House of Commons

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Monday 15 November 2010

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

1. What qualifications teachers employed by free schools will be required to have.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Innovation, diversity and flexibility are at the heart of the free schools policy. We want the dynamism that characterises the best independent schools to help drive up standards in the state sector. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Oh, thank you. In that spirit, we will not be setting requirements in relation to qualifications. Instead, we will expect business cases to demonstrate how governing bodies intend to guarantee the highest quality of teaching and leadership in their schools. No school will be allowed to proceed unless its proposals for quality teaching are soundly based. Ensuring that each free school’s unique educational vision is translated into the classroom will require brilliant people with a diverse range of experience.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful for that answer. [Interruption.] I am, indeed. My only question is, if we recruit too many untrained and unqualified teachers, does the Secretary of State fear he will end up presiding over the Department for dumbing down?

[Michael Gove]

That was a brilliantly couched question, which reflects the many years that the hon. Gentleman spent, with profit, in the Government Whips Office. I think that the Department for dumbing down was presided over by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), during his three years as Secretary of State. As our new schools White Paper will point out when it is published, we will do everything possible to increase the prestige and esteem of the teaching profession. Throughout the House, we all recognise how important it is to get the best people into the classroom.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the teachers—or whatever description they are given—at free schools be required to go through checking by the Criminal Records Bureau?

[Michael Gove]

We will ensure that everyone who is employed in a free school goes through the appropriate process of ensuring that it is safe for them to be in an environment where children are taught. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are reviewing the current vetting and barring scheme in order to scale it back to common-sense levels, but the balance that we want to strike is between a proper regard for child safety and ensuring that unnecessary bureaucracy is removed.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Where will these unqualified teachers be required to teach? I have here the document containing the Government’s list of places where they want free schools to be able to open without any planning permission. It includes hairdressers, travel agencies, sandwich bars, dry cleaners, undertakers and—you could not make this up, Mr Speaker—pet shops. Actually, the Secretary of State and the schools Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), look a bit like the Pet Shop Boys, but does their vision of 21st century schools really consist of our children being educated in the abandoned premises of “Reptiles R Us”?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that well rehearsed question. I know that he is a brilliant musician, but in the words of the Pet Shop Boys, he’s got the brains and I’ve got the looks, and together—I suspect—we could make lots of money.

We want to ensure that the spirit of innovation can flourish, and that Britain, and indeed our education system, is open for business in raising standards.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to reduce the administrative burden on (a) head teachers and (b) school governors.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burden on both head teachers and governors. We have already announced that the self-evaluation form will be removed, that the inspection framework will be streamlined and that we will reduce the amount of guidance issued to schools. Today I can announce that we are abolishing the overly bureaucratic financial management standard in schools scheme. We will also simplify school funding, and we are considering how to reduce funding differences between similar schools in different local authority areas. We will continue to work with local authorities and others to reduce the bureaucratic burden, so that schools have more time to focus on raising standards.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. As he is aware, the imposition of school improvement partners by the previous Government led to the senior management teams of many schools spending vast amounts of their time holding meetings, ticking boxes and discussing meaningless strategies, targets and initiatives. Will the forthcoming White Paper bring an end to that aspect of the wasteful bureaucracy created by the previous Government?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a great point in his characteristically forceful and eloquent way. The Government are looking at how we can ensure that the whole process of school improvement is made less bureaucratic.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that head teachers and school governors, as well as teachers, found Teachers TV very liberating in terms of knowledge, improving school administration and teaching? Will he think again about winding up Teachers TV?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know how committed he is to improving continuous professional development. Our White Paper will say more about how we can do that. Teachers TV will—I think—operate in future on a commercial basis. That is one of the many ways in which outside organisations can attempt to improve education. In that respect, we will allow teachers, governors and heads to make decisions about the type of external support that they buy in to help them to improve the valuable work that they do.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of academic standards in primary schools in (a) Dartford constituency and (b) England; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

In 2009, 71% of pupils in maintained schools in Dartford achieved level 4 or above in English and maths combined at key stage 2, compared with 72% in England. We want all children, whatever their background, to achieve high standards in reading, writing and maths. That is why we are introducing a pupil premium, which will provide extra funding for those schools with the most challenging intakes.

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, because despite £2.5 billion spent on national strategies, a third of primary school pupils have not even reached level 4 for reading and writing. To help, will he encourage primary schools that have scrapped spelling tests in Dartford and elsewhere to reintroduce them?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes. Spelling is key to writing, as is grammar and punctuation. Indeed, we have already asked Ofqual to investigate how spelling, punctuation and grammar can be used in mark schemes for GCSEs other than simply English language.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the likely effect of his proposed pupil premium on children in (a) Reading East constituency and (b) England; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

We have made no assessment of the effect of the pupil premium in specific constituencies. We are considering the responses to the consultation on school funding, which ended on 18 October, including the question of which deprivation indicator to use. We expect the effect of introducing the pupil premium across England to be one of raising the attainment of those children who are eligible for it.

[Mr Wilson]

As somebody who wrote about and championed the pupil premium back in 2005, may I welcome the Minister’s answer? The pupil premium will not be enough in itself to break open social mobility, as only 45 pupils on free school meals went to Oxbridge in the last year for which figures are available. What further measures can the Minister promise, and how do the Government undertake to make things better for poorer pupils?

[Sarah Teather]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest in this issue. He is right that the pupil premium alone is not enough to break open social mobility, but that is exactly why we extended the free entitlement for early-years education for three and four-year-olds to 15 hours, and why—crucially—we have extended such education to all disadvantaged two-year-olds. By ensuring that we narrow the gap before children get to school, we ensure that they are in a much better position to make the best of the offer that we provide for them when they start primary school.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

We are told that the Secretary of State cracked open a bottle or two on the day of the spending review to celebrate the “Schools Protected” headline that was running. His journalistic ability to get a good headline is not in doubt; it is his grip on ministerial detail that we worry about, and whether the reality that head teachers face when they see their budgets in a few weeks’ time will match the fine words that he used on that day.

Let me quote what the Secretary of State told the Daily Mail on 27 May:

“we will have a pupil premium, a sum of money from outside the existing schools budget which will come on top of what we currently spend on schools, in order to help children in disadvantaged circumstances.”

I ask the Minister a simple question: have the Government delivered in full on that commitment?

[Sarah Teather]

The pupil premium will provide £2.5 billion on top of the baseline for schools by the end of the comprehensive spending review period. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is £2.5 billion more than a Labour Government would have been prepared to put in.

[Andy Burnham]

I am afraid that the Minister is wrong. The coalition agreement said that the pupil premium would be funded from “outside the schools budget”, but the spending review document said that it

“will sit within a generous…settlement”.

Whatever the Minister says today, the truth is this: a pupil premium that is on top of a protected schools budget has not been delivered. However—and what is worse—the pupil premium is not what it seems. It will create winners and losers, and scandalously, the biggest losers are set to be schools in the most deprived areas of England. Let me share with the House new analysis from the Commons Library, which states:

“The impact is likely to be—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State must bring himself to a question, and I am sure he will now do so.

[Andy Burnham]

The Library note states:

“The impact is likely to be a shift in funding from generally more deprived to less deprived local authorities.”

At this time, how can the Minister possibly justify taking money off schools in those deprived parts of England?

[Sarah Teather]

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there will be a real-terms increase in school funding over the course of this comprehensive spending review period. I wonder whether it is perhaps the height of his political career to stand in the House of Commons to oppose our spending £2.5 billion extra on the poorest children in this country. Is that really what he came into Parliament to do?

[Andy Burnham]

The words do not match the reality. The reality of the Government’s spending review is this: a pupil premium con, where funding is recycled to the most affluent areas; a real-terms cut per pupil of 2.25%; a whopping 60% cut to the school building programme; Sure Start cut by 9%; and the education maintenance allowance scrapped, despite promises from the Secretary of State to protect it. Is this not the truth: he has made a mess of the education budget and while he celebrates his headlines, children and teachers are counting the cost of the Government’s broken promises?

[Sarah Teather]

Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left a legacy of the poorest children doing significantly worse than the wealthiest children right across the country, and of children on free school meals failing at every level to meet that of children from wealthier backgrounds? That is their legacy; that is the truth. His Government would never have implemented the pupil premium, and I am proud to say that we are implementing it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just emphasise at this point that we must now return to questions and answers. That is what we need and that is what the public expect.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of standards of attainment in secondary schools in (a) Clacton constituency and (b) England; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

In 2009, the most recent year for which constituency-level data are available, just 34.1% of pupils in maintained schools in Clacton achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C or equivalent including English and maths, compared with 50.9% across England as a whole. We remain concerned that nearly half of young people are leaving compulsory education without meeting this basic standard. That is why we are reforming the school system to give schools more freedom and introducing a £2.5 billion pupil premium to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

[Mr Carswell]

The Minister may be aware that as a general rule of thumb standards in schools in Clacton, and indeed in England, tend to be higher the more independent those schools are from his officials. Is there not a danger that any new direct funding through an IPSA-type quango would create the architecture of even greater central control? In order to maintain greater standards, should we not encourage real independence?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is an impassioned supporter of independence in all its forms and in all sorts of bureaucratic institutions, and I agree that one would be well advised to steer clear of any quango that models itself on IPSA. It is our intention to ensure that school funding is simplified, that schools exercise more autonomy and independence, and that the system is rendered fairer across the board. In particular, we will not be creating a new body that will have any additional bureaucratic powers.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

For every one of the past five years specialist sports colleges have had higher levels of attainment than the national average across the curriculum. The Secretary of State’s decision to axe the entire £162 million school sports partnership fund will decimate the work of specialist sports colleges. Given the success of school sports partnerships in raising attainment, and if he is interested in the east end boys as well as the west end girls, can he explain why he refused even to meet a recognised world expert in school sport such as Baroness Campbell before deciding to axe funding to the Youth Sport Trust and to decimate school sport?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have had the opportunity to meet Baroness Campbell on a number of occasions; I have had dinner with her and I also met her at a school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). The crucial question for all schools is, “Do you want more freedom or less?” We are giving schools more freedom. All schools that wish to continue to enjoy specialist status, be they specialist sports, science or technology schools, will have that freedom. What we have done is remove the bureaucratic prescription that went alongside it, and that is because we on this side of the House trust professionals, whereas those on that side of the House continually sought to fetter them.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is giving more freedom to schools, because they really do need it, and the fact that there will be a national funding formula. How soon is that likely to be introduced? Many schools, including those that became grant-maintained and foundation schools, have been waiting for it for many years, and I know that academies are looking forward to it as well.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I want to underline that we have been consulting on moves to a national funding formula. The former Prime Minister and Member for Sedgefield was himself keen to move towards a national funding formula in order to eliminate some of the inequities within the schools system. We want to ensure that, as we move towards such a formula, schools themselves have their voices heard, so that we can do everything possible to eliminate the inequities that existed under the previous Government.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What funding his Department plans to provide for schools in Waltham Forest for 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

As part of the spending review on 20 October, the Government have protected school funding in the system at flat cash per pupil and, in addition, provided funding for a pupil premium from outside the schools budget. We expect to announce the funding allocations for education for 2011-12 by the end of the year.

[Stella Creasy]

Let me try to shed some light on the issue. Waltham Forest has 27% of its children on free school meals, well above the national average of 16%, and 34% of its parents are in receipt of out-of-work credits, well above the national average of 20%. A real-terms increase in our school funding would mean a rise of more than 1.25% in our schools budget for 2011-12, so can Ministers guarantee that, or are they simply better at music than maths?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady will have to wait until we make the full announcements per school. Many of the anomalies to which she alludes are the sort of thing that will be dealt with by the pupil premium in any case, and by fairer funding for individual schools.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to provide support for parents in preparing their children to start school.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

We are committed to supporting parents in making sure their children are ready for school. We are maintaining the network of Sure Start children’s centres; protecting funding for free nursery education and extending it to disadvantaged two-year-olds; and reviewing the early years foundation stage to look at how young children can be best supported throughout their early years while preparing them for formal schooling.

[Kate Green]

Save the Children has argued that every parent needs to be able to access family support programmes, which are shown to support children’s development and learning. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that a pipeline of evidenced family support programmes is available in order to improve children’s attainment?

[Sarah Teather]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. She will be aware that we appointed the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to undertake a review of early intervention. He will publish a report relatively soon on best practice in that area, and it will include many of the issues that she has just mentioned. The best Sure Start children’s centres already use a significant number of evidence-based programmes, and the Secretary of State for Health has also announced an expansion of family nurse partnerships, which are extremely important in supporting young parents and in working with their children. However, we are very keen to encourage more Sure Start children’s centres to make better use of the programmes on offer.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Speaking from experience, I know that there is almost nothing a parent can do to prepare a child for the devastating experience of being bullied at school. Today, on the first day of anti-bullying week, well over 800,000 people are taking part in a groundbreaking online march, organised by Beatbullying. What steps are the Government taking to reduce such bullying, which can have such a devastating impact on children’s lives?

[Sarah Teather]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this very important issue at this very important time. The Government take it very seriously, and we will speak much more about it, including about homophobic bullying, in the forthcoming White Paper.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It was good to hear the Minister reciting the successes of the previous Labour Government in providing free nursery places and a network of more than 3,500 Sure Start centres. The fact that Lib Dem Ministers feel the need to resort to claiming credit for our ideas shows how few they are getting from their partners in government.

Despite what the Government spin merchants would have the public believe, Sure Start was far from protected in the spending review. By freezing the grant, removing the ring fence, cutting children’s services budgets and removing around £40,000 of the budget from every children’s centre to pay for health visitors, the Government have put the Sure Start network under severe pressure. I therefore have a simple question for the Minister: can she guarantee that no Sure Start children’s centre will close as a result of choices made by this Government?

[Sarah Teather]

We will be announcing more details about the funding for Sure Start children’s centres shortly, in line with the settlement for local government. Yes, we have removed the ring fence, but we are trying to encourage local authorities to look rationally at what they want to do locally to ensure that they prioritise early intervention. We have rolled this into an early intervention grant, because they tell us how strongly they want to prioritise early intervention. However, every area will be different. Unlike the previous Government, we want to give local authorities the freedom to make decisions on the ground on what matters for them.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

8. What plans he has for future provision for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

To deliver the Government’s commitments on special educational needs, I am publishing a Green Paper later this year to look at the wide range of issues concerning children with special educational needs and disabilities. To inform this important work, I issued a call for views and have met parents, teachers, local authorities, charities and other groups. I am also considering the findings of recent reviews, including the recent report from Ofsted.

