hard to convince people that it is a disinterested change Lord McNally: I am not digging; I desperately want from 650 to 600. That is made worse by the fact that to save the principles of self-regulation of this House the figures given by the two parties that now make up from being destroyed by that side. That is not digging. the collation were 585 and 500 respectively. It is difficult I know what I am saying and I do not retract one word 261 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 262 of it because I am desperately worried that the Opposition 8.45 am have now got into a position where they think that Lord Kinnock: When the noble Lord checks Hansard they can threaten and veto almost any part of government. when today’s proceedings are available, he will see himself describing the saving as a modest saving to A noble Lord: Rubbish! public expenditure, which is a fair declaration; it runs pretty contrary to the declarations made at the time that the Leader of the Conservative Party announced Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I listened with a flourish that he was going to cut the number of carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Low. Finger-waving MPs by 10 per cent in order to make savings. and dismissing a whole group of people on the basis of an argument with one or two people does not assist the impression given by this House anywhere. I can Lord Wallace of Tankerness: There is a world of only interpret the words of the noble Lord, Lord difference between saying it is a modest amount, which McNally, as being a threat to the House. Over a long it is, and just dismissing it as not worth doing because period, there have been Bills that have incensed Members it only saves a trivial amount. That was the point I was of this House into making long speeches. I recall the seeking to make. behaviour of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, during The point has been made yet again in this debate, as the passage of the legislation for the reform of your in earlier debates, that somehow or other there ought Lordships’ House. to be some sort of method of working out what the right size is for the other place based on some analysis Lord Eden of Winton: Are we not anxious to hear of workload—be it through an examination of the the rest of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, sessional returns or not. There may be reasons other Lord Falconer? than Members not being able to find time as to why some of these committees were not attended, because my recollection is that there was some controversy Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am afraid that I have over the setting up of the regional committees and bad news: there is no more; it is complete. that may well be reflected in the attendance. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, in the usual powerful Lord Wallace of Tankerness: On that basis, I will way in which he expresses opinions, talked about the take my cue and respond to a debate which started two difficulty of defining the purpose of a Member of hours and 50 minutes ago. The amendment moved by Parliament. He called it the perpetual motion of change. the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would maintain the It would make it very difficult to find out that there is number of constituencies in the other place precisely some way we can empirically arrive at a figure which at 650. It is not entirely a defence of the status quo, would be the right number, derived in some way because, unlike with the amendment that was moved through committees of inquiry or weighing up evidence by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, some from 650 different Members of Parliament. Members 15 or 16 hours ago, the figure of 650 would be fixed of Parliament face different challenges, and constituencies and the Boundary Commission’s rules would be subject vary. Calculating the ideal size of the Commons through to it, as we would wish the number of 600 to be. a consideration of the role of an MP would be difficult, I do not think that there are any arguments which if not impossible. The Government believe that such will persuade noble Lords opposite that have not an approach is both unrealistic and unnecessary. Our already been advanced. The noble and learned Lord, proposals make a modest reduction in the overall size Lord Falconer of Thoroton, quoted at some length of the House. The result of this will be constituencies the interview given to Sky by my noble friend Lord that are within 5 per cent of the quota of 76,000. Strathclyde, which echoes what has been said here. I Nobody has seriously suggested that those Members have made it clear on more than one occasion that of Parliament who represent seats within 5 per cent both parties in this coalition Government advocated a either way of 76,000 are somehow or other unable to reduction in the number of Members of the House of fulfil their function. One noble Lord—I think perhaps Commons in their respective manifestos. I also indicated, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong—said that picking up a point made in a much earlier debate by it was unreasonable for the Government to fix the size the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and answering of the electorate. What we are doing is seeing what the a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong size of the electorate is, and dividing the total electorate of Hill Top, that there was a context for the figure and coming up with a figure of 600. We have indicated 500—there is nothing new about that; I acknowledged that the difference between what we are doing, having that some 13 hours ago. We wanted as a party to go reached that figure and fixing it at that, and what the down to a figure of 500; nevertheless, we indicated position is at the moment, is that at the moment it can that we still thought that the House of Commons incrementally go up as it has done in every boundary should be reduced in size. We have advanced on occasions review bar one since 1950. that there would be a saving of some £12.2 million The noble Baroness, Lady Ford, along with other annually. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that that noble Lords, expressed concern as to how Members of was a trivial amount. Perhaps it should not surprise us Parliament could still be champions of their local on this side that the party opposite ran up such a communities—that somehow or other it will no longer deficit when it has people such as the noble Lord, be possible. I thought it was interesting that, in his Lord Liddle, in its ranks. It is perhaps indicative of a as-ever spirited contribution to the debate, the noble mindset that was at work in his Government. Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, mentioned that, in 263 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 264

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] Government were ready to enter properly into dialogue. the constituency he used to represent, Cumnock had The fact of entering into dialogue is not in itself no relationship with Girvan; some people of Cumnock important; it depends on the spirit in which that had never been to Girvan, he said, and the communities dialogue is entered into. there did not really know each other. That does not Given the concessions which my noble friend has exactly suggest that the present system has got the already made on behalf of the Opposition and to kind of wonderful embracing communities as has avoid yet further lengthy discussions on this Bill, I sometimes been suggested. hope the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will confirm that, when those negotiations are entered into, the Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords— Government will be ready to look objectively at the points that have been made and will not enter into a Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I think that the noble diktat or threaten guillotines but will seek to find a Lord has given us the benefit of his views at some reasonable way through. In my judgment, that means length. that we have still not received a response to the very It is important to point out that the Boundary important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Commission can still take into account, to such extent Low, objectively and rationally, in an attempt to return as it thinks fit, special geographical considerations, to the values and practices that this House values. including the size, the shape and the accessibility of a constituency. It may take account, to such extent as it thinks fit, of any local ties that would be broken by Lord Kennedy of Southwark: I thank the noble and changes in the constituencies. The noble Baroness, learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his Lady Ford, seemed to suggest that the constituency response, and all other noble Lords who have made would become unmanageable—one that she has been contributions. I am pleased that the Minister has familiar with over all the years, which I think is now responded to me. In general, he has handled quite well North Cunninghame. The rules proposed by this Bill the situation in which the Government find themselves. also put a physical limit in terms of size, having regard He certainly has a more reasonable style about him to the current size of the seat represented by my right than the noble Lords, Lord McNally or Lord Strathclyde, honourable friend, Mr Charles Kennedy. It is a pretty except when he was talking to the noble Lord, Lord challenging task that Charles has, but people in his Foulkes of Cumnock, when he got a bit upset. However, constituency to whom I have spoken recognise that he he has generally handled himself well in his responses has been an effective and industrious constituency to points that noble Lords have made. Member of Parliament. That is the upper limit in I agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock terms of size, and there is a sliding scale as one gets to and am pleased that he thinks my amendment the best that upper limit. What we are proposing should not of the bunch. He explained the importance of surgeries break the ties and the link that those of us who have in a large rural constituency. My noble friend Lord had the privilege to serve in the other place feel to the Kinnock’s comments are right, and I hope that the constituencies that we were proud to represent. With Government will heed his wise words, although I have these comments, I wholeheartedly reject the suggestion been disappointed in that respect. He outlined the that on this side there has been any question of increase in numbers of the electorate and the massive gerrymandering. I note the comment made by my increase in demands on Members of Parliament since noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who talked he first entered the other place in 1970. I agree with my about an attachment to the status quo by a number of noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea that the lack noble Lords on the other side of the House. Sometimes of negotiation is regrettable and surprising, and I can an adherence to the status quo can be the means by only hope that sooner rather than later the government which gerrymandering can come in by the back door. Front Bench will open the channels properly on this Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Bill. His explanation of how Parliament has changed amendment. since he first entered the other place in 1966 was very illuminating. He also mentioned the importance of Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Can the Minister the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary tell us when a Government last fixed the total number Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and of seats to come out of the boundary review? His the problems of getting Members to participate, with noble friend did not appear to have the facts at his all the pressures on them. fingertips, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is making it quite plain that in his view what is My noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top made happening in this Bill is entirely normal. If it is so some very interesting points. She is right about the two normal, when did it first happen? sides of coalition having got to where they are from very different perspectives. That might be why they are Lord Anderson of Swansea: One further matter has in such difficulties today. not been addressed in any way by the noble and My noble friend Lady Ford gave a perspective as a learned Lord, Lord Wallace. The noble Lord, Lord constituent since, like me, she has not served in the Low, asked a very important question that has not other place. She reminded me of Harry Lambourne, been addressed. From the vantage of the Cross Benches, who served as a Member in the Peckham constituency he said that the usual channels were clogged, which with distinction before Harriet Harman succeeded was unfortunate for Parliament, and that ways and him after his death in 1982. If I remember correctly, he means should be found properly to enter into a dialogue. served as PPS to the noble Lord, Lord Healey, when At that, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that the he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 265 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 266

The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made some have their referendum, but there should be proper interesting points. He made the point that we should scrutiny of Part 2 of the Bill. That must be capable of not take a stab in the dark; we need an independent agreement, and there should be negotiations about it. person to look at this in a reasoned, confident and For all three reasons, I move that the House do now sensible manner. He also made a very eloquent point resume. about the damage that is being done to Members in the other place in this discussion. Lord Low of Dalston: I support the Motion moved My noble friend Lord Liddle raised the issue of by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of certain seats being selected for protection and others Thoroton. From my standpoint, quite apart from the not. Cumbria is not an area that I know well, but he question of scrutiny of legislation and how effectively made a powerful point about it. He also made the it can be conducted in the state we are in early the point about the damage done to Parliament and informed following morning, 17 hours after the debate began the House of the situation in various European countries. what strikes me is that we are all getting rather ragged My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours informed and the debate is getting rather scratchy. There is even the House of the sessional returns of the other place a tendency for passions to become inflamed. It would and illustrated again from that the lack of Members’ be a very good idea if we could take a pause and allow participation in certain committees because of the a period for things to cool down, obviating a potentially pressure of time. nasty situation developing in the House. Most particularly, I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, it would give those on the two Front Benches, through Lord Low. The Government need to open up proper the usual channels, some space in which to conduct communications with the Labour Front Bench and to the dialogue that both of them have said they want to seek to resolve this matter so that they can get their conduct. I therefore urge the House to support this Bill through this House. Motion so that we can create the space which those on the two Front Benches are, in effect, begging us to To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of create for them. Aberavon, all I can say is that we all need to look very carefully at Hansard tomorrow and make up our own minds about the intention of the noble Lord, Lord 9.01 am McNally. Division on the Motion to resume.. Finally, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Contents 69; Not-Contents 146.

Amendment 63 withdrawn. Motion disagreed. Division No. 5 Motion CONTENTS Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton Adonis, L. Jordan, L. That the House do now resume. Anderson of Swansea, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Kinnock, L. Bach, L. Kinnock of Holyhead, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have now [Teller] Liddell of Coatdyke, B. been going from 3.15 pm, when we started the debate Bilston, L. Liddle, L. on going into Committee. It is now three minutes to Boateng, L. Lipsey, L. nine the next morning. We have been going, by my Broers, L. Low of Dalston, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. McAvoy, L. calculations, for 17 hours approximately, which is not Brookman, L. McFall of Alcluith, L. congenial to good scrutiny of the Bill. It is also worth Campbell-Savours, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. drawing attention to the Code of Conduct, which Clark of Windermere, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. says: Davies of Oldham, L. Mallalieu, B. Davies of Stamford, L. Maxton, L. “Membership of the House is not an office, and does not Dixon, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. constitute employment; most Members’ primary employment is Dubs, L. Nye, B. or has been outside Parliament. In discharging their parliamentary Elystan-Morgan, L. Peston, L. duties Members of the House of Lords draw substantially on Falconer of Thoroton, L. Pitkeathley, B. experience and expertise gained outside Parliament”. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Prescott, L. Very many Members of this House, including me, Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Puttnam, L. make their arrangements on the basis that we do not Gale, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. sit in the mornings. There are exceptions, but there is Golding, B. Rowlands, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. absolutely no reason why, with no discussion through Graham of Edmonton, L. Scotland of Asthal, B. the usual channels, we should now lose this day. Just as Grantchester, L. Simon, V. important as that and the point that it is not congenial Grocott, L. Smith of Basildon, B. to scrutiny is the point that we need to show a bit of Harris of Haringey, L. Soley, L. leadership in this House and reach an agreement. Two Harrison, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Hart of Chilton, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. conflicting views are being expressed. One is that the Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Government insist on having their Bill in full whenever Howarth of Newport, L. Thornton, B. they want it, in effect. We are saying that yes, they can Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Touhig, L. 267 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 268

Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Wilcox, B. Young of Graffham, L. Wall of New Barnet, B. Young of Norwood Green, L. Williams of Crosby, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Younger of Leckie, V. NOT CONTENTS Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Luke, L. Amendment 63YA Allan of Hallam, L. Lyell, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] MacGregor of Pulham Moved by Lord Knight of Weymouth Ashdown of Norton-sub- Market, L. Hamdon, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. 63YA: Clause 11, page 9, line 18, leave out “600” and insert Astor of Hever, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L. “decided once the membership and powers of a reformed House Attlee, E. McNally, L. of Lords have been agreed by both Houses of Parliament.” Baker of Dorking, L. Maddock, B. Ballyedmond, L. Mancroft, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Marlesford, L. 9.10 am Boswell of Aynho, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L. Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, there appears Bridgeman, V. Methuen, L. Browning, B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to be daylight outside. I think that we have missed the Cathcart, E. B. dawn chorus but in here Monday rolls on. I am Chalker of Wallasey, B. Montrose, D. pleased to move the debate on a little by my amendment, Chidgey, L. Morris of Bolton, B. which asks that we should not decide the numbers in Colwyn, L. Naseby, L. the other place until the membership and powers of Cope of Berkeley, L. Neville-Jones, B. Cotter, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, your Lordships’ House have been agreed by both Crickhowell, L. B. Houses of Parliament. De Mauley, L. Noakes, B. In putting down this amendment I seek to extract Denham, L. Northover, B. from the government Front Bench something of the Dixon-Smith, L. Norton of Louth, L. Dobbs, L. O’Cathain, B. bigger picture on how the Bill, particularly this part of Eaton, B. Oppenheim-Barnes, B. it, fits into their wider plans for constitutional reform. Eccles, V. Patten of Barnes, L. We heard my noble friend Lady Armstrong speak Eccles of Moulton, B. Phillips of Sudbury, L. earlier today in a similar vein but it would be sensible Eden of Winton, L. Plumb, L. for us to understand more clearly the Government’s Falkner of Margravine, B. Popat, L. Faulks, L. Ramsbotham, L. thinking on the powers in both Houses. We would Fearn, L. Rawlings, B. then be in a better position to debate and understand Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Razzall, L. where we should go as regards composition, what sort Fookes, B. Rennard, L. of electoral systems should be used in both Houses Fowler, L. Ribeiro, L. and the numbers of Members of both Houses of Freud, L. Risby, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Ritchie of Brompton, B. Parliament. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Roberts of Conwy, L. There is, of course, an obvious link between the two Gardner of Parkes, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Chambers when we look through the current looking-glass Garel-Jones, L. Rogan, L. of politics whereby we are debating losing 50 elected Glasgow, E. Rotherwick, L. Glentoran, L. Sassoon, L. Members of the other place while the Government Goodlad, L. Seccombe, B. oversee the introduction of more than 100 additional Greaves, L. Selborne, E. unelected Members into your Lordships’ House. By Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. any measure that is somewhat bizarre in a country Hanham, B. Sharples, B. which prides itself on its democracy and on having the Hastings of Scarisbrick, L. Shaw of Northstead, L. Henley, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. mother of all Parliaments. However, I want to flesh Heseltine, L. Shrewsbury, E. out a more substantial link during this debate. I agree Hill of Oareford, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] with the amendment grouped with this one, Amendment Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Skelmersdale, L. 63YB in the name of my noble friend Lord Grocott, L. Spicer, L. who argues that we should not agree to the House of Home, E. Stedman-Scott, B. Commons having fewer Members than this House. Hooper, B. Steel of Aikwood, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Strasburger, L. When speaking to noble Lords I have found agreement Howe, E. Strathclyde, L. on all sides of your Lordships’ House that we are at Howe of Aberavon, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. present a somewhat bloated House. I am one of those Howe of Idlicote, B. Teverson, L. who have added to that corpulent figure. I am not Howell of Guildford, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. referring to the Leader who has just stood up. I Inglewood, L. Tonge, B. James of Holland Park, B. Trimble, L. thought that he was going to intervene. I am referring Jenkin of Roding, L. True, L. to your Lordships’ House being somewhat corpulent. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Tyler, L. As I say, I am one of the more recently introduced Jopling, L. Verma, B. Members. There seems to be agreement on all sides Kakkar, L. Wade of Chorlton, L. that it has become a little too large. Certainly, when we Kirkham, L. Wakeham, L. Knight of Collingtree, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. are thinking about the size of the other place, we Lawson of Blaby, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. should also be thinking about the size of your Lordships’ Lester of Herne Hill, L. Walmsley, B. Chamber. Lexden, L. Walton of Detchant, L. We have debated at some length the fact that the Lindsay, E. Warsi, B. Liverpool, E. Wasserman, L. Government want to reduce the number of MPs through Loomba, L. Wei, L. this Bill for the two principal reasons of overrepresentation Lucas, L. Wheatcroft, B. and cost. I will not rehearse again in any great detail 269 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 270 all the arguments that we have heard over the past 15 experience as a recently defeated Member of the other hours. However, I have not yet spoken in the debate on place, the workload was considerable. In terms of this part at any length, and certainly not today. I do constituency correspondence, I had excellent staff helping not believe there is any evidence that the other place is me out with that just to keep up with the volume of overrepresented on any international comparison. I e-mails and letters—happily, we do not really have am struck by the Lewis Baston and Stuart Wilks-Heeg faxes any more, but there are tweets and Facebook analysis. I do not believe there is any evidence that it is messages—and all sorts now coming through, particularly overrepresented, particularly if you include representatives in a marginal seat. With the introduction of AV, if that from below the national level. is approved in a referendum, we will see more marginal I think it is a shame that we have not heard the seats and that pressure will only become more acute. bigger picture from the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick Incidentally, I have some concerns about those Members Clegg, particularly given that his party used to be who take a strong role within the Executive. I was committed to a political restructuring at all levels. We proud to be a Minister of State, serving in the Cabinet could start to make sense of the notion of over- up until the last election so I had a large role within representation if we looked at all levels of government the Executive but, equally, for those taking a large role in this country—or not, because the analysis would in scrutinising the Executive, either on the Opposition suggest that we are not over-represented at all when Front Bench or chairing Select Committees, the burdens compared to others of a similar size and a similar era of doing that alongside a highly contested marginal around the world. I also agree with those who have seat with its increased workload makes reducing the looked at the trend of a rising number of electors, with number of MPs highly questionable. the proportion of electors per MP having risen alongside There is a relationship with reform of your Lordships’ a rising workload. I am concerned that there is very House. I have been a strong advocate of Lords reform little justification for reducing the number of MPs. throughout my parliamentary career—and here I may I also see no evidence of significant savings. I do fall out of favour with some of my noble friends, not belittle the £12 million that has been discussed particularly my noble friend who is to follow me and over the past hours, when the 50 fewer MPs’ salaries move his own amendment—and I was very active and their expenses are set against the cost of boundary when working with the much-missed Robin Cook, reviews. I have seen no analysis of what the continual when he was Leader of the other place, in his efforts to process of boundary review that the Bill is committing move forward on Lords reform. Sadly, we ran aground us to will be, but there are marginal savings given that due to the legendary indecision of my colleagues in we will still have the same buildings and facilities for the other place. Members of the other place—and, of course, we will My preference now would be for this House to be still have the Independent Parliamentary Standards elected in thirds at each general election to ensure that Authority, which appears to be costing something like it does not have a rival mandate, on a regional list an average of £16,000 per Member of Parliament per basis. Members of an elected second Chamber should year. That is an area where some quite sensible savings not be eligible for re-election. In that way we would might be made, but I am sure that is the subject of not have to resource them for looking after constituents keener interest at the other end of the building. I they are pandering to in order to get elected, and they would argue that we currently have an incoherent could maintain a relative independence from our friends picture and need that bigger picture to be sketched out in the Whips Office, which we know is important here. in more detail, perhaps when the Leader of the House winds up, so that we can properly understand the My views have moderated since I became a Member Government’s thinking. of your Lordships’ House in that I am no longer an The other place performs three functions, as I have advocate of a 100 per cent elected Chamber because I tended to describe it when I, as a Member of it, went have seen the wisdom and expertise of the independent around schools trying to explain how it worked. It has Cross Benches. I particularly enjoyed the contributions an important representative function—in the parallels of the noble Lord, Lord Low, recently. There is therefore that I drew, much like a school council—but it also has a strong case for a 20 per cent element of independent very important legislative and executive functions, with Cross-Benchers appointed by a statutory appointments people being either members of the Executive or commission. That is my vision. I am sure that fairly scrutinising them. Your Lordships’ House, however, is soon, when the Deputy Prime Minister chooses to a much prized and valued revising Chamber. It is the publish his proposals, we may have a chance to debate secondary Chamber to the primary one and has fewer them. functions, so we come back to the question: why The link with this Bill is that within my own, should it have more Members when it has less to do? I perhaps weird, preference for how this Chamber should appreciate that, as we have heard when my noble and be reformed I also support the notion of a secondary learned friend Lord Falconer read out the Code of mandate, as put forward by my friend Billy Bragg, Conduct and referred to this fact, it is not employment who lives down the Dorset coast from me in Burton to be a Member of your Lordships’ House. Many Bradstock—sometimes known as Burton Billy Braggstock. Members, including me, do other work. Nevertheless, He advocates that at a general election the votes cast it seems strange that we have many more Members for Members of Parliament should be recycled and than the other place. used to elect, on the basis of their party allegiance, The workload has also increased in the other place. Members of the second Chamber, thereby enshrining We have heard quite a lot of that set of arguments and the notion that it is secondary to the primary Chamber discussions over the past 15 hours but, from my own and that no one who is a political representative in this 271 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 272

[LORD KNIGHT OF WEYMOUTH] Weymouth, both as a Member of Parliament and as a House is here by virtue of votes cast for them but by Minister, and therefore listen with great interest to his virtue of votes cast for Members of Parliament. It is a speech. He was the notable beneficiary of informal fairly ingenious scheme. AV, you might say—tactical voting—which achieved notable success on I think two occasions in his Lord Dubs: I am trying to follow my noble friend’s constituency. argument because until his last comment I was, by and large, in favour of what he said. However, he has now The noble Lord may be a staunch, consistent and put forward two entirely different models for reforming articulate supporter of reform, but I am afraid that he this place. Which one does he opt for? has been led into evil ways by this amendment. He—by implication—and others specifically on the other side Lord Knight of Weymouth: I have been so enthusiastic of the House have said they are in favour of the sort of to move this amendment—I have been waiting for the reforms in both parts of the Bill, but not yet. This is past 15 hours—but I did not get any sleep and so I am classic St Augustine: make me virtuous, but not yet, perhaps not being as coherent as I could be. When I and certainly not before the next general election. I said they would be elected in thirds on the basis of a have to warn the noble Lord that he is going to fall regional list, that regional list would be there by virtue into evil company with the refuseniks who are actually of the secondary mandate and the recycled votes cast opposed to any reform. That is perhaps his purpose, for Members of Parliament. but I do not think it is: I cannot believe he is naive, not given his past record. Let me ask your Lordships to Baroness Smith of Basildon: It may be because of a look at his amendment—nothing effectively should lack of sleep on my part as well, but I struggle to happen until the decision is made on the membership understand how a 15-year term that is not subject to and powers of a reformed House of Lords. We know re-election for this place is in any way democratic. that the draft Bill will come before a joint committee Lord Knight of Weymouth: My view is that that for pre-legislative scrutiny within a matter of weeks would achieve good progression from where we are now. I do not know precisely when it will be, but now in terms of appointment. However, it means that relatively soon. We can also anticipate—and rightly people who are here as politicians—as 80 per cent so, as the public and both Houses will be interested—that would be under my model—would have some form of the process of pre-legislative scrutiny will probably mandate through votes cast by the British people. I do take us right through to the Queen’s Speech in May not think it defensible over the long term for people 2012. I am willing to suggest to the noble Lord, and I like me to come here through the patronage of the think others will agree, that it is very unlikely that the Prime Minister or the leader of my party. conditions in his Bill will be reached before the end of 2013. So, nothing can start in terms of the second part Baroness Wall of New Barnet: We have talked a lot of this Bill, which rules it out for the next general over the last 15 hours about the supremacy of the election—which I suspect is what some Members on other House. How will that be maintained when we his side of the House want. have people in this House who are elected, and who That is absurd. He has not had the advantages I will say, very vociferously, that they have the same had of listening to the noble Lords on all sides of your rights as the people down the corridor? Lordships’ House over the past five years saying: of Lord Knight of Weymouth: Clearly, the crucial issue course we cannot start on reform of your Lordships’ for the Members of the other place in supporting any House until the reform of the House of Commons is reform here is they do not want to set up a rival completed. This is the most absurd vicious circle—we Chamber. That is why electing in thirds is part of the cannot do anything about the Commons until the answer, because this Chamber would never have a Lords are done; we cannot do anything about the fresh mandate, or a mandate to rival the other place. I Lords until the Commons are done; and round we go am seeking to conclude my remarks, as I have no again. This is a simple and deliberate vicious circle of desire to go on and on. I mention the secondary procrastination. It is also extraordinary that for hours mandate—my own particular, perhaps weird, we have listened to arguments on his side of the House preference—because it means that it is highly pertinent that there is too much in this Bill, that it is putting how many constituencies there are in a region for how together two important issues. Yet now the noble Lord that mandate would work. People do not just vote on wants to amalgamate the issues of the reform of this national lines, they vote on local ones. Where they put House and the reform of that House. If that is not their first preference—if we go to AV—will be highly putting together an impossible duopoly of major significant in then deciding how people get into this constitutional reform, I do not know what is. place. My own favoured position is to some extent If the noble Lord really wants to make progress and being anticipated and skewed by this Bill, and I ask to avoid the company of the undemocratic dinosaurs the Leader of the House to reflect on that. I beg to that seem to inhabit both his Benches and some others, move this amendment. I have to say, surely his amendment is ludicrous. I hope that he is going to withdraw it double quick. The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 63YB or 63YC. 9.30 am Lord Tyler: I think it is time for somebody on this Lord Grocott: My Lords, mine is the second side of the House to address this issue. I have the amendment in this group, and under normal greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Knight of circumstances I would have spoken second. However, 273 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 274

I was so excited to see the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, comprising this one, which will reduce the size of the stand up—indeed, I can put it this way, thus seeing the House of Commons and provide for a referendum, whole of the Liberal Benches standing up—that I sat the next one which will provide for fixed-term Parliaments, down to recover. and the one after which will provide for reform of this House, are all ingeniously and brilliantly interrelated. I should say that there has been absolutely no Can someone explain to me the interrelationship between collusion between me and my noble friend. To me it is reducing the elected House by 50 and increasing the obvious that the relationship between the two Houses appointed House by 117 in a matter of nine months? when discussing the size of the Commons, and we all It is beyond me, but there are, no doubt, bigger brains know about the size of this House, is a very important than mine working these things out in the depths of subject for debate. We are talking essentially about the the Constitution Unit under the controlling guidance relationship between the two Houses, and that lies at of Mr Nick Clegg. the heart of our constitution. I am pleased that at least I can claim that we are having this debate in daylight It is not just me; this House is beginning to recognise hours. That is by accident rather than by design, but it that it is too big. The Hunt report, if I can call it that, is a matter worthy of proper consideration by this which was set up by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, House, and I am sorry that so few seem to be interested is entitled Members Leaving the House. It is quite clear in discussing it. that it is too big and that we have to find mechanisms for reducing the size. I shall read paragraph 67 of this It is probably noteworthy to remark that through report by an all-party Committee, which is relevant to most of the night in our discussions about the relationship this amendment: between the two Houses, we have been talking about a “Whilst we cannot recommend that there should be a moratorium cull of 50 Members of Parliament. The world knows on new appointments to the House — since, while the purpose of already, because it has been reported in a number of the House is to provide expertise, we must ensure that that newspapers, that while we were discussing a matter of expertise is refreshed and kept up to date — we do urge that crucial importance to the House of Commons, beds restraint should be exercised by all concerned”— were being arranged in this House so that Members of that really means the Government— the House of Lords, while their House was debating a “in the recommendation of new appointments to the House, until cull of Members of the House of Commons, could such time as debate over the size of membership is conclusively rest peacefully asleep. I think that that is an insult to determined”. the other House and that if the reverse were to apply That is a Committee of this House saying that restraint so that beds were provided in the House of Commons should be exercised so far as new Members are concerned. while they were debating our future, and most of the Commons was asleep, we would quite properly have I have already said that we have had 117 new something to say about it, and indeed it would have Members since the general election, but it is going to been our duty to do so. I mention that not just in get worse, or better, whichever your view of this is, passing because it says something about how flippantly because of this document, which will be enshrined in this House is considering a crucial matter affecting the constitutional history The Coalition: our programme future of the House of Commons. for government—I love it. As every day goes past, the inadequacy of this document becomes clearer, but we The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will doubtless say that regard it as some sort of a statement of objectives and my amendment is inadequate and badly drafted. I intent as things stand at the moment. In the section freely admit that, but I tried hard to find a proper dealing with constitutional reform, the coalition document form of words that would be in order and which said states that it is going to reform the House of Lords what I want to say, which is simply that it really is a and that: bizarre set of circumstances that the elected House of “In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the Commons—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is very keen objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the on an elected House of Lords—is to be reduced from share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general 650 to 600 while simultaneously there is a huge increase election”. in the number of unelected Members of the House of I would like the Leader of the House, to tell us when Lords. To give the House the figures so that at least he winds up how many more Peers he thinks will be they are on the record, the Commons is to be reduced required in order to do what the coalition document by 50 to give it a membership of 600, but since the says and what the split between the various political general election this House has had new Members parties will be. Can I suggest that it would make his announced to the tune of 117, with the current size of life simpler if instead of basing it on the results of the this place at 792. So, on this Government’s watch we previous general election, he bases it on the figures are planning to take 50 Members out of the House of that we are being given by current opinion polls, which Commons and already—each day the number suggest that there are far too many Liberal Peers in increases—there are 792 Members of this House. Any this House? That might be a consideration that he objective observer would say that that is an absolutely might look at. bizarre state of affairs. The reason why I think this is an important point in I should like the Leader of the House to make this relation to my amendment is that one of the consequences point to Nick Clegg, who I understand is the mastermind of the imbalance between the sizes of the two Houses behind a lot of these constitutional reforms. More is that it is having a dramatic effect on the political pertinently, however, he has stated repeatedly in what balance in this House now, as is the mere fact of the is his—I am sure to be regretted—phrase that this is coalition, which alters the whole way in which this the greatest reform since 1832, that the three Bills House is likely to operate. I think we have seen that 275 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 276

[LORD GROCOTT] Lord Grocott: I think that last remark was a little demonstrated this past 24 hours or so. The Government unkind, as I have been here throughout these debates are in control of both Houses, which has not happened and we have just had the odd guest appearance from in all the time that I have been in this House, and it the noble Lord, Lord Lester. So far as his criticism of was never envisaged that it would ever happen again. the Labour Government is concerned, in terms of At present, the Government have 40 per cent of the numbers of Liberal Peers, if he checks the figures, I votes in this House, including the Cross Benchers. think he will find that the Liberals have done very That was the figure that I was able to get from the nicely thank you. It used to irritate me intensely, as it Library figures for a week last Monday. As your did many members of the Labour Party, that every Lordships will know, they are published on a regular new appointee to the House of Lords under the previous basis. We have had 14 new Peers since we started Government, whether they were former Conservative debating Part 2 of the Bill last Monday, and I think we Cabinet Ministers, members of the Liberal Democrat are expecting some more later today, provided that Party or, indeed, members of the Labour Party or this day’s work completes before they are due to be Cross Benchers, were all referred to indiscriminately introduced. The political balance is changing all the as “Tony’s cronies”. If they were his cronies, all I can time to the Government’s advantage. As I have already say is that I could have done with a few more of them said, we are looking at reform in the round, or should on our Benches when I was trying to marshal the be, if we follow Nick Clegg’s dictum. That is a factor Government’s business through with just 30 per cent that needs to be considered if this House is to continue of the votes. I make no complaint about that; I think it as a revising Chamber. is right that this House should not have a government majority. As for the recollection of the noble Lord, I shall conclude with one thought about a factor Lord Strathclyde, if anyone communicated to me that still not considered properly between the two Houses. we must tell the Liberals to vote with us, if such an agreement existed, I can only say “Tell the Liberals to Lord Lester of Herne Hill: As the noble Lord is vote with us, and then they will get more Peerages” is passing from the topic he has been dealing with, I not a message that was communicated to me as wonder whether his memory is as long as mine. He will Government Chief Whip, and I think it should have remember that when in opposition the Labour Party been if it were in existence. and the Liberal Democrats agreed upon a way of dealing with the problem he is referring to when we Lord Lester of Herne Hill: That is not what I said. were an appointed House. It was that the Liberal What I said was that there was a deal in opposition Democrats would help Labour to exclude hereditary between the two opposition parties about the proportion Peers provided that we were given life Peers in rough of Liberal Democrats. Under the Cook-Maclennan proportion to the way we had done in the previous agreement of 1996—my noble friend Lord Maclennan general election. Is he aware that having agreed to is next to me and I was a member of the negotiating that, when we asked the then leader of his party what committee—it was a term of the agreement, among had happened to the promise that had been made, we others, that having co-operated to remove the hereditary were told “You can’t get back your Peers because you Peers, because the Liberal Democrats were 40 per cent aren’t voting with us. You aren’t voting the right hereditary, whereas Labour was less than 10, it was way.”? As a result of that, the leaders of my party and necessary to get the rough balance right with the his were not on speaking terms for six months because Liberal Democrats. Robin Cook agreed that that should of the betrayal by his party. be so. Secondly, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Having then collaborated, the hereditary Peers were Grocott, recalls that I was independent adviser on excluded with a cruelty that I did not support. Having constitutional affairs to the right honourable Jack done that, we expected to get back to around 40 per Straw and Mr Michael Wills, as he then was, trying to cent because that represented our rough balance in the get constitutional reform through. Does he recall that previous general election, and so we waited. I am not the pathetic Bill that was eventually produced, causing talking about now: I am talking about at that period me to resign because it was worthless, was a ragbag after Tony Blair won. Bill full of many more issues than this Bill, which deals Tony Blair was to be commended for the way in with only two? Therefore, does he not think that it is a which he handled his own appointments. But I am little arrogant for him to condescend in the way that saying that we were not able to get back our percentage he does towards the coalition? and when the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was asked why, she said—not publicly—to our leader, “You see, you haven’t behaved properly. Lord Strathclyde: Before the noble Lord replies to You haven’t voted with us”. It is that which we found that, can my noble friend tell me whether his memory unacceptable and which led to a falling out between serves him sufficiently well to know whether the Chief the two parties. All I am saying to the noble Lord is Whip in the House of Lords at that time was none that he gives a benign view of history. The history was other than the noble Lord, Lord Grocott? not at all benign.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My noble friend is 9.45 am perfectly right, and I would like to pay one compliment Lord Grocott: My Lords, my confusion is now to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott: I would never remotely explained in that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is regard him as interested in constitutional reform. referring to 1996. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, 277 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 278 was accusing me of being Chief Whip at the time. I In the mean time, I want to deal with some of the became Chief Whip in 2002. So I suggest that the two issues that my noble friend Lord Knight brought into wings of the coalition need to get their arguments play. I thought that everything was fine when he talked co-ordinated. I have pretty well concluded what I about elections, but I worried a bit about one-third, intended to say.I have been brief, apart from interventions, one-third, one-third, giving a 15-year mandate—non- which I welcome. renewable—because the benefit of an election is The argument is simple. Before we cull Members of accountability. If one is not accountable there is not the House of Commons, there should be far greater much point in being elected, as I see it. The worst clarity about the total membership of the House of argument about the Billy Bragg proposals or the mandate Lords. That would not be— is that it gives the political parties a complete stranglehold of the membership of this House. If after every election Lord McAvoy: I am sorry to intervene on my noble the membership is adjusted or changed to reflect the friend. I was thinking about the last few seconds of popular votes for the Commons, the parties can get rid what he was saying. Does he not think that he should of all the people who are dissidents or not sycophantic, at the very least expect an apology from the noble so not many of us will be left. Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the spraying of, quite frankly, innuendo and mistruths, and for getting it Lord Knight of Weymouth: I am grateful to my wrong? In his anxiety to smear anyone who opposes noble friend for allowing me to clarify that regional what he is saying, he just sprays innuendo and things lists would be published in advance of the election so that are not true. He should offer an apology. that when electors are voting constituency by constituency for their Members of Parliament, they can see the Lord Grocott: I am not really in a fit state to impact of their vote in terms of who is nominated by respond: I am still recovering from the blow that was each party. I accept that it is a progression from where delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I shall we are now in terms of appointment, but in many conclude my remarks on that basis. I think that what I ways there is plenty about this House that we would propose, although not word perfect, is eminent common want to preserve. I am seeking some kind of electoral sense. This being a commonsensical House, I am sure mandate for the political representatives in this House that it will be approved with acclaim. without a massive change in the character of the House. Lord Dubs: I have waited all night to make a small contribution to this debate, so I am glad to have the chance to do it. However, I am somewhat confused. I Lord Dubs: I understand what my noble friend is agreed with the amendment put down by my noble saying but I am still pretty concerned about it. When friend Lord Knight, but I did not agree with his we talk about all these regional lists being prepared, it arguments. As far as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is is fairly easy at parliamentary constituency level for a concerned, I did not agree with his amendment, but I local party to choose a candidate who reflects the agreed with his arguments. So I am finding that somewhat views of the constituency, and so on. Regional lists confusing. But let me see if I can disentangle it. tend to be an opportunity for the party machine to It is important to debate this matter, because any dominate, which is true of all the parties. I am not reform of the House of Commons calls into question happy about it. Even if you publish the regional list in the relationship between the two Houses. Clearly, making advance, I am afraid that the electorate will not be as dramatic a change as the Government are proposing terribly impressed by seeing a list of people and will in this Bill to the House of Commons will call into say, “Gosh, that will affect how I vote for the MP”. I question the way in which the two Houses can coexist do not think it will be like that. They will choose the sensibly once the reform has been introduced and MP and then the regional list will be a by-product. proposed. So it is not unreasonable for my noble Because it is a by-product, I am not happy about it. friend Lord Knight to put forward his amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is concerned that this Baroness Smith of Basildon: I should like to develop will kick the whole thing into the long grass. I am that point about the 15-year electoral term and my bound to say that House of Lords reform has been in intervention on my noble friend Lord Knight of the long grass for a long time anyway. I always argued Weymouth about my grave concerns. I entirely share for elections consistently before I was in this House the issue about it being election rather than accountability. and I still do. But I do not interpret the amendment Does my noble friend accept that something like this is put forward by my noble friend Lord Knight as one really just a sop to those who want elections? It is not which necessarily kicks it into the long grass. We can accountability or a democratic mandate. It is just a talk about the details, but I do not think that he needs case of you have your election, so it is okay, and it will to do that. Having said that the relationship between make no difference at all. This House would be less the two Houses is crucial and that, therefore, any accountable and less representative than it is now. reformed House will have to be looked at in terms of how it relates to the Commons, it is right that we should debate it as regards this Bill. I look forward to Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I entirely follow my the Government’s proposals on Lords reform. They noble friend’s argument. My case against a 15-year will be in the form of a draft. I hope that we can have term is that once one is elected by whatever method, them soon in order that we can discuss them and even a better one than my noble friend has put forward, consider them. one is there and can do what one likes without being 279 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 280

[LORD DUBS] Hull now and again, but nothing more was done. He answerable. I am not happy about that, which is why I thought he was popular and just came up for the would prefer shorter mandates that are subject to election. Clearly, you could not get away with that re-election. now; it has changed. My noble friend Lord Kinnock My key point is that we need to know a little more pointed out that the number of Members has increased about the Government’s plans for the future of this since then by about 4 per cent, and the workload by 25 House before we can be happy about what they intend per cent—anyone who has done it knows that that is at to do to the Commons. My noble friend Lord Grocott least the increase in the effort and time that a Member and I have some differences in policy. We have no of Parliament has to put in. differences in personal terms but we differ occasionally In those circumstances, no one has justified why we on policy. Unless there is some way round my noble should reduce the number from 650; I do not think we friend’s amendment, we will have a much larger House should. We can change, reform, or even begin an of Commons, possibly by nearly 150 Members, than analysis of, what the job of a Member of Parliament we have now, unless we can significantly reduce the should be. As we heard, that is not easy and it changes membership of this House in the mean time. That is a from constituency to constituency. It is about the pretty complicated set of additional thoughts to add character of the relationship between a Member of to his amendment. He did not go through that in great Parliament and his constituents. I do not mind if we detail so I do not see his amendment being effective, analyse that, but the Government have decided that much as I like his arguments to justify it. they will reduce the number by 50 but give us no I do not want to talk any more about this. I have rational explanation. said that I am not happy about a secondary mandate, We would have exactly the same arguments with the but I believe that the relationship between the two amendments to the House of Lords. Although there Houses is crucial and we look to the Government’s has been lots of debate about the House of Lords and proposals for the future of this House to see how they what the reform should be, there has been very little stack up against what is going on in this Bill. Better debate about the reduction in the number of Members still, we should delay consideration of this part of the of Parliament. Of course, the papers have said that we Bill until we can see what the Government have in should get rid of them, we should reduce them, and mind for the future of this House. that seems to be the rationale for the Government’s argument. It is popular to say that we should reduce Lord Prescott: My Lords, I must add my name to the number of Members of Parliament, but no justification the list of those confused after the introduction of the has been made for that. amendments. I approached it in a simple way: that this We have asked time and time again: how did you was an opportunity to delay while we had further arrive at the figure of 75,000 per constituency, what discussion to find an agreement between the two sides size constituencies should be and how the number of of this House on the size of the Commons, the powers, MPs should be increased or decreased in that process? and the Boundary Commission. All of those are legitimate An independent body has been doing that. The conclusion arguments. If we introduce the idea of the reform of in this House is that if the Government decide that the House of Lords, it will get even more complicated. there should be this amount and then tell the commission I was a Member of the House of Commons for to get on with it, they are making a political decision 40 years and I have heard the debates about the Lords. for political advantage. That is inevitably the definition I am against reform of the Lords. I do not mind of it. Most independent analysis has shown that that is changing its powers; I was very happy to get rid of the the case. The justification argued was that there was a hereditaries; but I do not want more powers simply democratic mandate. It is already clear that the number given to the Lords. An elected process would certainly was not in the Tory manifesto nor the Liberal manifesto. do that. I have had the argument with my noble friend We are talking about a coalition agreement which was Lord Knight for a long time. He wants a second not endorsed by the electorate. So any democratic Chamber with extra powers, which will be in conflict mandate does not come from simply putting it to the with the elected body. That is a simple enough principle electorate. The principle was there but not the actual to me, so I cannot support him. My noble friend Lord justification of these figures. The argument put by our Grocott talked about the sizes of both Chambers, but Front Bench is right. It gives them an opportunity to both amendments will complicate the main issue of say, “Yes, you can have the referendum on the day you whether there can be a decision about what the want, but why do you not split the Bill into two Government intend to do about the size of the Lords. parts?”. There has been lots of talk here about the Having heard all the debates about whether the size of usual channels working out what those agreements the House of Lords should be 600, 500, or remain as it are. That is how we have normally settled business, is, I will be clear: I believe that it should stay as it is. whether it is in this place or the other place. I think Some powerful figures were given by my noble people should be open to the opportunity. But the friend Lord Kinnock about the changing role of Members Government do not look as if they are interested in of the House of Commons—the other place, I should pursuing that. We wait to see any further movement say. That is undoubtedly true since 1970, when my on their behalf or if we are on this kind of roll of noble friend Lord Kinnock and I came into the Commons. fighting it out—who is going to stick out, who is going He talked about the Member of Parliament before to go longest, who is going to blink. We have had an him who used to have one meeting a month. I took the awful lot of that in the House of Commons. I can place of a man called Commander Percy who had recall times when we have gone for 24 hours voting on exactly the same role. He made a rather royal visit to trade union legislation. Perhaps it seems odd for me to 281 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 282 say that—perhaps it sounds macho rather than good country. These countries look to us as a good example sense—but it was a process that we got locked into and of democratic practice. We find now that we have a it appears that we are locked in almost to the same coalition that is prepared to impose an agreement that now. There are two positions: you either accept one or has not been agreed by the electorate. It is not prepared the other, or the Government have the power and the to consider finding an agreement. That is undermining majority in both places just to impose that. trust in the democratic process itself. I notice that the Government have not answered the 10 am question put. What if we become the Government and Let me make this point to the government Front there are demands on our side—I would not be surprised Benches. I think it is important to accept that in all if I was leading them myself—saying, “Right, it is our these arguments it is a matter of trust. There can be turn now. We’ve got the power. The door has been disagreements but we try to find a way through them. opened for us. Let us change it around”? The poor old As someone said during this debate, this is the House 15-year mandate might get us into a bit of a problem, of negotiation—we find a way forward. I think it is because we will have changed it down there, but we probably one of the main contributions we can make. stay up here on the old political system. That will Trust is absolutely important. I have experience in cause tensions, especially as the Lords, despite the these matters in the Council of Europe. The council conventions, seems to be nibbling at the idea that it was referred to earlier by the noble Lord. He said that can deal with financial matters. We are dealing with a countries which want to come into the Council of real problem here. At the heart of it is trust. Europe have to reach certain democratic criteria. In I say to the Government: if you go along this road, recent years, members from the central European do not be surprised if there are voices saying, “If they countries, which were previously communist, have wanted can do it, we will do it”, although I know that it is in to become, if you like, more socially democratic or the nature of the Labour Party to say, “We cannot do European and to join the Council of Europe. The that. We are democratic”. We would not be stupid council lays down what it thinks are the standards for enough not to do it. democracy and the countries are expected to observe Leaving that aside, trust is threatened here. If you them and agree to them. It appoints monitors to go open the door with a precedent that any Government and see that they are carrying out their democratic who have the majority can do as they wish on obligations to be a member of the Council of Europe. constitutional matters without agreement or a sense of I was appointed to be the monitor to Armenia. It consensus, other Governments may be tempted to do was a communist state which was now claiming to be the same. I do not think that that will do our democratic social democrat. However, it had the old communist process any good. I ask the Government yet again to structure where the courts were very accountable to consider the position put from our Front Bench: can the Government, the Government controlled the police, the usual channels have a bit more consultation? We there were no democratic freedoms for the press and have had bigger differences than this before and have the Opposition had no role and were given no found agreement, but this one is especially difficult. responsibilities or powers. When the presidential election We are talking about constitutional issues. Do not occurred three years ago there were accusations from establish the precedent that the Government, simply the Opposition, who saw no possibility of getting an because they have a majority through a coalition, can agreement with Government. They had no trust in the enforce things. That is the difficulty that we face, and I Government and would often resort to the argument, hope that the Leader of the House will give further “There is corruption and you cannot trust the thought to it. Government”. When the President was elected by 51 per cent there was a mass rally in which 100 people were thrown into jail; 10 people were killed and the Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I agree with people who were demonstrating were accused of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth that it is undermining and threatening the state. It became a not sensible to set about reforming the House of security matter. I was then sent to see if I could find Commons without considering the implications for an agreement. After long talks we managed to get the your Lordships’ House and for the relationship between 100 people out of the jail, change the press laws and the two Houses in our bicameral Parliament. For reduce the criminal laws—they reformed the law so example, if membership of the House of Commons is you could have a protest and the courts were made to be reduced by 50 MPs, and its already all-too-feeble more accountable. capacity to scrutinise legislation and to hold the I will not go into all the details but effectively the Government to account is yet further enfeebled by the Opposition had no trust. At the heart of that argument reduction in its forces, there must be implications for there was a Government simply believing that they the workload of your Lordships’ House. had the majority. The coalition of two parties with the It will be even more incumbent on us to ensure that majority in the assembly took the view that it was there is a check on the Executive, that legislation is democratically correct to impose their solution without genuinely scrutinised and seriously challenged when it having to consult the Opposition. That is a lack of ought to be. That will be very awkward within the trust. It leads to a violent reaction. It leads to the pattern of our Parliament, in which the other place is corruption of the democratic process. I am not saying elected but this place is not. We are always diffident the UK is the same as Armenia but there are some about challenging the propositions of the elected similarities that cause some concern, bearing in mind Government, particularly propositions that have been our long tradition of democracy. I am proud of my approved by the elected Chamber. None the less, if the 283 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 284

[LORD HOWARTH OF NEWPORT] that my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth would elected Chamber itself becomes that much less capable like, the consequences for the other place would be of doing the job that the people of this country expect seismic. Colossal changes would inevitably follow. We it to do, the duty falls the more on your Lordships’ cannot predict what they would be, but we can be House. These are difficult, sensitive and contentious certain that the conventions that govern the relations issues, but we need to think about reform of one between the two Houses at the moment would be out House in relationship to the role of and possible of the window. Indeed, the report of the committee on reforms to the other. conventions chaired by the noble Lord, Lord The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is wrong to suggest Cunningham, a report that was endorsed by both that we are thereby in some sort of vicious circle so Houses of Parliament, stated fairly and squarely that that you cannot do anything: you cannot reform one we should not expect the existing conventions to survive House until you have reformed the other. The logic of the creation of an elected second Chamber. We have this conundrum is that we have to think about reform seen in the past 15 or 17 hours, or however many of the two Houses together. I am grateful to my noble hours it has been, that the existing conventions are friend Lord Knight of Weymouth for introducing that already under some stress and strain. We could not dimension to our debate. Whether you consider the expect them to survive. constitution of our country as an organism or a I do not say that the relationship between two mechanism—whichever metaphor you prefer—the fact elected Houses in the United Kingdom would become is that its parts are interdependent. It is not just the exactly similar to the relationship of stress, frequent two Houses of Parliament which are interdependent; antagonism and impasse that we see between the there are relationships with other parts of our constitution House of Representatives in the American Congress which equally stand to be destabilised if you attempt and the US Senate, but it would be much more similar to reform one part on its own without considering the because, of course, an elected second Chamber would wider implications. be seen to have legitimacy, it would be proud of it and I do not think that you can set about a programme anyone elected to it who was worth their salt would of reform of the Westminster Parliament without also certainly want to exercise the authority that electoral thinking about the responsibilities of those who are legitimacy gave to an elected House. We need to realise elected by our fellow citizens to represent them in the that there is much more instability, and there are much European Parliament and what the working relationships larger implications, that would potentially arise even between those two Parliaments should be. I am even from the carrying of the reform of the House of more sure that you cannot think about reform of Commons alone that the coalition Government have either House of this Parliament without also thinking embarked upon. about the relationship between the Houses of this I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Grocott Parliament and the devolved institutions of government for focusing our attention particularly on the size of in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, if the Liberal this House, appointed as it is and as I personally hope Democrats were to have their way, possibly a devolved it will remain, because the relative sizes of the two assembly in England too. We should always be mindful Houses are going to be important. If we continue with of the implications of what we do here for local an appointed House of Lords and its role is advisory, government and the role of local authorities, which it is perhaps less significant if it is larger in numbers has been so much attenuated and enfeebled over the than if you have an elected second Chamber. Possibly, years. As we think about constitutional reform in a arguably, an appointed House of Lords with a role to constructive and responsible way, we need to think not advise benefits from having a large membership, because only about what we expect the devolved institutions—the there are more people within an appointed House who Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—to do have the ability to offer advice that will be useful to the but about what we expect elected local government to parliamentary system and to the country as a whole. do. All these pieces of the constitution need to be understood in relationship to each other. 10.15 am The best is the enemy of the good. If you try to None the less, I take the point that my noble friend design some grand masterplan for constitutional reform, Lord Grocott has put forward: there has to be some you will fail—it will not work. No one is possessed of limitation to this accretion of patronage, this growth such wisdom that they can devise the ideal scheme willy-nilly of an appointed House, based upon no and, even if they were able to do so, there would be principle at all. Well, there is a spurious principle, as I politicians who did not share that idealism and would believe it to be, that has been adumbrated by the not be agreeable to the reforms that were intended. coalition; in the coalition agreement it put forward as You have to proceed with constitutional reform a constitutional principle that it would be right for the pragmatically, incrementally, respectfully, sensitively membership of an appointed House increasingly to be and gradually. That is the way that you get progress reflective of the political strengths of the parties following towards constitutional reform in this country. That the previous election in the other place. That is a very does not mean that you should think about only one dangerous doctrine and it ought to be questioned. piece of the constitution at a time; you have to think While it apparently has a kind of democratic legitimacy about the pattern of relationships. about it, in practice it would mean that the power of If we were to have an elected House of Lords—I the government Whips, which in the opinion of many would not call it a House of Lords; it would be an of us is already excessive in the elected House, would elected second Chamber, and the existing House of increasingly be extended into the appointed House. Lords would have been abolished—along the lines We have already seen that process through the creation 285 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 286 of the coalition. We have seen the unfortunate state of Broadly, I welcome the two amendments. My noble affairs, deeply damaging to the character, to the friend Lord Knight of Weymouth has done his best to deliberation and to the capacity of this House to do its talk me out of it, but if I concentrate on his amendment job, when the coalition parties together have a majority rather than what he has been saying in the Committee, that they are willing to use ruthlessly, as we have seen it will be easier to look to that. I have great interest in in the proceedings on this Bill. I do not think that we what my noble friend Lord Grocott has been saying in want to legitimise that unfortunate development any support of his amendment, but I might put a point to further. We ought not to accept the doctrine offered in him which, if he is able to answer it when he winds up, the coalition agreement; it needs to be considered very would be helpful. What has attracted me to both sceptically, and I personally take a pretty jaundiced amendments is that they propose a rationale for the view of it. number of Members of the other place. If the second Chamber were to be elected, there At Second Reading I spoke about this issue, and I would be a frontal challenge to the other place on the have to say that I was quite shocked at the comment of part of the newly elected and democratically legitimised the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, second Chamber. That would be the case even under to the effect that the reason for 600 Members of my noble friend Lord Knight’s scheme whereby the Parliament was that it was a “nice round number”. elected second Chamber was elected by thirds—the The comment was quite funny and it worked well in challenge would mount cumulatively. It would also be the Chamber, but when you are scrutinising legislation the case even if we were to have an only partially that will make a major constitutional difference, that elected second Chamber. just does not do it for me. I expect a little more thought and explanation. I think that the Government As all noble Lords who have thought about this still have time to come forward and give reasons, and very knotty question of Lords reform know well, we indeed there may be a logic and an understanding that are playing with fire and we need to think carefully have passed me and other Members on this side of the about what we are doing. For the time being, though, Committee by, but I think that your Lordships have and in the context of the Parliamentary Voting System been quite dismayed at the lack of clarity of reasoning and Constituencies Bill, I take the wise counsel of my for and justification of the figure of 600. In a brief noble friends Lord Knight and Lord Grocott that you point I made earlier, I said that the Government are cannot sensibly or profitably attempt to think about exasperated at the fact that this debate is continuing. reform of the House of Commons in isolation from They could end that exasperation by giving a simple the reform of this House and without also considering reason. the implications for the relationship between the two Both the amendments before us seek validity in the Houses. kinds of figures they propose. That makes them both Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I rise with attractive to me and certainly worth discussing. My some relief. After 19 hours of debate, I wondered if we noble friend Lord Howarth made a very important would ever get to this amendment, which I particularly point in the comments he made just now. Our wanted to comment on. It is worth noting that the last constitutional democracy is based on the relationship time I spent a whole night in Committee in Parliament between the various parts of the legislature. It is not was in the other place on the National Minimum just about the relationship between the other place Wage Bill in, I think, 1998. In that debate, Conservative and your Lordships’House, but also about the relationship MPs, who did not want to see a minimum wage in this between Parliament as a whole and the Executive. country, spoke at length through the night over several Those points have not been teased out or addressed nights in Committee to try to stop the minimum wage fully in the proposals that have been put forward by from being introduced, or at least to delay it. I the Government. My concern, which runs contrary to remember—I would say “fondly”, but it is not fondly how the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, interprets this, is that at all—a debate around the location of the word tinkering at the edges and making changes that will “and” in the legislation. That kind of debate makes a have a fundamental impact while not assessing at the mockery of Sittings in either place. However, the same time that impact on other parts of Parliament, debate that we have had now for, I must admit, a very does both this Chamber and the other place a disservice. long time has in no way replicated that debate then. It does not reflect an understanding of the impact that The quality of the debate tonight and the seriousness it can have. with which these issues have been taken does this We have all seen the changes that have been made House great credit. It is doing what it is best at: where it has been understood that there will be one scrutinising legislation. impact, but that it has been far greater on this and the I was pleased to hear the comments of the noble other place. I am concerned that we have not been Lord, Lord Tyler. While I do not agree with much of given the explanations that are due to us. These two what he said, the fact that he said it is very important. amendments offer some kind of grounding and validity I am surprised, for a piece of legislation we have been for a number. told is so important that it cannot be split into two We have debates around the issue of the implications Bills of a more sensible size for scrutiny, that so few of reducing the size of the other place that have Government Members have attended the debate over centred on MPs’ workloads and financial issues. Indeed, the past 19 hours. That contrasts unfavourably with I strongly recall the Prime Minister, David Cameron, this side of the Chamber where we have heard a making the case that it would save money to reduce considerable amount of intelligent debate. It has been the Members of the other place. He said that you can doing what this House is meant to do. get more for less. In the end, you do not get more for 287 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 288