[Mark Menzies]

I thank the Minister for that answer. However, like many MPs, I have had in my constituency surgeries people who have real concern that their children will not be adequately assessed. That is a great worry for parents. What can she tell us to outline a future approach and take away parents’ worry?

[Sarah Teather]

That is specifically why we are producing the Green Paper. We recognise how many parents feel that they continually have to battle to get the needs of their child recognised, and then battle again to make sure that those needs are catered for. We are looking at how we can make the system more transparent, how we can streamline assessment, and how we can identify need much earlier. We also want to improve parents’ choice about the provision for their child and look at transition for young people right across the piece.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Given the huge weight of evidence about the importance of early intervention for all children, but particularly for children with special educational needs—the Minister has talked about that—can she confirm for us today that the pupil premium will be paid for under-fives?

[Sarah Teather]

I said earlier that, in line with the funding premium, we have spent that money extending it to all disadvantaged two-year-olds to ensure that they have an opportunity to benefit from early education, because that will make a big difference. The hon. Lady mentions early intervention. That is why I asked Dame Claire Tickell to look specifically at how we can use the early years foundation stage and early education to identify needs, specifically special educational needs. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s question.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I warmly welcome giving greater autonomy to schools. However, can we ensure that schools are not free to put up classrooms in which children with a hearing difficulty are unable to hear what is going on, and can we make sure that basic regulation is in place to ensure that every classroom, unlike so many of those built in recent years, is suitable for the needs of every child in that class?

[Sarah Teather]

The National Deaf Children’s Society has raised that issue repeatedly. The Government are very sympathetic to this point; acoustics need to be considered when we are thinking about school buildings.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

9. What discussions he has had with head teachers on the Government’s plans to end the education maintenance allowance.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

In reaching the decision to end the EMA scheme, we have focused on the evaluation evidence and other research which indicates that EMA does not effectively target those young people who need financial support to enable them to participate in learning. It will be replaced by a scheme that does.

[Helen Jones]

I take it from that that the Minister has not had any discussions with head teachers. When he does, does he think that they will welcome taking on the role of prying into family finances as well as their other duties? What implications does he foresee for the relationship between the young person and their school or college if they are turned down for financial support? Will there be an appeals system to ensure that the process is fair?

[Mr Hayes]

In my ministerial role, I have conversations all the time with head teachers and college principals. What I know—I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not know this, because she cares about these things deeply—is that such people are almost always best placed to make the sensitive judgments about learners that she describes.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I note the confidence of the Minister’s response about the replacement for EMA, but if that replacement—be it the enhanced learner support fund or whatever—proves inadequate, will he commit himself to reintroducing EMA for children from the poorest backgrounds?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman, again, shares my profound concern for social mobility and social justice. He can be assured that the Government will take the necessary steps to make sure that disadvantaged learners get every help to fulfil their potential. That is at the heart of our mission.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have today received a letter from the principal of Xaverian sixth-form college in my constituency, 55% of whose student roll are on EMA? The principal says:

“The decision to scrap the Education Maintenance Allowance will cause great suffering”

among those on her student roll, and particularly

“those with low achievement levels, those from ethnic minorities and those from single-parent families.”

Will the hon. Gentleman drop this damaging policy?

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and he is diligent in studying all these matters. He will be very familiar with the evaluation evidence, which shows that EMA is ineffective at targeting the very people he described. I am reminded of Chesterton, who said:

“It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem.”

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

In replacing the EMA, which had a large degree of dead-weight cost, with something more targeted, will my hon. Friend maximise the freedom of individual schools and colleges to adapt to suit their individual locality, address real need and truly widen access?

[Mr Hayes]

Absolutely. That is just the kind of discretion that lies at the heart of our policy. I am disappointed that Opposition Members do not share our faith in governors, head teachers and teachers to do their best by learners, whose interests we hold so dear.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on levels of participation in post-16 education of the withdrawal of education maintenance allowance.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

We are committed to making sure that young people participate in education and training until they are 18. We will replace EMA with a fund that can more effectively target young people who actually need the support to enable them to participate.

[Natascha Engel]

We all know that scrapping EMA, as well as the Government’s change of heart on tuition fees, will adversely impact the poorest children. What proper guarantees will the Minister give us that children from poorer backgrounds will not drop out of education just because they cannot afford it?

[Mr Hayes]

Let us look at the details a little more, because the hon. Lady will wish to do so. The figures and the evidence show that we are spending more than £560 million to pay 650,000 young people to incentivise them. Only 10% of those young people need that to enable them to participate in learning post-16. That means that the Government have spent £9,300 each year for every additional young person whom EMA has supported to participate. We simply want to spend that money more wisely on the very people the hon. Lady champions.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to promote the teaching of history in schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

History is a vital part of children’s education. We will review the national curriculum to ensure that all children gain a secure knowledge of British history and the key events in world history. We will be announcing further details shortly. We are also exploring ways to encourage the study of history after the age of 14—for example, by giving recognition to pupils studying a broad range of subjects, including a humanity such as history, through the English baccalaureate.

[Tony Baldry]

We will never have an understanding of, for example, the need for greater religious tolerance if we do not understand the tragedy of why George Napier was martyred simply for being a Catholic or why Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were burned to death in Oxford. If our children do not have the opportunity of hearing our island’s story, they will never learn the lessons of the past. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that history is taught as a connected narrative? Will he expand a bit more on what he is doing to encourage more youngsters to study history at GCSE and A-level?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Any expounding will have to be brief.

[Michael Gove]

Top historians such as Niall Ferguson, Simon Schama and even the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) have all pressed on the Government the need to ensure that history is taught as a connected narrative. I agree with them.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on attracting the likes of Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson to advise the Government, although quite when they last saw the inside of a British classroom is open to debate? However, is the real issue not the syllabus, but the fact that the average 13-year-old has only one hour of history a week for 32 weeks a year, thanks to the growth of citizenship and other well-meaning additions to the syllabus that surely need to be pulled back?

[Michael Gove]

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s searing attack on curriculum changes introduced under the last Labour Government, appreciate his commitment to the better teaching of history and note, also, the mildly envious tone in his remarks about Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson. However, I can assure him that a copy of “The Frock-Coated Communist” is on my shelves as well, so his sales will certainly be improving—although, whether they can match Niall’s and Simon’s remains to be seen.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the teaching of British history, and I hope it will be done in a way that allows us to be proud of our country, rather than always apologising for our history. Does he agree that that can be done only if history is taught as a single subject? In many schools, it has been merged with other subjects such as geography. What can he do to ensure that history is taught as a single subject, so that people can learn properly about British history?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The changes we are making to the national curriculum and to accountability, through the English baccalaureate, will ensure that history is taught as a proper subject, so that we can celebrate the distinguished role of these islands in the history of the world, from the role of the Royal Navy in putting down the slave trade, to the way in which, since 1688, this nation has been a beacon for liberty that others have sought to emulate. We will also ensure that it is taught in a way in which we can all take pride.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

12. What plans he has to provide assistance for schools in planning their budget for 2011-12.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

It is for schools to plan their own budgets. The Department will ensure that a full range of tools and information is available to schools on its website.

[Bill Esterson]

Head teachers in my constituency have told me that the uncertainty they have in planning their budgets means that they have grave concerns about staff numbers and their ability to offer certain subjects to students. Will the Minister put those head teachers’ minds at rest by saying whether schools face a budget increase or a budget cut?

[Mr Gibb]

The overall settlement was clear: over the four years, there will be a real-terms increase in schools funding. How that is allocated will be announced later this year at a local authority level. Then it will be for local authorities to allocate that funding to schools in the new year.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

The budget for the Grove school in Newark has been thrown into complete disarray by the fact that last week, owing to flooding, the collapse of boilers and external exams, key stage 3 teaching had to be suspended for 600 children on Thursday and Friday. What is the Minister’s vision for both the budget and the school itself?

[Mr Gibb]

It is tragic when schools are faced with the sort of problems my hon. Friend talks about. It is, of course, up to head teachers to decide whether to close a school in the face of such problems, and if the closure continues for a period, the school should provide work for those key stage 3 pupils to do at home, so that they do not fall behind in their work. However, I am happy to meet him to discuss measures to avoid such flooding problems in the future.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What representations he has received on serious case reviews since the implementation of his Department’s requirement to publish them in full.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

We believe that publishing serious case review overview reports will help to restore public confidence and improve transparency in the child protection system, and ensure relevant lessons are learned and applied as widely as possible. I have received only a very small number of representations since the Government’s announcement on publishing serious case reviews on 10 June. I also considered comments received from relevant parties prior to publishing the SCR overview reports relating to Peter Connelly on 26 October.

[Meg Munn]

I know that the Minister is genuinely committed to improving child protection. In that spirit, will he give a commitment to examine the process of publishing serious case reviews in full so that in future we can, if necessary, amend the system better to protect families’ privacy and enable professionals properly to learn from mistakes?

[Tim Loughton]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments. She has great experience in this area. What she asks has already happened, and we commissioned Professor Eileen Munro on 10 June to undertake a review of how child protection works in this country. That will include how to improve serious case reviews to ensure that they are the genuine learning tools that we all desperately need them to be.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

14. What recent representations he has received on standards of attainment in secondary schools in (a) Tamworth constituency and (b) England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

No representations have been received on standards of attainment in secondary schools in Tamworth. However, we have received many representations about standards in secondary schools nationally. In 2009, 38.9% of pupils in maintained schools in Tamworth achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C, including English and maths, compared with 50.9% in England as a whole.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for that answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that after 13 years of a Labour Government, children are still going to secondary school in Tamworth at the age of 11 with a reading age of eight or lower, which puts them at a disadvantage? What proposals do the Government have to enhance vertical integration between primary schools and secondary schools so that children have the best chance of high attainment when they go into those secondary schools, and do not have to play catch-up?

[Mr Gibb]

It is important for primary and secondary schools to work closely together, particularly at that transition point. Getting the fundamentals right is crucial to a child’s success in secondary education and throughout their adult life. The Government are committed to getting all children reading and writing to a high standard, which is why we are promoting the use of systematic synthetic phonics in primary schools and introducing a short reading test for six-year-olds, so that we can identify those who need extra help. We will say more about the age six reading test shortly.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

If the Minister is committed to increasing attainment, does he agree that children in secondary schools learn from each other, as well as from their teachers? If so, why will children in places such as Wokingham receive around twice as much pupil premium as children in places such as Slough?

[Mr Gibb]

Of course, we are still consulting on how the pupil premium will be allocated, but a problem with the current system is that 50% of funding that is allocated on the basis of need does not reach the school. The advantage of the proposed pupil premium—it will be £2.5 billion a year by the final year of the spending review period—is that every penny will reach the schools attended by those pupils.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of standards of attainment in secondary schools in (a) Brentford and Isleworth constituency and (b) England; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

In 2009, 59.7% of pupils in maintained schools in Brentford and Isleworth achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C or equivalent, including English and maths, compared with just 50.9% in England as a whole.

[Mary Macleod]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Given that girls often perform better than boys at GCSE level, will he publish performance data by gender so that schools such as Isleworth and Syon school for boys are assessed fairly against other boys’ schools?

[Michael Gove]

One of the coalition Government’s commitments is to ensure that more data are published about attainment at every level to ensure that meaningful comparisons can be made between schools, and that we can learn from the best.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the effect on the number of young people in the north-west who remain in further education of his decision to end education maintenance allowance.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

Where young people in the north-west are facing financial barriers to participation, schools and colleges will be able to agree whether they should benefit from the enhanced learner support, which will enable closer targeting of resources to individual student need.

[Hazel Blears]

I thank the Minister for that reply. The pupil premium is supposed to help the poorest children to succeed in education. How does that sit with the decision to abolish the education maintenance allowance, which currently supports 3,000 young people in Salford to stay on at 16? Is it a case of confused policy making, or is it really a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul?

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Lady will know that the evidence that I described in answer to an earlier question is clear about the ineffectiveness of EMA. That is supported by a letter that I received recently from north-west England from a teacher with 12 years’ experience in her area who said:

“I would like you to withdraw EMA”

because it is just not effective. We act on the basis of evidence.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

18. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on sport in schools of planned changes in his Department’s expenditure.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The planned changes in the Department’s expenditure on school sport, beginning in 2011-12, will enable us to deliver on our coalition Government commitment to create an annual Olympic-style school sport event to encourage more competitive sport in schools.

[Ian Austin]

Just because the Secretary of State hated sport when he was at school, that is no reason to deprive today’s youngsters of the opportunity to take part. When we came to power, just two out of 10 youngsters did two hours of sport a week; today the figure is nine out of 10, as a result of the extra funding and support that we put in. How many will it be as a result of the Government’s cuts?

[Tim Loughton]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s new-found interest in sport from the Opposition Front Bench, because he had not asked any questions about it in his five years in the House previously. Since 2003, when the school sports partnership was introduced, £2.4 billion has been added to expenditure on sport in schools, and yet still, barely one in five students in secondary schools are involved in competitive sports against other schools. We think that we can get a much better deal by adjusting the way we do things.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

19. What recent representations he has received on standards of attainment in secondary schools in (a) Great Yarmouth constituency and (b) England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

No representations have been received on standards of attainment in secondary schools in Great Yarmouth. We have, of course, received many representations about standards in schools nationally. In 2009, 46.8% of pupils in maintained schools in Great Yarmouth achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths, compared with 50.9% in England as a whole.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he give some reassurance to the head teachers and teachers in Great Yarmouth? Those I have spoken to have expressed huge frustration over the past decade or so at having to manage tick-box, centrally controlled systems, rather than being able to focus on their pupils. The new freedoms and choices that this Government are giving will allow teachers to go back to focusing on pupils’ needs.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, evidence from the OECD shows that the most successful education jurisdictions in the world are those with high levels of autonomy combined with clear external testing and accountability. Reducing the bureaucratic burden on teachers and heads is part and parcel of delivering that autonomy, as is the expansion of the academies programme. We are determined to push ahead with both.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

In an effort to ensure that the coalition Government’s commitment to greater transparency is fulfilled in every Department, my Department has published a full structural business plan. Later this week, it will also be publishing all expenditure incurred over £25,000, as well as the expenditure that has gone to the voluntary and charitable sector, charity by charity, on behalf of the Department and its arm’s length bodies.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but can he say how Miss Rachel Wolf moved seamlessly from being his adviser in opposition to setting up the free schools network, then receiving a £500,000 grant from the Department for Education without any tendering process? If he cannot answer that question right now, will he undertake to write to me and explain why there was no advertisement or open tendering process for a contract of that size?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Rachel Wolf and those who work with the New Schools Network are doing a brilliant job. They are joined in doing that job by people from every party, including Paul Marshall, who is a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, and Sally Morgan, who used to work as a political secretary for the Labour party. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will know that there were more than five organisations—there were eight, I believe—that were funded by the previous Secretary of State on the basis of no competitive process, including the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, and the Youth Sports Trust. We have ensured that the best person is paid the going rate for doing a fantastic job.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

T2. Although 23.3% of our pupils at primary school in Hastings are on free school meals, against an average of 15%, our head teachers are still concerned that the number of children eligible for free school meals is under-represented in my town and that some people are simply not signing up. We hope that the Secretary of State will be able to consider other ways of deciding who will be in receipt of the pupil premium, in addition to free school meals.