[LORD HOWARTH OF NEWPORT] the two Houses; and the relationship between the less, and I think it does a disservice to this House to Government, or the Executive, and Parliament. Both try to pretend that somehow we can squeeze more out amendments, in their own way, seek to fill that vacuum of every Member of Parliament. My experience after to bring a rationale to the number of Members of 13 years in the other place is that the vast majority of Parliament that we should have in the other place. I Members of Parliament—there may be exceptions am, perhaps, critical of these amendments and it that others can perhaps identify—really value their would be helpful if noble Lords could respond at the role and treasure their relationship with their constituents. end of the debate. The amendment of the noble Lord, They work extraordinarily hard. To pick an arbitrary Lord Knight of Weymouth, says that instead of having number and say that we will reduce by 10 per cent and a number, we should insert that the number of Members go down to 600 Members undermines and undervalues of the other place should be, the role that they play. If I was a Member of the other “decided once the membership and powers of a reformed House place at this time, I would rightly feel somewhat aggrieved of Lords have been agreed by both Houses of Parliament”. by that. What about the powers of the other place as well? It is A point has been made about constituency issues. all very well to talk about the powers of this House, An MP’s relationship with their constituency is a which will be affected by the number of Members in precious one. We have heard in some of the debates another place. However, there is also an argument that tonight former Members of the other place speaking the powers of the other place are affected by the most affectionately about their constituencies and the number of Members. links they still have to them. Those links continued for To enlarge on that, let us look at what the role of an many years after they left the other place. Like me, MP is. We have not, as far as I have heard, discussed many have taken their title from the constituencies that so far in these debates. I have not heard the whole that they represented. This is not a transitory, passing 19 hours, but I have heard a great proportion of them. relationship; this is something embedded into a Member What is the role of an MP? There is an argument that of Parliament. It is also embedded into those constituents. the scrutiny role of the other place has changed. It can One part of my former constituency, over three sets of be argued that Select Committees have greater influence boundary changes, had been represented by three and power. Chairs of Select Committees are now paid different MPs in three different constituencies. They and selection has changed from being by appointment had been moved from constituency to constituency in by the Whips. However, it can also be argued, with each set of boundary changes, and there was a lack of much legitimacy, that the growth of an MP’s work as a identity for that area. That is grossly unfair. If we representative of their constituency has grown enormously. propose, as in the Bill, to have boundary changes for Look at the number of letters and the issues being almost every election, that sense of identity, belonging raised—life is more complex for people. and engagement with the political process will be lost. 10.30 am We talk about the big society. The most important When I was first elected in 1997, the main issues part of the big society is that constituents and the that were brought to me included hospital waiting public feel engaged with the political process and able lists, although that died away over the course of the to contribute. If they do not recognise their constituency previous Government. There was a complexity to the or their MP, they can hardly engage with the political issues towards the end of my time in the House of process. The idea that we can draw lines on maps so Commons. Life was complicated for people and they that there are equal numbers and equal representation sometimes had difficulty managing. The first person does not understand at all the relationship between from whom they sought help, support and advice was the MP and the constituency, or the constituent and their Member of Parliament. That work was increasing the MP. significantly. If we think back to the 1800s, most A point I made on Second Reading was that the Members of Parliament did their correspondence by size of the other place has an impact on the size and hand. I am the very proud owner of several House of power of the Executive. If we are to reduce the overall Commons passes from when members of the public number of Members of Parliament but not the size of were given a pass to attend the House of Commons the Executive, it would increase the power of the that was not a printed one—issued in their thousands—but Executive. I do not think that is what the Prime had been handwritten by individual MPs on headed Minister meant when he said that we would get more notepaper. That was how one gained access to the for less and costs would be reduced. It misleads people House of Commons. and really is unfair. It will not have that effect but it In the 1800s Members would stand up in the will increase the power of the Executive, which will be Committee Corridor at the other end of the building larger as a proportion of the Houses of Parliament as and write to their correspondents by hand. They were a whole. The noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth able to do that. Then we moved into the 20th century. and Lord Grocott, are, I think, moving away from MPs got typewriters and some of them had secretaries. plucking a number from thin air. If I understood Could any Member of the other place now cope with where the figure of 600 came from, I might be more their workload and correspondence without a fully tolerant and give it greater validity. Not understanding staffed office, computers and technology? They could it, and in the absence of any rationale, it is difficult to not. The volume of work that comes in is matched by understand what the point of it is. the volume that goes out. One way to quantify this The matter has been fundamentally understated in would be to look at the postage bill for Members of the three areas: the relationship between the constituent other place. You would find that the number of letters and the Member of Parliament; the relationship between in response to constituents has grown enormously. 289 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 290

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does a large amount of One of my worries is that it is harder for Members that work not come from people who are not even on of Parliament who have the most demanding the electoral roll? constituencies—I think it is agreed across all parties that the issues and problems presented in some constituencies are more demanding and time-consuming Baroness Smith of Basildon: Certainly, there is an than in others—to take on a scrutiny role. It is also element of that. It is a real problem, especially when harder for them to take on a ministerial or Select we are looking at the size of constituencies. I took, in Committee role. Would we find ourselves in a position the end, to not checking whether someone was on the where only the Members of the other place who have electoral roll. If someone needs help and you represent the lightest casework loads and the less problematic their area, you should seek to help that person. However, constituencies would be able to serve as Ministers or there is an issue about the number of people who, for take on important roles in Select Committees? That various reasons, do not register as electors. They are worries me because it is not the primary function of a still entitled to representation. I do not know of any Member of Parliament. MP who would turn somebody away because they were not on the electoral roll. They would still undertake The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of that work. Weymouth, causes me some concern around the issue At the same time that Members of the other place of the powers of the House of Lords. He is right that are undertaking this increased workload, they see we are interdependent; I do not think that we can look their resources to do that work reduced. Under the at the relationship between the two Houses without new regime of IPSA, had I remained a Member of taking into account the powers and memberships involved. Parliament, I would have lost half of or one member We should not make proposals on size without considering of staff. I would have had to move my office to smaller responsibilities, and that goes for changes to or reform accommodation. I can assure you it was not salubrious of either place. Membership is dependent on function. in the first place. Members have also lost the communications allowance for communicating with My noble friend—I use that word advisedly but it constituents. There are fewer resources and more work. may not last for long—almost lost me in the debate on That makes it harder for MPs to fulfil that scrutiny his suggestion that there should be 15-year terms and role, which is very important. If we are looking to that your Lordships’ House should be elected in thirds. change, by increasing or reducing, the number of That would be an abuse and misuse of what could Members of the other place, we need to look at their loosely be called democracy but is not democracy at powers and responsibility. all. As my response to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, When I was first elected, I used to describe my work pointed out, democracy is about two things: first, it is as a Member of the other place as being in thirds. A about the powers that a body or an individual has; third of a Member of Parliament’s work was constituency secondly, it is about accountability and how they use casework from the individual people who came for those powers. That is absolutely fundamental. I feel help, support and advice. Another third was the work very strongly that if we were to have a 15-year term in of an advocate for the constituency if resources or which someone never sought re-election, there would support for industry, local charities, youth work and be no accountability; they would never be accountable so on were needed. The third role, which was informed to anyone. To me that is a sop to elections and democracy by the other two, was that of scrutiny and work in which insults the term. Committee, on legislation and on Select Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made a point, with Towards the end of my time, I felt that it was getting which I have some sympathy, about the relative sizes of harder to maintain that final third, which is crucial. the two Chambers. I bring him back to the point about MPs are there to be legislators, not caseworkers. However, whether it is the size or the powers that matter. I still it was getting harder to maintain because of the think the powers and responsibilities of the House volume of work where people needed the help that it should come before size. It is not about numbers but was an MP’s duty to provide. To reduce the number of what the powers and responsibilities of each Chamber Members of Parliament under those circumstances should be. Whether it is the other place or your does not make sense at all. Lordships’ House, what are the powers and If we were to reduce the size of the House of responsibilities? How do we achieve the right balance Commons, it would have an impact on this House. within the relationship between the two Houses and Your Lordships’ role of scrutiny becomes all the more what is the number that best achieves it? At the moment important if Members of the other place are finding it we have picked a number out of thin air. Six hundred harder to fulfil their duties and obligations on scrutiny. Members is a nice round number, as we have heard, I recall a number of occasions when Members of but accepting it does a disservice to your Lordships’ Parliament whom I held in the highest regard told me House and to the other place and undermines some of that they were not able to take part in a debate or go the excellent work that has been undertaken. To reduce on a committee because they had their casework to do. the number would further undermine the role of MPs That is not to criticise the individual MPs because in exercising any scrutiny role they may wish to have. their responsibilities were to their constituencies, but it is a sad indictment that Members of the other place who want to involve themselves in scrutiny feel so Lord Puttnam: I warmly support my noble friend much under pressure from individuals’ problems Lord Grocott. I bow to no one in your Lordships’ and issues in their constituency that they are unable House as a reformer. I was hoping to speak to the to do so. earlier amendment of my noble friend Lord Kennedy 291 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 292

[LORD PUTTNAM] It is worth mentioning why the debate went in that because, for the first time in 13 years, I was attracted direction. These young people decided that they were to the idea of supporting the status quo. However, I interested in judgment, objectivity, expertise, people could not get in. with a hinterland, people who had done other things My reforming zeal has always been focused on in their lives and decisions made on evidence. They better government. I have tried very hard never to be a rejected the notion that politics should have anything knee-jerk reformer and I have been hugely indebted to to do with what they termed—this was their phrase, and informed by the work of the noble Lord, Lord not mine—the party Whip. They rejoiced in the notion Norton, over the years. that the House of Lords did not seem to be dominated by the party Whip. For example, there was a lot of Taking on this role has involved two things. As concern about environmental issues. I was very interested many noble Lords know, I do not speak that often in to learn from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours the House. I do not much like speaking in the House; I that the Environmental Audit Committee has an average am not very good at it. However, I have gone out to attendance of 37 per cent. If you told these young schools, colleges and universities to talk about democracy people that the Environmental Audit Committee, on and the possibility that this House has a role to play in which their lives may well depend, was being attended improving our democracy and, indeed, the governance by a little over one-third of those appointed— of this country. I have spoken in almost 400 schools and about 350 other institutions. That is a lot of institutions. One of the points I should like to make to Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords, I am the noble Lord the Leader of the House is that not aware of the noble Lord’s commitment to the debate once in the Q and A sessions in 13 years and almost involving the young people, which was absolutely 800 occasions has anyone ever said to me, “What we wonderful. However, does he agree with me that the really need is a smaller House of Commons and a debate we are now having will be very important to the cheaper House of Commons”. In fact, they have, if primary school children who have been observing it anything, said the exact opposite. and are about to leave the Chamber? Some years ago I had the honour to chair two Hansard Society reports on the relationship of Parliament 10.45 am with the people. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was a member of that committee, as was the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam: That is very much the point that I Lord Renton of Mount Harry.The reports were absolutely wanted to make. I imagine that the reaction around unanimous. I wish to quote a couple of important the House might be: “What do those 280 sixth-formers lines from the first of those reports. It stated: represent? Young people who have not yet formed a judgment”. Our debate today is about them. We are “The level of informed, transparent and engaged democracy making decisions that will intimately affect their futures— that any citizen of the 21st century has a right to expect is, of not ours, because we will be gone. I was very impressed necessity, comparatively expensive. Cut price democracy will never represent much of a bargain”. by the speech of my noble friend Lord Prescott. He is absolutely right; we are making decisions that may be The leader of the Liberal Party in the early part of implemented by a far less benign Government. I am the 20th century, AJ Balfour, once said: not referring to a Conservative Government or to the “Democracy is government by explanation”. coalition, because we do not know who or what will turn up in the next 10 or 20 years, nor do we have any I think that is precisely right. I would argue that far idea what pressures there might be on the electorate. from trying to find £12 million worth of savings, a We are establishing a precedent whereby a determined responsible Government should explain to the electorate Government, simply because they have a majority, can that good democracy and good government are expensive. ram through constitutional change. Woe betide my Therefore, if it needs to cost another £12 million or children and grandchildren if they are forced to deal another £50 million, it is a bargain if it results in a with the consequences. better Government and a better run country. Therefore, I absolutely reject the notion that any part of this Bill This is a very important debate. I have sat through should have to do with saving money. If it is, it is any number of debates in your Lordships’ House that frankly a disgrace because that is not what the people have been interesting but not important. I have also of this country want and no one in any of the bodies I sat through some that have been important but not have talked with has ever given me that impression. interesting. Today’s—and last night’s—debate has been both interesting and important. A remarkable event took place here on 10 December. No one present in the Chamber was there but the Lord Speaker was there, as were the noble Lord, Lord Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may take my Kirkwood, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, noble friend back to the Environmental Audit Committee. the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. Two hundred and It is possible that I did not represent the position with eighty sixth-formers from all over the country attended total accuracy. It is not that one-third of committee this House to debate reform of the House of Lords. members attend meetings. In the House of Commons, All four of the options with which we are only too some Members attend committees for five or 10 minutes familiar were debated. The debate lasted for three to register and then leave. Therefore, the position is far hours and was very stimulating. At the end of it, to my worse than the case I described. That applies across jaw-dropping amazement, by a margin of two to one all committees, even those that I do not describe as the vote went in favour of an all-appointed House. Cinderella committees. 293 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 294

Lord Puttnam: I will wind up with one final point. I functions and methods of working are different, and see that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is in his place; he therefore the number of Members required in the two may want to comment on it. Our committee, with his Chambers must be different. I apologise to my noble agreement and that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, friends for not supporting their amendments. concluded as follows in 2004, when we were anticipating the new Parliament of 2005: Lord McAvoy: My Lords, I am not too keen on the “A new Parliament has an opportunity to pause and consider what it is there for, and what the public has the right to expect amendments in this group either, which is unusual, of it”. because usually I am strongly behind anything that my Pause, and consider. noble friend Lord Grocott puts forward. Although I have not long been a Member of this House, some I suggest that the Government of 2005 funked the noble Lords, particularly on the Liberal Democrat job and did not do what could have been done. However, Benches, portray me as a dinosaur who is anti-reform, that does not mean that now rushing headlong towards lives in the past and does not want any change. I will an arbitrary number of MPs and making the type of come to that in a couple of minutes. changes that have been suggested is a good way forward. This is a marvellous moment for this House to show In response to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, I will maturity and judgment, to understand who it is responsible say a word in favour of party Whips—all party Whips. to and to do something that the 280 young people who Sometimes when I see some of their performances, it were here a couple of months ago would wish us to strains my faith in the importance of Whips, but in do—namely, to use wisdom and common sense to general I am in favour of them performing their hammer out something that will be sustainable and in duties. They do it very well; they organise the place the long-term interests of this country. and make it work. The popular image that they get people in corners and inflict pain, both physical and mental, is simply not true nowadays. My noble friend Lord Desai: My Lords, I briefly looked in on the Lord Prescott has fond memories of one of the greatest debate of the students. When I heard the conclusion Whips in history, Walter Harrison, who almost single- that they came to, I lost all hope for their generation. handedly carried the Labour Government between Unlike my noble friend Lord Prescott, I want a reformed 1974 and 1979 with no majority. He did extremely House of Lords. The last time I spoke was 17 hours well. ago, so I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I I am a reformer and I believe that there can be speak again. I do not like either of the amendments in change in the House of Lords. There can be change in this group because they establish an unnecessary the House of Commons as well, but in this context we connection between the membership of this House are dealing with the House of Lords. To imply that I and that of the House of Commons. There has never am against all change is not true. The older one gets, been any connection between the numbers of Members the more experienced one gets. I am in favour of slow of the two Chambers. When Pitt the Younger entered change. Something should be done to curb the increasing Parliament, your Lordships’ House was half the size number of Members of the House of Lords. The of the House of Commons. When I joined, it was noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been looking at ways of twice the size of the House of Commons. Not only getting people to retire and giving them the opportunity have the two Houses been independent but, from long to leave early. That is fine. I am astonished that the experience, I know that the other place does not care Conservatives, who in general are more traditionalist very much about us, nor does it want to find out what than Liberal Democrats or Labour Members, do not we do. I do not complain about that. see that they are overseeing the wrecking of this place. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Knight They seem not to realise that over the past 17 hours we makes House of Commons membership conditional have crossed the Rubicon and things will never be on reform of the House of Lords. The only optimistic quite the same again. thing about that is that my noble friend thinks that There is danger here. I do not regard it with pleasure reform of the House of Lords will happen. I do not or joy, but as a red light signal about what could think that it will because, at the rate at which this happen. Majorities can change. I think that if the Parliament is going, we will not have time to do it. boundary redistribution goes through in its current However, even if there were time, it would not be a form, it will be to the disadvantage of the Labour good idea to postpone what we wanted to do about Party, but opinions vary on the effect of the change. the House of Commons until after the House of However, one thing is certain; we will be back in Lords had been reformed. That would be a bad precedent. government one day. I am not sure when that day will I slightly favour the amendment of my noble friend come and will make no rash threats or promises—it Lord Grocott because it is not conditional on reform has taken us 18 years before, and it took the Conservatives of the House of Lords, but merely refers to the other 13—but our turn will come again. The danger is from place having more Members than the House of Lords. the damage to consensus. This has been referred to by If the latest report referred to by the Leader of the my noble friend Lord Prescott. Those who want to House about people leaving the House of Lords is fight not the class war but the war against political implemented, we may get a membership of a reasonable opponents will come to the fore and say, “The Liberal size, which would be desirable. However, hitching the Democrats did it to us, now we will get our revenge on membership of either House to that of the other has them”. I would regret that attitude—and that would no constitutional precedent, and so far no one has be nothing to what those on the Labour side would do shown it to be at all desirable. We may continue to to the Conservatives if they got back in power. That is impact on each other for a long time but our roles, the damage that is being done. 295 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 296

[LORD MCAVOY] mixes up arrogance with being able to get a majority I have a lot of respect for many traditionalist in this place. Ministers do not seem to realise that that Conservative Peers. They have been extremely kind is affecting them. and courteous, and I have no word of criticism for However, they have that alchemy, chemistry or mix them. Damage has been done, however, and, once to put things through. It is affecting the atmosphere of power changes hands after an election, the seeds of the House, and within that are the seeds of self-destruction. damage will have been sown. There will be less tolerance, I do not say that with any joy, because this country less give and take and less of the usual channels. The needs a balance by having a right-of-centre and a call will come to inflict damage on the electoral prospects left-of-centre party. We do not need a party that is of the Conservative Party, which I would oppose; and totally obsessed with voting systems and nothing else, on the electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats, an obsession that I have never understood. I have which ultimately I would oppose but it would take me always understood that the Conservative Party wants a wee while. That is where the damage is being done. power and I have always understood that my own I will mention the expertise, knowledge and judgment party has struggled to get that power. That is the of the Cross-Benchers. I am still making my transition to-ing and fro-ing of British democracy and politics to this place. Some Peers have come up to me and said, which has worked. The House of Lords is an integral “I heard you say such and such. Perhaps you could say part of that. it differently and not use that language”. More Cross- The vision put forward by my noble friend Lord Bench Peers have approached me in the past few Knight of Weymouth shows what happens. I say that months, looking to help and guide me, than Peers with great respect to my noble friend—I have always from any other party or party grouping. They bring got on with him and I always will. It shows that, when that expertise. I have seen and heard the knowledge you start thinking about systems, and despite this displayed by Peers on all sides of the House but small liberal idea about tinkering with the House of particularly by the Cross-Benchers, who do not have Lords to make it more democratic, the place works, as an overtly political angle. It is desirable that the Cross- the past 17 hours have shown. That is not to say that it Benchers should remain an integral part of the House. cannot be altered here and there, gradually and slowly. The biggest damage has been done since the election. I definitely would not go along with all the various Again, I find it astonishing that traditionalist conservative systems that have been discussed for too long in intellectual Peers would go along with it. I am big on party loyalty circles. I am afraid that I cannot support my noble and I understand it in other people, too. However, the friend Lord Knight’s proposal, and I am sorry to say proposed reforms ride roughshod over the House of that on this occasion I could not support the proposals Lords, where the chemistry and alchemy have changed of my noble friend Lord Grocott. because the Government have a majority. The My last appeal is to Conservative colleagues and Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have tried to perhaps my Cross-Bench colleagues. I do not see any maintain the fig leaf that they are not one unit and faces that I can appeal to among the Liberals, but I that the Government do not have a majority. I wish would certainly ask traditionalist Conservative Peers that they would be more open and honest and say, and Cross-Benchers to watch this situation carefully. “Yes, we do have a majority”. This fact of life has been shown over the past 17 hours; the Government as a unit have a majority. It would be a lot better if they Baroness Sherlock: I support my noble friend Lord recognised that and were more honest about it. Knight of Weymouth, but sadly for different reasons. His advocacy for his amendment was characteristically That is where the biggest damage is getting done. persuasive, but uncharacteristically wrong. I hope that There are elements of the Liberal Democrats in particular he will forgive me if I back the content but try to offer who say, “We are the masters now”. Yes, the Government some different reasons. are the masters, but it will not last. Reinforcing that by increasing of the number of new Peers is damaging. He was right for the most powerful reason that form always follows function. That is as true when one is designing a parliamentary system as it is when one is 11 am designing a chair. If that is the case, we need to understand, as my noble friend Lord Howarth explained I do not care which Government they are; when a so well, the relative functions of both Houses without Government know that they have that power, especially trying to conceive a grand plan that would re-engineer in the House of Lords, where it has not happened the entire British constitution on a piece of paper, and before, it affects their approach to the Opposition and seek to enact that. to legislation, and that arrogance of power does damage. Ultimately, it will do damage to the Conservative At the very least, we need to understand the purpose Party in particular. We have seen that in the behaviour of the two places and particularly their distinct roles. of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am sorry to say Then we can understand what their composition and this because of his good personality. There are aspects size should be. Unlike many of my colleagues, I am a of, “We are in charge and we are riding roughshod reformer, but possibly in a different way. I should like over you. We are not consulting. We are moving a much broader conversation about the way that this Motions that are entirely unprecedented”. If there are House functions and is composed, and an understanding complaints about alleged filibustering, take it up with about what is different about this place. the usual channels and get a response. It is extremely I had an interesting conversation recently with an short-sighted desperation to try to get this Bill through academic from King’s College, who described the other under any circumstances and at any price. The alchemy place as being there to represent geographical communities, 297 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 298 but that this place was a House which represented I certainly have not had the experience of many Members other kinds of communities of interest. There were of this House who spent many years in another place vocational communities and communities of a whole or indeed here—I am a new girl in this House too—but range of expertise and perspective, and that crystallised I spent a lot of years representing and working with for me what was so powerful about debates in your some of the most marginalised people in Britain. I ran Lordships’ House. When an issue came up, instead of the Refugee Council, as did my noble friend Lord people simply saying—although this is valuable—“This Dubs, and before that I ran a single-parent charity. is how it will affect the people of Bristol” or, in my Both groups took turns at being national scapegoats. case, the people of Durham, someone would say, When I came to Parliament and tried to raise issues of “This is the perspective of someone who has worked manifest injustice, I found that it was in this House in this field for 40 years”, or, “This is the perspective of that I was listened to by people on all sides. I cannot a judge who oversaw the making of the law in this help thinking that that must have something to do area”, “This is the perspective of a bishop who has with the way that your Lordships came to be here and had to deal with some of the fallout when things have how they might one day cease to be here. That is gone wrong”, “Here is the perspective of someone something that I would like to see considered. who has been a trade unionist for 40 years and who My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon mentioned campaigned and worked for those at the very bottom”, the growing casework problem experienced by Members or, “This is the perspective of someone who has been of another place, and I suspect that it will get considerably working in business trying to create jobs and understand worse. At the moment, the only place that citizens can the consequences for their community of changes in go for help is either to their Member of Parliament or the law”. That way of viewing what your Lordships’ to an advice agency. Most of those agencies are funded House does is a very different way of considering what by legal aid and many across the country are going to communities of interest are. If we go on to have a close. I suspect we will find that more and more people conversation about this issue, I should like us to consider who have welfare or other problems will have nowhere in that kind of creative and imaginative fashion the else to go other than to their Member of Parliament, ways in which the two Houses might contribute to the and therefore it seems likely that that role will grow, wisdom of this nation and, in particular, how they not shrink. might go about properly representing the communities I do not for a moment suggest that Members of of interest in the United Kingdom. another place should simply turn into social workers One of the most powerful things about being human or advocates. However, they play an important role by is that we only really come to life in relationships. We being there to act, when necessary, between the individual naturally form communities in all kinds of different and the state. They represent the state to the individual ways. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the but they also represent the individual to the state. House will appreciate that wise Governments know Their job is sometimes to be the person who breaks that you cannot make communities; the most you can through when the state appears not to act appropriately. hope to do is to support them, enable them, help them They have to try to crack open the system and ensure to grow and allow them to flourish. Certainly, if the that justice is done. I have lost track of the number of party opposite wants to promote the big society, I am cases where someone would bring me a judgment that sure that it will have discovered by now that the best was not only demonstrably unfair but clearly not in thing it can do is not to try to create communities—they accordance with the law. Sometimes it would take only have a nasty way of falling over when you turn your a letter or a phone call from a Member of Parliament back on them—but to work with the natural communities and the matter would be looked at again. I would that exist, and there needs to be a very clear view on never want to see the role being one of simple advocacy both sides of the House about how that should be or special pleading, but the job of making sure that done. you hold the state to account for the individual, as well You start with the principle that the Houses should as going out to advocate for it, seems to be fundamental. be created in a way that respects the natural communities. I thank my noble friend Lord Knight for bringing Therefore, in another place, if we are looking at the forward for consideration the importance of the order way in which communities or constituencies are formed, in which we do things, and I hope that the Government we should go with the way that history, geography, will consider it. culture and a sense of identity have naturally created constituencies. In this place, again, there should be a natural way of looking at how we represent the non- Baroness Quin: My Lords, I am very grateful to geographical communities of interest where the voices have the opportunity to follow the thoughtful speech should still be heard, and we should make sure that of my noble friend and fellow north-easterner Lady the two things can be reconciled. However, if we start Sherlock. I also agree very much with the wording of, jumping in now with numbers, we will have missed a and the intent behind, the amendment of my noble step. The point of these Houses is not the people in friend Lord Knight of Weymouth. The fundamental them but the job that they do. In reflecting on this point is that it is absolutely crazy arbitrarily to reduce matter, we have to consider what that job is and how the number of Members of the House of Commons the Houses may be best constructed to enable them to when we are greatly increasing the number of Members do it. in this place. That does not make sense at all, and I I very much hope that we will not consider specific very much agree with my noble friends Lord Grocott numbers. I want to share some of my experience with and Lord Knight on that issue. It also seems strange noble Lords. My background is in the voluntary sector. that— 299 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 300

Lord Strathclyde: If the noble Baroness really does majority. In those days, no one on the Labour or think that, what impact does she think that substantial Liberal Democrat Benches would have dreamt of doing reduction in the number of Members of the House of so. I say that because it was a time when this House Lords should have had on the House of Commons? really was undemocratic and unfair in the worst possible way. Baroness Quin: In most countries where there is a bicameral system and a revising Chamber, the revising 11.15 am Chamber is roughly less than half the size of the Baroness Quin: I hope that the noble Lord is not primary Chamber. The primary Chamber has a accusing me of filibustering. I have sat through a great representative role with constituencies; the revising deal of this debate and this is the first time that I have Chamber has a different, detached role, but the two spoken. These are issues on which I feel very strongly are interrelated. It seems absurd to increase the size of indeed—as I hope the noble Lord will accept. the revising Chamber when the Chamber involved in representing communities throughout the land is being I am someone who favours an elected second Chamber. subject to cuts. My noble friends are completely right I was interested to hear the comments about the to say that you have to look at the function of Parliament wonderful debate that took place here on 10 December as a whole and the interrelationship between the two with the young people from different schools around Chambers. To increase numbers in this place at a time the country. I confess to the House that I was the when, for matters of political convenience, the coalition Member of the House who worked most closely with would like to reduce the numbers in the other place is those young people who were putting forward the no way to proceed in a democracy. It also seems elected option. Unfortunately, we lost the debate. extremely— Nonetheless, there was a great quality of argument and discussion. It was an absolute privilege and joy for me to work with the young people from the community Lord Strathclyde: What the noble Baroness says is school in Newham in east London, helping them interesting but I am confused by the strand of her prepare for that debate. I absolutely applaud their argument. Ten years ago, the Labour Government efforts and the efforts of the other young people massively reduced the size of this House and then it involved in what was a tremendous occasion. I am increased it with what one noble Lord opposite—I glad that my noble friend, having referred to this, think it was the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—said were enabled me to make that comment. “Tony’s cronies”. Did the noble Baroness feel awkward In her very eloquent contribution, my noble friend about that? Did she feel that it was a good or a bad Lady Smith spoke very tellingly about the changing idea, pro democracy or anti-democracy? I would just role of MPs and their attachment to their constituency. like to get a feel of where she is coming from. As a former Member of the other place I feel very strongly about it too. I believe—as others have said—that Baroness Quin: The noble Lord is referring to the it is important for constituencies to be linked to time when most of the hereditary Peers were removed communities. It should be a very important guiding from this House. I thought that that was a tremendous principle in deciding on numbers, rather than simply blow for democracy. The noble Lord said that he is having an arbitrary number decided on. Like my noble confused but I, too, am very confused about the friend, my own constituency was changed several times attitude of Ministers in this House towards these because of boundary changes. Sometimes those changes proposals. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not in worked well if they were linked to proper communities. his place but on many occasions in the past I have heard him speak out against increasing the size of this However, the constituency that I finally represented, House. However, through this Bill he is proposing to Gateshead East and Washington West—which I was reduce the size of the other place, while at the same very happy to represent because it is in my native time he is presiding over a huge increase in numbers in North-East—was a very strange constituency. The this House. That seems to me entirely the opposite of name sounds geographically a little bit confused. It what we have heard him say in the past. Indeed, was virtually two islands only connected by one narrow although my noble friend Lord McAvoy and I have lane. One part of it was in the city of Sunderland and different views on the way that this House should be the other part was in the Metropolitan Borough of composed, he none the less expressed his misgivings Gateshead. That arrangement worked far less well about the continual increase in the numbers in this than having a constituency that was wholly within one place at a time when we are proposing to cut the particular local government area and that had a very numbers in the other place. I am an unashamed reformer obvious association and community feeling. The in terms of wanting an elected second Chamber. arguments that my noble friend put forward were very telling indeed. Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the For all these reasons—and for the reasons that she noble Baroness for giving way. When I came to this gave about the changing role of MPs—she is, in some House about 16 years ago, it was completely unbalanced ways, absolutely right. The pressure and amount of because the hereditary Peers were overwhelmingly work is much greater than it used to be. Although we Conservative and Mrs Thatcher had done nothing to must recognise that there is also some continuity in the reform the system. I was in one of the two opposition frustrations of the House of Commons. In the 19th parties, with the noble Baroness next to me, sitting century Walter Bagehot said that the House of Commons where she is now sitting. We never used the filibuster, was so full of business, even though there was an absurd and unfair built-in “that it is hard to keep your head in it”. 301 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 302

In some ways, it is not just about the numbers. It is In my dinosaur role, I say again that the atmosphere also about the function, role and huge variety of tasks of this House in the past few weeks has changed that Members are trying to undertake. It is about all dreadfully for the worse. The cause of this is the Bill. these things: the need for constituencies to be part of The beginning and end of everything going wrong is communities and the need for the role of a Member of not the fact that we have a lot of new Peers taking time the other place to be properly evaluated before changes to understand our ways and to fit in. It is nothing are made. We should proceed very cautiously and not other than this Bill and the refusal to approach rationally proceed in an arbitrary or ill thought out manner. what is in the Bill. That means of course that what has gone wrong with this House is the Government’s fault. They suggest remotely, via the Government’s friends Lord Peston: My Lords, one of my noble friends in the right-wing press, that the Opposition are the earlier referred to dinosaurs. I am a dinosaur. I think cause of all the problems. However, this is not our Bill. that it is about time one of us spoke. Some form of I have heard my noble friends come up with lots of social Darwinism may in due course make us extinct entirely acceptable suggestions for amending it and but until then we should be allowed to speak—at least the Government clearly have a bit of paper that they in your Lordships’ House. have all had printed for them, saying, “Agree to nothing”. The dinosaurs used to be conservatives but clearly That is what is going on here. We should not pretend the use of the word has changed. One of our problems that that is not what is going on. with language and terminology at the moment is that Coming to my final remarks, most horrifying of all it is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister is not a was the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, conservative—in the sense of appealing to us dinosaurs— from the Government Front Bench a couple of hours and, as far as I can see, many of his Cabinet are not ago. I hope that I am mistaken but he appeared to conservatives either. As a dinosaur, I see no urgent say—indeed he appeared to threaten us—that the need—and I underline the word, urgent—to change Government were willing, because of this Bill, to end your Lordships’ House, to change the other place or to self-regulation in your Lordships’ House. The noble change the electoral system. I am not opposed to Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has every opportunity—he change as I will point out in a moment but is it urgent? can get up now if he wants—to pledge that it is not No. remotely in the Government’s mind to end the era of One of my problems with the alternative vote, over self-regulation, and maybe even introduce a guillotine which a great many of us have a hang-up, is that, when in your Lordships’ House. I did not hear the noble I look at the Benches opposite and I think of my many Lord, Lord McNally, say that that was not in his Tory friends, I cannot find a single one who supports mind. Would the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, like the alternative vote. They get through the day by me to sit down so that he can tell us that the thought biting their lips and pretending that none of this is has never entered his mind? No, he is not even looking happening. I must tell them that it is. I am grievously in my direction. He dare not look in my direction. sorry that the Labour Government who have just gone What pretty pass have we come to as a result of this, did not accept the so-called Steel Bill, which would when someone on the Government Front Bench, albeit have tidied your Lordships’ House in a most desirable a Liberal Democrat, can even raise the subject of way and would have given us a great deal of time on ending self-regulation and possibly introducing a which to produce a more rational way of moving guillotine? forward. Bygones are bygones. I echo my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I do not meet anybody from what I Lord Mawhinney: Maybe I am a dinosaur too, but I will call—for want of a better phrase—the real world, have been listening carefully to what the noble Lord who is remotely interested in this legislation. I repeat has been saying, and at least with dinosaurs there is an old joke. I guess that 1 per cent of the electorate perhaps an occasional element of resonance. He also favour the Bill, 1 per cent are against the Bill and 98 said that his side was not filibustering but are seeking per cent have not the faintest idea of what we are up to to persuade the Government to change their mind. and, more to the point, have no wish to know. How many hours does he think it is legitimate to take I care about your Lordships’ House. My time is to seek to persuade the Government to change their running out. However, I have broadly enjoyed every mind before he accepts that they are not going to minute of the 24 years I have spent here. Although I change their mind and that thereafter it is a filibuster? was doubtful when I first got here, I do not believe that I have wasted my time in coming here—quite the contrary. Even in the bad old years that the noble Lord Peston: The noble Lord ought to look at the Lord, Lord Lester, refers to, when we had hereditaries, history of filibustering, particularly its origins. By no we did a pretty good job. I do not know if the noble standards can the reasoned arguments that we are Lord, Lord Lester, remembers, but we had all-night putting forward count as filibustering. I have not sessions. We did not filibuster then and I do not regard heard anyone make a five-hour speech—20 minutes myself as filibustering now. I regard my duty as trying seemed to get up everyone’s nose. However, I do take to persuade the Leader of the House to think about the noble Lord’s point. My late father used to say to this rationally and to go away and come back with a me: “Stop knocking your head against the wall. Do much better way of doing things. This is what this is you not realise that you will feel better when you stop all about. I am not much of an optimist but I have at doing it?”. There is a genuine question of when we on least a faint hope that maybe something sensible might our side give up. I am not in command of that, but I yet emerge. take the noble Lord’s point when he asks us why we do 303 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 304

[LORD PESTON] by introducing a guillotine—his reputation, as he does not accept defeat. I was a boy during the war and I not want to be the first Leader of the House of Lords lived in London during the blitz. I know it is not a to introduce a guillotine on a constitution Bill—the good analogy, but we did not accept defeat then, and noble Lord, Lord McNally, might entertain it in certain on our side we do not intend to accept defeat now. conditions. Lord Mawhinney: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. I think I promise not to do it a Lord McNally: I do not in the slightest, but I will third time. I was very careful not to accuse the side give another analogy. The reason why we have the opposite of filibustering and of irrelevantly banging Salisbury/Addison convention—and the reason why their heads against a wall, to use the noble Lord’s this House has lasted as long as it has—is that, at that phrase. However, it seems legitimate as we go through time, those who had the power perpetually to disrupt, this process, with a residual element of good will on defeat and destroy had the wisdom not to use it. both sides, for the House to have some sense of how Salisbury/Addison came about because Lord Salisbury long those on the opposition Benches think it is legitimate was smart enough to know that if they used the to seek to persuade before the prospect of persuasion power—which has always been there in a self-regulating becomes vanishingly small. House—consequences would follow. I said no more, and to suggest any idea of threats is simply absurd. Lord Peston: I had really sat down, so I hope the noble Lord will accept that I do not have to reply. Lord Soley: The noble Lord is making a fundamental mistake. Actually, I am sure that it is not a mistake as Lord McNally: Fortunately, in the 21st century, it is he knows that he is doing it. The phrase that he used possible to follow the proceedings while moving some was “abuse of procedure”. The key abuse here is for a paper—and I did hear what the noble Lord said Government to bring in a portmanteau Bill on the earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said constitution without any co-operation, or even any from a sedentary position that I am sensitive about it. attempt to reach agreement between the various political When I made my remarks earlier, both the noble and parties, and without any attempt to consult, and then learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord to try and drive it through without any concessions Campbell-Savours, said that I had my facts wrong—I whatever. That is an abuse of this House, and it will think the term was my “century wrong”. However, I destroy it. It will turn it into another House of Commons, made no threats whatever. I merely pointed out that in and when they bring forward their Bill on the reform the 19th century the House of Commons had lost of the House of Lords, they will drive that even some of its liberties in the management of business further. The noble Lord is destroying this House; let because of abuse of procedure. In order to check, I us have no illusions about it. went to the House of Commons Information Office factsheet P10, which did indeed say that the guillotine Lord McNally: I am the last one to tell the noble was first employed, essentially as it is now, on the Lord not to get aerated but, as my noble friend reminded Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill in 1887. us a little earlier, less than a year ago his own Government 11.30 am brought in a constitutional reform Bill that had Interestingly, the Minister who introduced the 13 separate items of constitutional reform. I understand innovation in 1887 argued that he was doing so because that occasionally, as the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, it was, and I were discussing earlier, a little bit of aeration is “absolutely essential in the interests of the honour and dignity of worth it, but so too is a little self-knowledge. No one is Parliament”, threatening anyone, but there are lessons to be learnt and that although Mr Gladstone, from history, which was all I was doing. “referred to the proposal as ‘a further abridgement of parliamentary liberty’”, Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I was the one he, who introduced the word “guillotine”. I did it yesterday “did not lead his party into the lobbies against it”, at col. 16, and I did it to say that, happily, we never because, had to introduce the guillotine here because we operated the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated, “he had been Prime Minister in 1881 when a simple prototype form of guillotine had been used to bring an end to the committee in a way that was self-regulating and that worked stage of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill)”.— perfectly well. I said it not because I thought that we [Official Report, Commons, 10/6/1887; col. 1596.] should introduce a guillotine but because I thought I was saying simply that there is an historical analogy; that we should behave in a way that made it unnecessary. when the system breaks down, there are consequences. I made no threats, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan: The noble Lord, for whom I Lord Campbell-Savours, wants to apologise for suggesting have the highest regard, was more aerated than he that I did not know my history. recollects. Not only did he mention the end of self- regulation, and referred to the situation at the end of Lord Campbell-Savours: It is not that I have to the 19th century, but he used a sentence which I apologise but that the noble Lord raised the question cannot remember exactly but which referred to Fenian of the guillotine during our debate. He may wriggle obstructionism. The Fenians at that stage in the last around as much as he likes, or go to the Library and quarter of the 19th century were not just parliamentary check the historical record, but he introduced that obstructionists— element. There are those of us who believe that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has a lot to lose Lord Kinnock: Terrorists! 305 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 306

Lord Elystan-Morgan: They were very different from that this House and the constitution are a nice equipoise, that. It was, I thought, utterly uncharacteristic of a the old Burkean concept, whereas I am an out-and-out gentleman for whom I have, as I say, the very highest reformer. I have always been one; I am an embattled regard. minority in this House and never particularly enjoyed that position. Nevertheless, that is what I am. I am Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am certainly probably an embattled minority in my own party. I not prepared to be part of any filibuster, and there has certainly am in respect of the whole House. been no filibuster; there has been a discussion of I emphasise that, because we are in this situation important amendments. Through the long watches of today, we should recognise the gains that have been the night, I have exercised considerable self-restraint made in the House over the past decade or so. There is because there has scarcely been a debate in which I no doubt that the House has enhanced its reputation would not have wished to participate. The debates or that those who join us recognise the value of our have shed a great deal of light upon the development debates and deliberations. There is increasing awareness of this legislation and the necessity for change. The outside of the work that the House does. None of us answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, is quite can go before schools on the Speaker’s programme to straightforward; we are concerned about the principles talk to schools without being aware of the fact that behind this legislation and we have real objections to young members of the community know some of the them. He will recall that, when we introduced principled value of the work that we do. We must not exaggerate legislation on the abolition—as we put it at that time—of that, but we must protect what we have. the hereditary peerage, we engaged in compromise My anxiety is that the Government are proving to that was not accepted by all noble Lords on Labour have a degree of ruthlessness in their objectives that is Benches, but did so because we recognised that a completely counter to the way in which one should constitutional issue has to have some consensus. Progress handle a Bill of this great significance. The Government that is rammed through against the principled opposition know that we recognise that there is a time and date of a major party in the land is not the way to achieve for the Bill; we recognise that the Bill—or part of the constitutional reform. That is what we have demonstrated Bill—has to be delivered in a certain time. We have in this debate—exactly that principled position. offered that, and we have offered discussions on that. I say to the noble Lords opposite that they should It is the other part of the Bill, which contains fundamental recognise our anxieties. They should recognise that the constitutional issues, that we expect to deliberate at very act of coalition has transformed this House. It length. has transformed it in the nature of the Benches; it has transformed the nature of our deliberations. Everyone Lord Kinnock: I am grateful to my noble friend. knows of the enormous pressure on Question Time. It Can I take advantage of his experience and perspicacity? is very difficult for a self-regulated House. We are all Does he think that there is a possibility that the having problems coping. What is that a reflection of? circumstances at which we have arrived, deeply regrettable It is a reflection of the fact that there is now one as they are, are the product of the fact that unusually, opposition party, plus the influential contribution of in the context of the past decade or so, we have a those on the Cross Benches, but there is a majority Government in a position, if they wish to, to employ party on the other side that is presenting its position. one-party rule in this House because of a built-in That is bound to sharpen the exchanges, and, particularly guaranteed majority? Despite that, because of his as we bring in more and more talented people, it is knowledge of and acquaintance with the Leader of inevitable that the competition to express a point of the House, does he agree that this ruthlessness of view is getting more intense. As a consequence, we are which he spoke is not entirely the product of the seeing our procedures coming under increasing strain. Leader of the House, who understands this place, but None of this is the work of the Opposition. Not the product of those outside this House who do not only are the Government not apologising or in any understand this place but have instructed the Leader way showing restraint about this mad dash to get of the House to take the attitude that, because they additional Members on to their side into the House—and can get 100 per cent by exercise of their overwhelming by Heavens we have seen the reason for it in the long majority, they must get 100 per cent and nothing less? watches of the night. What is the hurry? It is because The absence of room for reasonable compromise arises they have always been worried about this highly from that external pressure. controversial legislation on which we have a very strong case for criticism and on which they should Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to my noble effect some compromise about how it is tackled, not friend for reminding me of an unfortunate fact. We all least by giving sufficient time for debate of this major lament the very limited perspective that still obtains at constitutional issue, which relates to the relationship the other end on the work in this House. We often see between the two Houses. Of course, the Government instances of that failure to appreciate the contribution are ignoring all those representations. that we make. In these circumstances, the Leader of I said that there are consequences from all this. I am the House must take responsibility for the actions that grateful to my noble friend for his amendment, which he pursues, and I shall not attribute it to others while I has triggered this debate, and to my noble friend Lord have before me the noble Lord who is answerable and Grocott, the former Chief Whip, for his position. He responsible for this legislation. I am making an obvious and I agree on a great deal in these matters, but we are appeal to him that he appreciates that. We shall continue actually divided on a fundamental issue. My noble to demonstrate that and to argue the case of principle, friend from time to time seems to present arguments not with filibustering but with reasoned argument on 307 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 308

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] There have been a couple of not so much accusations very important amendments. The noble Lord should as suggestions about whether the fact that there has appreciate that now is the time to breaks the log-jam. been a forensic analysis of this Bill, which has gone on That is the point of being in government. It is the for a considerable time, is, in effect, filibustering. I Government who have power, not the Opposition, could not help reflecting on the fact that I had the who produce bows and arrows against the rolling exquisite pleasure of taking through the Digital Economy tanks of government—particularly when that Government Bill, which was a modest little number. It had 43 have a majority not only in the other House but, in clauses and attracted 700 amendments. I do not think political terms, in this House too. That is what is that I ever used the word filibustering, although on transforming the nature of, and the atmosphere in, many occasions I watched as we debated the same this House. issue again and again and again and again. I am eager that we should recover our poise and sustain our reputation. I am eager that we should Lord Strathclyde: How many of those amendments co-operate with each other to produce the best effects were from his own side? in legislation. However, this Bill and the basis on which it is being done, along with the attitude that underpins it, are the ruination of us all. Lord Young of Norwood Green: Some were, but many more were from Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. I have no complaint about that, but I 11.45 am had the same desire that the noble Lord has to get the Bill through. To enable us to do that, many hours were Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I have spent in arriving at compromises. That is the significant not participated in this to date, but we seem to have difference. I would have wished it to proceed faster, as combined two amendments at this point and I wanted the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wishes this to do, to rise to make a contribution. but it was a plain fact of life that if we wanted this Bill I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to succeed we had to listen carefully to the Opposition’s that there is not an automatic link between the numbers arguments and, in certain circumstances, be prepared in one House and another, but there is certainly a link to arrive at a compromise. That is what has changed between the powers of the primary Chamber and the the atmosphere with regard to this Bill. You know that powers of this House. I thank my noble friend Lord you have the power and you do not want to compromise Knight for tabling his amendment, and similarly my in any way whatever. It does not matter what has been noble friend Lord Grocott for drawing to our attention suggested; however marginal it has been, there has the fascinating conundrum of the proposal to reduce been no attempt whatever to reach a compromise. If the numbers in the other place while at the same time the Government are going to suggest that the Opposition increasing to an extraordinary amount the numbers in are somehow doing something out of the ordinary, this House. My noble friend Lady Smith said that she they should examine their own actions and their own did not know how they had arrived at the figure. We attitude towards this House. I believe that that is have had the explanation—we might not like it and it fundamentally important. might not necessarily be logical, but we have been told We all know that, whichever way we want to reform that it will save money. I am not going to comment on the House, one attraction of the House of Lords is that approach from a Government who have made that it is a place where there has been reasoned debate their attitude clear on the importance of cutting the and an ability to persuade a Government to change deficit and that any amount is important. Someone their mind and accept amendments. That is what has else has said that 600 is a nice round figure, and it is been missing during the course of this debate. It is hard to argue with that, too. Others allege that it will unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not create a political advantage, although I could not here. I do not want to accuse him of making threats, possibly comment on that. But those are the arguments but I will say what I would say when I got a bit that we have heard to date. I have one thing to say to agitated when trying to resolve a dispute with my the coalition. To paraphrase, if you reform in haste, kids—they are young adults now—just chill out. I you may well repent at leisure. cannot help feeling that he ought to take that advice, One thing that my noble friends have drawn to because I do not think that that has helped the discussion noble Lords’ attention again and again is the way in in the Chamber. which this House has changed with the coalition I think that the Opposition have been perfectly Government. The atmosphere has changed. The reasonable in dealing with a Bill on which we believe Government have the power—there is no arguing with there could be compromises. It could be taken in two that. They have the Divisions and the numbers. My parts if there was a willingness on the Government’s noble friend Lord McAvoy used the phrase that the part to consider that, or to consider any amendments chemistry had changed, which made it clear that he or compromise. Although I do not necessarily support was a science graduate. He is right. It has changed. An these individual amendments, I thank both my noble interesting and important comment was made by the friends who have tabled them for giving us the opportunity noble Lord, Lord Low, who has many wise words that to have this debate and for me to be able to participate. are always worth listening to. He said that the coalition should think carefully about the ability to reach an agreement. As my noble friend Lord Davies said, the Lord Triesman: Like my noble friend Lord Young, I power to reach an agreement on this contentious Bill have not spoken in this debate at all. Were it not for is within the hands of the Government. the issue in these two amendments, but particularly in 309 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 310 that of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, I probably to lead almost inevitably to a better specification of would not have done so, but there is a fundamental who and how many people you need to do that. There point here that I would like the opportunity to explore. cannot just be a random answer. I was very grateful to hear from my noble friend that There will of course be different opinions about the during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill, in answer and the qualities of the answer. However, there which I also had some involvement, he sought will be an answer about how many people there should compromises with those moving amendments on the be so long as you know what you are intending to do other side of the House. I had very strong views about and whether you think you can make those functions part of the Bill and, if I had known that he was fit for purpose. Yet that has rarely been part of our looking for compromises, I would have knocked on his debate. I am not criticising any noble Lord for that door and applied to have one or two myself. because the propositions have generally been put to us I am not allowed to describe the noble Lord, Lord in those terms. I am not sure that, had this House had Mawhinney, as a noble friend, but he is certainly a its way, we would ever have discussed the subject from friend. I remain a perpetual optimist, and I still hope that end of the telescope. We would have started with that some things may be changed by means of a a more rational discussion about function. Every so sensible debate in your Lordships’ House. often, however, we have had an element of that discussion. My reason for wanting to say things that are supportive I am deeply concerned now in part because I think of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord that the atmosphere here has become awful and sour. I Knight, are these—and they follow very closely from do not want to contribute to that at all. It is certainly the views expressed by my noble friend Lady Sherlock. an awful transformation from the time when I had the Before I came to the House—although I was deeply privilege of sitting on that Front Bench and experienced involved in political life, with responsibilities in the great courtesy right across the House in our deliberations organisation of the Labour Party—I was intrigued by on the issues with which I was concerned. It is not just the way in which the House worked and in particular because of that. It is because I think that we can by how the definition of the role of Members of this identify some characteristics of the changes in the House was contrasted with the roles understandably system that should make us all pause and really think played in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about whether we can do this without a proper reflection in the course of the night, has said how hard it is to on the whole issue of the numbers here and the define those roles, because so many things would come function that we are supposed to perform. along that you had never seen before and make you I am not making this argument because I think it question whether you had ever really understood the will produce an impossible circle in which we cannot extremities of the role that you might play. do one thing without the other, and then we cannot do the other without the first. I truly understand that I understood very well that it was difficult to define argument. We have tried to elaborate our constitution those roles precisely. The then Leader of the House over probably centuries but certainly decades, since was Lord Williams, who was most certainly a good the reforms following the Budgets of Lloyd George. and treasured friend and a very great guide to so many That has been done at a pace at which it has been of us in the ways that the House works. Gareth possible to assess the constitutional impact of one set Williams was kind enough to describe to me the of proposals and to digest those before moving to the complementary character of the roles played by the two next set of constitutional propositions. There has been Houses—that is, the jobs which were done in the the time to do it. Commons and the Lords, even if it would have been hard to write down a job description particularly for In other words, we did not say that it was impossible Members of the House of Commons. None the less, to do it all together because you would never know you could understand that process. I respected that where to start or where you would break deadlock, but because I understood it, which is what brings me to we have had the luxury—if I can put it in this way to follow the proposition put forward by my noble friend your Lordships’ House—of digesting it and thinking Lady Sherlock. about the impact. So, even if we did not write the constitution down in a very specific form, we had the In almost every debate that I have had the privilege chance to grasp the fundamental elements of it and to to attend in your Lordships’ House on the future of develop conventions which I think are sadly now this House, the conversation has focused almost entirely missing for the most part, which allowed a degree of on how many people should be here; very rarely has organic development of the relationship between the the debate been about how many people should be at two Houses. the other end of the building, though of course that issue has come round in this legislation. However, it has always been about the numbers. I find that an Noon extraordinary way to describe any system, or to consider Those are not the circumstances in which we find what might happen in such a system. Perhaps it is ourselves now. We are in circumstances where it is because I am a pragmatist, too narrow in my vision or obviously intended, and I understand why, to produce whatever, but I always start by asking the purpose that a swift and dramatic set of reforms to your Lordships’ we are intended to fulfil, and whether we are fit for House in the wake of the reforms to the other end of that purpose. Is it possible to work out what each of this Building, and there will be no time for any iterative the different elements of our parliamentary system is process in which people can compose, even in that supposed to do to the benefit of the people of the rather more organic way, any kinds of constitutional United Kingdom? The answer to those questions seems arrangements. I just say this: were it to be the case, for 311 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 312

[LORD TRIESMAN] with the best arguments and evidence available to us, example, that the reforms of this House led to a all that would happen is that as this went through, wholly elected House, a partially elected House or people would look at the Opposition, or indeed those some other hotch-potch, I am convinced that anyone sitting on the government Benches and Cross-Benches who runs for an election—I have run for a good few in who may agree with these general propositions—I my time—will stand by their rights as an elected have an instinct that there may be many people who person to answer to their constituents as an elected are afraid of the unintended consequences of all this—and person because you cannot really ever do anything else say, “How was it that they allowed all that to happen if you intend to carry on doing the job. without the most thorough exploration of its consequences There will be two sets of elected people in this for the people of the United Kingdom?”. That is why I Building, two sets of numbers without a proper digest myself would have welcomed it, even if it had meant of any constitutional issue, because we will not have that the debate had gone on longer, if noble Lords on allowed ourselves the time for the necessity of making all sides of the House had engaged in this debate. It is that analysis—it is not a luxury—and there will be precisely these things that I want to understand because constitutional deadlocks. I do not like using overdramatic I want the best for this House and certainly for the language, but in my view there is likely to be chaos. other place, and I want the combination of the two That chaos will be compounded by the arrangements Houses to deliver what the people of the United with the European Parliament and the devolved Kingdom want. I fear that we will now end up with legislatures around our country—they may increase in exactly what they will not want. number, but there will be chaos even with the current I get back to my apology, in a way: I do apologise number—and, certainly, by the relationships with local but, having not spoken, I hope that noble Lords will government, because we are not doing ourselves the understand that I feel very passionate about these courtesy of thinking through what the framework of possible consequences. I suspect that there are a good these constitutional arrangements ought to be. many people in your Lordships’ House who feel the That can hardly be the way in which a genuinely same anxiety and can see this calamity unfolding, mature legislature, as we have, approaches questions without any real arrest of its process or the discussion of this size and this importance. It cannot be right to that we really need in order to get those questions do it this way. So, even if it is thought by some to be a right. I thank noble Lords for allowing me the opportunity lost cause, I ask that we pause and consider. In doing it to put that point. in the way that we are, we will probably end up with Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these two something about which in a year, or in 18 months, amendments rather bring it all together. The effect of every one of us will say, hand on heart, “I never my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth’s amendment wanted that; it was not where I intended to go or what would be that the Bill did not decide the number of I think was desirable for the legislature of this country”. Members in the House of Commons until the membership Everyone will repent it, not with ease but with great and powers of a reformed House of Lords had been regret, and what is lost will be irreplaceable. agreed by both Houses of Parliament. As I understand I apologise for speaking even this once in the debate. the amendment, once we knew what we wanted the Lords to do and how their membership was going to be selected—and, presumably, once we knew what its Lord Trimble: I apologise to cut short the noble relationship was with the Commons—then, and only Lord’s apologies, but I wanted to come in before he sat then, would we decide what the numbers in the Commons down. I found myself in considerable agreement with should be. The thinking is that if, for example, we were the comments that he was making about the consequences completely satisfied that all the House of Lords did for Parliament as a whole if we find changes to this was scrutiny and nothing else, that would tutor us in House rushed through this House in the way that he how large both the House of Lords and the House of mentioned. Commons should be. I want to put this point to him: does he appreciate My noble friend Lord Grocott’s amendment is, that the consequence that he warns against is made with respect to my noble friend, slightly more opaque. much more likely if, in this House, there is a determined Its effect would be that this Bill never came into force, campaign to obstruct the primary legislative project of as I understand it, until the Lords was smaller in the present Government, and that the Opposition at number than the Commons. My noble friend’s amendment the moment are getting dangerously close to that is opaque because it gives no indication, although this territory? The Opposition need to consider the unintended may come in his next amendment, of what the size of consequences, such as the noble Lord has mentioned, the Commons should be. of their current behaviour. These amendments raise principled issues. First, there is the basis for the reduction in the size of the Lord Triesman: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, Commons—that is, are we trying to change the function for putting that point to me. I suppose that the of the Commons in any way? The noble Lord the fundamental point that I am trying to make is this: Leader of the House has put that to rest; in the without some proper digest of both the parts, it is very interview that he gave to Sky Television, where he gave unlikely that we will come to a satisfactory conclusion. his clearest exposition, he said that the public want In that, I see that we are broadly in agreement, although fewer politicians, especially around the Commons, I do not want to put words into the noble Lord’s and 50 is about right. That is a précis of what he mouth. Were it to be the case that we did not try to said to Sky yesterday, and that, as I understand it, is pursue these arguments as convincingly as we could, the reason. 313 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 314

The noble Lord is saying not that the function of of the coalition, its ability to make significant concessions the Commons should be changed in any way but only becomes more difficult, because both parties become that the numbers should be reduced because people do dependent on each other to stick by the agreements not like politicians any more. The logic of that must be that have been reached. that if people do not like politicians any more, we We now need better skills than in the past to find a should also be reducing the number of politicians in way forward. I said at the beginning of yesterday that the Lords. However, as many of my noble friends have the leadership of the Labour Party is willing to sit pointed out, the number of noble Lords since 5 May down and find a way out of this new position. I make 2010 has gone up by 117. So it is quite difficult to see it clear that we will do so with good will by negotiating what the logic is of the Government’s position with either a process or the substance. We should, as Members regard to the Lords. of this House with substantial responsibilities for its Perhaps that is not surprising, because the noble continued success, both recognise that more is required Lord the Leader of the House has not told us what the than previously. I completely endorse what my noble detailed plans are. I understand that we will be seeing friend Lord Prescott said: that our survival depends them in the next few weeks. I do not know what he can on our ability to negotiate effectively. tell us but it would really help us to know, first, what he envisages as the role of the Lords. Does he envisage its role to remain the same as it is at the moment? Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to hear Secondly, does he envisage the size of the House being the noble and learned Lord say that he did not agree smaller or larger than it is at the moment? If so, what with the amendments, and I agree with him. We have size will it be? Thirdly, what does he envisage as being had a magnificent and wide-ranging debate lasting the process for becoming a Member of this House? some three hours. Nearly three hours ago, the noble Will the House be wholly elected or substantially Lord, Lord McAvoy, accused me of spraying innuendo. elected, or will there be some other form of entry? If I had no idea what he was talking about, but it is election is to play a part in it, which I understand it is, rather a delightful phrase and I should like to keep it. I how will he ensure that the Lords, as the noble Lord, shall find an opportunity to use it in the weeks and Lord Triesman, indicated, does not become a competitor months ahead. to the Commons? Why is election to the Lords any less We have had a bit of coalition philosophy. I did not valid that that to the Commons? How will the Government follow much of it, but I am sure that we will hear ensure, if they want the Lords to be a scrutinising about the terrible things it means for the Opposition in House, that it remains exclusively so? The noble Baroness, the near future. I welcome the offer made by the noble Lady Sherlock, who made an excellent speech, said and learned Lord to discuss and to negotiate. If only that she had discovered that this House is more attentive he had done that at the beginning of November when to the concerns of people who need help. Is that I talked to him about the number of days that we because of the structure of the House? Will that be should sit; but the noble and learned Lord got batey lost in what the noble Lord proposes? with me when I suggested that we should negotiate. So I welcome the change of tone. It is immensely good I do not think the amendments of either my noble news. friend Lord Knight or my noble friend Lord Grocott are sustainable, but they allow the noble Lord to indicate to us how the Bill relates to his proposals for 12.15 pm Lords reform. They come together because the Deputy We have had several different strands during the Prime Minister, Mr Nick Clegg, has said in many course of the debate, some of which had something to speeches that his great reform programme—the most do with the amendments and some that did not. There important since the 1832 Act—includes, co-linked with was a strand on Lords reform and that there should be this Bill, the reform of the House of Lords. I say that no change to the House of Commons until reform of they come together, because the relationship between the Lords has been completed. There was a strand that the Lords and the Commons is also affecting the there should be no change to the House of Commons position in which we now find ourselves in this House. under any circumstances for a whole variety of reasons. My experience of being in this House during the We then had a long debate by various noble Lords on past 13 years is that we have made progress in substantially the process. Somehow members of the Opposition amending Bills and occasionally stopping them altogether, have turned themselves into great victims of the coalition. including those which the Government of whom I was I am not a psychiatrist, so I need to speak to my noble a member proposed, because we have understood friend Lord Alderdice about this. There is now a sort when we had to reach agreement and when it was of victim culture that speaks of how, “We have all possible to block things. This is an occasion when we been put upon by the Government”. I feel put upon by need to make progress and agree things, but, because the Opposition, but the Opposition feel put upon by we are a self-regulating House, it inevitably involves the coalition as though there was something immoral give-and-take on both sides. That is quite easy to about it. It is as if uniting in the House of Commons achieve when there are three separate parties. Where, and uniting here is a dreadful thing. They do not however, two of the parties come together, as they do accept the changes and it is an extraordinary thing. in the coalition, it has two effects: first, it gives those There is also a new view, which is that the Opposition two parties much greater power and enables them to somehow have a right to what they call compromise, refuse to make concessions that would otherwise be even if—or, in fact, especially if—they have not won a made; secondly, and just as significantly, once an vote. This is a most bizarre concept that I have never agreement has been reached between the two members heard before, but I recognise that members of the 315 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 316

[LORD STRATHCLYDE] believe that that is sufficient for MPs to do their Labour Party in the House of Lords have talked business. We believe in equality of votes around the themselves into believing it. We had a self-proclaimed country, with constituencies averaging roughly 75,000. dinosaur, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for whom I That is a very clear policy. have tremendous affection. He knows that, and I have I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, once known him for a very long time. I thought that he was in my wind-up. Does he want to use it up now? going to make a rather different speech and wax lyrical about the old days when he and his colleagues ran a most effective Opposition in this House with Lord Soley: Definitely. First, a number of us have considerably fewer Members. They were not the largest been saying for some years that there is a case for group in the House, as the Labour Party is currently. reducing the size of the House of Commons, but the As a smaller group they were able, without endless argument is more complex than simply coming up debates going on into the night, to effect change in a with a figure. The problem is this magic figure that he most dramatic and able way. The noble Lord, Lord just referred to again. The number is reduced to 600 Graham of Edmonton, was Chief Whip. I was hoping for no other reason than the one he gave: that this is a that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would set some of good enough system for the House to work. In fact the his colleagues an example of how he used to do it. reason, which was given in a number of documents and speeches by Conservative MPs and by people Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. pursuing that policy in the Conservative Party, is that I welcome his friendly remarks. However, does he it would decrease Labour representation in the House remember that when he was the Minister and I was the of Commons. That is in writing; the noble Lord can principal spokesman, we were often dealing with Bills read it. I quoted some of it yesterday. that neither he nor I understood, so we had great difficulties? I distinctly remember one occasion when Lord Strathclyde: I must admit that I have not done he said that he really had to get one of his Bills a great study of this, but I am reminded that the noble through, so he asked what concessions could be made Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that if that was in order to do that. I paused, at which he said, “You the reason, it was not the case, and I am very happy to don’t understand the Bill and nor do I. Why not go rest with that. I do not think it is a partisan policy by and see the officials? They will give you some concessions the coalition somehow to reduce Labour representation. and then we can get the Bill through”. That was the What is part of our policy is to have an equalisation of atmosphere, but that is not what is happening on this constituencies across the country. Bill at the moment. The whole thing has totally changed.