[Michael Gove]

We are consulting on a number of ways to ensure that the pupil premium can go to those children who are most in need. One advantage of using free school meals as a measure of eligibility is that they are clearly linked with household income, although I take my hon. Friend’s point that no measure of poverty is perfect. In particular, I would encourage all schools to ensure that those children who are eligible for free school meals take up that offer.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

T5. The Minister used to be fond of giving quotations about the education maintenance allowance and saying that we were not listening to heads of colleges and schools or governing bodies, so let me read him a quotation from the principal of Halton Riverside college, who is one of the most respected principals around. He says:“I believe that the Department for Education has made the wrong decision and that disadvantaged young people in Halton will suffer as a result of this decision”.That comes on top of the £1.2 million cut in the education budget in Halton and the almost £100 million cut in Building Schools for the Future, which shows again that disadvantaged areas such as Halton are suffering disproportionately.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government are acting on the basis of evidence. I assure him that our determination is to ensure that disadvantaged learners are protected. He will know that the evidence conducted for the Department and for the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested that the deadweight costs of the current arrangements were at 90%. That is not acceptable; he must understand that.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T3. The comprehensive spending review has set out that we intend to spend £16 billion on about 600 schools during the spending period as a replacement for the Building Schools for the Future programme. The Secretary of State will be aware that a number of initiatives, pursuant to BSF, were lost in Warrington. When does he expect to be in a position to announce the results of his capital review?

[Michael Gove]

I expect to be able to announce later this year the findings of the capital review on how we can better allocate capital. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that we are spending more than £16 billion on school buildings over the next four years, which is just under twice what was spent in the first eight years of the Labour Government.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. Will the Minister join me in condemning the presence of the British National party on any school governing body? Will he outline what plans the Government have to prevent this from happening?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question; she has a distinguished record as an anti-racism campaigner. She will be aware that the last Government looked at how to prevent members of the British National party from teaching in the classroom, and decided in the end that the current legislative framework was sufficient. We do not take that view. We are now looking to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent BNP members from being teachers. I very much take her point about the need to ensure that governing bodies and other organisations related to schools are not populated by people with a racist or extremist agenda. We will do everything in our power, consistent with commitments to basic civil liberties, to ensure that racists cannot poison the minds of young people.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T4. The Secretary of State may be aware that over the last month there has been a double dose of good news in Haverhill in my constituency, where Castle Manor school has been awarded outstanding status for the first time and the Samuel Ward school has now become an academy. Will he visit these two schools with me so that he can learn about how they have achieved these improvements and also see how to ensure that those achievements will continue?

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted to visit West Suffolk. It is striking that in the six months since the coalition Government were formed—and my hon. Friend took his seat—educational standards in that particular part of East Anglia have significantly improved.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T10. I noticed that in his reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about the education maintenance allowance, the Minister said that the Government would spend the money more wisely. Will he now tell us what he intends to replace it with and stop dodging the question?

[Mr Hayes]

I made it clear that we intend to replace EMA with the enhanced learner support fund, which will target money at the most disadvantaged learners. The problem with EMA—forgive me for repeating myself, Mr Speaker, but I think it is necessary to amplify the point—is its dead-weight costs and its ineffectiveness at reaching the people whom it is designed to help. We will put in place a more effective scheme. The hon. Gentleman must wait and see—[Interruption.] He must simply wait and see.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T7. Only this morning, I opened an enterprise centre in Harlow, which is desperately needed because unemployment there is among the highest in west Essex. What plans does the Minister have for supporting young people to develop enterprise and business schools? Does he agree with me that our economy would benefit enormously if schoolchildren were encouraged by teachers to become young entrepreneurs and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that one question is enough.

[Mr Hayes]

In his short time in this House, my hon. Friend already has a proud record of championing practical learning, including entrepreneurship. He can be assured that practical learning in our schools will, under this Government, be treated with the seriousness that it simply did not enjoy under the previous Administration.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I join my hon. Friends in telling the Minister that his policy on the education maintenance allowance is an absolute disaster for my young constituents. The Manchester college has opened a new sixth-form centre in Wythenshawe. It has taken on 180 young people this year and it aims to have 800 people on roll by September next year. Currently, 85% of them are eligible for EMA, yet he wants to take away that important financial support.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman will know that EMA is also being paid to many more advantaged young people than those whom he commends to the House. There is no determination on these Benches to add to disadvantage, but there is an absolute determination to ensure that the money goes to those who need it most.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T9. Krishna-Avanti primary school, which is in my constituency, is the first state-sponsored school for Hindus in the country. The school, which has won an award for sustainable design, has just had an Ofsted inspection resulting in an excellent review. Will the Secretary of State agree to visit that community-led school, see it at first hand, and conduct its official opening?

[Michael Gove]

In this pre-Diwali season, I think we should pay tribute to the significant success of that Hindu school, and to the significant commitment of many Hindu parents to ensuring that our state education can provide respect for their faith along with a perfect preparation for the world of work and further study. I should be delighted to visit that outstanding school.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

What message has the Minister for the young disabled people in Abbey Hill special school, and in other schools in my constituency, who have enjoyed taking part in sport through the school sports partnership, but will no longer be able to do so because he has withdrawn the funds?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The hon. Gentleman has only half the story. We will introduce a competitive sport ethos in schools which has been missing. We need to get much better bang for our buck than we get by spending £2.4 billion so that one in five secondary school age students can indulge in competitive sport against other schools. We want them to be doing much more, but we are not getting that at the moment.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

What advice would Ministers give someone wishing to apply to become a trainee educational psychologist, bearing in mind not only the current freeze on recruitment, but the great need for an adequate supply of educational psychologists to improve education for those with special educational needs?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s interest in this issue. As I said to her a couple of weeks ago when she raised it in a debate on the Floor of the House, the current system for funding educational psychologists is just not working. Unfortunately, only 16 out of 150 local authorities have paid their contribution, although the money went into their baseline funding. That is not good enough, and the Department could not take such a risk. However, I am absolutely determined to ensure that the system changes, because I agree with my hon. Friend that educational psychologists are critical to our reform of special educational needs.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

What further plans has the Secretary of State to improve the take-up of free early-education places by the most disadvantaged families?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and, indeed, for her commitment to this cause. As a result of the coalition Government’s careful stewarding of the nation’s finances, we are able to ensure that more disadvantaged two-year-olds will enjoy access to pre-school learning. We have also ensured that children of three and four will enjoy 15 hours of pre-school learning free, something of which the last Government were incapable. All that is against the backdrop of an historic deficit for which no one on the Opposition Front Bench has yet had either the courtesy or the bravery to apologise.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

While I truly welcome the decision to provide 4,200 more health visitors, surely my right hon. Friend recognises that if the pupil premium does not start until a child is two years old, a valuable opportunity is being missed to build, in those first two critical years of life, the relationships between parents and children that have such a strong effect on those children’s subsequent ability to learn.

[Michael Gove]

I have a huge amount of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. The work that we are doing with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), in alliance with the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who is the Minister responsible for children and families, will ensure that we intervene early, particularly in order to help the most disadvantaged children to achieve their potential.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

My constituency is in the 19th most deprived local authority area in the country, and I can say with absolute conviction that the education maintenance allowance has been hugely effective in increasing participation rates there: 3,800 young people benefited from it last year alone. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the more focused, targeted support that has been talked of will help a similar number, and may I also ask him what exactly it will involve? I am not very clear about that.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I know that his commitment to improving educational standards in his constituency is absolute, but I should point out that this Government are increasing education spending by £3.6 billion more than the baseline we inherited. Moreover, we are doing that against the backdrop of a catastrophic economic inheritance. Our commitment to ensuring that educational spending goes—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State is naturally a great enthusiast for debate. He must not be put off by sedentary chunterings, which should not take place. He should proceed uninterrupted with the full flow of his eloquence.

[Michael Gove]

I am not put off by these chunterings, Mr Speaker. What I want to hear from the hon. Gentleman and every single member of the Opposition Front-Bench team is one word: “sorry” for leaving this country in a desperate economic mess; “sorry” for leaving our poorest children falling behind the richest; and “sorry” for ensuring that our coalition Government have to clear up the mess that the crew of wreckers on the Labour Benches left behind.

[Mr Speaker]

I will give the Secretary of State a chance to calm down by calling Elizabeth Truss.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Following the introduction of modular mathematics GCSE this September, which is down to the previous Government and is widely thought to be a worse preparation for A-levels than previous courses, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the twin maths GCSEs are going to be rigorous, linear and observed by academics and learned societies?

[Michael Gove]

Our White Paper will reveal several steps that we will be taking to improve the learning of mathematics, and one of the key questions we will be asking at GCSE level is how a Government who left a £155 billion deficit can have the temerity to ask for more public spending.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As youth services nationally have already been cut by 30 to 40%, the cuts to the National Youth Agency are so severe that it will no longer be able to carry out the annual audit of youth work, and Ofsted is no longer to inspect youth work, how will the Secretary of State ensure the quality of youth service provision in future?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady underlines the great importance of engaging the young people of this country as proper citizens, which is why we are carrying forward the national citizen service programme, which will give an offer to every 16-year-old in this country to come forward so it can help their transition to adulthood by enabling them to do worthwhile things in the community, and it will therefore offer a positive message about the good things—the great things—young people in this country do. In the past, we have been too much down on young people. I want to see a Government who are committed to being positive for youth, and this Government are.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

National adoption week took place in the first week in November, highlighting the plight of the many children in care who require a permanent home. What steps are this Government taking to address this pressing issue, not least when many children have to wait many months, if not years, to be matched with parents?

[Tim Loughton]

Adoption is a vital component in giving often deeply damaged children a second chance of a good, stable, loving family, and it is very worrying that recent figures showed a 15% fall. I am determined that we get rid of the political correctness and bureaucracy in the system that has meant that many children are waiting too long in care, often never getting the chance of a place in an adoptive family. We need to speed up the process and do away with political correctness and bureaucracy forthwith.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Evidence from the Royal Shakespeare Company, Arts Council England and others has shown the very real impact access to live theatre can have on the attainment of young people in schools. What specific discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to ensure that all young people can still access live theatre, especially those from low-income backgrounds?

[Michael Gove]

Shall I compare her to a summer’s day? [Interruption.] I am very grateful that appreciation for Shakespeare is something that unites both Front-Bench teams. I had an opportunity to talk to the RSC before the general election and I am committed, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, to ensuring that access to live theatre, and, indeed, to the very best of English literature, is at the heart of learning. I hope that the shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), will join me in that. I know he studied English at university, which is why I hope he will withdraw his recent comments against John Dryden, suggesting that that figure should not feature in the national curriculum.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, demand has exceeded supply and I wonder whether the show needs to be rerun.

G20 Summit

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

15:34

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on my visit to China and the G20 summit in Korea. First, however, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in welcoming the liberation, at last, of Aung San Suu Kyi. Her tenacity and courage in the face of injustice has been truly inspiring. I spoke to her this morning to pass on the congratulations of everyone in this country on her release and her remarkable stand on democracy and human rights. We must now work to ensure that her release is followed by freedom for more than 2,000 other political prisoners in Burma and that this becomes the first step towards the people in Burma genuinely being able to choose the person whom they want to run their country.

In China and Korea, my main focus was on jobs and growth. In China, I led one of the biggest and most high-powered British business delegations ever. This helped to win new business for Britain worth billions of pounds, involving businesses all over the UK and cities across China. We strengthened our ties on trade, education and culture, all the while raising our concerns with China on issues such as human rights where we have a difference of view.

In Seoul, Britain had four priorities, the first of which was to continue to win recognition for the importance of fiscal consolidation, with those countries with the greatest deficits taking the fastest action. The second priority was to get a clear commitment from all countries to fight protectionism and take the steps necessary to boost global trade. The third priority was to help move development issues up the G20 agenda, and the fourth was to address the global imbalances that were at the root of the global financial crisis and which still hold back growth in the world economy.

I believe that we made good and important progress on all four of those priorities and I will now take each in turn. First, on fiscal consolidation, it is now perfectly clear what the consequences are if we ignore the dangers of large deficits—we see markets questioning our economy, interest rates rising, confidence falling and the economy back in the danger zone. That is where Britain was only a few months ago, but because of the measures we have taken that is no longer the case. Countries with larger deficits need to act on them and do so now. That was exactly the view of the G20. In Seoul, we agreed that

“failure to implement consolidation would undermine confidence and growth.”

We also agreed to

“formulate and implement clear, credible, ambitious and growth-friendly fiscal consolidation plans”.

There can be no clearer statement of our collective intent.

Secondly, on trade, as the world comes out of recession with some countries moving more slowly while others, including the new emerging powers, forge ahead, there are inevitable pressures in some quarters for protectionism. The G20 has been a vital forum in fighting to keep markets open. Increasing trade is the biggest boost and the biggest stimulus we can give to the world economy. It does not cost any money, it is not a zero-sum game and it creates wealth and jobs. So, against a background of rising protectionist pressures, the G20 reaffirmed its determination to learn the lessons of the past and avoid the trade barriers and beggar-my-neighbour policies that wrecked the economy in the 1930s. It refreshed its commitment

“to keeping markets open and liberalizing trade and investment as a means to promote economic progress for all”,

and pledged to

“roll back any new protectionist measures that may have arisen”.