Lord Strathclyde: That strikes me as an eminently Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the sensible way of doing business, but in those days we Leader of the House, his noble friend Lord McNally were dealing with relatively minor details. On this and even the courteous noble and learned Lord, Lord occasion, it is the fundamental principles that noble Wallace, have not answered the question about when a Lords opposite dislike so much. Having themselves Government last determined in advance of a proper introduced the concept of AV, they are now the first to independent inquiry the number of people who should deny it. They say that it is not the principle of AV but sit in the House of Commons. My noble friend Lady that it is the wrong date; it is the wrong time and it is Nye has done some research to help me. Apparently it the wrong electorate. Not enough women or BMEs was 1832 when it was last decided by the Government voting, it is not in Gaelic, and other issues have been and, in order to get it through Parliament, they introduced brought forward in a plethora of other amendments. a very large number of new Members to your Lordships’ But when it comes to reducing numbers in the House House. I thought that would help the noble Lord of Commons, they totally oppose the principle. There because I cannot see why we cannot have the normal is some shaking and nodding of heads opposite. There custom and practice of looking at parliamentary is a confusion of policy. We still do not know whether boundaries independently and a report back. Then we it is official Labour Party policy to campaign in elections would not have to have the notional figure of 600. It around the country for 650 MPs. If it is, they might would be done properly, not on the back of an envelope. want to tell us how they got to the figure of 650. I look forward to that. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, it is very noble Baroness for giving us that information. She interesting to hear the Leader of the House telling us asked the question many hours ago and I did not have how difficult it is to understand Labour Party policy. the answer then. She has the answer now, and that is Surely the purpose of this part of the debate is for him good news. to explain the policy of the Conservative Party and the The point is that the Boundary Commissions are Government and to explain to us exactly why—because independent. They will do their review and will advise we are still waiting—they have settled on the figure of Parliament on their conclusions. It is equally right that 600 Members of the House of Commons as the perfect Parliament should say to the Boundary Commissions number. that we believe the right number across the country is 600. I am in danger of doing what I have accused Lord Strathclyde: Our policy is crystal clear. There noble Lords opposite of doing, which is straying should be 600 Members of Parliament in the House of from the amendment, and I certainly do not want to Commons, 50 fewer than the current number. We do that. 317 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 318

I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to these been a long debate, and I particularly enjoyed the debates on House of Lords reform. I can promise him intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. I welcome many hours of debate in the months and perhaps even him to these debates. I know that he takes a slightly years ahead on this great subject. He joins a small different view to his noble friend Lord Knight, and but—I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I say there is also an honourable and noble tradition on that this—noble group of Members who wave the standard in the House of Lords. of reform and are not much encouraged by their Back Both these amendments ask us to wait, and that is Benches. The noble Lord will find that is equally so. the fundamental message I got from the Labour Party Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—he is no longer in throughout what has been a very long Committee day. his place, which is a pity—and many other noble It is, “Do not be hasty”—well, we could not be accused Lords, I recognise that being a reformer in this House of being overly hasty these past few hours—and “Do is quite a difficult path to tread. not make the change in the House of Commons to Of course, it is true that Lords reform forms part of 600”. I believe that there is a majority in this House to a wider series of reforms designed to restore trust in make that reduction, and I hope that the noble Lord Parliament, but that does not mean that deciding on will withdraw his amendment. an appropriate size for the other place is in any way dependent on membership of this House. Determining the size of the other place and reforming this House Lord Knight of Weymouth: We have had an excellent are not interrelated. If they were, which would come debate, and I do not want to delay the House for very first? As my noble friend Lord Tyler said hours ago—he long. It was significant that we heard from many noble was absolutely right in his intervention in the speech Lords who are not the usual suspects in this Committee. by the noble Lord, Lord Knight—could we not equally I pay tribute to the usual suspects because we have had argue that reform of this House cannot be finalised many more taking an active part in this Committee until we agree on an appropriate size for the other than we normally do in Bills that come through at any place? The two questions are not necessarily connected. time of day in this House. It is good to hear some new If we had done it the other way, I feel sure that the voices, particularly after such a long period of time. noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would have been the first I also felt that the debate proved the first law of to have argued it the other way round. Lords reform: the more detailed the proposals, the The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord more likely you are to lose support. That was certainly Grocott, would have us wait until the number in this the case with my speech, which had very little support House was below the number in the House of Commons. indeed. In fact, it was a great relief when the noble and At the moment, there is no means to retire. My noble learned Lord, Lord Howe, stood up and started with friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has issued a report and we the immortal words, “I agree with Lord Knight of will be studying it. So many noble Lords are keen on Weymouth”. He then went on to disagree with me, retiring from this House that I hope the report will be and my noble friend Lady Sherlock did much the accepted and a means for retirement will be accepted same, but occasionally there was a smattering of support forthwith. for my particularly ingenious solution to Lords reform. When we get to the Government’s plans on long-term reform of this House, while no final decisions have 12.30 pm been made, I very much hope that a document will be I shall not comment on the many excellent speeches— published in the next few weeks. I think I can say that which is a shame because they came from Members of it is likely that an elected senate would be substantially the House who I admire the most, including my sponsor, smaller than the current House and almost certainly the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam—but I should like to smaller than another place. I hope that that will put a comment on three matters. First, there was a point smile on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. when the excellent debate got bogged down by a tetchy discussion when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, came in. We were distracted and discussed the nature of the Lord Grocott: If that is the Leader of House’s proceedings of the Bill rather than the amendments. It objective, why does he not start work on that now by is a huge shame that the offer of negotiation now from stopping any additional entries into this House? the Opposition is being rejected. The opportunity was offered when we voted the last time on the House Lord Strathclyde: There is an awfully long queue of resuming. I hope that very soon the offer for serious new Peers and hopeful Peers who would like to come negotiations will be taken up and that we will not have in. Publishing a Bill and sending it to a Joint Committee many more protracted evenings going on into the of both Houses is an important milestone in this following day. debate on reform of the House of Lords, but it is not Secondly, in the second speech of the debate, the yet the introduction of a Bill for legislation. We shall noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that, in essence, my have to wait for the Government’s decision on that, amendment was saying “not yet”. By some remarkable and of course the Bill will be subject to full parliamentary sleight of hand we seem to have a Session that will scrutiny. now last, virtually, until the Olympics. With some kind Reform of this House is, of course, an important of Olympian effort, it may be possible for someone issue, but determining the size of the other place and with the expertise and brains of the noble Lord, Lord reforming this House are certainly not connected. I Tyler, and others who have been dwelling on this hope that noble Lords opposite feel that I have subject for some time, to come up with a solution and demonstrated that. This has been a good debate. It has achieve reform. However, given the comments that we 319 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 320

[LORD KNIGHT OF WEYMOUTH] responds to this debate does not resurrect that argument have just heard from the Leader of the House that we now, as we have demonstrated conclusively that it does could be debating these matters for some years, none not stand up. of us is too optimistic. It was in the later reaches of the night that it Finally, the substance of the amendment concerns became apparent to me, and to any dispassionate the significant linkage between the numbers in your person listening to the debates, that the Government Lordships’ House and in the other place. The noble could not say in two sentences why it was of such Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was right to say that there is imminent importance that the House of Commons an importance in the order of doing things, and I should be reduced to 600 Members. My amendment, think we are doing things in the wrong order. For which I acknowledge is badly worded, although I example, if in the end this House is wholly or partially drafted it as effectively as I could, says that at the next elected, that will increase the number of elected Boundary Commission—which, I am afraid, we have representatives in this country and increase the cost of already decided will be as the Government wish, in representation—and those are the two reasons given that it will come quickly and there will be a short for Part 2 of the Bill. We may need to return to these period of consideration for redistribution—the numbers issues on Report but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw should not be rounded up, as the noble and learned the amendment. Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly says they normally are, but should be rounded down. That means that over a Amendment 63YA disagreed. period of redistribution, rather than in one great shock, the size of the House of Commons should be slowly reduced. Amendment 63YB not moved. I do not like that, and feel strongly that it should be 650. We have been told that somehow or another we Amendment 63YC need to try to reach agreement on some of these Moved by Lord Grocott matters. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has left but I was astonished at something he said, which I 63YC: Clause 11, page 9, line 18, leave out “600” and insert a tried to take down verbatim, when we suggested that “maximum of 650 and at each boundary redistribution the number there should be compromise. I apologise if I have of constituencies shall be rounded down” completely misinterpreted him but he said, “Governments reach compromises only if they lose amendments”. I Lord Grocott: My Lords, this will be the last do not object to him not being here at the moment as amendment before we need to conclude the proceedings he has been here a long time, but, if that is what he of this day’s Committee as a courtesy—the House said, I hope that when he reads Hansard he will would expect no less—to the three new Members who rethink that statement. It was certainly never the position are being introduced today. That may be relevant to of the Labour Government in my time that you seek the discussions that we have just had but, in view of compromise only if you lose an amendment. You seek the procedure that quite properly has to be observed, compromise all the time, which is what a Committee it would be quite wrong if we went on very much stage is for, but that has not happened on this Bill. longer. Ministers should say, “We don’t like that amendment This is a simple amendment. It follows on from the very much. It may have some good points but let’s go discussions that we have just had because, believe it or away to see if there is anything there”. Of course, we not, it is an attempt to compromise; it is an attempt to reach compromises on ping pong, as and when that meet one of the objections that the Front Bench arrives. opposite has raised to those of us who are keen for the I shall not prolong this short amendment. I am House of Commons to remain at about 650 Members. saying simply that the Government are not getting all The position is, as the noble and learned Lord, that they want if they do not get a cull of 50 MPs Lord Wallace, in particular, said, one of the problems immediately. I am emphatically not getting all that I with every redistribution is that figures get rounded up want, but this is something of a compromise. I hope and the House gets larger and larger. I have already that we might get something from the noble Lord, said that I strongly support a House of 650. I have not Lord McNally, in the spirit in which it is offered. liked having to be here right through the night; it is not a good way of considering such a major constitutional Bill. However, it has had one huge advantage. I need Lord Bach: My Lords, as ever, my noble friend to remind the House that we have been debating most Lord Grocott has come forward with an ingenious of the night the reasons for the Government’s decision plan that the Government should consider carefully. It to reduce the House of Commons from 650 to 600. It is a constructive proposal which, as he said, seeks to is sometimes only when you have a very long debate tackle one of the central complaints that have been that the barren nature of the Government’s position is made about the current rules for drawing constituency laid bare. They have so far completely failed to explain boundaries. That complaint is that the rules have the to the House where the figure of 600 came from. They potential to give rise to a ratchet effect, causing the have completely abandoned their first justification for total number of constituencies to increase with each doing it, which was that it would reduce the costs of review. democracy. That is what Ministers said time and again, We have heard that the size of the House of Commons but they do not even attempt that defence for the has remained broadly stable since 1983 at around 650. reduction of MPs any longer and I hope that whoever None the less, we accept that the interplay between 321 Parliamentary Voting System[] Parliamentary Voting System 322 some of the existing rules for drawing boundaries 12.45 pm could cause an upward trend. This was highlighted by Lord McNally: My Lords, in introducing the an important 1986-87 Select Committee report, which amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, reminded is now quite ancient but still important, by the Home us that three new Peers will be introduced at 2.15 pm. I Affairs Select Committee on the rules for drawing wonder whether the House authorities have checked parliamentary boundaries. It noted: whether they have been watching the television overnight “The consequences of the application of Rules 5 and 6 is that and are indeed on their way. All I would say to them is whenever seats are awarded under those Rules above a review that there is still time. area’s entitlement on the basis of the electoral quota alone the number of constituencies recommended will be greater than the As has just been pointed out, this amendment seeks previous total. These new, higher, totals will in turn be used as to keep the number of Members in the House of divisors for calculating the electoral quotas at the next general Commons at 650 for the 2013 boundary review. Like review. At that review Rules 5 and 6 will again operate, so that the our proposals, it attempts to address the fact that has tendency for the numbers of seats to increase will be increasingly been recognised on all sides of the House that there cumulative”. has been a tendency for successive boundary reviews My noble friend’s amendment would address that to increase numbers of constituencies at every general problem by capping the House of Commons at a review. They have been increased only by a small maximum membership of 650 and would place a amount, but nevertheless that constitutes upward pressure. downward pressure on the number of constituencies The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has put forward a plan created by future reviews, by stipulating that the numbers that I will not describe as ingenious as we fear that, if must always be rounded down. There are some attractions it were adopted, it would take perhaps 50 years to get to the amendment and we think it to be much preferable down to the target level in this Bill of 600 as it is not to the rather rigid and ill considered proposals to fix entirely clear how the process of rounding down would the Commons at exactly 600 seats. function. First, the amendment starts from the basis that 650 The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that we had is a more appropriate size for the membership of the abandoned the claim that our objective is cost saving. other place. The Government believe that there should However, I was present on at least three occasions be a significant departure from that position and that during the night when we pointed out that our measures 600 seats would be the optimum size of the other would result in cost savings. They would not be large place. However, at the risk of repeating what has been but they would certainly not be trivial, as noble Lords said, the Government have so far failed to advance any on the other side of the Chamber claimed. Therefore, compelling evidence to support that position. we have not lost the objective of saving public money Secondly, the amendment would provide the Boundary but, as I have said so often, we are basically motivated Commission with an element of flexibility in doing its by the objective of getting fair votes in fairly drawn calculations, albeit in one direction. It does not repeat constituencies. Although we have listened to what the the folly of the Government who, by fixing the House noble Lord said, we tend to follow the view of the of Commons at an exact number, will make the task of secretary of the Boundary Commission for Scotland the Boundary Commissions very difficult, not just in on moving the number in the Commons downwards. the next review but in the review that will follow. In He has said: any event, the Committee knows that we believe that it “I don’t think there would be any particular advantage in doing it incrementally. If you want to make the change, then get it is wrong in principle for Parliament to set the exact over with”. figure. We do not see an advantage in making these reductions We see advantages in my noble friend’s amendment. incrementally and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw However, we on the Front Bench tabled yesterday—or his amendment. perhaps I should say today; it was about 24 hours ago—Amendment 58A which is a better model for Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have already said that I addressing the same problem. I remind the Committee have no intention of going beyond 1 pm on this. that our amendment would commence the process of Should I wish to test the opinion of the House, that drawing boundaries by establishing an electoral quota would take us beyond that time, so I recognise the through the method of a fixed divisor and be based on constraint within which I am operating. I am not an assumption of a House of Commons of 650 Members. surprised but disappointed with the response, although The advantage is that that would anchor the House of it was made in an emollient way so perhaps I am being Commons at approximately 650 Members, but allow over-hopeful in thinking that we could get some movement for a small variation above or below that figure, depending on this. on the mathematical rounding associated with the special exemptions, including certain seats in Northern Lord McNally: I was especially chosen to answer Ireland—an issue which we will no doubt consider in this amendment to ensure that it was responded to in future amendments. That was the preferred method an emollient way. recommended, on the advice of the Boundary Lord Grocott: I suggest that the noble Lord still Commissions, in the Home Affairs Committee report needs a bit of practice in the art of emollient speaking to which I referred. but it is a start. However, I simply cannot sit down On this side, we think that my noble friend’s without saying one sentence about the costs. The amendment is an alternative to our proposal and is Government’s figures claim that culling 50 MPs would certainly one which the Government should certainly save in the order of £12 million. We know that we have take away to consider and see if it meets their requirements. to have an accelerated Boundary Commission—that is 323 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 324

[LORD GROCOTT] Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to completely unnecessary in my view—which, if previous move that the House do now adjourn. It may be Boundary Commissions are anything to go by, would helpful if I confirm that the House will sit today at cost more than £12 million, so there certainly will not 2.15 pm for introductions and Oral Questions. The be any immediate saving. Indeed, there will be an intention is then to proceed with the 10th day in immediate cost. Thereafter, Boundary Commissions Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and will take place with at least twice the frequency than Constituencies Bill, as was indicated in the House of has been the case in the past for no obvious good Lords Business. Noble Lords may wish to be aware reason that I have yet discerned. Therefore, there will that when we return to the PVSC Bill after Oral be an ongoing cost to the Boundary Commission as Questions, we will continue to use the revised ninth there will be an ongoing saving. But the best way to Marshalled List. Clearly, it is to the advantage of the save money that I can recommend to the Government—I House and the organisation that we do not seek to do leave the Government with this thought as I withdraw any reprint at the expense of the taxpayer. the amendment—is, why not save £85 million by scrapping the referendum on the alternative vote? I should also make it clear that we will not proceed with the seventh day in Committee on the Public Amendment 63YC withdrawn. Bodies Bill, which had been scheduled for this afternoon. In discussion with usual channels, there is a conversation Amendment 63ZA not moved. to be had about the time of ending today. It will of course depend on progress of business, but it is not Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I will wait; anticipated that the House will go until as long as 10 I think that it will be preferable for the usual channels pm. I know that usual channels are keen to see if it is to be in position for this moment. I beg to move that possible to rise around a dinner hour which is yet to be the House do now resume. determined.

House resumed. House adjourned at 12.52 pm. 325 Introductions[18 JANUARY 2011] Deficit Reduction 326

assets. He also said that not all the proceeds must be House of Lords used to reduce the national debt. The Conservative chairman of the Select Committee then said that he Tuesday, 18 January 2011. must have quite a bit in his back pocket; he was referring to the tens of billions of pounds from sales. I 2.15 pm know that the noble Lord cannot reverse what the Chancellor said, but can he at least assure us that there Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield. is no basis in the dastardly charge that the Government are trying to build up a large fund to reduce taxation Introduction: Lord Edmiston rather than some of the worst, most painful cuts that are now taking place? 2.23 pm Lord Sassoon: The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, called Robert Norman Edmiston Esquire, having been created it a “dastardly charge”; I am sure that I would not Baron Edmiston, of Lapworth in the County of characterise it quite like that. The fact is that my right Warwickshire, was introduced and made the solemn honourable friend the Chancellor is hiding nothing. It affirmation, supported by Lord Marland and Lord Howard is simply that, as I have explained, under the measure of Lympne, and signed an undertaking to abide by the that has been used since 1998 for measuring the deficit, Code of Conduct. privatisation sales—the sales of shares in companies—do not rank against the deficit, so my right honourable friend can have nothing up his sleeve. Introduction: Lord Framlingham However, it is important that the Government exercise stewardship over all their assets, fixed and otherwise, 2.29 pm so that we have an ambitious programme to raise proceeds—they may not all count for deficit reduction— Sir Michael Nicholson Lord, Knight, having been created which will affect the debt position. That chimes in Baron Framlingham, of Eye in the County of Suffolk, with the modernisation of government. Of course, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord among the most valuable assets the Government have Geddes and Baroness Boothroyd, and signed an undertaking are the shares in the banks which were nationalised. to abide by the Code of Conduct. We want to ensure that the taxpayer gets a good return on those shares. Introduction: Lord Wood of Anfield Lord Peston: This is a difficult Question, and I am 2.35 pm pleased to hear the Minister say that he wants the taxpayer to get a good return on the relevant assets; in Stewart Martin Wood, Esquire, having been created other words, they will not be sold at less than their Baron Wood of Anfield, of Tonbridge in the County of value to the taxpayer. Can the Minister say where in Kent, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, the Government’s accounts the proceeds of these sales supported by Lord Kinnock and Baroness Nye, and will appear? I have looked myself and I cannot find signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct. anywhere where I would put them, but then I am not an expert.

Deficit Reduction Lord Sassoon: My Lords, they will and do appear in Question tables in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts and records of sales. For example, the sales of fixed 2.39 pm assets are dealt with in table 2.2, and the sales of Asked By Lord Barnett financial assets when they come in are— The noble Lord, Lord Peston, shakes his head, but To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the I am looking at page 21 of the OBR’s Budget 2010 Chancellor of the Exchequer has excluded potential supplementary material which has tables. There are privatisation proceeds from his deficit reduction not yet financial sale numbers to go in for future years, plans. but table 2.2 is there on page 21.

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, will the Minister Sassoon): My Lords, since 1998, HM Treasury’s overall ensure that he gets his timing right on selling the deficit reduction measure has been public sector net shares in the banks, and not make the same mistake as borrowing, or PSNB. Under this measure, privatisation Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, proceeds from the selling of shares in companies do who sold most of our gold stock for $280 an ounce not affect the deficit. when the price is now $1,300 an ounce?

Lord Barnett: Yes, my Lords, but, as the noble Lord Lord Sassoon: My Lords, I do not want to give any knows, the Chancellor, replying to questions at the hostages to fortune, but it would be difficult for any Select Committee recently, admitted that there are Chancellor to get it as disastrously wrong as that large sums that they are considering from the sale of Chancellor did on the gold sales. 327 Deficit Reduction[LORDS] Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre 328

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Minister Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre has made clear that he expects to reap the rewards Question from Labour’s investment and make profits in due course. Will he be a little clearer to the House about the banks? Will the Government introduce criteria on 2.47 pm the effectiveness of banks in lending, for example, and Asked By Lord Selkirk of Douglas even, perhaps, control of bank bonuses? To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will come to a decision on the future of the Defence Lord Sassoon: Well, my Lords, it has come to a Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court. pretty pass when the noble Lord characterises the investment in the banks as some sort of voluntary investment to make a return. It was necessary to bail Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I beg leave to out and save the British economy because the previous ask the Question standing in my name on the Order model of financial regulation had completely failed. Paper and, in so doing, I mention my non-pecuniary Under the stewardship of the new Government, we interest in the Register of Lords’ Interests. will do our best to get back the investment, and hopefully more, that was necessarily put in by the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry previous Government. That is what we are doing. of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does not one of friends of: Ranger Aaron McCormick, 1st Battalion the banking groups have considerable liabilities, which The Royal Irish Regiment; Guardsman Christopher will be added to the country’s net debt in due course? Davies, 1st Battalion Irish Guards; Private John Howard, 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment; Corporal Steven Dunn, 216 (Parachute) Signal Squadron; Warrant Officer Lord Sassoon: My Lords, as my noble friend says, Class 2 Charles Wood, 23 Pioneer Regiment RLC there are liabilities as well as assets on the Government’s (Royal Logistics Corps); and Private Joseva Vatubua, balance sheet as a result of the bailout of the banks. It Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders 5th Battalion the will be a long process, in which the management of Royal Regiment of Scotland, who were all killed on those banks is taking the leadership, to restore them to operations in Afghanistan. health, both for the benefit of the shareholders, including Turning to my noble friend’s question, work continues the nation, but also to ensure that they can continue to on establishing the feasibility of a defence and national lend money to the businesses of this country. rehabilitation centre. No decision on the future of the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court will be taken until this is complete. Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: Will the Minister give a straight answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett? Will he also give a commitment Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Will my noble friend that the Government will set out how the proceeds will accept that the whole Chamber would share his be used? condolences to the families concerned, and our very deep sorrow at that serious loss of life? In view of my noble friend’s Answer, will he bear in mind that the medical rehabilitation headquarters at Lord Sassoon: My Lords, as and when there are Headley Court is a renowned centre of excellence; that proceeds they will be fully accounted for. That is the it last year treated more than 6,500 patients; that its position. outstanding team of specialists should not be broken up; that approaching £20 million has been invested in its facilities in the past five years; and that a further Lord Dykes: My Lords, will the Minister agree that £24 million was committed in 2008? if the Government take more energetic action to deal with the tax dodgers, of which there are many—probably amounting to over £100 billion a year—there will then Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I agree with everything be less need to sell state assets? that my noble friend says. Headley Court is a marvellous facility which the nation should be extremely proud of. I am sure that the whole House will join me in praising Lord Sassoon: My Lords, we want to see that the the medical and support professionals who are delivering taxpayers of this country pay what they properly first class specialist rehabilitation of the most complex should pay.Indeed, we are investing an extra £900 million cases. over the spending review period to ensure that HMRC I assure my noble friend that we will continue to is able to generate many billions of pounds in additional ensure that Headley Court is fit for purpose, in terms tax revenue each year. That is quite independent of the of capacity and capability. As with any defence unit need to look properly and hard at Government-owned that employs both military and civilian staff, we will assets—companies and otherwise—to see what revenue maintain the correct mix and structure of health can properly be derived from those assets. professionals. 329 Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre[18 JANUARY 2011] Birds: Farmland Populations 330

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I join these Benches in also bereaved and have often been deeply traumatised? paying tribute to Ranger Aaron McCormick, Guardsman In paying tribute to the staff, both professional and Christopher Davies, Private John Howard, Corporal civilian, we must also pay tribute to those who are Steven Dunn, Warrant Officer Class 2 Charles Wood, there and support each other in their rehabilitation. and Private Joseva Vatubua. Our condolences are The success of Headley is precisely because of that extended to their families and friends. shared supportive environment in which they maintain Turning to the Question, the support of these Benches each other, having had shared common traumatic for Headley Court when we were in government was experiences. admirable. In recent years we spent £27 million and matched Help for Heroes’s £6 million pound for pound. Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I agree with every The important idea, which I think that the Government word the noble Baroness has said. I visited Headley have grasped, is that Headley Court is not a building, Court the other day and saw for myself the wonderful it is a concept. It is a concept about supporting our spirit that all the patients show. troops when they are injured. The last Government set up a scoping study under Sir Tim Granville-Chapman, former Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, to look at Lord Ramsbotham: Is the Minister aware of a growing whether the building was the way forward or whether problem? A number of the people who go through a separate establishment was right. Could the Minister Headley Court are equipped with high technology report on the progress of that report and, in doing so, artificial limbs. Unfortunately, very few NHS centres give us a total commitment to the Headley Court around the country are capable of maintaining those principle and concept continuing into the future, which limbs. Something needs to be done to put this right, to I think he is very happy to do? prevent the people who have been equipped with this high-tech equipment being unable to use it. Lord Astor of Hever: I agree with the noble Lord about the concept. Of course I can give him the Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the noble Lord commitment that he seeks. raises an important issue. I will take it back to the The study he mentions is nearly completed and we department and write to him. anticipate being in a position to make a statement some time before the summer Recess. This was set up to build on the success of Headley Court. Any new Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is it not a facility would have a military rehabilitation centre at fact that there is a new swimming pool and a lot of its core. There was wide consultation across the voluntary money had gone into supporting Headley Government, including the NHS, the charitable sector Court? Would it not be horrifying for those people if it and military rehabilitation experts, and MoD trade were closed? unions were fully consulted. In the mean time we shall continue to invest in Headley Court to ensure its Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am aware that provision of world-class care. We would only envisage Help for Heroes has donated a lot of money to Headley leaving if there was an ensured level of future care at Court and we are very grateful for that. Any possible the new centre that surpassed Headley Court’s current plan to sell Headley Court is years away, but we would and planned capabilities. bear in mind all the very generous donations that have been given. Lord Lee of Trafford: I join these Benches in the earlier tribute. Is any accommodation or financial support available for the relatives of our service personnel Birds: Farmland Populations who are being rehabilitated at Headley Court? Question

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Government 2.56 pm are committed to ensuring that family visits are a vital element of the care provided to inpatients at Headley Asked By Lord Rotherwick Court. Norton House, a SSAFA-run property about three miles away, is specifically for families of inpatients To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps at Headley. It contains six double bedrooms. Headley they intend to take regarding the decline of farmland Court also has two fully equipped three-bedroom bird populations. properties located on the married quarters estate. If all of these are full, we access the local Holiday Inn, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, which is funded through preferential rates by SSAFA. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Travel while in the vicinity is provided by military (Lord Henley): My Lords, agri-environment schemes, transport or a taxi service paid by SSAFA. I understand such as Environmental Stewardship, are currently that, at all the aforementioned places, it is free for the delivering improvements to farmland bird habitats, families. with nearly 70 per cent of English farmland within such schemes. Improving habitats can help to increase Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Will the Minister recognise population numbers, but we are also reviewing how we that, while the whole House offers condolences to can deliver Environmental Stewardship schemes to those who are bereaved, those in Headley Court are deliver better outcomes. 331 Birds: Farmland Populations[LORDS] Birds: Farmland Populations 332

[LORD HENLEY] Lord Henley: As my noble friend is fully aware, we In addition, Defra is committed to developing a continue to support the Campaign for the Farmed new biodiversity strategy by spring 2011 setting out Environment along with all the other bodies such as our approach to conserving biodiversity in England. the RSPB, the NFU, the British Trust for Ornithology, CLA and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. Lord Rotherwick: I thank my noble friend for his They support it, we support it and we will continue to comforting words, which will comfort all farmers like support those bodies and provide something of the me. But are the Government still committed to halting order of £1.5 million over the next three years. I the decline in farmland birds by 2020? Is he aware endorse what my noble friend said about the particular that, in 1970, the conservation spend was around £10 scheme that she mentioned. million? We now spend hundreds of millions of pounds on conservation to halt this decline. Would the The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister Government consider commissioning an experimental agree that for many years modern farming methods survey on the predation of farmland birds so that we were accused of reducing the habitat for farmland have a better understanding of why over the past 40 birds, but that has now changed with the environmental years there has been a continuing steady decline in support that people get? The Minister said that the farmland birds? control of predators was one of Defra’s aims. Unfortunately, many of these predators are protected, Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is quite such as the raptors, badgers and hedgehogs. How can right to say that there has been a decline: we have farmland birds be protected at the same time as those figures that show that that is happening. It is difficult animals? to take figures from one year to the next, but over the period there has been a steady decline. The precise causes of that decline are another matter, but my Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not say that it was an noble friend is right to point out that predation is aim of Defra: I said that control of predators where obviously one among many causes. The important possible was one matter among many that should be thing is that all those involved in the management and addressed by all those involved in farming and the ownership of land do what they can by involving management of land. That would help to increase the themselves in these schemes and in terms of predator diversity around and improve the habitat for the birds control and general management to do their best to that we are so concerned about. improve the environment for farmland birds.

Lord Krebs: My Lords, I declare an interest in that a Baroness Quin: My Lords, given the difficulty in considerable body of the research on this topic has halting the decline of farmland birds, despite the huge been carried out by my students at the University of efforts of volunteers and despite the environmental Oxford. Does the Minister agree with the results of a schemes that we have, will the department bring together study from the University of Leeds by Professor Benton all the interested parties to try to work out an effective that was published last year, which showed that organic way forward? Will the Minister also give a firm farming is not more beneficial to wildlife, including commitment to continue funding the environmental bird populations, contrary to the claims of many in schemes such as the Higher Level Scheme, which seem the organic industry? to have been more effective in tackling this problem than others? Lord Henley: My Lords, I have not seen that study, but I will certainly take the opportunity to look at it and respond to noble Lord in due course. The important Lord Henley: My Lords, I would have thought that thing, as I made clear in my Answer to my noble what we do for the Campaign for the Farmed Environment friend, is that we encourage as many people as possible is exactly what the noble Baroness is talking about in to do many different things under the schemes to terms of the leadership that she would like from create as much diversity as possible. In the end, that is Defra. We will continue to support its work and bound to improve the habitat of birds. support agri-environment schemes because we think that they are one way forward to help improve biodiversity Lord Tebbit: Does my noble friend agree that well for birds. Obviously, they take a very long time before keepered sporting estates tend to have a greater variety they have any effect on the decline in birds which, as of wildlife, particularly small birds, songbirds and the my noble friend made clear, has been going on some like, as those who spend any time on such estates know 40 years. well?

Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is there a fear correct and I am grateful for the opportunity to endorse of bird flu? Could that be one of the reasons for the everything he said. decline? Baroness Parminter: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an update on the progress of the Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that goes slightly Campaign for the Farmed Environment, particularly beyond the Question on the Order Paper, but I am not the increase in in-field options that many farmland aware of any fear of bird flu affecting farmland birds, birds rely on for nesting and feeding? to which this Question refers. 333 Birds: Farmland Populations[18 JANUARY 2011] Egypt: Religious Minorities 334

Egypt: Religious Minorities Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I Question declare an interest as chairman of the British Egyptian Society and I associate these Benches with the condolences expressed by the Minister in his opening Answer. Is 3.03 pm the Minister able to confirm an article that appeared Asked By Baroness Cox in the Spectator on 15 January, which reported that on the Copt Christmas Day, on 7 January, hundreds of To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Egyptian Muslims turned out to be human shields to will make representations to the Government of protect Christian worshippers going to church that Egypt to ensure adequate protection of all religious day? Also, there was a big gathering in the Cairo minorities, following the recent killings of Christians district of Omraneya where the front pew of the Copt in Alexandria church was filled with Muslims taking a stand against terror and offering themselves as protection. If the The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Minister is able to confirm that from independent Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, as my reporting and from the embassy in Cairo, will he join fellow Minister, Alistair Burt said on 1 January, we me in praising these brave Muslims who were prepared were deeply saddened by the attack, which was clearly to risk their lives in order to demonstrate exactly the designed to provoke further violence and division sort of fellowship that we would like to see between between the Egyptian Christian and Muslim communities. Christian and Muslim in Egypt? We welcome President Mubarak’s appeals for national unity and send our sincere condolences to all those Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I cannot involved. We regularly make clear to the Egyptian confirm those precise details, but if the noble Baroness’s Government the importance that we place on religious reports are broadly correct, and I am sure they certainly tolerance and eliminating all legal provisions and policies are, that is a reassuring aspect of an otherwise very that discriminate against different religious communities. grim situation—that members of different religions are prepared to risk their lives and protect each other in the ways that one would like to see more widely Baroness Cox: My Lords, in thanking the Minister throughout the whole region and throughout the whole for his sympathetic reply, I take this opportunity to world. I cannot confirm the details, but the investigation congratulate him on his birthday today. is ongoing about how this whole matter developed in the first place. We are in close touch with the Egyptian Noble Lords: Hear, hear! authorities about it, but what the noble Baroness described is a good and lighter aspect of a very dark episode. Baroness Cox: Is the noble Lord aware that the attack on Coptic Christians, in which at least 21 people were killed and 79 injured, was but the latest in The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, does the a series of attacks that seem to be intensifying? There Minister agree that the recent violence against Coptic is also great dismay in Egypt that the perpetrators Christians in Alexandria indicates that, without political have not been called to account. Will Her Majesty’s and economic reform, extremists and other radical Government therefore make representations to the elements in Egypt will continue to exploit the desperation Egyptian Government, which is a member of the UN of poverty there, thus appealing for allegiance and Human Rights Council, to do more to fulfil their competing for influence? The US Secretary of State obligations to protect all their citizens from violence made that point last Thursday in Qatar. and to ensure religious freedom for all religious minorities in Egypt today? Lord Howell of Guildford: It is always difficult to bring all these trends together. Egypt is a major nation. Lord Howell of Guildford: I thank the noble Baroness It is emerging fast and developing its economy. It is a for her kind congratulations. Of course, if the Monday young nation with many very young people and clearly Sitting continues, my birthday will have to wait. there are social and economic pressures that the Government are seeking to overcome and which we To answer the noble Baroness’s Question, we are seek from outside to support them in overcoming. always concerned by any violence that is religiously Whether those were the precise causes of this particular motivated and affects religious communities. As the horror I would not like to speculate, but certainly statement on 1 January made clear, the act of violence there are all kinds of tensions in these great societies. in Alexandria, which was clearly designed to provoke We must try to understand them and help those countries further violence and division between the Christian overcome the otherwise dangerous consequences that and Muslim communities, was an attack on all. We can erupt. strongly believe that the importance of human rights should be constantly emphasised, as should good governance and the rule of law, in our relations with Lord Chidgey: My Lords, does my noble friend friendly and great countries such as Egypt. I assure the agree with claims in some quarters that discrimination noble Baroness that we are doing everything that we against the Copts by the Egyptian Government is only can to promote the values that she constantly fights serving to fuel the unrest created by the outcome of for and that we all fight for, since they are an essential the recent elections where the ruling party apparently part of our foreign policy. gained 80 per cent of the seats? Does he share my 335 Egypt: Religious Minorities[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 336

[LORD CHIDGEY] on the 10th day on this Bill and I am hopeful that concerns that the breakdown of the electoral process, today’s progress may be somewhat speedier than never mind its credibility, can only serve to fuel the yesterday’s. I beg to move. activities of extremists who are attacking the institutions of democracy in Egypt? Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I first associate myself with the remarks of the Leader in relation to Lord Howell of Guildford: Yes, aspects of the elections the staff, who played a real blinder during the course last November and December were worrying. We wanted of the day. I am only sorry that my duties in the to see free and fair elections, but it is quite clear from Chamber prevented me from joining the Leader of the reports of widespread fraud, media restrictions and House for breakfast. Secondly, what has made this other interference that things did not go very well. House successful over the years is finding solutions to Those are matters that we are asking the Egyptian the sorts of problems that we currently face. I made it Government to address urgently since it is in their clear at the beginning of yesterday’s business and on interests, our interests and global interests that fair, the frequent occasions when I moved that the House open and transparent democracy prevails. resumed, that I am willing on behalf of this party to discuss reaching conclusions, whether on procedure or Lord Hylton: My Lords, have the Government studied on the substance, in order to bring an end to the the joint declaration by the religious leaders of Iraq of position. last Friday, which concerns co-existence and respect for all faiths? Will they commend that declaration to Motion agreed. the forthcoming Arab summit meeting in Baghdad? Clause 11 : Number and distribution of seats Lord Howell of Guildford: Well, I have not seen that precise declaration, but the spirit behind what the noble Lord describes, with which he is very well Amendment 63A acquainted, must be the right one. The co-operation Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton that the noble Baroness just described, the syncretic worship that one wants to see and the tolerance of all 63A: Clause 11, page 9, leave out lines 20 to 27 and insert— religious minorities, which is a must for civilised advance, “2 (1) No constituency shall have an electorate more than 5% should all be commended. If that is what the statement above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom unless the Boundary Commission concerned believes embraces, I certainly agree that it should be commended. there to be overriding reasons under the terms of these rules why it should. (2) No constituency shall have an electorate more than 10% Parliamentary Voting System and above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Constituencies Bill Kingdom.” Committee (10th Day) Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we agree 3.11 pm with the principle of creating more equal-sized seats, but we have practical concerns about the way in which Moved by Lord Strathclyde the legislation seeks to pursue this reasonable objective. That the House do now resolve itself into Our amendment would inject some common sense Committee. into the rigid mathematical formula for redrawing parliamentary boundaries that is proposed by the Bill. Clause 11 of the Bill proposes an entirely new system The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord of rules for drawing parliamentary constituency Strathclyde): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend boundaries, based on the paramount requirement that, Lord McNally I beg to move that the House do now save for some protected seats in Scotland, the electorate again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. We are of any constituency shall be no less than 95 per cent of in the most unusual situation that Monday in the a UK-wide electoral quota, and no more than 105 per House of Lords has only recently, after 22 hours of cent of that quota. The Deputy Prime Minister explained debate in Committee, become Tuesday. I must say that in evidence to your Lordships’ House’s Constitution your Lordships are looking remarkably sprightly. I am Committee that the 5 per cent disparity limit had been almost tempted to do it all over again. chosen because the Government believe, having consulted I know that I speak for the whole House in paying the Boundary Commission, that it was the closest to tribute to the entire staff of the House, who most ably absolute mathematical equality that could be practically supported us through the night, had the foresight to achieved without forcing the Boundary Commission provide a lucky few with camp beds and provided a to split wards. Yet the heads of the four Boundary most delicious breakfast in the early hours of this Commissions told the Political and Constitutional morning. But there is considerable pressure and concern Reform Select Committee in another place that: throughout the House from those who wish to find a “The electoral parity target may require the Commissions to way to progress business, which by all measures is work with electorate data below ward level in many cases”. going extremely slowly, and to find ways to respect the That sentiment was forcefully echoed by Professor convention that the House passes government business Ron Johnson, one of Britain’s foremost psephologists. in a reasonable time. We are about to go into Committee He told the Select Committee that: 337 Parliamentary Voting System[18 JANUARY 2011] Parliamentary Voting System 338

“It seems to me that the Commissions will be in great problems The borough of Wandsworth—the Battersea, Putney in some parts of the country”. and Tooting constituencies—would have had 3,427 By way of example he cited the position in Sheffield, too few electors for three seats. So you would have had the home of the Deputy Prime Minister. Professor all these constituencies crossing, with a very small Johnson told the committee: number, into neighbouring boroughs. “Sheffield will almost certainly be entitled to five constituencies Looking ahead, a Democratic Audit model of how under the current reduction. Sheffield has 28 wards. That would boundaries would have to be drawn in the future using be three constituencies of six wards, which would be too big, over the five per cent on one side, and two of five wards which would the 5 per cent proposed in the Bill has found that, be below the five per cent on the other side. You would have to “only 9 out of 46 counties, accounting for 67 of the 503 seats either split wards in Sheffield or somehow around the Barnsley/ proposed for England, did not need to be grouped with another Rotherham interchange manage to create constituencies which county”. cross the boundaries all of which were within five per cent. I very Indeed, this sort of widespread disruption resulting much doubt”— from the new rules will be the chief legacy of the Bill if Professor Johnson went on— it is left in this form. That is because even in regions “that is feasible because wards in Rotherham are about the same and counties where there may be little or no change in size as wards in Sheffield anyhow and there are some hills in the the number of constituencies, the knock-on effect of way before you get to Barnsley. They are going to have to split wards, I have no doubt about this”. the rigidity of the 5 per cent rule will none the less produce wholesale alterations to the boundaries of The facts seem pretty clear—if the Government genuinely seats within these counties whether or not their electorates do wish to avoid splitting up wards, they must relax fall within the proposed 5 per cent threshold. the 5 per cent disparity limit. The existing rules for drawing constituency boundaries There are other arguments in favour of a more require the commissions to take into account any local flexible threshold. A 5 per cent disparity limit will ties that may be broken by alterations to constituencies. deprive the Boundary Commissions of the flexibility This is widely seen as an essential counterbalance to they need to take proper account of history, local ties the mathematics and reflects one of the strengths of or geography when drawing boundaries. As a consequence, the British constituency system, which respects real towns and villages will be divided between constituencies, communities and well understood boundaries, and in and natural boundaries will in many cases be overlooked. turn fosters an identity within those constituencies Let us consider how some instances would have applied and a connection between electors and their at the last election. A number of constituencies that fit representatives. well with their local authority would no longer have been able to do so—Wyre Forest for example, which is No doubt the Minister will counter that the rules coterminous with its district, would have had 2,131 set out in the Bill will similarly allow Boundary too many electors. Similarly, Shrewsbury and Atcham, Commissions to take into account factors such as also coterminous with its district, would have had geography and local ties. The Minister is correct in 1,552 too many electors. A number of counties and that rule 5 does provide for an allowance, but what the boundaries with statutory limits on electorates would Minister will seek to gloss over is that such considerations no longer have been able to sustain whole numbers of must be subject to the rule governing the size of constituencies, and would therefore need to share at constituencies. It is there in black and white on page least one seat with a neighbouring county or borough. 10 at line 22. So it is the numbers first, and then as Take the six seats in the county of Oxfordshire— long as you have the numbers, apart from two or three Banbury, Henley, Oxford East, Oxford West and exceptions, then and only then can you apply geography, Abingdon, Wantage, and Witney. They were on average local ties and history. 1,907 electors over the threshold. So, approximately So this Parliamentary Voting System and 11,000 Oxfordshire electors would have needed to be Constituencies Bill would thus transform the process shed so that they could be in a constituency shared of a boundary review from one that seeks to balance with a neighbouring county. For example, part of the electoral equality with community identity to one that Prime Minister’s constituency might have had to be would abandon the latter in order to achieve a negligible shifted to a seat based in Gloucestershire. Another advance in the former. As well as creating pointless striking example is the historic county of Cornwall, anomalies, the Bill will lead to widespread unnecessary and the Isles of Scilly, which would have had to find disruption. This is because when allied to the reduction 13,138 electors—or an average of 2,190 per of 50 seats proposed in the Bill, the rigid 5 per cent constituency—from Devon to make up the number thresholds for acceptable disparity from the UK electoral they require under the Bill for six seats. quota means that there will be very few, if any, seats The problem would have been particularly acute in that will be unaffected by the boundary changes. Cutting London. The borough of Barnet—Chipping Barnet, the Commons to 600 seats has the effect of increasing Finchley and Golders Green, and Hendon the electoral quota in all parts of the United Kingdom, constituencies—would have had 371 too many electors even in England where it would go up from 71,537 for its three seats. Enfield borough—Edmonton, Enfield registered electors to 75,800. Currently, only a minority North and Enfield Southgate constituencies—would of constituencies have electorates within 5 per cent of have had 219 too few electors, with an average of 73 the new electoral quota, and even they are not guaranteed per seat needed from a neighbouring borough. The to emerge unscathed. borough of Sutton—Carshalton, Wallington, and Sutton In England, the adoption of an electoral quota of and Cheam constituencies—would have had 1,119 too 75,800 would require each constituency to have an few electors for two seats, an average of 560 per seat. electorate of between 72,010 and 79,590. On current 339 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 340

[LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON] there are more instances than are allowed for in the electorates, just 204 constituencies have electorates Bill where the Boundary Commission should be allowed within that range. Clearly, all of the others will be to exercise a degree of discretion of up to 10 per cent subject to some change but, in practice, every single from the quota. constituency will probably be redrawn. The chairs of the Boundary Commissions have admitted so publicly, Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Can the noble and learned because the knock-on effect is so enormous. Lord give us any idea of roughly how many constituencies would be, so to speak, saved by his amendment? Are A prime example is what will happen to the county we dealing with 100 or 10? It may be an impossible of Hampshire. Because the rules will not allow the Isle question to answer. of Wight to remain a single seat, the county will need to accommodate approximately 35,000 electors from Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, it is not impossible the island who will need to be allocated to one of the to answer. The estimate that I gave of the number of mainland seats. This will have a significant ripple existing seats that were numerically outside it is, if I effect on constituencies across the county, leading to can find it, something like 203. I think that the number significant changes in the shape of Hampshire that would be outside it would be less than half of constituencies. Although that extreme level of disruption that. I shall come back to that when I find the figure, would not be seen again after the first redrawing, which I agree is important. widespread disturbance of constituency boundaries would none the less be evident every time there was a 3.30 pm future review, because population changes will constantly The Democratic Audit study of the 10 per cent push constituencies outside the 5 per cent threshold. model, found, That was confirmed by the heads of the Boundary “no significant differences between 5 per cent and 10 per cent Commissions in evidence to the Political and equalisation as regards their partisan effect. The differences are in Constitutional Reform Select Committee in the other the ability of 10 per cent equalisation to better accommodate place. It has also been highlighted by Lewis Baston of natural communities and administrative boundaries”. the Democratic Audit team, who has predicted that, Our amendment is a practical, fair and common-sense proposal. It is rooted in the understanding that the “there will be only two boundary reviews under these rules—one electors of Britain are not just numbers on a map, but reporting by 2013 and in force from 2015, and another reporting in 2018. At that point, MPs will revolt at the prospect of repeated people who live in communities with distinct historical, disruptive boundary reviews, as they did in similar circumstances cultural and political identities. Those identities should in 1958”. be factored into the construction of constituency We need to avert this if we possibly can, but we boundaries, but in a way that ensures much greater need to get greater equality among the size of numerical equality than at present. constituencies. We can start by revising this Bill so that I hope that the Government will think very carefully the goal of numerical parity, which is important and about our proposals and, in particular, will have regard which we support, is balanced with the real-life needs to the fact that the 10 per cent margin, as opposed to 5 of local communities. That is the purpose of our per cent, will allow for more community issues to be amendment. It would provide the Boundary Commission taken into account without a significant reduction in with the practical leeway that it needs to balance the respect of the equalisation effects. different factors which influence the design of Lord Tyler: The second part the amendment of the constituencies, while still ensuring the creation of more noble and learned Lord, which is very interesting and equal-sized seats. Our amendment states: I hope will be examined carefully by your Lordships’ “No constituency shall have an electorate more than 5% above House, is dependent on an electoral quota for that or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom part of the United Kingdom. I may have missed unless the Boundary Commission concerned believes there to be overriding reasons under the terms of these rules why it should”. something in either what he said or where the amendments come, but I have not found different electoral quotas That would enable the commissions to have a meaningful for different parts of the United Kingdom. Would ability to take account of the geographical and other those quotas vary dramatically in Wales, Scotland, factors which regularly have a bearing on their calculations England and Northern Ireland? If so, that would at the moment. It will allow the Boundary Commissions undermine the presentation he has given us, which to exercise their judgment in a field in which they, after otherwise is very helpful. all, are expert. However, to ensure that there is an absolute limit on levels of disparity between different Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not think that it seats, the amendment also states: would. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with the “No constituency shall have an electorate more than 10% figures in relation to that. I beg to move. above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom”. The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): Ihaveto Democratic Audit has calculated that a 10 per cent inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed outside limit would be just enough to prevent the to, I cannot call Amendments 64 to 66C inclusive, by division of wards in almost every case and enough to reason of pre-emption. enable the Boundary Commissions to work within Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, in this new county boundaries, with maybe two exceptions. atmosphere of sweetness and light created by the Our fundamental argument is simple. We believe shade of Matthew Arnold, perhaps I may congratulate that although the majority of seats would and indeed both the Leader of the House and the noble and should be within 5 per cent of an electoral quota, learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on their 341 Parliamentary Voting System[18 JANUARY 2011] Parliamentary Voting System 342 contributions. Let no one accuse the noble and learned However, the bias is not due to size of seats. In fact, Lord of hypocrisy. Let us remember that a degree of the average Labour seat is only 2,000 electors smaller humbug and hypocrisy is what has made us a great than the average Conservative seat. In England, the nation—a degree at any rate. difference is roughly half that. It is not size that makes I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, to the big difference. One factor, for example, is Welsh desist from paying me compliments, because they do representation, which we shall come back to. The me no good. If he continues, I shall apply to appear on main reason for the bias is differential turnout. In “Strictly Come Dancing” and make Anne Widdecombe Conservative seats, the turnout is 68.4 per cent; in look like a ballerina—beware. I thank the noble Lord Liberal Democrat seats, it is 67.3 per cent; in Labour anyhow for his kindness. seats, it is 61.2 per cent. That means that it takes many fewer electors to elect each Labour MP than it takes to Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I assure the noble Lord, elect each Conservative MP. Lord St John of Fawsley, that my comments were not Another factor is that voters in seats where neither intended in any way to do him harm, but I will desist, Labour nor Conservative candidates can win, an awful as he requests. lot more Tory votes count for nothing in electing an MP than Labour votes—there are 400,000 more of Lord St John of Fawsley: I feel rather dismayed at them. Finally, there is the greater willingness of Labour the enthusiasm with which my suggestion has been voters to vote tactically, which costs the Tories a achieved. Do not resist temptation all the time. If I am number of seats. not offered the post at the Vatican, I guarantee that I I do not want to gild the lily by going on and boring will not take up any offer on “Strictly Come Dancing”. the Committee into the sleep that I enjoy most nights on reading this stuff, but I say to noble Lords that the Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill’s proposal to equalise seat size should be taken on amendment moved by my noble friend and to express its merits. To me, the inequality in the size of seats is my own gratitude for the atmosphere that is prevailing also indefensible, but that is not because it biases the in the Committee today. What a difference a decent system against the Conservatives. It is indefensible lunch can make. because it leads to too great an inequality between My noble friend made a very powerful case. I know voters. It therefore becomes a matter of the degree to that there are people on all sides of the Committee which we want to permit that for other sorts of reasons, who believe that there is a powerful case for a 10 per such as avoiding crossing traditional boundaries, such cent rather than a 5 per cent limit. Perhaps I may as the Tamar, and the desire to keep the Isle of Wight provide the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, with an answer separate, and all the things that we know about. to his question about constituencies. Roughly 69 per However, there is not any magic about 5 per cent. cent of constituencies that exist at the moment could There is no difference between 5 per cent and 10 per still exist with a 10 per cent limit; only 36 per cent of cent in the results of the general election that was held. them could exist with a 5 per cent limit. Enormous So let us consider it on its merits; that is, the principal disruption could be avoided if we put 10 per cent into case of maximum equality achievable against the practical the argument. case that a little bit of flexibility in the system should We have to think of the origin of the views on size be allowed so as to preserve traditional loyalties and expressed by the Benches opposite in the early stages to avoid having too great a swing of seats between one of the Bill to understand what has gone wrong. I think general election and another. that the Conservative Party saw on the one hand—I do not blame it for doing so—that constituencies were Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I must apologise for very unequal, which they are. It saw on the other hand not being in the Chamber when the noble and learned that the electoral system was biased against it, which it Lord began this debate. I was detained by a call I had is. But in the mind these two became conflated, which to take from overseas, but I hope that the House will I can quite understand, as cause and effect: that unequal allow me to intervene at this stage because I have a constituency size caused the bias in the system. related amendment on the Marshalled List. It would This is a matter on which a huge volume of work be much more sensible for me to deal with the points has been done by psephologists. I suppose that I am that I would have made on that amendment later on the only person in this House whose favourite bedside this amendment and to comment on the amendments reading is psephology, rather than, for example, Agatha in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. Christie, Dick Francis and the rest. I have gone through, I approach this whole issue by looking at the situation for example, John Curtice’s and others’ annex to the in Wales. When I saw a proposed set of possible British General Election of 2010, the work of Lewis constituencies presented to a committee of the other Baston and so on. It is perfectly clear from those that place, it struck me that we might avoid some of the size is barely the cause of the bias that exists in the obvious difficulties by going to 10 per cent rather than system. Bias there is: the Conservatives need a 3.3 per 5 per cent. There are similarities between the Welsh cent lead over Labour just to get the same number of situation and the Scottish mainland situation. I am seats. I do not defend that, and there are other ways set not suggesting that we go down the solution that exists out in this Bill to deal with it. The bias in the system in Scotland—that is, two very large constituencies has varied a good deal over time, but I am very pleased with a very small electorate. But in both cases there is to say that it was sharply diminished at the last general a concentration of population in an industrial belt, election. It was still considerable and still unacceptable, which is surrounded by large, thinly populated, rural but it was considerably diminished. areas. 343 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 344