On the Doha round, let me say that it is incredibly frustrating that this trade round is almost 10 years old and that world leaders say again and again that it is going to be completed, but that the situation still remains stalled. The longer it has gone on the more difficult it has got, because the world economy has changed so fast that the deal has become outdated. Both developed and developing countries are looking for more from the round. I do not want to raise hopes artificially but I think that some real progress was made in Seoul.

The language of the communiqué refers to 2011 as the “critical window of opportunity” and crucially refers to the “end game” of the negotiations. As I proposed at the Toronto summit, we have to make the deal bigger by having a wide, across-the-board negotiation. What changed at this summit is that the US said that if a good and fair deal comes forward it will be taken to Congress, so we all instructed our trade negotiators to put more on the table so that a deal can be done. I am determined that Britain should do everything it can to push this agenda forward.

Thirdly, on development, it is right that the G20 is now playing a bigger role in this issue. As well as the very richest nations, the new emerging powers have a huge role to play in helping some of the poorest people and countries. There is a real recognition of the importance of trade, infrastructure and finance in the Seoul agreement. I also raised the importance of continuing our aid programmes. Britain is keeping its promises on aid and I pressed others to do the same.

On the trade agenda, together with South Africa and with Ethiopia and Malawi, which were there to represent Africa, Britain mobilised the G20 behind

“the vision of a free trade area”

for Africa. Only 10% of Africa’s trade is within the continent of Africa, so knocking down the trade walls between African countries can help unleash economic growth, which will benefit them and us, too.

Fourthly, on imbalances, there are huge trade surpluses in some countries and deficits in others. According to the IMF, such balances are forecast to get worse, not better. Alongside protectionist pressures, we have seen the sign of so called “currency wars”. The G20 agreed the Seoul action plan, which included agreeing to move

“towards more market determined exchange rate systems”

and to refrain from “competitive devaluation of currencies”. However, the issue of trade imbalances goes beyond currencies. Just as countries with big budget deficits must cut public spending, which is right for them and for the world economy, so countries with big trade deficits need to save more, consume less, and export more. If that is not accompanied by higher consumption by surplus countries, world growth will be lower and protectionist pressures higher and we will repeat the mistakes of the past. In the end, it is as simple as that. By acting together, we can maximise world growth and cut world unemployment. Imbalance is not some obscure economic issue; it is about jobs.

Trade imbalances have also led to an imbalance of funds—a wall of money in the east and a wall of debt in the west. That was part of the problem that helped pump up some of the bubbles that led to the crash that affected us all. As part of the Seoul action plan, we agreed that we would

“pursue the full range of policies to reduce excessive external imbalances and maintain current account imbalances at sustainable levels.”

The issue of imbalances will never be solved overnight, but the key thing is that it is being discussed in a proper, multilateral way, with some progress being made.

On other issues, the summit also delivered important progress on financial regulation and the reform of global institutions. To those who say that the G20 is not effective, I say that the last Basel accord on capital ratios, Basel II, took nine years. With the G20 behind it, Basel III has been done in just 18 months. Reform of the IMF to make it more representative of the global economy has been discussed year after year. The G20 has finally got the deal done.

On climate change, President Calderon briefed the G20 on the plans for Cancun and we received a report from the UN Secretary-General’s high-level advisory group on climate change financing.

This summit delivered important progress in managing the tensions that are present in the global economy. In my visits to China and the G20 summit, we have protected and promoted our national interests. We have taken vital steps towards the strong, balanced and sustainable global growth that we need. We secured recognition for acting on the deficit, support for more action on trade and development and agreement on working to rectify the imbalances that threaten global economic stability. Ultimately, this will win more jobs and growth for Britain, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and advance notice of it. We should all agree with what he said about Burma. As we celebrate the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi, we must remember that there is still a long journey before there is a free and democratic Burma. I also welcome the release of Paul and Rachel Chandler. I am sure that the whole House wants to send them its best wishes. I welcome the Prime Minister’s work on his visit to China.

Turning to the G20 summit, I welcome the South Korean Government’s success in keeping development on the agenda. Development aid is important for the lives it saves, but, as the Prime Minster says, it makes an important contribution to global growth. I also welcome the fact that he pressed the G8 countries that were in Seoul to keep their promises on aid, as we are.

Turning to climate change, will the Prime Minister tell us how the promises made at Seoul will be turned into action at Cancun? We welcome the continuation of work to reform the financial regulatory framework that was set in motion at previous G20 meetings. The increased stringency of the Basel committee’s capital requirements is a welcome step in making banks across the world more stable, but further work is needed to implement those reforms, and we recognise that that is difficult. Will the Prime Minister tell us how to balance the need for financial stability with the need for economic recovery and growth?

We all know that, for the UK, global economic growth is always important. We are a trading nation. Jobs in this country depend on strong exports, which in turn depend on a growing global economy. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that that dependence is even greater because of the decisions that he has taken on the economy here at home? Cutting public spending and increasing VAT will dampen domestic demand, and that will hit jobs. The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that because of the cuts that he is making, Britain must increase exports by more than £100 billion just to sustain growth and jobs. How can that happen if our export markets are failing to grow?

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the global economy on which we are now even more reliant is fragile? That is why this G20 was so important. The most recent figures show that growth in our largest export market, Europe, has halved and that the US is still facing high unemployment and slow growth. Does he acknowledge that with growing disagreements between major economies about currencies and trade restrictions, co-ordinated action through the G20 is more important than ever? Does he recognise that this G20 was a missed opportunity?

No one expected the problems to be solved overnight, but it is a problem that the summit provided no co-ordinated action to support jobs and growth worldwide, little progress on reaching agreement on currencies, particularly between China and the US, little assurance by way of anything practical to prevent a resurgence of protectionism, and no concrete action to restart the Doha round of trade negotiations.

This was the fifth G20 summit since the global financial crisis hit in 2008. During that time, the UK provided leadership for co-ordinated global action. Why did the Prime Minister fail to offer that leadership in the run-up to and at Seoul at such a crucial time for jobs in this country and for the global economy? The question that everyone is left asking is, what was his strategy? What was he aiming to achieve? Did he have any proposals for jobs and growth? What were they?

No one expected that the summit would be straightforward, but the problem is that no one even knew what the Prime Minister was trying to do. Tonight he will say in a speech that Britain is

“at the centre of all the big discussions. Producing the ideas.”

So what were his ideas for the G20 and what did he say in those big discussions? Is it not the case that because he has not taken action on jobs and growth in Britain, he cannot lead in the debate about jobs and growth internationally? Is it not the truth that because he refuses to recognise that the economic crisis was global, he cannot engage with international efforts to tackle it? Britain needed to send a statesman to that summit, but all we sent was a spectator. By watching from the sidelines of the G20, the Prime Minister has let Britain down.

[The Prime Minister]

Oh dear. First of all, it is lovely to see the right hon. and learned Lady back.

On the Chandlers, I very much agree with what the right hon. and learned Lady said. I spoke to Paul Chandler this morning. It is hard to imagine what that family has been through, and it is great that they are now safely in Kenya and are soon to fly home. I am sure the whole House will want to wish them well.

Let me try to answer all the right hon. and learned Lady’s points. On development, which is something that Britain very much puts on the agenda at such meetings—I spoke up very firmly about the pledges that we had made—she is right in one sense. We talk about global imbalances. There is a huge imbalance between the rich world and the poor world, and if we can get people in the poorest parts of the world to join the world economy, we will all benefit.

On climate change, the key point is we are prepared to sign up to another Kyoto-style period, but we have got to have global agreement where others agree to sign agreements as well. That is the point that we will continue to push. The right hon. and learned Lady raised a point about the introduction of the Basel III accords and how we balance wanting safety in our financial institutions with an increase in bank lending. That is one of the reasons why Basel III is phased in the way it comes in.

The right hon. and learned Lady raised the issue of the deficit and made the usual accusation that, in Britain, we are acting too fast in dealing with it. I just think that Labour is completely wrong about this. The alternative to dealing with the deficit would not be some beautiful period of uninterrupted growth; it would involve putting ourselves in the same category as countries in which interest rates are rising and confidence is falling. That is the alternative, and that is where she and her party would have landed us.

The right hon. and learned Lady said that there were great disagreements over currencies, but if she looks at the language of the communiqué—perhaps next time she will read it before writing her script—she will see a lot of agreement on not having competitive devaluations over imbalances. She is right to say that this issue is not going to be solved overnight; I said that in my statement. We are asking different countries to do different things in order to achieve a maximum global outcome. That is tough and difficult, but there was progress at the summit. I also heard direct from the Chinese about their plans to rebalance their own economies.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked what we had brought to the table. The idea of a pan-African trade deal was not on the G20 agenda; we put it on the G20 agenda. The idea of pushing further ahead on Doha by making the deal bigger was a French, German and British initiative that we did at Doha and that pushed the Americans and others to go further. On the issue of imbalances, the key compromise to get the Americans and the Chinese together was again something that was pushed very much by the Germans and the British.

I think that the right hon. and learned Lady is completely wrong about this. If Labour had been at this G20, it would have been completely isolated over the issue of the deficit. Everyone else in the room was signing a communiqué on how we have to take early action on deficits. That is the consensus, but Labour is completely outside the consensus. One group of people represented at the meeting was the International Monetary Fund, and I suspect that if she had been there, she would have been locked in a room with them.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Did the G20 discuss the situation of the Irish banks which, because of the potential knock-on effects, could pose as great a threat to the world economy as did Lehman Brothers, AIG and Goldman Sachs in September 2008? If so, what view did the Prime Minister’s colleagues take of Chancellor Merkel’s stated determination not to allow her taxpayers to bail out the gamblers who made great fortunes by taking the risks that have created the present crisis, even if that led to the default of national banks?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. The issue of Ireland was not specifically discussed at the G20. A statement was issued by a number of European Finance Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the mechanism that will be put in place in the eurozone, because there was a concern that what had been thought about was having a negative impact on Ireland. Obviously, eurozone and European Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers at these gatherings always meet and discuss the health of the European economy and the eurozone. I do not want to speculate about another country’s finances. I recognise that the Irish are taking very difficult action to try to get their own fiscal situation under control. Like the United Kingdom, they obviously have very large banks that have got themselves into difficulty and that have to be managed out of the process. We very much hope that all that will take place.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s warm words on the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, but, a little to the north and east, in China, a fellow Nobel peace laureate, Liu Xiaobo, is rotting in a communist prison. Why did not the Prime Minister have the guts to mention his name and call for his release in public?

[The Prime Minister]

What I did, which was the right thing to do, was to have a very frank exchange about human rights with the Chinese in the meetings that we had, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that nothing and no one was off the agenda.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

May I associate myself and colleagues with the warm words about Aung San Suu Kyi and congratulate the Prime Minister on his mission to China?

I have read the communiqué, which contains an undertaking to ensure that we have a

“resilient financial system by reining in the past excesses of the financial sector and better serving the needs of our economies.”

What does that mean in practice for ending in the G20 excessive bank profits and bonuses and excessive use of tax havens?

[The Prime Minister]

There is very strong agreement that we need to deal with the issue of tax havens. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an announcement about that while he was in Seoul. We can see real progress in the G20 on the nuts and bolts of regulation, particularly of levels of capital through the Basel accords, but also progress covering the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions. National steps should also be taken, and I know that he very much supports the bank levy that we have put in place, which is raising serious money. In a way, it is saying to the banks that it is right that they should now be making a contribution as we deal with our fiscal deficit.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I, too, very much welcome the great news from Burma.

Industry and manufacturing remain at the heart of the Welsh economy. With the pound having weakened against a basket of currencies—it is down 25% since 2007—we should really be looking for an export-driven recovery. What has the Prime Minister been able to secure, through the recent trade mission and the G20 talks, that will aid that recovery and hopefully help Welsh and English manufacturing and industry?

[The Prime Minister]

A series of deals were agreed while my ministerial colleagues and I were in China, including a very large deal involving Rolls-Royce. It is also worth remembering that the trade mission that President Sarkozy spoke of included a very large Airbus deal, which I know has very positive effects for Britain and indeed Wales.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that our export performance needs to improve. Obviously we have seen a change in the level of our currency, but I am focusing on ensuring that all the things that UK Trade Investment and the Government can do to help our exporters are in place. I will go on leading missions to fast-growing parts of the world. So far, in six months, I have been to Turkey, a very fast-growing economy that some people call “Europe’s BRIC”—a reference to Brazil, Russia, India and China. I have been in the largest trade delegation ever taken to India, and now in the largest one to China. I am going to keep up with that. I think it is important that we get behind our exporters and help them to create jobs in our countries.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, should there be a rescue operation for any eurozone member under the European financial stability pact, the only reason why there is a danger that Britain may be required to contribute under qualified majority voting is that the last Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer shamefully signed up to that requirement after the election but before the coalition Government were formed?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The European financial stability mechanism, which was established just before this Government came to office, was established on the basis of qualified majority voting. It allows money to be spent with a budget that lies between the European budget and the own resources ceiling is, and yes, that money could be distributed in the way that he says.

That is not to be confused with the European financial stabilisation facility, which does not involve the UK. I also point out to my right hon. Friend that the treaty amendment that the European countries are looking at will not affect Britain’s potential contributions. However, he is right that the financial stability mechanism was established before this Government came to power and very much against our advice.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I point out that Members who came into the Chamber after the Prime Minister started his statement should not expect to be called. That is the convention, and we are sticking to it.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to discuss with President Obama and others the situation in Yemen? After the bomb was discovered at East Midlands airport, the Prime Minister rang President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and he knows that the situation is absolutely desperate there. What help can we give countries such as Yemen?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I did discuss that with President Obama. What is happening in Yemen should be absolutely at the top of the list, because of the al-Qaeda threat that is coming out of that part of the Arabian peninsula. President Obama and I agreed that we have to take a mixture of steps. One of the problems is encouraging President Saleh to see that the al-Qaeda threat is a threat to his own country and needs to be top of the list of what he wants to address. Obviously Yemen also faces problems with rebels in the south and Houthi rebels in the north, but we have to convince it that the al-Qaeda threat is a threat to all of us and to the security of the world, and that is what we will do through aid, through the Friends of Yemen process and through every other means at our disposal.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The deputy leader of the Labour party asked my right hon. Friend what his agenda is. Is his agenda that when he returns in triumph from his 10th or 20th G20 conference, he can tell the House that he has turned round our economy by creating a small-government, flat, low-tax and privatised economy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend gives me an extremely good script. My agenda at such gatherings is to stand up for Britain’s national interests. Above all, as a trading nation, that is about keeping the markets of the world open, and making sure that British business can create wealth and jobs around the world. That is the agenda we should have. When we are trying to get our economy growing at home, it is very important that we focus on those things that most help us back here in Britain.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say about competitive devaluation and rebalancing the Chinese economy. Will he say precisely what the Chinese agreed to do about the renminbi, and what he thinks is the most desirable action?

[The Prime Minister]

There are two points, the first of which is on what is in the communiqué. Everybody signed up to avoiding competitive devaluations and moving towards market-led exchange rate systems. I accept that those are words, but they are positive. The fact is that China and America are discussing their differences and issues in a multilateral agenda. The second point is that it is in the interests of China itself, and indeed in its five-year plan, to see a growth of domestic demand as the next driver of its economy. That is good news for Britain, America and the deficit countries, but it is also in China’s own national interest. We should try to flag that up whenever we talk to the Chinese about that.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend accept my enthusiastic applause for his principle of free trade, the growth of small businesses and all that goes with that in international affairs? Will he explain how he will achieve that without achieving competitiveness in the European Union—the imperative competitiveness to which he has referred in the past—and deregulation, including the repatriation of social and employment legislation from the EU to the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My point—this is perhaps the point of difference between us—is that although I think the EU has taken too many powers and become too federal, as it were, I believe that at the moment quite a lot of like-minded EU Governments are on the centre and centre right of politics. They want deregulation, competitive markets and an agenda that means that we can reform the structures of our economies and get growth. That is true of the Germans, the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes and many others. They are natural allies for us and we should push forward the deregulation agenda in Europe. I intend to do so.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Is the Prime Minister confident that there will be no currency war? If there is a currency war, how will it affect Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we will not benefit from pressures between America and China over trade and currencies. They are the No. 1 and No. 2 economies in the world, and it is in our interests to anchor them in the G20 where we can discuss those things rationally, rather than see the eruption of trade and currency wars. No doubt there are big protectionist pressures in the world today, but they are very much against our interests, because we export more per head of population than most other countries in the world. We must therefore keep those markets open. That is why we must work so hard through forums such as the G20 to make sure that that happens.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I hope the Prime Minister had the opportunity to visit the Great Wall—he knows from our previous discussions how important ancient boundaries are to me.

In answering other hon. Members’ questions on the currency issue, the Prime Minister has repeatedly referred to positive progress between China and America. Will he take every opportunity to ensure that the voice of this Government is felt keenly in those discussions?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I was worried for one minute that he was about to build the Great Wall of China along the Tamar river. For those of us who still enjoy holidaying in Cornwall, that would be a bad step—we might not be allowed in!

We should not overstate our influence, but nor should we understate it. Britain is an economy and country that is listened to in such forums. We are always in the vanguard of arguing for free trade and against protectionism, and we try to bring countries together, as we did with the Germans, to try to help to broker agreement on imbalances, and to make sure that the G20 can move forward.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I understand the Prime Minister’s point on protectionism and the imbalance. There has been good news about exports and we need to keep that market open, but how do we protect British industry from imports from countries such as China that have very low-wage economies?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that would be a mistake; I do not believe that protectionism works. If we took the view in this country that we should raise some trade barriers to Chinese goods, we would just be putting off the day when we have to be more competitive, work out how to get up the value chain and produce goods that the Chinese want to buy. I am more optimistic; I think that when we see the Chinese economy develop and we see a growing Chinese middle class, we will find that they will want the goods, brands and services that we produce in this country. I think that we should be more confident, recognising that free trade has been a great growth motor for the world economy and is not something we should fear.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although nobody in the British Government is suggesting bailing out the Irish economy, is it not the case that 40% of UK trade takes place within the eurozone and that a stable Ireland and a stable eurozone is very much in the UK national interest?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Not only that, but Ireland is an enormously important trading partner for Britain. It is a fact that we export more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. That is a rebuke to us, because we have to do better with those other countries, but Ireland is an extremely important trading partner, and stability and success in the Irish economy is very much in Britain’s interests.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for making representations to free Aung San Suu Kyi. He said that nothing was off the agenda. Will he say whether he discussed Iran in general and, specifically, the case of Sakineh Ashtiani?

[The Prime Minister]

I did have discussions about Iran, particularly with the Chinese, but also with other world leaders at the G20. The point we are continually pushing is the importance of maintaining the sanction regime and making sure it holds, because it is potentially having a huge impact on the Iranian regime and we should keep it up. I did not raise the specific case that the hon. Lady mentions, but I have raised it in other ways with others.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of our plan to rebuild the broken economy left to us by the Labour party, supporting science and technology-based companies, of all sizes, is vital? What practical measures are in place following the confirmation of the free trade agreements that he got at the summit?

[The Prime Minister]

First, we are not making reductions in the science budget. It is being frozen in cash terms, and that is absolutely right. Secondly, the next group of Ministers to go to China will include my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science. He will go out there for specific talks, because the Chinese want to examine the specific areas where they can link up with us. In terms of scientific research, Britain already does more partnering with Chinese scientists than many other countries.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Two years ago, the then British Prime Minister galvanised world leaders to prevent a worldwide recession from turning into a worldwide slump. Because of this Prime Minister’s cuts in public spending, companies in my constituency will rely more on the export market and his policies will throw at least 1 million people out of a job. Can he explain to the House how his being a spectator at this year’s G20 summit will assist the companies in my constituency to secure the foreign orders that they desperately need?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to help businesses in his constituency, he should stop talking the British economy down. Whatever he says about the previous Prime Minister, who is not here today to join in the discussions, the fact is that the right hon. Gentleman left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. When we looked at the countries around that table, which included those such as Argentina, we found that we had a bigger budget deficit than they did. That is why we are having to deal with the deficit—the mess that the previous Prime Minister left behind.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My constituents in Dover and Deal will find the Prime Minister’s focus on jobs, money, the national interest and sorting out our house refreshing. Will he tell the House more about how his work with India and China and trade missions there has helped our economy? Did it strengthen us at the G20?

[The Prime Minister]

Some people say that it is quite old-fashioned to pile an aeroplane full of business leaders and fly them off to India, China and the rest of it. I do not agree. It is important to try to bash down the door in order to secure trade in different countries, and the enthusiasm and energy that you show does actually have an impact, because you want to make sure that Indian universities are looking to link with British universities and Indian firms are looking to link with British firms. So, yes, making a bit of noise and taking a good team of business leaders over does make a difference, and I think that we will see trade, jobs and two-way investment as a result.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the inequalities in the world is the tax haven status that many territories enjoy. It has a profoundly deleterious effect on the economies of some of the poorest countries in the world, so does the Prime Minister believe that Cayman should maintain its tax haven status, or will he take action to prevent it from retaining that status?

[The Prime Minister]

We do work hard to try to deal with the issue of tax havens, because every pound not paid in tax to the UK is a pound that we have to raise from somewhere else, and we have been working hard on that agenda. We have just done a very good agreement with Switzerland, and that will result in a huge amount of extra tax revenue being collected.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the billions of pounds’ worth of deals done on his recent trip? Will he pay tribute to UK Trade & Investment’s role and please ensure that it keeps replicating that improved performance for British business and, particularly, Yorkshire business over the coming months?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to speak up for UKTI. It does an incredibly important job linking British businesses with businesses the world over. One of the things that I have found in the past is that, while other Ministers visiting this country have always had a very clear list of the bilateral deals on which they have wanted to see progress and action, we in this country have not been as good at that. It is about time that we were, and I am making sure that that happens.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor has been promising international progress on the financial activities tax since way before the summer. Why did the Prime Minister fail to make more progress on that issue at the G20?

[The Prime Minister]

That issue is being discussed, but it is a difficult issue on which to get agreement from all G20, or even all EU, members. That is one reason we pushed ahead with the bank levy. The previous Government took the view that a bank levy could not be introduced until everyone agreed, but we would not have that revenue, and we would have to find it from somewhere else, if we had not taken the right, unilateral and brave action to put in place a bank levy.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming to Westminster today the large delegation of Indian chief executives, many of whom he met on his trip to India in July, who are here to discuss ways of deepening trade and investment ties between the UK and India?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a very impressive team of Indian CEOs, some of whom are here to discuss climate change, green-tech jobs and how we can exchange technology and investment between our economies. That is an incredibly promising agenda. We have a very good green-tech sector and a lot of expertise in technology, and many other countries—India, in particular, perhaps—would like to see that technology brought to bear in their own countries, which, again, means jobs for them, jobs for us.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Keeping the economies of low-income countries open is one thing, but growth is quite another. What agreements was the Prime Minister able to make on infrastructure investment for low-income countries?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the things that we are able to do, by having an aid budget that is rapidly growing and meeting our 0.7% target, is to make infrastructure investments in developing countries, and we will go on doing that. It gives Britain some leverage in the world, because you are able to look around that table and ask others to step up to the mark and meet the promises that they have made.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend think that this country might export more to China if more of us spoke Chinese? If so, does he think that the matter should be looked at in the education system?

[The Prime Minister]

I do. My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that is why the Education Secretary, who was on such robust form earlier, was in China with me, signing an agreement with the Chinese Government on the teaching of English in China, but also the teaching of Mandarin in our schools. It is extremely—[Interruption.] The Education Secretary speaks perfect English; I do not know what hon. Members are talking about. However, I think that the agreement is a very important step forward.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

For much of the past decade, Ireland was held up by Conservative Members as an example of the direction in which we should have been taking our economy. Now, because Ireland has followed a strategy that largely involves having the same medicine that the Prime Minister is recommending for this country, it is seeing markets questioning its economy, interest rates rising and confidence falling. What lessons has the Prime Minister learned from the situation in Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the biggest lesson is that the Irish followed one key new Labour policy, which was to join the euro. Fortunately, new Labour did not have the courage and bravery to follow through its own manifesto and listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who fought a very strong campaign to keep us out of the euro.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the language in the communiqué on imbalances and the recognition that more needs to be done. Given the clear language in the communiqué and the support for dealing with deficits, can the Prime Minister think of any credible group that now opposes action on the deficit?

[The Prime Minister]

It is difficult to find a group that is against dealing with deficits. I think that even Cuba has now recognised that we need to take action—and that is the point. The G20 is united in the fact that we need to deal quickly with large and excessive deficits. That was the conversation around the table, and that is what is in the communiqué. There is only one group of people I can think of who would have been in the deficit denial corner: the Labour party.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

On aid, does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as the altruistic aim, there is also self-interest, both in reducing the number of lawless places in the world and increasing gross world product, which benefits everybody? Does he agree that in these difficult times the case must be made repeatedly to the public that such investments are perfectly rational, when well-targeted and, crucially, when the G20 is acting in concert?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to make this argument, because there is no doubt that a lot of people in our country look at a growing aid budget and think that that is money not well spent; they think that that money should be spent elsewhere. We have to make the argument that this is not just a moral argument about relieving poverty in the poorest parts of the world; it is also about avoiding conflict and about investing money upstream so that we do not end up with the Afghanistans and other broken countries. When we look at places such as Yemen and Somalia, it is quite clear that we need to have active aid programmes to try to help stitch those countries back together before we reach more serious problems.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The House will have admired the Prime Minister’s evasive action on the issue of Ireland. He must be aware that it was the very strong view of the previous Government that we should not go into the euro and we were successful in that respect. What lessons, apart from that, can he now draw from the Irish situation? The Irish have been exemplary in every respect in pursuing the course that he has embarked on, and they have ended up in the mess they are in at the moment.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not want to make life difficult for the Irish at a time when they are trying to take difficult decisions about their own economy. However, they had a consumer boom, a property boom and badly regulated banks—some of the mistakes made by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was briefly a member—and they added to that the issue of euro membership. I always think that the great lesson from the exchange rate mechanism is that the euro is the exchange rate mechanism without an exit, and that is the problem.

Legal Aid and Civil Cost Reform

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

16:18

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to announce today proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales, and proposals for the reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales.

I have today laid before Parliament two documents, “Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales” and “Proposals for the Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales”, which consult on these issues; copies will be available in the Vote Office and on the Ministry of Justice’s website. The changes will require primary legislation and, subject to consultation, I hope to include proposals in a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I would like to apologise to the House, Mr Speaker, for the well-informed although not wholly accurate leaks of my proposals that appeared in the newspapers at the weekend, which caused me to bring forward this statement. I was hoping to abide by the convention of announcing this to Parliament, but it was obviously going to run for the week if I left it until Thursday to make the announcement.

Legal aid forms a vital part of a system of justice of which we are rightly proud. The Government strongly believe that access to justice is a hallmark of a civilised society. However, I believe that there is now a compelling case for going back to first principles in reforming legal aid. The current system bears very little resemblance to the one that was introduced in 1949. Legal aid has expanded, so much so that it is now one of the most expensive such systems in the world, costing the public purse more than £2 billion each year. It is now available for a very wide range of issues, including some that do not require any legal expertise to resolve. It cannot be right that the taxpayer is footing the bill for unnecessary court cases that would never have even reached the courtroom door, were it not for the fact that somebody else was paying.

The previous Government made many attempts to reform legal aid, conducting more than 30 consultations since 2006. However, successive changes have been of a piecemeal nature and have failed to address the underlying problems. I have gone back to basic principles to make choices about which issues are of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, subject to people’s means and the merits of the case. I have taken into account the importance of the issue at stake, the litigant’s ability to present their own case, the availability of alternative sources of funding and alternative routes to resolving the issue, as well as our domestic and international legal obligations.

My proposals have also been designed with the aim of achieving significant savings. No other Government in the world believe that the taxpayer should pay for so much legal aid and litigation as we do in the United Kingdom. We have made clear our commitment to reducing the fiscal deficit to encourage economic recovery. Last month’s spending review set out the scale of the challenge. My Department’s budget will be reduced by 23% over four years. Legal aid needs to make a substantial contribution to that reduction. I estimate that the proposals in the consultation paper, if implemented, will achieve savings of about £350 million in 2014-15.