[LORD CRICKHOWELL] links, that the Government will consider the arguments. When I looked at the suggestions of what constituencies I will support any of the solutions that they say better might be like, I observed at once that it seemed probable fit in with the proper drafting of the Bill. that one would have to detach a small part of my former constituency in Pembroke and put it into 3.45 pm Carmarthen; a perhaps rather larger bit of Powys and put it into Ceredigion; and, in the valleys, possibly Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I hope to detaching or placing in neighbouring valleys some establish a precedent by posing a direct question to the parts of constituencies that would be better not separated. Minister. That would be a good idea, having sat through I immediately came to the conclusion that a lot of all these hours. An occasional question may elicit these difficulties could be avoided if we went to 10 per some response from the Minister which may help all cent rather than 5 per cent. of us. I have a question on this amendment because there is a big difference in principle between the It was not until I received the interesting paper amendment we are now discussing and those on which from Democratic Audit and the points made by Lewis we spent a long time earlier on the number of Baston that I really turned my attention to the English constituencies. situation. It seems to me that that paper makes a very powerful case. It points out that with a 5 per cent Why do I think there is a big difference in principle? variation, there would be serious difficulties with the In relation to the number of constituencies, we had a crossing of county boundaries and so on, and that voice from the electorate, showing that it wished to under a 10 per cent variation there would be much less reduce the figure from 650 to a lower one. We can crossing of county boundaries, much less splitting of argue until the cows come home—indeed, we did— wards, fewer and less disruptive boundary changes in whether it should be 650, 625, 620, and so on. But future and closer concordance with community identities. there was a big difference in that in the electoral Surely, we all want that. manifestos there was a direct statement on that point. Now we come to a completely different amendment Lewis Baston points out that for a county to avoid relating to the 5 per cent margin and the amendment sharing one or more seats with another county, it on the possibility of rising above 5 per cent but not needs to meet a number of criteria. He tells us that above 10 per cent. Here comes my direct question to very few counties could meet these criteria in England the Minister. Do the Government consider that they with a 5 per cent limit. A 10 per cent tolerance of are in any sense bound by the views of the electorate variation would transform this chaotic picture. No to stick with 5 per cent? I cannot see that anywhere. counties fail outright, other than the Isle of Wight, which we will debate on a separate occasion, although The Government can take 5 per cent as a marvellous in practice, some might be close enough to the edge to figure which they would like to stick with and which make pairings necessary. None the less, it was found they can try to defend. Is there a commitment to the that only two relatively natural pairings—Wiltshire electorate—not to the Government’s friends or anybody and Dorset, and West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire— else—that I do not see? If there is no commitment, it would arise under a revised plan based on 10 per cent. means that the flexibility we have here is obviously greater than the flexibility we had on some movement It is also probably impossible to implementa5per below 650 constituencies. cent rule without splitting wards in constituencies. Again, that difficulty would be largely overcome. The final positive benefit would mean fewer and less disruptive Lord Davies of Stamford: I congratulate my noble boundary changes in future. Surely, that is of great and learned friend on introducing the amendment significance for the political parties and candidates. As with an analysis that was extremely detailed and lucid. we heard from the noble Lord who is an expert on I thought it was quite masterly. He has, more or less at these subjects, and see from the democratic audit one stroke, transformed the atmosphere of the debates paper, the conclusion has to be that there are no on this subject. The last two contributions—one from significant differences between 5 per cent and 10 per the Cross Benches and the other by the noble Lord, cent equalisation as regards their partisan effect. Lord Crickhowell, from the Conservative Benches—have I am then faced with the amendment tabled by the shown that the House is now in a mood to discuss the noble and learned Lord and the group of amendments whole issue, pragmatically and calmly, in a spirit of led off by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. On balance, I genuine compromise, I hope. A willingness to try to prefer the simpler, later amendment. I am not sure find the right solution and occasionally to accept why we need something that on the face of it appears suggestions from other parts of the House will be a slightly complicated and obscure but, to a layman and good contribution towards finding that solution. It is non-lawyer, appears to put slightly tougher criteria on a wonderful relief to those of us who have been to the shoulders of the Boundary Commission. Here through a slightly confrontational series of debates is an opportunity, while meeting all the Government’s during the course of the night. main objectives, to improve the Bill. I have not heard The amendment tabled by my noble and learned their response and there may be obstacles that I do not friend addresses directly the issue I raised earlier. As I know about. I shall listen carefully and hope that, on see it, the Boundary Commission faces in its this occasion, the Government will say, “Yes, we can deliberations—as it always has faced and will continue accept it”. There may be flaws in the amendment and to face—an equation with three variables and a trade-off the Government could bring their own forward on between those variables. The variables are, first, Report. I hope, entirely in the interests of the political acceptability of the extent to which the local electorate parties, the candidates and those who care about local is happy with the boundaries within which it is placed, 345 Parliamentary Voting System[18 JANUARY 2011] Parliamentary Voting System 346 which is very important; secondly, equality of numbers; Lord Wallace, understands that those words were and, thirdly, the number of MPs. If you fix one of bound to provoke a reaction here. I am sorry that the those variables you will have a corresponding distortion noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not in his place as I of the others. Fixing one will, of course, because of make these comments. the trade-offs, result in something less than an ideal While I am discussing this, I should say that I solution in the others. You will have to pay a price in thought I heard him say this morning that in the late the others. 19th century, when the Commons introduced a timetabling If you try to fix two you will produce an enormous system, it did so as a result of filibustering by what he distortion. If the Government were determined to described as “Fenians”. The Fenians were Irish nationalists maintain the 5 per cent rule at the same time as who were prepared to use non-parliamentary and maintaining the 600 limit for MPs—or any other violent methods, which is a pretty horrific way to arbitrary limit for MPs—there will be a tremendous describe one’s political opponents in a democratic distortion of the important aspect of acceptability in assembly. I am sure he did not mean “Fenian” in that many boundaries in the country. This point has been sense. It is also an insult to the Irish nationalists who well made by many colleagues on both sides of the were conducting that remarkable filibuster—people House over the past 24 hours. There would be a great such as Parnell, Dillon, Healy, O’Brien and so forth. many constituencies where people felt not at all identified They were the people who led the Irish filibusters in with the constituency in which they had been artificially the 1880s and they were far from being Fenians. They placed. That would be a bad day’s work and we all had opposed in Ireland, with considerable courage, want to avoid that. those who said that only extra-parliamentary and violent methods would work in dealing with the British. My noble and learned friend has suggested the It was a remark that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, compromise of not taking away the need to keep might want to withdraw, both as applied to Parnell within reasonable limits of equality but to have a 10 and the Irish constitutional nationalists of that time per cent rule rather than a 5 per cent rule. The effect of and to those of us here. that has been quantified by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. If I recall correctly, he said that if the House passes the amendment, something like 30 per cent of The Earl of Onslow: If this is not an example of a constituencies will need to be reviewed because they filibuster, I do not know what is. Dillon and the people will be over the 10 per cent limit, whereas under the who objected to the Irish filibuster in the House of original draft of the Bill brought forward by the Commons have nothing to do with this amendment. Government, something like 60-odd per cent would The noble Lord is bringing this House into major need to have their boundaries reviewed because they disrepute. He is quite good at changing sides so there would be outside the 5 per cent criterion. It is a very is nothing new in that. substantial quantified difference. In the light of that, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. If they do not feel able to accept the amendment, Lord Davies of Stamford: The noble Earl should then, in the new atmosphere— which I enormously know that, although I have changed parties, I have welcome and, from the remarks of the Leader of the kept very much the same political principles all my life. House, I think the Government also welcome it—at I intend to continue to do so. The noble Earl was the very least the House would expect a reasoned possibly not here when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, explanation as to why they cannot accept it, together made the remarks that I have just referred to. I assure with a better suggestion for achieving what we all him that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made those regard now as a common purpose. The difficulty we remarks; I have not just invented that. It seemed had in the period before the lunch break was—I necessary to respond to the remarks and I was taking emphasise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, the obvious opportunity to do so. who is staring at me at the moment—that there is a genuine concern among many of us on this and other sides of the House that the Government had rigid Lord Reid of Cardowan: The illustration that my plans for enormous constitutional reform; that they noble friend has given is absolutely apposite. What were not being entirely open about it; that they were was being discussed throughout that period—proposed, unwilling to consult on or discuss the issue before they ironically, by a Liberal Prime Minister—was the most brought it forward; and that it did not involve only the important constitutional change of the 19th century. subjects in the Bill. We know that because they are When it was rejected by this House, it led to another preparing Lords reform proposals. 100 years of war in Ireland. The consequences of getting constitutional change wrong are immense. No There was an horrific moment this morning—I one is suggesting that this will lead to 100 years of war trust that it was a complete misunderstanding—when but it is not an insignificant change. It is, to many the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said something which people’s minds, the biggest constitutional change in led a number of people to think that he was threatening this country since 1832. Therefore, it deserves maximum the House with the introduction of a timetabling scrutiny. Least of all does it deserve personal insults. system, which would be a real revolution in the House of Lords and obviously not appropriate to a revising Chamber. I trust that the noble Lord did not mean Lord Davies of Stamford: I am extremely grateful to that and that his words were not intended to convey my noble friend for his kind support. I come back to that meaning. I am sure the noble and learned Lord, what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said. 347 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 348

Lord Campbell-Savours: We are having a very way with a total flexibility of 10 per cent—offers constructive debate on this amendment. I appeal to all flexibility. Our concern about going wider than that, my colleagues to conduct themselves in a way whereby or giving the Boundary Commission the opportunity we might get some compromise on this amendment. to go wider than that, is that it would open the way for the kind of inequalities in seat sizes which exist at Lord Davies of Stamford: I entirely agree and have present—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated already said several things along the lines of what my that there was too great an inequality at present—albeit noble friend has just said. To respond to my noble that would be limited by the terms of the noble and friend, I am naturally grateful for his comments. I learned Lord’s amendment if it were accepted. agree with everything he said. Since we are talking Nevertheless, such a step would still permit too great about changing political parties, no doubt in the 1880s an inequality by having a band of up to 20 per cent. I would have been a Gladstonian Liberal and a home It is worth reminding the House that the current ruler. At least, I trust that I would have been. legislation states that the electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable. There has been a change in the atmosphere this That might be thought in some cases to be a more afternoon. There have been memorable contributions stringent target than the range that is being put forward from the Cross Benches and the Conservative Party in under the Bill, where a variation of 5 per cent either favour, in principle, of the way in which this amendment way is allowed. Under the existing rules for the Boundary has been framed. I repeat that we all now hope that we Commission that requirement is balanced against all will be able to have a reasoned and calm dialogue with the other rules and factors. However, under the measure the Government on this. I hope they can accept this that is proposed, equality and fairness in the weight of amendment, which would go a long way to solving all the vote, which are enshrined in Rule 5 of the present the problems before us. At the very least, we would rules, would end up being simply one consideration expect, in the new circumstances, a very good explanation among many. Variations start to emerge when the if they cannot accept it and, I hope, a proposal of their Boundary Commission recommendations are published own that is better than either the original one in the and subsequently debated. That is not just the view of Bill or the one that my noble and learned friend has the Government but the view of independent academics just put forward. who have studied the process and who have stated that in effect the public consultation process is very largely 4pm an exercise in allowing the political parties to seek The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am something influence over the commission’s recommendations by of a virginal creature when it comes to the conventions using a wide variety of evidence and deploying the and procedures of the House but I wonder whether rules concerning inconvenience and the breaking of the new atmosphere that is being declared on all sides local ties to promote their electoral cause. could be put to the test by inviting the Minister to I agree with the intention behind the amendment make at least an interim response to the points that but our concern is that it would suffer the same fate as have been made. We are in Committee and the debate the existing rules. Like the existing rules it has at its can continue after an interim response by the Minister. core equity and equality of votes but we fear that it It would be helpful to know roughly what the response would nevertheless end up being the route by which is going to be. vested interests, or other interests such as those which noble Lords in all parts of the House think are perfectly Lord Wallace of Tankerness: If the House feels that legitimate, such as those of people in communities, that would be helpful, I certainly am willing to do so. would override equality and fairness. I do not agree This amendment, which, as I think I said, was moved that it is an inflexible proposal. There is flexibility for with great thoroughness by the noble and learned constituencies to vary in size by as much as 10 per cent Lord, Lord Falconer, and spoken to by noble Lords of the quota—5 per cent each way—and that is a on all sides of the House, would, as we have indicated, considerable margin. provide that constituencies would usually be within The British Academy’s report on the Bill noted: the range of 95 per cent to 105 per cent of the electoral “This new set of rules that the Boundary Commissions must quota unless the Boundary Commission considers apply is clear and consistent”, that there are overriding reasons why that should not and, be the case, in which case the Boundary Commission “the rules set out in the Bill are a very substantial improvement on those currently implemented by the Boundary Commissions (they would have the discretion to propose constituencies have a clear hierarchy and are not contradictory)”. that vary by up to 10 per cent of the electoral quota. I My concern, and the concern of Ministers, is that the understand that the intention is to allow for equality amendment before us would compromise this and of votes in the majority of seats. Noble Lords on all open the door for numerous arguments that special sides of the House have indicated the importance of circumstances apply. I believe that would make the the principle of equality of votes and that of one vote commissions’ task far harder. Boundary reviews would one value and seek a greater flexibility than exists at become more drawn out, and the result— present to take account of communities’ geographical ties. We could have taken an absolutely rigid stance and Lord Clinton-Davis: If the Minister is arguing that divided the total electorate by the relevant number the amendment is not quite right, would it be possible and not allowed for any flexibility whatever. However, to put forward some alternative, or is he closing his our proposed range of 10 per cent—5 per cent either mind to that possibility altogether? 349 Parliamentary Voting System[18 JANUARY 2011] Parliamentary Voting System 350

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I would like to draw Lord Pannick: Will the noble Lord give way? the Committee’s attention to the fact that there are already within the Bill factors that the Boundary Commission can, if it so wishes and to the extent that Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Perhaps I can answer it so wishes, take into account. They include special the noble Lord before I give way to the noble Lord, geographical considerations including, particularly, the Lord Pannick. size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, local That leads to the kind of inequality about which I ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies, think that there is serious concern around the House. local government boundaries—I will perhaps come The reason why the Government have come forward back and say something about that because the noble with the 5 per cent margin is that we believe that the and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made core principle of equality of value—one vote, one a lot of the impact on local government boundaries—and value—is of the utmost importance. Although we also the proposed Rule 4, where the area of constituencies acknowledge and make provision for room for the is taken into account so that one does not get Boundary Commission to go either side of that principle constituencies that become unmanageable because of of one vote, one value, to try to bring in some of the size. The size is set just slightly larger than the largest other flexibilities—although it is always good to be constituency at the moment. thought to be flexible—will take us back to the situation under the present Boundary Commission rules, where Lord Davies of Stamford: Those criteria exist in the there is greater diversion from the norm. Bill, but they are all subject to the 5 per cent limit. That is our argument: the 5 per cent limit is so constraining that it gives the Boundary Commission little flexibility. Lord Pannick: Does the Minister recognise that Why can the Minister not bring himself to trust the there is concern on all sides of the House about the Boundary Commission a little more? Surely discrepancies excessive rigidity of the Government’s proposals? If of 10 per cent in the population of different constituencies the amendment is not acceptable—I understand what are not going to be shocking by anybody’s standards. the noble and learned Lord says—will he at least consider bringing back to the House an amendment Lord Wallace of Tankerness: This point may be which says something to the effect that the Boundary what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, wanted to pick up Commission should have discretion outside the 5 per on. I tried to indicate that we believe that 5 per cent, cent principle either way if it considers that there are which is 10 per cent because it is 5 per cent each way of exceptional circumstances for a particular constituency? the halfway mark, allows the flexibility to take into account quite legitimate concerns. Some noble Lords Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Tempting though it is were present at earlier debates when former Members to accede to that immediately, I cannot, standing here of the other place were talking about the importance today, give that undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord of the bond between a constituency and a Member. Pannick. We believe they can be taken into account, bearing in mind the factors that the Boundary Commission is entitled to take into account and the extent that it Lord Pannick: I am not asking the Minister to agree thinks it should take them into account. to it; I am asking whether he is prepared to consider it seriously and bring it back to the House. Lord Reid of Cardowan: Does the Minister recognise that in addressing one problem in a fair system— arithmetical equality, which we accept is a problem—he Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I perhaps misunderstood has created another that tends to undermine the second what I was being asked to do. I thought that I was element of the British system, which is democratic being asked to give a commitment to bring back an accountability to recognised communities with culture amendment, which I cannot do. The force of argument and common links? He has done that by shifting the on all sides of the House is considerable and I have no primacy in that relationship further towards arithmetical doubt that the comments made on this matter will be equality. In so doing, and by keeping it within a considered. I do not want to make a commitment narrow band, he has hugely undermined the other which I cannot deliver, but I can honestly say that I element, which is the point that has been made today will ensure that the forceful comments that have been in practical terms. Does the solution of strengthening made from all sides of the House on this point will be the arithmetical primacy but at the same time allowing acknowledged. a greater flexibility in the arithmetic, the solution put I could give some examples where the present system forward by my noble friend and learned friend Lord does not deliver on the principle of not crossing Falconer of Thoroton, not get him out of this hole? county boundaries, and how I believe that under what we propose, the ward system will, for the most part, be Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord, Lord upheld in England. I am not sure that I can elaborate Reid, sets up and explains the competing issues quite much further. I say to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell succinctly. I am trying to argue that the present that if similar arguments apply in the rest of the arrangements have at their core a rule that states that United Kingdom, they will apply in Wales. Under constituencies should keep as close as possible to the what my noble friend proposes, the number of Members electoral quota, but then import other rules that, as we from Wales would not increase. I do not think that he can see by the outcome, drag them further away from was arguing that, but much of the argument in Wales that electoral quota and lead— has focused on the number. I would not want the 351 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 352

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] the moving and important speech about Jarrow made House to be given the impression that somehow my by my noble friend Lord Dixon. A wise politician noble friend’s amendment would increase the number gives due recognition to the bonds of community, to of Members from Wales. people’s sense of history and identity and to what it is I have tried to be helpful. We believe that we have about the places in which they live that makes them imported flexibility, but important contributions have feel that it is their place, and that they want it expressed been made to the debate, and we are honour bound to and represented in the system of parliamentary consider them. I also make very clear that I do not representation. want to be misunderstood as making a commitment I will say a word or two about local government—I that I may not be in a position to honour. am conscious of being in the presence of noble Lords who know far more about this than I—and about the development of patterns of local government in our Lord Howarth of Newport: I am tempted to be history from the Municipal Corporations Act 1835. encouraged by the tone of the response from the noble The Act entitled communities to petition for incorporation and learned Lord, but I fear that I cannot derive the and led to the evolution in this country of the structures comfort that I hoped to obtain from the paraphrasical of local government that have persisted and developed content of what he said. I press him a little more, for something like 130 years. The structures are full of because I think that there is quite a wide consensus on anomalies, but the consistency in the anomalies is that this around the House—I may overstate the case where they recognise people’s sense of local identity, and of Conservative Peers are concerned. We are not alone the place where they live that they wish to have expressed on these Benches in asking the Minister to consider in how they are governed municipally. that an excessively rigid insistence on electoral parity on a fixed arithmetical quota with the minimal latitude of only 5 per cent either side of the norm of 75,800 Lord Clinton-Davis: My experience is not related electors to a constituency will preclude appropriate exclusively to Hackney, where I was born and brought weight being given to factors that everyone recognises up. Wherever people come from, they are very proud as significant: local ties, geography, community, history of being involved in the borough in which they live. and, very importantly, the relationship between People in Hackney, whether they come from the West parliamentary constituency structures and the structures Indies, Turkey or elsewhere, are very proud of being of local government. part of the borough. Is that not a very important factor in what my noble friend is arguing? 4.15 pm Lord Howarth of Newport: My noble friend speaks The noble and learned Lord said, when we debated with feeling about the area that he knows and has the question of how large the House of Commons served so well. should be and how many Members of Parliament should be there, that it was a matter of judgment. It is I do not want to detain the House but want to also a matter of judgment how you weigh all the valid complete my point on local government. That map of factors. None of us is saying that it is not highly local government became so intolerable to tidy-minded desirable to achieve the closest approximation to numerical bureaucrats in the 1960s that it was judged that it had equality between constituencies that one can, consistent to be reformed and redesigned. We had the Redcliffe- with a sensible and satisfactory recognition of other Maud report and the 1972 legislation that created all factors. kinds of new entities of local government that had never corresponded to people’s sense of reality of It cannot be a wise judgment to discount the where they lived. Many have been abolished and we significance of geography and natural boundaries. We have never succeeded in designing a new map of local are told by the people of Cornwall that the River government because you cannot impose it from on Tamar, a natural boundary between Cornwall and high. Devon, matters very much to their communities. However, the combination of the reduction in the number of constituencies that the Government intend, together The Earl of Onslow: The Minister has already gone with the increased requirement for numerical near-equality, quite far. He said that he will draw attention to it. Do produces absurd anomalies that a wise Government we need what is basically a Boundary Commission would not tolerate. The situation is comparable in argument on these little things? This is nothing other Wales. My noble friend Lord Morgan told us in a than wasting your Lordships’ time, and it is a disgrace recent debate that his parents grew up in communities for the Opposition to go on behaving like this. only two miles apart, yet spoke a different Welsh. The cultural, linguistic, historical and community distinctions Lord Howarth of Newport: I am sorry that the noble between the different valleys and communities of Wales Earl thinks that. He is being a little too impatient, if I are even more significant. may say so. The point that I am making is that the As far as concerns islands, the Government have relationship between the structures of local government sensibly recognised that the Western Isles must be and the system of parliamentary representation is very treated anomalously and made exceptions to the rule, important. It needs to be intimate. Members of Parliament as must Orkney and Shetland. Equally, the Isle of and elected members of local authorities need to work Wight and Ynys Mon make claims that sensible, pragmatic together. This system should be an organic whole, Ministers would not only acknowledge but concede. which is one more very important reason why the rules Not to do so would be unwise. I remind the House of that the Government propose to govern the designing 353 Parliamentary Voting System[18 JANUARY 2011] Parliamentary Voting System 354 and drawing of the boundaries of parliamentary Finally, I shall repeat just three sentences from the constituencies need to be sensitive to the realities of West of Scotland regional inquiry. They are the words local government. I say no more than that, but these of Sheriff Principal Kerr when he rejected the provisional considerations genuinely matter. recommendations and opposed the degree of flexibility I welcome the Minister’s tone and hope that his that the Boundary Commission had not. He said: department will examine the practical implications of “I take the view that the Boundary Commission in formulating not moving beyond the 5 per cent tolerance either side their proposals for the present review in the West of Scotland of the norm, and consider whether it would produce allowed Rule 2 to predominate unduly in their thinking”— anomalies and offensive manifestations in the way in which is exactly what the Bill will do since rule 2 which our constituencies are drawn that we would be imposes parity in numerical terms on the electorate— very much wiser to avoid. “with some consequences which I would describe as unnatural in their failure to have sufficient regard to the geography and social composition of the areas and populations with which they were dealing. The conclusions at which I have arrived in this report Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it may assist after seeing and hearing local reaction at the inquiry may go some if I indicate the Opposition’s position. I am grateful way towards redressing the balance in favour of matching political for what the noble and learned Lord said. On that constituencies to the realities of life in this part of Scotland”. basis, I rather read him as saying that he did not rule There are 10 of these decisions, and they are a formidable out—indeed might consider—a 5 per cent barrier with quarry for those in support of local public inquiries. exceptions up to 10 per cent, but 10 per cent being an They may be used later in the debate, but in the mean absolute barrier either way. The Minister is giving no time I urge the Minister, for whom I have the most assurances but he is willing to consider it. I am happy enormous regard, as he knows, to take them away and with that and I will not press it. Perhaps the appropriate look at them when considering the proposal for more course would be for myself and the noble Lord, Lord flexibility in this Bill. Crickhowell, who rather favoured the argument of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, to come along with us. I am Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the basis more than happy for the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to that the noble and learned Lord has signalled that he come, and if the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would be accepts the broad approach that I have suggested, I kind enough to grace us with his presence, that would am more than happy to withdraw the amendment. be helpful as well. If we could meet quite quickly, that might be of assistance. Amendment 63A withdrawn.

Amendment 64 Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, it is not as if I had any intention of wishing to be included in that Moved by Lord Lipsey distinguished company, but I have a small point which 64: Clause 11, page 9, line 21, leave out “95%” and insert may be helpful. I greatly welcome the attitude of the “90%” noble and learned Lord. This is one of the sanest, fairest and most common-sense amendments that we Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I would not like your have had in this context. No doubt the Minister believes Lordships to think that I have not been sufficiently that arithmetical consistency is extremely important. I assiduous in my preparation to deliver a long speech totally accept his sincerity, but it is not the case that it this afternoon. Who knows, it might have been different can be achieved. It can be achieved only if there is a if it had been delivered in the middle of last night. register that is perfect in content. But you do not have However, I think that almost everything that needs such a register. It is inaccurate, possibly to the tune of and ought to be said on this subject has been said in 3.5 million. You may be thinking that you are aiming the debate we have just had. I want to make only two at a target through telescopic sights, and you are, but brief points. there is a kink in the barrel. Arithmetical consistency I listened with great attention to the admirable and total correctitude are simply not achievable. response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. We ought to be aware that at the moment the discrepancy in constituency size is absolutely enormous. It is not Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I crave the 5 per cent on each side, and not 10 per cent. The indulgence of the Committee for two minutes to make smallest seat is 31.7 per cent of the average seat, while one simple point to the Minister. When he goes away the largest seat, that of the Isle of Wight, is 156.7 per to consider this, will he take with him the evidence cent of the average. So it is possible to go a long way from Scotland of the application of almost identical towards reducing the disparity without transgressing rules to those which he seeks to introduce? In 2007 an the line drawn by the Minister. almost identical set of rules was applied to the revision The other point I want to make in preparation for of the Scottish Parliament boundaries. The Boundary the discussions I hope we will have is this. There is not Commission adopted a hierarchy that was almost just one thing you can change here; there are two. exactly the same that the Bill imposes on the commission. There is the limit of 5 per cent, 10 per cent or whatever As the noble and learned Lord knows, the result of turns out to be the right figure, but there is also the those revisions was a set of provisional proposals that degree of attention that the Boundary Commissions caused outrage across Scotland. There are at least are asked to give to their rules as to the circumstances 10 reports of local public inquiries signed off by in which they can allow exceptions. I agree with the sheriffs principal which criticise the effect on communities Minister that, on the whole, the Boundary Commission of that rigidity. has perhaps been too slack and paid too much attention 355 Parliamentary Voting System[LORDS] Parliamentary Voting System 356

[LORD LIPSEY] Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I hope the to the rules on observing local boundaries and so on House will understand that there is not really much compared with its standing instructions on size. This that I can add in response to what the noble Lord, is something on which it will take its instructions from Lord Lipsey, has said, beyond what I have already Parliament, and something on which, with the indicated. In that spirit, therefore, I hope that the co-operation of the Minister, I am quite sure a number noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. of us can bottom out. I hope most of all, and this is a perfectly genuine remark, that, at the end of what has Amendment 64 withdrawn. been a testing period for this House, we can achieve what in my 10 years’ experience here has so often been Amendments 64A to 65ZA not moved. achieved—that is, we can give the Government their legislation in a form that makes it still better than the form in which it was conceived. Amendment 65A Moved by Lord Crickhowell Lord Howarth of Newport: I am not sure whether I can still intervene on my noble friend before he sits 65A: Clause 11, page 9, line 22, at end insert— down, but I put the point to him: he is right to have “except in Wales where it shall be— said that there needs to be a proper emphasis on ( ) no less than 90% of the United Kingdom electoral quota, numerical equality, and we have to get the question of and local boundaries into the right perspective but not ( ) no more than 110% of that quota” jeopardise the highly desirable objectives that the Government have of achieving numerical equality. Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am extremely grateful However, does my noble friend think it acceptable that to my noble and learned friend for what he has said. I the tolerances should be so tight around the norm that hope that he will convey a message to his colleagues the system will mean that county boundaries and even that there really is something to be looked at here. I ward boundaries are routinely crossed? find it very unfortunate that only 67 of the 503 seats would avoid crossing a county boundary; that is as Lord Lipsey: Absolutely not. Indeed, the 10 per substantial an anomaly as that referred to by the noble cent rule does not entirely avoid the contravening of Lord, Lord Lipsey. In the hope that there really will be county boundaries; there are two cases in which county a genuine re-examination of this, and in gratitude for boundaries would have to be contravened even then. the way in which my noble and learned friend has All this is a matter of getting the right balance in spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. the rules and tolerances to achieve equality of size without trampling over local loyalties. That is what I Amendment 65A withdrawn. believe a group of people from this House—and from elsewhere, if necessary—sitting down with good will House resumed. could readily and easily achieve, to the great benefit of this legislation and of the country. House adjourned at 4.34 pm. WS 3 Written Statements[18 JANUARY 2011] Written Statements WS 4

The office has 87 staff who provide administrative Written Statements support for DSA within Wales, the South of England and London areas—mainly in deployment of examiners, Tuesday 18 January 2011 customer service and test centre property management and procurement activities. Staff have been informed of the decision. There will Alcohol now be a period of consultation with trade unions. Statement The consultation will be completed by 19 April 2011. Possible redeployment options for the staff concerned The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- are being explored. It is intended to retain a small Jones): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under- office to support some operational staff in the area. Secretary of State for Crime Prevention (James Other responsibilities will be transferred to DSA’s Brokenshire) has today made the following Written headquarters in Nottingham and northern area office Ministerial Statement. in Newcastle. Today, we are announcing our intention to deliver Closure of Caradog House will not affect testing on this commitment by introducing a ban on sales of provision in Wales and the DSA will continue to alcohol below the rate of duty plus VAT. provide services under its agreed Welsh language scheme. The Government acknowledge the growing concern over how cheaply some alcoholic drinks are being ECOFIN sold, and are concerned about the link between alcohol and crime and disorder—in many cases as a result of Statement pre-loading in preparation for a night out. As part of our consideration of how to deliver the The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord coalition commitment to deliver a ban on below cost Sassoon): My right honourable friend the Chancellor sales, the Home Office and Treasury have carried out of the Exchequer (George Osborne) has today made respective reviews of alcohol pricing and taxation. the following Written Ministerial Statement. These confirmed a consensus that pricing controls can The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be an effective way of both improving public health be held in Brussels on 18 January 2011. The following and reducing violent crime. items are on the agenda: Banning the sale of alcohol below the rate of duty Presentation of the Presidency Work Programme plus VAT is the best starting point for tackling the availability of cheap alcohol and will send a clear The Hungarian presidency will present its ECOFIN signal to retailers and the public that Government work programme for the first half of 2011. take this issue seriously. It will effectively set a minimum Follow-up to the December European Council meeting level below which alcoholic products cannot be sold Council will discuss the outcomes of the European and will stop the worst instances of deep discounting Council, where leaders agreed on a permanent mechanism which result in alcohol being sold both cheaply and to be established by euro-area member states to safeguard harmfully. Importantly this system will have a limited the financial stability of the euro area as whole. The burden on business and can be delivered at low cost to Government achieved their priorities on the European the taxpayer. Stability Mechanism: that it will be for only euro-area We intend to take forward measures to deliver this member states; replace the European Financial Stability commitment without delay subject to the Government’s Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stabilisation regulatory assessment and clearance process. Mechanism (EFSM); and that in the future, Article 122(2) TFEU will not be used for safeguarding the financial Driving Standards Agency stability of the euro area. Statement Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact The council will discuss the assessment of action Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary taken by Malta in the context of its excessive deficit Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning) procedure on the basis of a communication from the has made the following Ministerial Statement. Commission. Actions taken by other member states The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) is responsible could also be assessed on the basis of the Commission’s for setting standards and conducting theory and practical autumn economic forecast and the fiscal notifications. driving tests for motorists in England and Wales. The The Government expect the council to agree that DSA is a trading fund which is funded by the fees Malta has taken effective action regarding its deficit, received from customers, which are set at a level to in line with council recommendations. recover its costs. The DSA therefore has a duty to Introduction of the euro in Estonia: Practical experience ensure its costs are kept at the minimum possible level in the interests of its customers, while maintaining In line with past practice, the council will have an standards of service. That means being as efficient as exchange of views following the introduction of the possible in every area of work and considering closely euro in Estonia on 1 January 2011. any areas of spending which may not be necessary. Annual Growth Survey Following a review of its operations the DSA has The adoption by the European Commission of the decided to close its area office at Caradog House in annual growth survey will mark the beginning of the Cardiff. first cycle of the European semester. From now on, WS 5 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 6 every year the Commission will present its growth we will ensure that, starting from 2013, government survey covering fiscal, structural and macroeconomic and other public records are made available at the issues. This communication, which will be presented National Archives or other places of deposit 10 years to the European Parliament and the council, will serve sooner than at present by commencing amendments as a basis for the guidelines and conclusions drawn up to the Public Records Act to reduce the 30-year rule by the March European Council with a view to the to a 20-year rule. In tandem, we will also commence medium-term budgetary strategies and national reform amendments to the FOI Act to reduce the time programmes to be adopted in April. The Government some types of information—including information are content with this approach, given that they secured contained in court records, and relating to ministerial special wording in the new Code of Conduct which correspondence and policy formulation—may be allows the UK to submit its budget to the EU after it withheld; and has been approved by Parliament, rather than in draft, finally, we will also conduct a process of post as will be the case for other member states. legislative scrutiny of the FOI Act to see how well Review of draft National Reform Programmes (NRPs) the Act is working in practice and whether further There will be an exchange of views on member changes should be made. It is important that this states’ draft national reform programmes (NRPs), which review of legislation, designed to promote openness set out member states’ reform priorities and plans and and transparency, is itself undertaken in a transparent were submitted to the Commission in November. Full way and with the involvement of Parliament. NRPs are due in April. The Government believe that The measures outlined above will increase transparency. the focus of the NRPs should be on tackling bottlenecks However, we must also ensure that information which to growth. it is not in the public interest to release is properly Communication from the Commission: towards a protected, and that we have proper regard to this Single Market Act country’s long-standing constitutional conventions. It There will be an exchange of views on the Single is for this reason that on 16 January 2011 I made a Market Act, which was published on 27 October 2010, commencement order to bring into effect changes and is out for consultation until 28 February 2011. made in the Constitutional Reform and Governance The Government support the single market and believe Act 2010 to enhance the protection for information that future reforms should be strongly focused on relating to communications with the Royal Family and measures which encourage growth. Royal Household. The changes provide an absolute instead of a qualified exemption for information relating to communications with the sovereign, heir to the Freedom of Information throne or second in line to the throne or those acting on their behalf. The exemption for other members of Statement the Royal Family and members of the Royal Household remains qualified. The lifespan of the exemption changes The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord from 30 to 20 years or the lifetime of the relevant McNally): My right honourable friend the Lord member of the Royal Family plus five years, whichever Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Kenneth is longer. Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial This amendment to the FOI Act is necessary to Statement. protect the long-standing conventions surrounding the On Friday 7 January 2011 the Ministry of Justice monarchy and its records, for example the sovereign’s announced the Government’s plans to extend the scope right and duty to counsel, encourage and warn her of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and to Government, as well as the heir to the throne’s right to further increase transparency in public affairs. The be instructed in the business of Government in preparation Government will bring forward a number of measures for their future role as monarch. The changes will to bring those plans into effect: come into force tomorrow. we will introduce a Section 5 order under the Freedom Copies of the Constitutional Reform and Governance of Information Act in the spring to bring the Act2010 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Order 2011 (SI 2011 No. 46 (C. 3)) have been placed in Ombudsman Service and the University and Colleges the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. Admissions Service within the Act’s scope; we will also consult a range of further bodies with a Machinery of Government view to their inclusion in the Act by a further section 5 order later this year. This includes bodies Statement as diverse as examination boards, harbour authorities, the Local Government Association and the NHS The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Confederation; Strathclyde):My right honourable friend the Prime we will amend Section 6 of the FOI Act in the Minister has made the following Statement. Freedom Bill to end the anomaly where companies Responsibility for all competition and policy issues wholly owned by a single public authority are subject relating to media, broadcasting, digital and telecoms to the Act but those wholly owned by more than sectors has been transferred from the Secretary of one public authority are not. We will also introduce State for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Secretary measures to enhance the independence of the of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. Information Commissioner’s Office in the same This includes: Bill; merger and competition cases in these sectors; WS 7 Written Statements[18 JANUARY 2011] Written Statements WS 8

sponsorship of the telecoms sector, mobile and At the moment the main line of accountability fixed; through Parliament is through Ministers and the sponsorship of all content industries, including Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We intend computer games and publishing; that in future this accountability should be through London’s mayor since all the royal parks are in London. telecoms policy, including implementation of the The mayor is a well known figure who is elected every EU framework; four years and is held accountable by Londoners for broadband policy and delivery (including Broadband what he achieves for London and for visitors to London. Delivery UK); Managing the royal parks would also fit well with the internet policy and governance, including mayor’s existing responsibility for tourism in London implementation of the Digital Economy Act; as well as his strategic responsibilities for the environment spectrum; in London. BT Pension Crown Guarantee; As a result, we are proposing that the current Royal Parks Agency team would become part of the Greater responsibility for sponsorship of Ofcom (except in London Authority (GLA) and report to the mayor. relation to postal regulation); and The GLA would have day to day responsibility for full responsibility for the digital TV switchover and maintaining and managing the royal parks, including Digital Radio Action Plan. fulfilling statutory obligations. The Government will The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and need to legislate when the opportunity arises to give Skills will retain responsibility for postal regulation; the GLA equivalent management powers to those that sponsorship of telecoms equipment manufacturing the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and the wider electronics, IT services and software and Sport currently exercises, and to make other provisions sectors. He will also continue to work with the Cabinet needed to give effect to the policies set out in this Office as part of the national cyber-security programme. Statement. The Minister for Culture, Communications and The royal parks Creative Industries, formerly a joint Minster, will now There are eight royal parks managed by the agency, report solely to the Secretary of State for Culture, all within greater London: Olympics, Media and Sport. He will continue to work closely with Ministers in the Department for Business, Bushy Park; Innovation and Skills. the Green Park; Greenwich Park; Royal Parks Agency Hyde Park; Statement Kensington Gardens; the Regent’s Park including Primrose Hill; Baroness Rawlings: My honourable friend, the Minister Richmond Park; and for Tourism and Heritage (John Penrose) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. St. James’s Park. I am publishing today a Statement regarding the The Royal Parks Agency currently also manages transfer of the management of the eight royal parks other land in central London, such as Victoria Tower and the Royal Parks Agency (RPA) from the Department Gardens, Grosvenor Square Garden, and Brompton for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to the Greater Cemetery, which are not part of the royal parks themselves. London Authority (GLA). The Government are developing proposals with the GLA and others who, in place of the Royal Parks The current arrangements and the intended change Agency, will be best placed to take responsibility for It is not widely known that managing the royal these open spaces and structures and monuments within parks in London is the responsibility of a central them in future. government department on behalf of the Queen. The team that runs the royal parks and reports to the Management of the parks Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and The royal parks are owned by Her Majesty the Sport is known as the Royal Parks Agency (TRP). We Queen in right of the Crown. The parks were, in the are proud of the work the agency has done for Londoners main, originally royal hunting grounds and pleasure and for visitors to London. The royal parks are well gardens and were subsequently made over for public known across the world and spending time in the use. The royal parks are part of the historic Crown parks is an essential part of a visit to the capital. lands and were put under the management of the This Statement is about how the parks will be made Secretary of State’s predecessor in the middle of the more accountable to the public through the mayor. 19th century. The Government do not propose any major changes The general power of management of the parks in relation to how the parks should be managed, the currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Culture, standards to which they should be maintained, and Olympics, Media and Sport derives from the power what should be on offer in the parks to the public. granted by Section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 Prior to transfer this will be summarised in a framework (the 1851 Act) to the Commissioners of Works. Day- agreement. The royal parks are a cherished part of our to-day management is carried out on behalf of the national heritage as well as being a priceless resource Secretary of State by the Royal Parks Agency, led by for Londoners and visitors to London. That is understood its chief executive. We propose that the Royal Parks by all involved in the proposed transfer of management. Agency would no longer be an executive agency of the WS 9 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 10

DCMS but instead become an integral but distinct Police. We intend to create an equivalent bye-law part of the GLA. Crown ownership of the royal parks making power for the GLA. Instead of an approval by would be maintained. Parliament it would be subject to confirmation from The Government do not propose to divide up the the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. royal parks into separate parks operated by individual Section 62 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act London boroughs. The Government’s aim is to strike provides that regulations may also be made by the an appropriate balance between decentralising power Secretary of State for imposing and recovering charges and maintaining the integrity of this historic estate. for leaving vehicles, or vehicles of any class, in the Greater accountability for the royal parks will be park. These regulations are subject to the approval of introduced at the level of London-wide government, Parliament. We intend to create an equivalent bye-law where all the competing interests can be best addressed. making power for the GLA. Instead of an approval by The mayor is accountable to people who live and work Parliament it would be subject to confirmation by the in the immediate vicinity of the parks. He is also Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. accountable to Londoners from other areas who use Summary of the benefits of the transfer the parks, and he is responsible for the quality and interest of what London as a whole contributes to the By transferring responsibility to the GLA, reporting UK and offers tourists and visitors. The mayor has to London’s mayor, we intend to ensure clear democratic recognised the strong interest of the Royal Household accountability to Londoners on the management and and the London boroughs in the good management of operation of these historic parks and open spaces. the parks and is considering options for a new governance Through the mayor, there would be a visible public structure for the parks as a whole which will offer champion for the royal parks. Better accountability is them a stake in a new supervisory board. likely to lead to management which is more responsive The devolution of management responsibility for to the needs and expectations of park users and local the royal parks to the GLA will also mean that there people. will be greater scrutiny of the management of royal We intend the GLA to have the opportunity to parks on a regular basis. The London Assembly will include the future management of the parks in the be able to hold the actions of the mayor to account broader plans which the mayor develops for London. and will have the power to summon officials and seek There will be close links to London-wide policy on a information. range of issues which affect the parks including planning, Retaining oversight where there is a national interest transport, environment, tourism and sport. The mayor will be well placed to seek out opportunities for private It is recognised that the royal parks are national sector support for the parks. The mayor recognises assets and there may be occasions when it is still that for successful transfer of management of the necessary for the Government to be able to ensure that royal parks there is a need to ensure: national interests are safeguarded. The Secretary of State will have reserve powers to intervene if it appears the national importance of the royal parks continues that the national interest might be compromised. For to be recognised; example it will be essential to ensure that the current the identity and character of the royal parks, which use of the parks and their roads for national ceremonial underpins their importance to local residents and occasions should continue in a manner which befits visitors, is not adversely affected; their status. Such events must always be given priority the high quality of the royal parks and their unique over local matters or other events. This is one example identity is maintained and enhanced where possible; of where the Secretary of State will be able to ensure, through a power of intervention, that the royal parks the wide range of interests within, and uses of, the continue to be managed in the national interest and royal parks continue to be recognised and valued; will be able to ensure that future management is not the management of the eight royal parks is retained inconsistent with, or undermines, the significance or by a single administration; and status of the royal parks. local representation is adequately accounted for. Regulation making powers A policy framework will set out the parameters in Currently, under the Parks Regulations (Amendment) which the GLA manage the parks. Act 1926, the Secretary of State makes regulations that he considers necessary for securing the proper There are a number of conditions which will be management of the parks. The principal regulations built into the framework. Key issues this will address are the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations include: 1997, and these cover matters such as the hours of the parks must be managed on behalf of the nation opening of a park or of particular parts of it, carrying as a whole; on any trade or business in the park, the conduct of persons using the park as regards, for example, littering, the royal parks management structure will be an climbing trees, lighting fires, damaging property and integral but a distinct part of the GLA; keeping control of animals. These regulations are subject it is likely a board will be established to manage the to the approval of Parliament. If any person fails to parks. This is likely to comprise a chair appointed comply with, or acts in contravention of, any regulations, by the Mayor of London. Members appointed by he is guilty of an offence against the Parks Regulation the mayor are likely to include representatives from Act 1872 and is liable on summary conviction to a the London boroughs and a member appointed by penalty.The regulations are enforced by the Metropolitan or on behalf of the Sovereign; WS 11 Written Statements[18 JANUARY 2011] Written Statements WS 12

the natural and built features must be maintained The Commissioners of Irish Lights is the general to a high standard; lighthouse authority which has provided marine aids that the GLA must consult widely on any major to navigation for the benefit of mariners visiting and changes to the royal parks; passing the shores of the whole island of Ireland for hundreds of years. The organisation has come to that the GLA continue to honour the informal symbolise the close friendship and shared history of arrangements made by TRP with the Royal our nations. Household and the Army in relation to ceremonial use of the parks which should have overriding For many years, the funding of the Commissioners priority; of Irish Lights work has been a joint undertaking, its costs being met primarily from light dues income from quiet recreation by the public remains the parks’ commercial shipping raised in both our jurisdictions primary use; and paid into the General Lighthouse Fund. that there will be no negative impacts on delivery This funding mechanism has been the subject of of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the debate for a number of years and there have been calls Diamond Jubilee, ceremonial and other state to facilitate a more equitable arrangement, whereby events; the costs of the work of the Commissioners in the that the transfer will not take place until post 2012 Republic of Ireland is funded solely from sources of to minimise disruption to the Olympic and income there. Paralympic Games; The Irish Transport Minister and I have reached an the level of funding the GLA will receive from the understanding that we will aim to see the Commissioners Government will be agreed at the outset but is of Irish Lights self-financing by 2015-16. This subject to future spending reviews; and understanding will facilitate the long-term sustainable monitoring arrangements will need to be put in funding of the Commissioners of Irish Lights and place post transfer to ensure that any teething ensure the continued co-operation of the United Kingdom problems are dealt with. and Republic of Ireland in the provision of marine aids to navigation.

Shipping: Irish Lights Taxation: Double Taxation Statement Statement

Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning) Sassoon): My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary has made the following Ministerial Statement. to the Treasury (David Gauke) has today made the In my Statement to the House on marine aids following Written Ministerial Statement. to navigation of 26 July 2010 (Official Report, A new protocol to the double taxation convention col. WS 134-35), I said that the Government believe a with Mauritius was signed at Port Louis on 10 January solution needs to be found as soon as possible to the 2011. imbalance of funding for marine aids to navigation in The text of the protocol has been deposited in the the Republic of Ireland. I am pleased to inform the Libraries of both Houses and made available on House that the Irish Transport Minister and I have HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be now reached an understanding on the reform of the scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before funding of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. the House of Commons in due course.

WA 17 Written Answers[18 JANUARY 2011] Written Answers WA 18

The table below shows the number of animals killed Written Answers over that period without prior stunning for the production of Kosher and Halal meat: Tuesday 18 January 2011 Species Not Stunned Animals: Slaughter Cattle 365 Calves 8 Questions Young lambs 6,845 Asked by Lord Moonie Other sheep 11,454 Goats 62 To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Broilers 167,745 abattoirs are licensed to carry out animal slaughter Hens 15,900 without stunning the animal first. [HL5579] Turkeys 749 Ducks 610 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs More recent data collected by the EU Dialrel project (Lord Henley): There are currently 346 approved (see http://www.dialrel.eu/images/factsheet-assesment- slaughterhouses operating in Great Britain. There is practices.pdf) shows that, of the UK abattoirs surveyed, no separate approval of slaughterhouses carrying out 100 per cent of the animals and birds slaughtered for animal slaughter without prior stunning. However, the production of Kosher meat were slaughtered without where bovine animals are slaughtered by a religious prior stunning. For Halal meat, 25 per cent of cattle method the restraining pen used must be approved by and 7 per cent of sheep were slaughtered without prior the Minister as required under Schedule 12 of the stunning. The Dialrel data also indicates that no poultry Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations were slaughtered for Halal production without stunning. 1995 (as amended). Eight restraining pens have been approved in England and Wales and are currently Bank of England operational. Asked by Lord Moonie Question Asked by Lord Myners To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the European To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment Commission and the Agriculture Council about they have made of the report in the Financial Times changing the regulations in respect of animal about the declining confidence of academic economists slaughtering without stunning the animal first. in the accuracy of the Bank of England’s inflation [HL5580] forecasting; and whether they plan to take any action or require the Bank of England to re-examine Lord Henley: We have made no recent representations its methodologies. [HL5602] to the European Commission or the Agriculture Council about changing regulations in respect of animal The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord slaughtering without prior stunning. Sassoon): The independent Monetary Policy Committee We were involved in discussions on the new EU (MPC) of the Bank of England and the Office for Regulation (Number 1099/2009) on the protection of Budget Responsibility (OBR) have emphasised that animals at the time of killing which was agreed on the outlook for inflation remains highly uncertain. 24 September 2009 and comes into effect on 1 January The OBR’s November 2010 inflation forecast is broadly 2013. This regulation permits the use of additional consistent with that of the Bank of England and with national rules to improve welfare protection in relation HM Treasury’s latest average of independent forecasts. to the slaughter of animals without prior stunning. Detailed consideration of this issue will take place Banking over the next year as we decide how to implement the new regulation. We will consult widely on our approach Questions before final decisions are taken. Asked by Lord Willoughby de Broke Asked by Lord Moonie To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate financial exposure of Lloyds banking group to they have made of the number of domesticated Irish banks and Irish mortgage-backed loans. animals and birds slaughtered in 2010 without being [HL5782] stunned first. [HL5581] The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Lord Henley: The most recent data on the slaughter Sassoon): Lloyds Banking Group’s (LBG) Interim of animals without prior stunning was published in Results, published on 5 August 2010, provides the March 2004 by the Meat Hygiene Service in its Animal latest exposures to Ireland. As at 30 June 2010, LBG Welfare Review. The data was collected through a had £26,682 million in loans and advances to Irish survey of meat plants between 1 and 7 September 2003. customers, with impaired loans totalling £11,689 million. WA 19 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 20

Impairment Impairment provisions Loans and advances to Impaired Impaired loans as % of provisions as % of impaired loans customers (£m) loans (£m) closing advances (%) (£m) (%)

As at 30 June 2010 26,682 11,689 43.8 4,857 41.6 As at 31 December 2009 29,104 9,712 33.4 3,601 37.1

LBG also gave an update on its Irish portfolio on future life chances. In secondary education, a child 17 December 2010, announcing that the board eligible for free school meals is half as likely to achieve anticipated that, compared to 30 June 2010, five or more GCSEs at grade A*-C, including English approximately a further 10 per cent of the Irish portfolio and mathematics, than a child from a wealthier will become impaired by the 2010 year end: background. (www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/pdfs/investors/ 2010/2010Dec17_LBG_Irish_Portfolio_Update.pdf). EU: Contract Law Asked by Lord Myners Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Sassoon on 11 January on Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon banking bonuses (Official Report, col. 1331), how they propose to establish the amount banks will To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment have lent in 2011 in the absence of any settlement they have made of the impact of the European reached by the Government on lending targets. Commission’s initiative to introduce a single European [HL5816] contract law on United Kingdom businesses and individuals. [HL5686] Lord Sassoon: There are a number of data sources which provide information on how much the banks The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord lend. This includes the Bank of England’s Trends in McNally): The European Commission has not made Lending report, the inflation report and the financial any legislative proposal to introduce a single European stability report. contract law. Rather, on 1 July 2010, the European Commission issued a Green Paper setting out seven Banks: Lending main possible options which it invited everyone to consider as possible ways to reduce any problems Question stemming from the current divergence of national Asked by Lord Myners contract laws. The European Commission’s public To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consultation on this document continues until 31 January intend to take any action in respect of the widening 2011. in the cost of bank lending to small businesses, as The UK Government issued a public call for evidence reported in the Bank of England’s Credit Conditions on the Commission’s Green Paper after it was published, Survey for quarter four of 2010. [HL5725] which asked for views and evidence on the Commission’s Green Paper. This exercise concluded in early December The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord 2010 and the Government are currently considering Sassoon): The Government are taking action to ensure the evidence gathered and will respond to the Commission that small businesses get access to the finance they in due course. need. The Government are providing additional support The Commission has not produced an impact for the enterprise finance guarantee over the next four assessment on any of the options due to the wide years which will enable over £2 billion of lending to ranging and consultative nature of them, which at this viable small businesses that lack collateral or a track stage lack the detail needed to make sound assessments record. The Government are also helping to increase of impacts. The Government have not produced a equity finance, through initiating a £1.5 billion industry-led formal impact assessment at this stage for the same business growth fund and through £200 million of reasons. If the European Commission were at some additional funding for the Enterprise Capital Funds point to produce a legislative proposal then that would programme. need to be accompanied by a full impact assessment. The Commission has already undertaken to make sure Education: Achievement this is done and the Government will make this Question requirement clear in their response. Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Freedom of Information Act 2000 To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of socio-economic Question factors on deficiencies in educational achievement. Asked by Lord Berkeley [HL5338] To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for plan to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): There is overwhelming to include the Commissioners for Irish Lights and evidence that, after prior attainment, poverty is the Trinity House within the provisions of the Act. single most important factor in predicting a child’s [HL5708] WA 21 Written Answers[18 JANUARY 2011] Written Answers WA 22

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Police: Expenditure Cuts McNally): The Government announced on 7 January that they intend to consult Trinity House Lighthouse Question Service regarding its possible inclusion in the Freedom Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath of Information Act. We do not have any plans to consult the Commissioners for Irish Lights as they To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment mainly operate in another jurisdiction. they have made of the impact of police funding cuts on the amount of contact time between police forces and members of the public. [HL5463]

Olympic Games 2012 The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- Question Jones): The Government believe that police forces can Asked by Lord Bates make savings while protecting the frontline. We do not accept that reducing costs will lead to any reductions To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to in police officers visible on the streets. What matters is the Written Answer by Baroness Garden of Frognal how resources are used and how officers are deployed. on 15 December (Official Report, col. 605–7), what Decisions on the number of officers, police support mechanism they have to collate and evaluate ideas staff and PCSOs and how they are deployed remain a for implementing the Olympic truce at the London matter for chief constables and police authorities to 2012 Olympic Games. [HL5526] determine and from 2012 for police and crime commissioners. Baroness Garden of Frognal: Suggestions on how the Olympic truce could be promoted can be addressed Police: West Midlands to Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Question Such suggestions will be considered as they are received. Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment Police: Crime Levels they have made of why the West Midlands Police Question Force has decided to reduce the number of police officers allocated to the Ladywood and Perry Barr Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath wards in Birmingham. [HL5464]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- are aware of any research demonstrating a connection Jones): Decisions about the number of police officers between police numbers and crime levels. [HL5128] and other police staff engaged by the West Midlands Police, including the numbers to be deployed to Ladywood The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- and Perry Bar, are a matter for the chief constable and Jones): Research indicates there is no simple link the police authority to determine as they are best between officer numbers and crime levels. placed to manage their resources. The Government believe that police forces can make savings while protecting the frontline. We do not accept Schools: Mathematics that reducing costs will cause an increase in crime. Question What matters is how resources are used and how officers are deployed. Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage pupils to study mathematics Police: Demonstrators beyond the age of 16. [HL5390] Question The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Asked by Lord Hylton Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The schools White To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Paper The Importance of Teaching underlines the will require chief constables to allow peaceful importance the Government attach to mathematics demonstrators to leave public demonstrations, when education and the need to increase uptake at all levels they wish to do so. [HL5649] including post-16. Key to increasing the study of maths post-16 is good teaching and we will continue to support initiatives to increase the number of specialist The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- mathematics teachers and improve the skills of existing Jones): The use of tactics in demonstrations is an teachers. operational matter for police chief officers working Our plans to reform the national curriculum and within the relevant legal framework. The courts have qualifications will ensure that children gain the knowledge found that the use of containment at public they need in mathematics in order to develop their demonstrations is lawful if used proportionately. understanding and progress further. The inclusion of WA 23 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 24

GCSE mathematics in the English Baccalaureate will Question asking Her Majesty’s Government whether also help to drive up engagement and attainment in they are monitoring the price of retail products to mathematics. determine whether prices are being increased by more We will also invest in programmes to support the than necessary to cover the increase in VAT. (HL5721) teaching of A-level mathematics such as the further Price changes are measured in compiling the Consumer mathematics support programme. Prices Index and the data collected in that process will be used by the Office for National Statistics to produce an estimate of the impact of retailers and service Taxation: VAT providers passing on the VAT increase. The results of Questions the analysis will be published on the National Statistics website. Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon Similaranalysesof theeffectsof previousVATchanges To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the havebeenpublishedat:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/ 2½ per cent increase in VAT will automatically lead article.asp?1D=22588(Pos=1&ColRank=l&Rank=1and to an increase in the United Kingdom’s contribution http://www.statistics.gov.uk/elmr/04_10/downloads/ to the European Union budget through own resources; elmr-Apr10.pdf. and if so, by how much. [HL5690]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord UK Investment: Foundation X Sassoon): The increase in VAT will not lead to an automatic increase in the United Kingdom’s VAT-based Question contribution to the EU Budget. Asked by Lord Myners Asked by Lord Myners To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 10 January are monitoring the price of retail products to determine (WA 420), whether HM Treasury officials have had whether prices are being increased by more than any meetings, conversations or correspondence with necessary to cover the increase in VAT. [HL5721] an organisation referred to by Lord James of Blackheath as Foundation X, or with its representatives or agents; and, if so, when those engagements took Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The information requested place; and who attended. [HL5857] falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, Director General for The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Office for National Statistics, to Lord Myners, dated Sassoon): HM Treasury officials have had no meetings, January 2011 conversations, or correspondence, with the organisation As Director General for the Office for National referred to by Lord James of Blackheath as Foundation Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary X, or its representatives or agents. Tuesday 18 January 2011

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. Alcohol ...... 3 Machinery of Government...... 6

Driving Standards Agency...... 3 Royal Parks Agency...... 7

ECOFIN ...... 4 Shipping: Irish Lights ...... 11

Freedom of Information...... 5 Taxation: Double Taxation...... 12

Tuesday 18 January 2011

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Animals: Slaughter...... 17 Olympic Games 2012...... 21

Bank of England ...... 18 Police: Crime Levels...... 21 Police: Demonstrators ...... 21 Banking ...... 18 Police: Expenditure Cuts...... 22 Banks: Lending...... 19 Police: West Midlands...... 22 Education: Achievement...... 19 Schools: Mathematics...... 22 EU: Contract Law ...... 20 Taxation: VAT ...... 23 Freedom of Information Act 2000...... 20 UK Investment: Foundation X ...... 24 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL5128] ...... 21 [HL5602] ...... 18

[HL5338] ...... 19 [HL5649] ...... 21

[HL5390] ...... 22 [HL5686] ...... 20 [HL5690] ...... 23 [HL5463] ...... 22 [HL5708] ...... 20 [HL5464] ...... 22 [HL5721] ...... 23 [HL5526] ...... 21 [HL5725] ...... 19 [HL5579] ...... 17 [HL5782] ...... 18 [HL5580] ...... 17 [HL5816] ...... 19 [HL5581] ...... 17 [HL5857] ...... 24 Volume 724 Tuesday No. 95 18 January 2011

CONTENTS

Tuesday 18 January 2011

(Continuation of Proceedings) Monday, 17 January 2011 (continued) Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill Committee (9th Day)(continued)...... 173

Tuesday, 18 January 2011 Introductions: Lord Edmiston, Lord Framlingham, Lord Wood of Anfield ...... 325 Questions Deficit Reduction...... 325 Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre...... 328 Birds: Farmland Populations...... 330 Egypt: Religious Minorities ...... 333 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill Committee (10th Day) ...... 335 Written Statements ...... WS 3 Written Answers...... WA 1 7