I do not propose any changes to the scope of criminal legal aid. However, I propose to introduce a more targeted civil and family scheme that will discourage people from resorting to lawyers whenever they face a problem and instead encourage them to consider more suitable methods of dispute resolution. Legal aid will still routinely be available in civil and family cases where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home. For example, I plan to retain legal aid for asylum cases, for debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk and for mental health cases. It will still be provided where people face intervention from the state in their family affairs that may result in their children being taken into care, and for cases involving domestic violence or forced marriage. I also propose that legal aid should remain available for cases where people seek to hold the state to account by judicial review and for some cases involving discrimination that are currently in scope. Legal assistance to bereaved families in inquests, including for deaths of active service personnel, will also remain in scope.

However, prioritising those areas requires that we make clear choices about the availability of legal aid in other areas. Therefore, we propose to remove from the scope of the scheme issues that are not, generally speaking, of sufficient priority to justify funding at the taxpayer’s expense. I therefore propose to remove private family law cases, unless domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction is involved. I will continue to provide funding for mediation, which can benefit those involved in family disputes by avoiding long, drawn-out and acrimonious court proceedings.

Other cases that I am proposing to remove from the scope of the civil legal aid scheme include clinical negligence, where, in many cases, alternative sources of funding are available, such as no win, no fee arrangements. The cases I am proposing to remove from scope also include education, employment, immigration, some debt and housing issues, and welfare benefits, except where there is a risk to anyone’s safety or liberty, or a risk of homelessness. In many of these, the issues are not necessarily of a legal nature, but require other forms of expert advice to resolve.

I recognise that there will be some cases, within the areas of law I propose to remove from scope, that international or domestic law will require to be funded by the taxpayer. I therefore propose a new exceptional funding scheme for excluded cases. I want to ensure that those who can pay for or contribute to their legal costs do so, so that we ensure continued access to public funding in those cases that really require it for those who have little or no funds of their own. On eligibility, therefore, I propose that all clients with £1,000 or more of disposable capital should make a minimum £100 contribution to their legal costs, and that the capital of any prospective legal aid clients is taken into account when considering eligibility.

I also looked at how best to reform the way in which we pay lawyers who provide legal aid services. I want to ensure that criminal cases are resolved quickly and cost effectively, and that legal aid fee structures support that aim. In the long term, I propose to fulfil the recommendation that Lord Carter of Coles made to the previous Administration to move towards a competitive market to replace the current system of administratively set fee rates. It will not be possible, however, to fulfil that aim in the short term. I am therefore proposing some more immediate changes to the current fee structure.

I propose to ensure that in Crown court cases that could realistically have been dealt with in the magistrates courts, a single fixed fee for a guilty plea will be paid based on fee rates in the magistrates court. I also propose that the same fee should be paid in respect of a guilty plea in the Crown court regardless of the stage at which the plea is entered, and to do more to contain the costs of very high-cost criminal cases. These proposals complement other reforms to the justice system that I will be bringing forward designed to encourage cases to be brought quickly and efficiently to justice, so sparing the victim the ordeal of giving evidence in court unnecessarily, and sparing the justice system significant but avoidable costs.

It is important to strike a balance between the need to ensure that legal aid provision is innovative, efficient and good value for taxpayers’ money on the one hand, and ensuring that people can continue to access legally aided services where necessary on the other. I believe that more can be done to strike the balance. I propose to reduce fees paid in civil and family cases by 10% across the board, and to make similar levels of reductions in rising experts’ fees. I also propose to extend telephone access to advice through the Community Legal Advice telephone helpline, which has a high rate of public satisfaction, to help people find the easiest and most effective ways to resolve problems.

I am also consulting on proposals to make better use of alternative sources of funding for legal aid. In particular, I would welcome views on making use of the higher rates of interest generated on money invested in a pooled account used by solicitors to hold their clients’ money, and on making use of a supplementary legal aid scheme. Lastly, I seek views on how to make the administration of legal aid less bureaucratic for solicitors and barristers doing legal aid work. I recognise that processes have become overly complex, and I want to do what I can to simplify these, while remaining consistent with the highest standards of accounting practice.

Furthermore, on 26 July, the Government announced their intention to consult on implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on the reform of civil litigation costs and funding arrangements. Sir Rupert Jackson’s independent and comprehensive report, published in January 2010, makes a clear case that the costs in civil cases in England and Wales have become too high, and he makes a broad range of recommendations for reducing those costs. I am convinced by Sir Rupert’s argument that achieving proportionate costs and promoting access to justice go hand in hand. I believe that the consultation proposals for the reform of civil litigation funding and costs presented today would help to rebalance access to justice with proportionate costs in civil cases.

In particular, Sir Rupert’s proposals would reform the operation of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. CFAs are funding agreements under which lawyers are not paid if they lose, but may charge an uplift or a success fee of up to 100% on their base costs if they win. CFAs, as they currently operate, allow claims to be brought at no financial risk to individual claimants, but the other side of that coin is that CFAs impose substantial additional costs on defendants. The Government have already accepted the recommendations of my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Young of Graffham's recent report on health and safety and the compensation culture, entitled “Common Sense, Common Safety”. His typically cogent report endorses Sir Rupert’s proposals.

The key proposal is to abolish recoverability of high success fees and the associated after-the-event insurance premiums in CFA cases. Under the current regime, defendants must pay those additional costs if they lose, and they may be substantial, as the success fee may be double the base legal costs. In addition, significant costs may arise from claimants’ purchase of after-the-event insurance. ATE insurance may be taken out by parties in such cases to insure against the risk of having to pay their opponent’s costs and their own disbursements if they lose. We are proposing that claimants should have to pay their lawyer’s success fee. They will, therefore, take an interest in controlling the costs being incurred on their behalf. That will also reduce the disproportionate costs burden on defendants.

We are also seeking views on implementing other recommendations by Sir Rupert, which are designed to balance the impact of these major changes, and in particular to assist claimants. The recommendations include a 10% increase in general damages to help the claimant to pay the success fee, and a mechanism of qualified one-way costs shifting. That would protect the vast majority of less well off claimants from having to pay a winning defendant’s costs and therefore reduce the need for ATE insurance.

We also propose to allow damages-based agreements or contingency fees in litigation before the courts. These are another form of no win, no fee agreement, under which lawyers may take a proportion of the claimants’ damages in fees. This would increase the funding options available to claimants.

Other proposals would further encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers, and introduce a new test to ensure that overall costs are proportionate. We also propose to increase the modest costs that can be recovered by people who win their cases when they represent themselves without lawyers.

Taken together, my proposals complement the wider programme of reform that I will bring forward to move towards a straightforward justice system: one which is more responsive to public needs, which allows people to resolve their issues out of court using simpler, more informal remedies when appropriate, and which encourages more efficient resolution of contested cases when necessary. I commend this statement to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been hanging on almost every word of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for at least the past 13 years, if not for some time before that. Today, his statement was a little in excess of the usual required time, and I shall allow for that, of course, in the shadow Secretary of State’s response.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving me advance sight of his statement, and I note his apology at the beginning of it. One must admire the mind-reading ability of senior journalists at The Sunday Telegraph and The Times. It was a huge discourtesy to the House, but it provided the advantage of 24 hours’ notice of a statement to be made on the Floor of the House. I am grateful to both Patrick Hennessy and Simon Coates for their ability to do just that.

The Green Papers on cutting legal aid and reducing civil costs are among the most important that the Government have published to date. Legal aid is one of the pillars of the welfare state, and was set up by the Labour Government after the second world war. It plays a crucial role in tackling social exclusion, especially in hard times such as now. It ensures that everyone may have access to justice, regardless of their means. Under successive Governments, the legal aid budget has grown to the point where it now stands at more than £2 billion. That is not sustainable, especially in the current economic context.

I have six questions for the Lord Chancellor. The previous Labour Government had moved to cap the legal aid budget, and to reduce it. We also planned to turn the Legal Services Commission into an Executive agency. Do the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to achieve that aim?

In recent years, we brought the principle of fixed fees into civil and family legal aid cases, introduced means testing into magistrates and Crown courts, and on the very day that the general election was called we signed off on cuts to advocates’ fees in the higher courts. We took these decisions because we recognised the need to reduce the legal aid budget. It is worth reminding the House that many of our actions were taken in the teeth of opposition, from both the legal profession and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. I am looking forward to hearing their contributions to this debate.

Let me be clear: had we been in government today, we, too, would have been announcing savings to the legal aid budget. That is a reality that we all have to acknowledge. The crucial questions are: where to make those savings, and how to spend the money that is left available. What equality impact assessment has the Lord Chancellor undertaken of the proposals? Our policy was—and is—to control the legal aid budget and get value for money for the taxpayer, while optimising services for people who need support the most. That is why we concentrated much of our investment on social welfare legal aid. Legal aid delivered has the power to change lives and save money. The housing possession court duty scheme, for example, saved thousands of people from repossession. It delivered a social and financial good. Are the Government committed to preserving that and similar schemes?

What balance do the Government intend to strike between civil and criminal cases? Can the Lord Chancellor explain why he is proposing more severe cuts in civil and family legal aid than in criminal legal aid? Can he say whether he agrees with the Attorney-General, who said that

“legal aid is no longer available for a large number of people who ought to be entitled to it”?

If so, in what areas does the Lord Chancellor intend to expand the provision of legal aid?

We will carefully consider the Green Paper on legal aid and the equally important paper on Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil legal aid costs before we respond in further detail. I would note, however, that Sir Rupert Jackson argued against cutting the legal aid budget, and the Lord Chancellor has decided to ignore that view. In conclusion, the basic test that we will apply in both cases is whether the proposals will deliver a saving to the public purse while ensuring that no one is denied access to justice because of their means.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Mr Speaker, if I may, let me first respond to your comments. When I finalised the statement before coming here, I realised that it was far too long, but the fact is that the subject is complex and the leaks were quite detailed but not wholly accurate, so it was necessary to go through it with some care, for those outside this House as well as those within it. I am grateful for the fact that my shadow spokesman was given a little more warning of some of the statement.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on acknowledging that Labour would have been reducing the legal aid bill as well—I came well armed with quotations from him and all his colleagues about their intention to reduce the legal aid bill. Indeed, it featured in the Labour party’s manifesto at the election. It is starkly obvious that the England and Wales legal aid system has become far too expensive, and it is an obvious place to start tackling deficit problems, which has to be done on a logical basis. The Labour party had taken quite a lot of decisions and had made reductions, affecting criminal as well as civil legal aid, but the effect of what it did was largely to stabilise what had been the rapid growth of legal aid before that. Legal aid expenditure exploded in this county until about 1999. Thereafter, the Government wrestled with it, trying to bring it down, but they succeeded only in stabilising it. It is right to get legal aid expenditure back to something nearer to the norm in other democratic and common-law countries throughout the world, which we are far above at the moment.

We intend to go ahead with the last Government’s proposal to make an agency of Government to replace the Legal Services Commission. That will have to feature in our legislation when it comes. We have, obviously, done an equality assessment, to have a look at the impact on various sectors of the population. Apart from the fact that the decision will obviously have an impact on the legal profession, affecting both barristers and solicitors, more importantly, one has to look at what impact it will have on gender, ethnic minorities and the poor. It is inevitably the case, of course, that litigation, and legal aid in particular, tend to be focused on the disadvantaged groups in society. Some aspects of legal aid are more resourced by women, as well as men; nevertheless, we have to be mindful of that. We have done an equality assessment, and we believe that the impact of the changes is, on balance, justified by the public interest in ensuring that the taxpayer pays only where there is a public interest in having a dispute resolved.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the balance between civil legal aid and criminal legal aid and asked why, on this occasion at least, the scope of criminal aid is not affected. First, we already spend more on criminal than civil legal aid in this country. The reason we do so is that it is absolutely essential in the public interest to see that justice is done in every case. It is an unfortunate feature of our legal aid system—I accept it, and we always have accepted it—that we often wind up giving it to people who turn out to be rather unattractive.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Or criminals.

[Mr Clarke]

Yes, or criminals.

Before bringing the full severity of law to bear on a criminal, however, we have to make absolutely sure that he is indeed the guilty party and that he has been given every chance to claim and demonstrate his innocence to save us from making a mistake. As the liberty of the subject is at stake in all serious criminal cases, we really cannot cut back the scope of criminal legal aid.

I think the reason why we spend spectacularly more than other countries on legal advice and litigation is that we have extended the legal aid system in the past to practically every kind of civil and family issue. That is why, when it comes to cutting back the scope, the present package on which we are consulting concentrates on those areas.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The Justice Committee will look forward to an early session with the Lord Chancellor on the details of his proposals. Are not the issues around education, employment, debt and housing, which he says do not require special legal expertise, those on which people do need help, which they currently get through LSC contracts, citizens advice bureaux and neighbourhood law centres? From where else will they get that help in future?

[Mr Clarke]

In some cases, as with housing issues where a person’s home is at risk and they may lose possession, we will continue to make legal aid available. Any cases involving the risk of homelessness or loss of liberty will still be covered by legal aid. The right hon. Gentleman gave a list and I will not deal with them each in turn, but they are all addressed in other ways than through litigation. Employment issues go before a tribunal, for example, and those tribunals were originally designed precisely to avoid representation by lawyers and legalism. They were designed to be more straightforward and accessible forms of justice. Debt certainly requires advice, but much of it is not so much of a legal nature as of a practical nature—advising how to cope with negotiating with creditors and sort out the management of the debts incurred. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that citizens advice bureaux and other such organisations are a central source of this advice. We will have to consider how far we can continue to enable such organisations to step in and give a wider range of advice, which will be needed when we stop paying people to go to lawyers all the time, as we tend to on all these issues.

[Mr Straw]

May I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said in every particular, including with respect to the commitment in our own manifesto to cut legal aid. The Lord Chancellor will understand that my right hon. Friend cannot endorse every particular of what is being put before the House at this stage, but he and I will, of course, examine the proposals with great care.

Let me ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman some specific questions about the proposals on criminal legal aid and guilty pleas. First, I have no argument with the principle, but is he certain that he will structure the payment systems to avoid giving any perverse incentive to lawyers, and therefore to defendants, not to continue to plead not guilty all the way through to the point of trial? That is a real danger.

Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that where a case goes to the Crown court but it is judged that it should have been handled at the magistrates court, the fee will be paid only in respect of what would have been appropriate in the magistrates court. I understand that. Under the present legislation, however—I sought to change it, but the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the other place overturned my attempt—defendants have an absolute right in either-way cases to take their case to Crown court. Unless the Lord Chancellor introduces primary legislation to change that, we are left with the odd situation in which the Legal Services Commission says that a case should not have gone to the Crown court while the defendant says that he has an absolute right to that under statute.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have also been hanging on almost every word spoken by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for the last 13 years, but now I know what is meant by those who say that lawyers are paid by the word.

[Mr Clarke]

We are working on incentives to stop them from being paid by the word outside the House, Mr Speaker.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for what he said. We both know that any responsible Government who had won the last election—any parties that had taken office—would have cut the legal aid bill. I think we should all remind ourselves of that, because, as we know, all kinds of lobbies outside who are adversely affected will start coming to us and telling us that the whole spirit of British justice is being undermined by the threat to their particular activities. We simply have to do this, and I hope that we can achieve a fair consensus on the sensible way in which to proceed.

The question of cases in which people do not plead guilty early enough is very serious. I hope we will ensure that we remove perverse incentives from the system, if they exist. The sentencing proposals that I shall present will recommend further inducements to people to plead guilty at an early stage—not only in order to save money and prevent time from being wasted, but in order to prevent victims and witnesses from fearing that they will have to attend court and give evidence, when that is actually a waste of time because the defendant will plead guilty in the end.

As for the question of either-way cases and those who opt for jury trial, I am afraid that I am one of the many Members who do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should address it. I have always been a firm defender of the principle that anyone has the right to opt for jury trial, and the House has resisted any attempt to erode that right in recent years. The last Government’s attempt to change the position was defeated in the House of Lords during the last Parliament, and my party was elected—as, indeed, were the Liberal Democrats—on the basis of a firm commitment to retaining it. It is not just that I do not want to throw myself on the spears; I genuinely agree with those who believe that we should not alter the current ability to opt for jury trial.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Following the decision to remove legal aid from clinical negligence cases, how will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the most vulnerable in such cases are protected, and are not exploited by ambulance-chasing lawyers?

[Mr Clarke]

At present, about half the total number of clinical negligence cases are brought on a no win, no fee basis, and about half are brought on legal aid. No doubt some are privately financed. No win, no fee is a perfectly suitable way of proceeding in clinical negligence cases. We have decided that that—as amended by Sir Rupert Jackson—is likely to be the way in which people will proceed in future. What we have done completes a process of steadily taking legal aid out of criminal injury claims, which has been going on for some years, and I commend it as a logical next step.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The last Government, of course, also cut legal aid. The issue is quality, and how we focus that legal aid.

This morning, by chance, I visited our old college, where I saw the portraits of former Lord Chancellors who had attended it. When the college puts up a portrait of the current Lord Chancellor—or he may even be entitled to a mini-statue in the grounds—how would he like the epitaph to read, in relation to legal aid?

[Mr Clarke]

The last Government made many changes to legal aid, which stopped the increase in spending throughout most of the past decade. I have tried to return to basic first principles, and to ask “What is legal aid for?” Let us now put in place a logical structure that is defensible and may last.

I have not the first idea what kind of statue or picture that the college that I share with the right hon. Gentleman might ever erect to me. I do not think that a mini-statue would do justice to my full stature, but I should be very flattered if anything at all were put up. However, I trust that the college will acknowledge that we have tried to create a logical and defensible system which can be afforded by a civilised democracy that needs a legal aid system.

I should probably experience more difficulty in persuading my legal friends and the legal institutions to which I belong of the wisdom of all this than in persuading my old college.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I welcome the continuing support for asylum cases under legal aid, but I welcome even more the curbs on immigration cases under legal aid. Given that over the period of the last Parliament some £400 million was spent on combined asylum and immigration cases, can the Lord Chancellor confirm whether these proposals will make substantial reductions in that expenditure, and if so, can he give an idea of how much will be saved?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes, we certainly intend to confine legal aid in immigration cases to those where detention or liberty is an issue, or in respect of asylum to where there may be a duty to provide asylum to someone who has been facing persecution. Other than that, we will make considerable reductions in legal aid in immigration cases involving purely personal reasons, which can include someone who has come here on a student visa and wants to transfer to a different course. Many such cases will still be brought of course, but there is no reason why the British taxpayer should pay for legal aid. I hesitate to give an estimate off the cuff of how much we will save under that heading, and I should emphasise that all the estimates we are giving of how much we will save are, indeed, estimates, because successive Governments have found it very difficult to predict how much legal aid will actually cost. Much depends on demand in particular areas, which is often unpredictable and outside the control of the Government.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Legal aid plays a vital function in creating a level playing field between the powerful and the powerless, and, even at a lower level, it must continue to do that. There are none so powerless as children. Will the Secretary of State clarify how he believes that children’s interests should be protected, particularly in respect of special educational needs in what is an increasingly decentralised school system?

[Mr Clarke]

Serious issues arise for parents in educational cases, and, obviously, the interests of the children should be paramount, as they are in most other cases. The difficulty is that the problem to be resolved usually relies more on educational expertise than on the law, and too often we are financing people who argue about the process that has been followed to resolve problems, instead of finding the best way of resolving the merits of how best to teach the child, where the child should be taught, or what support the child should have. We believe it is simply not right for the taxpayer to help inject an element of what is really legalism into problems that should in the end be resolved taking into account the best interests of the child from an educational point of view. Some of these cases can be turned into enormous legal battles, which seem to me to be very far removed from the object of ensuring that a child is best educated in school.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

One group of people my constituents in Bury North would like to see excluded from the scope of criminal legal aid are Members of Parliament. Will the Lord Chancellor ensure that, in future, legal aid is not granted to any Member of Parliament accused of wrongdoing?

[Mr Clarke]

Considerable adverse comment was made about the unfortunate case of our recent colleagues who succeeded in obtaining legal aid for their defence because, I think, their case was listed in a Crown court that had not yet introduced means-testing. I can assure my hon. Friend that all Crown court cases that might involve legal aid will be subject to means-testing in future, and although MPs are not paid a king’s ransom, all are likely to have resources that will put them beyond the reach of full legal aid, which some of our colleagues recently obtained.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Taking into account the Lord Chancellor’s wish, stated this afternoon, to encourage more efficient resolution of contested cases, will he press the Legal Services Commission to negotiate a settlement with South Manchester law centre ahead of the scheduled judicial review next month, given that the LSC lost a judicial review to the Law Society at immense public expense on the same kinds of points? It is essential, both to my constituents and more widely, that the South Manchester law centre continues to be able to help people on low means.

[Mr Clarke]

I will inquire into the case that concerns the right hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the Legal Services Commission is currently a totally independent body and is not subject to ministerial control. We propose to change its status and make it an agency, which would make it more directly accountable and would enable us to exercise more control over efficiency, but we would still proceed on the basis of having no ministerial involvement in individual applications for legal aid, as it would be quite wrong to seem to politicise individual cases. Nevertheless, I hope that the dispute is resolved rapidly and I shall make inquiries as to whether the speeding up of a resolution can be facilitated.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Following the question of the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and the Secretary of State’s very positive response about the role of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, is the Secretary of State willing to meet me and representatives of NACAB to discuss how it can carry on its excellent work in the wider fields of welfare benefits, homelessness and debt relief?

[Mr Clarke]

I have been considering this issue with colleagues and I shall continue to do so because we are concerned, more widely, about the present financial crisis affecting all kinds of outside bodies such as voluntary organisations and charities in many fields. Not-for-profit bodies such as NACAB are very important in giving the kind of advice and help that we are concerned with, so we will continue to look for a solution to that problem. I certainly promise the hon. Gentleman a meeting with me or the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who has put a great deal of work into producing this package.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor will be aware that there is widespread understanding of his statement throughout the House, and his approach to this principled and rational discussion in no way undermines the continued, vital role for legal aid in our overall legal system. He must be aware of the correspondence that my office has had with his about certain law firms in Coventry that have carried out very good legal work on many good cases within the existing rules, but find it impossible to get paid for their work and are therefore opting out of the whole system of legal aid. Will he bear that issue in mind in the context of what he has said today?

[Mr Clarke]

I realise that we have had such problems. The LSC’s accounting has been criticised and its performance has not always been what it might—hence the complaints of late payment. The commission seems to have been making great efforts to improve its performance, which we hope to maintain. Obviously, we hope that the transition to the new agency arrangements, as first proposed by the previous Government, will not interrupt that. We will continue to make sure that we do not face straightforward complaints about late payment for services that have been rendered.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

First, I declare an interest as a legal aid lawyer. Given your earlier comments, Mr Speaker, I hope that that will have no bearing on the length of this question. Will my right hon. and learned Friend measure the success of his proposals in relation not just to the amount of public money saved but to greater access to justice, because there is not always a need for a contested hearing?

[Mr Clarke]

I hope to, but I hesitate to claim that we are providing greater access to justice given that we are taking quite a few things out of the scope of legal aid assistance. However, I share my hon. Friend’s hope that we will encourage better resolution of disputes, of which there are plenty of examples. The president of the family division, Sir Nicholas Wall, has talked about how, in many family cases, long, adversarial conflict proves not to be the best way of resolving differences between parents and certainly is not in the children’s best interests. There are plenty of other areas in which I hope definite advantage in resolving disputes will come from our proposals.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Justice Secretary try to estimate the impact of the proposals on the very poorest in society, particularly in our city of Nottingham? I know of welfare advice centres and citizens advice bureaux that will be in serious jeopardy of closing because of the way that the rules he has announced are skewed towards hitting the very poorest in society when it comes to welfare advice and housing. Can he assure us that he is not abandoning the very poorest in society to a desert in which they are left with no advice and completely without representation?

[Mr Clarke]

I realise the need for such services and I know that citizens advice bureaux are a particularly valuable source of advice for his constituents and mine in our area of Nottingham. I should point out, however, that not every bureau provides legal advice or gets legal aid and that bureaux have been eligible for it only since 2000, and we have moved into a situation in which some have become rather dependent on it. I can only say that I shall consider the problem. Legal aid probably never was the best way of financing such organisations and my colleagues and I will have to discuss whether some necessary measure can be introduced to ensure that wider advice is available, particularly to the most vulnerable in society. We are all agreed that the taxpayer should be involved only when people cannot reasonably be expected to pay at least a modest sum to get some advice of their own.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Given the restrictions that will apply in relation to education funding, can we be clear that there will be no legal aid funding, in whatever way, for special educational needs provision or other forms of education work?

[Mr Clarke]

Not normally, unless in an exceptional case we are under a legal obligation to provide legal aid. Education cases include all kinds of things, such as litigation regarding exclusion of particular pupils, and whether someone has been granted a place at the school of their children’s preference and so on. All such disputes can be litigated. The special educational needs cases are the most difficult. I repeat what I said before: these are educational problems, and there should be a process of resolving them that does not involve going all the way through the courts. I heard that the Supreme Court was hearing a special educational needs case. Although I am sure it came to the right decision, I am not sure whether it was the best way to resolve the problems of how to educate a particular child with particular problems.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I acknowledge the rational and very thoughtful way in which the Secretary of State has approached this issue. As he seeks to deliver the aid, advice and mediation services as a network across the country, will he make sure that some sort of protection for the poor and vulnerable is in place so that they are not driven into the hands of exploitative private sector operators who will want to take their money for immigration advice and the like—advice that is often dud and costs far more than they can afford?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree with the thoughts that underlie the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Let me make it clear that legal support for mediation remains important in the family field, and we believe that it is a much better way of proceeding. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said about immigration advice. We have all known for many years that some of that advice, usually given by non-lawyers, to those having difficulties with the immigrations authorities is not very good and that the prices charged are rather unscrupulous. People are being taken advantage of by those who are affecting to help.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Has consideration been given in this review to the further savings that may be achieved by addressing the structure of aspects of the legal profession? In particular, the criminal Bar enjoys a near monopoly in some courts, but still constrains new entrants into the profession in a way that keeps rates higher than they might otherwise be?

[Mr Clarke]

That question was asked more frequently many years ago. The exclusive rights of audience in the higher courts were lost some years ago. There are now quite a lot of solicitor advocates. I am not sure whether the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), was a solicitor advocate, but he could have been if he had wanted to be. The profession is not as closed as it used to be. Changes are about to take place on new business structures for legal practice of all kinds, which will produce a considerable transformation in some areas of legal practice. We are in a far more competitive situation than we used to be.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

As a practising solicitor, I welcome this long-overdue full review of the legal aid system. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that we will retain a key principle of the criminal justice system, which is that no one who faces the realistic prospect of imprisonment and who cannot themselves afford to pay will be refused legal assistance?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes is the best and most straightforward answer to that. My hon. Friend underlines an absolutely fundamental principle of justice in any civilised society, so the answer is an emphatic affirmative.

Points of Order

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

17:04

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At business questions last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether it was the Government’s intention, when the House considers the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill tomorrow, to provide injury time if a statement were to be made. The Leader of the House replied that it was not the Government’s intention to do so. I have written to you about this, Mr Speaker. I understand that there is a possibility of a statement tomorrow. I do not know whether you have been given any indication of that, but given that on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, there were clauses that we did not have the chance to reach, even with injury time, and given that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is an important constitutional Bill, it is important that the House has proper time, if there is to be a statement. Have you had an indication from the Leader of the House that he has had a rethink and wants to come back to the House and give a different answer?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order, and for giving me advance notice of it. Moreover, I have of course received the letter from the right hon. Gentleman of Friday 12 November. First, I have not received any indication, formal or informal, of a statement tomorrow. Sometimes by this point I would have done, but by no means always, so there may be a statement tomorrow or there may not be. I do not know.

Secondly, I think the right hon. Gentleman would testify and the record shows that where matters are within the gift of the Chair, the instinct of the Chair is always to facilitate full and thorough debate and analysis of all matters of policy and legislation. Sadly, in relation to a matter of this kind, the decision—no matter how worthy the cause—is not in the hands of the Chair. It is a matter for the business managers. However, my eye has alighted upon the Deputy Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is not present and therefore cannot respond. The Deputy Leader of the House is present and can, if he so wishes, offer a response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). A simple nod or shake of the head will suffice.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, we have enlightenment.

[Mr Heath]

It is not the Government’s intention to provide extra time tomorrow on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. It is the first day of Committee and there is at present no programme motion before the House for the conduct of business during that day, so I am confident that there will be plenty of time for the House to debate the important matters that will be put before it tomorrow.

[Mr Speaker]

The response of the Deputy Leader of the House has been noted and I am grateful to him for it.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that a few minutes ago, in the House of Lords, the motion to refer the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill to a Select Committee with regard to the possibility of hybridity was rejected in a vote, but I would be grateful if we could be informed whether, in this House, such a motion would be out of order on the grounds that the Bill did not affect a particular private interest. I would be grateful if we could have a note on that.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that that is not a matter for today. More fully, I think I know him well enough to know that he is unlikely to rest content with what I suppose he would judge to be a holding response. I have just a smidgen of a suspicion that it is a matter to which he will return on other occasions, and if he does, so will I. I hope that is helpful.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of this. At the end of last week, some visitors came to visit me in Portcullis House and as part of the security process, their papers—the documents that they had brought with them—were scrutinised. To your knowledge, is this standard practice? Is it something that you would expect to happen when visitors come to the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to be unkind or unhelpful to the hon. Gentleman, but the stock answer to such questions or attempted points of order is that we do not discuss security matters on the Floor of the House. However, if he wishes to pursue the matter with me in other ways, of course I am open to hearing from him and I will do my best to provide satisfaction.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I probably should have declared earlier that I used to work in an educational capacity as a lawyer. I have given up that profession, but I am grateful for the opportunity to correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a display of legendary courtesy on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and it would be an excellent thing if it were imitated in all parts of the House.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: The Northern Ireland Assembly Legislative Consent Resolution and the Fourth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill (Second Report); and other Bills, HC 598.]

17:09

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill makes provision for imposing financial restrictions on, and in relation to, certain persons believed or suspected to be, or to have been, involved in terrorist activities. It amends schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and is for connected purposes.

Hon. Members will be aware that the threat to the UK from terrorist attack continues to be judged as severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. Just a few weeks ago, intelligence agencies uncovered another plot designed to cause death and destruction to innocent people. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary revealed, those involved in that air cargo bomb plot were well connected and part of an international network of extremists.

It would seem that the terrorist threat that we face is developing. We see the continued emergence of a more diverse and devolved terrorist threat that is joined more by ideology than by hierarchy, and that is technologically very capable. Small networks, or even individuals acting alone, are able to use technology to their advantage, giving them the ability to wreak havoc worse than their size might suggest. It is clear that those who wish to do us harm operate on an increasingly global scale and are devising ever more sophisticated methods of avoiding detection. This is why we must continue to ensure that the tools we employ to combat terrorism remain effective. We must have the ability to take preventive action to disrupt suspected terrorists.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I understand that 205 accounts have been frozen under the previous legislation. Does the Minister know whether there is any evidence of a link between any of those accounts and actual terrorist activity? I am not disputing in any way what the Government are doing, and I fully support the Bill, but I would like to know whether any connection has been made between those accounts and any kind of terrorist activity.

[Mr Hoban]

In regard to the Bill, and to the legislation that it will replace, assets are frozen where there is reasonable suspicion. The Bill will change that test in order to strengthen it.

Asset freezing is a tool that we can use to take preventive action to disrupt suspected terrorists, and it is used internationally to prevent and disrupt the financing of terrorism. The impact of our ability to freeze the funds of potential perpetrators should not be underestimated. By cutting off access to finance and preventing money from reaching terrorist networks, we can stop individual acts in their early stages.

Currently, around £140,000 is frozen in the UK under our domestic terrorist asset-freezing regime. That might not seem a large amount, but hon. Members will be aware that it takes only a relatively modest amount of money to carry out a deadly attack. By way of illustration, the dreadful attacks of 7 July 2005 cost less than £10,000 to carry out, and the air cargo bomb plot is also likely to have cost a comparatively small amount.

[Keith Vaz]

No one is disputing the importance of this legislation or the legislation that it replaces, or the decision of the Supreme Court that has meant that this measure has had to be rushed through in this way. The Minister has not really answered my question, however; he has just given me some information about reasonable suspicion. Was there any connection between any of the accounts that have been frozen, for whatever reason, and any terrorist activity?

[Mr Hoban]

May I just dispute the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Bill being rushed through? It has not been rushed through. The process, of which he might be aware, is that, following the Supreme Court judgment earlier this year, emergency legislation was taken through this House and the other place to ensure that the terrorist asset-freezing regime remained in place until the end of this year. At that point, the previous Government initiated a consultation on the way in which that legislation should be replaced. That consultation started earlier this year, and has continued. My noble Friend Lord Sassoon introduced this Bill in the other place, and further safeguards have been included in it as a consequence of the consultation process. I do not believe that anyone could say that the process has been rushed. It has taken place in the methodical and thorough manner required to balance civil liberties concerns with the importance of national security. Although I am not in a position to disclose the links between the accounts frozen and any activity, those accounts and the evidence are kept under review, and orders are lifted where it is felt appropriate.

Asset freezing is not just a domestic tool used by the UK to combat terrorist financing. We have an international obligation to freeze the assets of terrorists, and it is important to consider it in some detail. In 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, the UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1373, requiring states to take a range of measures to combat international terrorism and the financial flows that underpin it. The overarching objective of the resolution was to

“combat by all means…threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”.

It was clearly intended to be preventive, and it calls on states to

“work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism”.

Those are broad provisions, and intentionally so. They reflect the Security Council’s real and unanimous commitment to take all necessary measures to prevent terrorism.

Although resolution 1373 is quite detailed in its obligations, the Financial Action Task Force, the international standard-setting body for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance, has helpfully provided further detailed guidance on the implementation of UN terrorist asset-freezing obligations. That guidance reflects the intention for the resolution to be preventive in its effect, which is an important consideration when we come to consider in more detail the appropriate legal test for freezing assets.

Particularly for the benefit of hon. Members who did not participate in our debates earlier this year, I should like to explain a little of the history behind the Bill and why we need to act now. Following the adoption of resolution 1373, the previous Government took the decision to implement UN terrorist asset-freezing obligations through secondary legislation, by Orders in Council made under the United Nations Act 1946. Following litigation brought by several applicants affected by one of those orders, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, that court ruled earlier this year that the previous Government had gone beyond the general powers conferred by section 1 of that Act in making Orders in Council to give effect to our UN terrorist asset-freezing obligations. The orders were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so Parliament did not have the opportunity to consider how the UK should best give effect to its obligations. The Supreme Court quashed the relevant order with immediate effect.

Many Members will remember that in response to the judgment, the previous Administration rushed through emergency legislation, with cross-party support, to maintain the asset-freezing regime and ensure that terrorist assets would not have to be unfrozen. No one in the House wanted to see the unfreezing of terrorist assets, and that was why my party and others were prepared to support the emergency legislation. At the same time, there was a strong feeling in the House that the terrorist asset-freezing regime needed to be scrutinised by Parliament in more detail at the earliest opportunity, and that there was scope to improve it by strengthening civil liberties safeguards. For that reason, Parliament inserted a sunset clause providing for the temporary legislation to expire on 31 December this year. That is why we are now legislating to ensure that the UK’s terrorist asset-freezing regime can be improved and put on a secure legislative footing in time for that deadline.

As the House will know, this Government are committed to striking the right balance between protecting public safety and protecting civil liberties. We believe that in a number of areas, it is possible to strike a better balance and strengthen civil liberties safeguards without undermining public safety. Terrorist asset freezing is one such area, and that is why the Bill is not intended simply to reintroduce the previous regime that the Supreme Court quashed. I shall explain that.

The Bill, as introduced in the other place, included several changes to strengthen the proportionality, fairness and transparency of the regime. Briefly, they included a narrowing of the prohibitions relating to third parties, so that a third party does not commit an offence if they did not know, or reasonably suspect, that they were breaching a prohibition; excluding payments of state benefits to spouses or partners of designated persons from the scope of prohibitions, even when those benefits are paid in respect of a designated person; and a new requirement that the operation of the regime be independently reviewed nine months after the Bill is passed and every 12 months thereafter.

To strengthen further the protection afforded to designated persons, the Government tabled significant safeguards before the Committee stage in the other place. Those additional safeguards reflect the civil liberties concerns that were raised in Parliament during the passage of the emergency legislation and in the public consultation conducted over the spring and summer.

First, we addressed the legal threshold that must be met before the Treasury can freeze a person’s assets. Under the current Order in Council, the Treasury may freeze a person’s assets on the basis that it reasonably suspects that they are involved in terrorism, provided that the Treasury considers that necessary to protect members of the public. Under the Bill, the Treasury can no longer rely on a threshold of reasonable suspicion if it wishes to make a designation lasting more than 30 days.

The Government consider that there is a good case for retaining a reasonable suspicion threshold for a temporary period of 30 days only. That will enable assets to be frozen when there is sufficient evidence to meet a suspicion threshold, but when, for example, investigations are ongoing, and there is therefore a reasonable prospect of subsequently meeting a higher evidential threshold. A good example of that is when assets are frozen alongside arrest while the police build the evidential case for bringing criminal charges, as happened with the freezing of assets in connection with the transatlantic plane bomb plot in 2006.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister mentioned tying freezing to arrest, which I agree with, but can he give examples of when we might ever want the power to freeze assets without arresting somebody?

[Mr Hoban]

We might freeze assets in the UK that belong to terrorists who operate overseas in a more benign environment, when it would be difficult for us to secure the arrest of individuals given where they operate. There is therefore a strong argument for those powers. The hon. Gentleman will be as acutely aware as I am that his predecessor as the hon. Member for Cambridge led for the Liberals on the emergency legislation and raised a number of the civil liberties concerns that we are addressing in the Bill.

The Government do not believe that assets should remain frozen on the basis of a reasonable suspicion threshold for longer than 30 days. That is why the Bill makes it clear that to make a final designation—meaning one that lasts for up to 12 months—the Government can act only if we have a reasonable belief that a person is or has been involved in terrorism.

[Dr Huppert]

As I am sure the Minister understands, I am now trying to represent David Howarth—he is my constituent. What is the test of reasonable belief compared with, for example, the civil standard of the balance of probabilities? Is reasonable belief essentially the same, or is the Minister arguing for a lower standard?

[Mr Hoban]

The reasonable belief test is less than the balance of probabilities test, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is aware, but the Government believe that the measure strikes the right balance. The Bill is preventive, which explains why we have chosen a reasonable belief test rather than a balance of probabilities test.

The second major civil liberties safeguard that we have introduced involves strengthening judicial oversight of decisions to impose asset freezes. Under the current legislation, a court can review a decision to impose an asset freeze only under the judicial review procedure. The House of Lords Constitution Committee recognised that judicial review gives the courts a significant power of scrutiny, particularly when decisions have been made in a national security context. However, there were concerns that although the courts can use, and have used, judicial review as an effective power of scrutiny in control order cases, there is a lack of clarity about how the courts would operate judicial review in the context of asset freezing.

To address that and to provide clarity—we expect the courts to apply rigorous scrutiny to asset-freezing designation decisions—the Government have provided in the Bill that decisions to freeze assets will be subject to a full merits-based appeal procedure. By providing a full merits-based appeal, we can ensure that the same degree of scrutiny that is given, for example, in control order proceedings—effectively such proceedings are equivalent to a full merits-based review—is afforded to individuals subject to a designation. I wish to inform the House that I have put a schedule of the changes I have highlighted in this Bill in the Commons Vote Office, and I hope that will help hon. Members during today’s debate and in Committee.

I wish now to deal with the content of the Bill, beginning with the provisions under part 1. The effect of a designation under this legislation is threefold: to forbid dealing with a designated person’s funds and economic resources; to forbid making funds or economic resources available to such persons; and to forbid funds or economic resources being made available to a person when the designated person will consequently obtain a significant financial benefit.

Part 1 sets out the provisions allowing the Treasury to make a final designation, necessary to protect the public, where it reasonably believes that a person is or has been involved in

“the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”

or

“conduct that facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

It also sets out the provisions where the Treasury may make an interim designation, necessary to protect the public, where it reasonably suspects that a person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism, or conduct that facilitates such acts. An interim designation expires at the end of 30 days, unless a final designation is made. Part 1 provides that the prohibitions are contravened only when someone knows, or has reason to suspect, that the person whose funds or economic resources they are dealing with, or to whom they are providing funds, economic resources or financial services, is a designated person.

The Bill also provides for licences, which permit exemptions to the freeze. I should like to point out that the Treasury’s policy is to issue an individual licence to designated persons straight away to enable them to carry on paying for their ordinary, everyday expenses. That minimises the immediate impact of an asset freeze on a designated person and their family. Any further licences, or amendments, can be applied for by the designated person, or by any person affected by the prohibitions, at any time. The Treasury has also issued a number of general licences, which allow certain transactions to occur without the need for a separate licence application to be made—for example, to ensure that a designated person can have access to legal aid without delay.

Part 1 also sets out the reporting obligations on the financial sector in relation to these provisions, and the Treasury’s general information-gathering powers to monitor compliance with, and detect evasion of, the regime.

[Dr Huppert]

Perhaps the Minister could help me. Nothing in the Bill makes it clear that the Treasury is required to make reasonable licences available. Is there an expectation of what the Treasury would allow?

[Mr Hoban]

Yes. As I have said, we have issued a number of licences, which I understand run alongside the regime that is in place. That is why I do not think the hon. Gentleman will find reference to a general licence on legal aid in the Bill. This runs in parallel to the legislative framework in place.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Minister will be aware that Lord Wallace of Tankerness said that

“the general presumption is that where a licence is requested to pay for legal costs, it will be granted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 2010; Vol. 721, c. 174.]

Does the Minister think there any circumstances in which a licence would not be granted to cover legal costs?

[Mr Hoban]

I do not want to get into giving hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular concern and wishes to write to me about it, I shall be happy to respond appropriately.

Finally, part 1 sets out the obligations on the Treasury to appoint an independent reviewer and the penalties attached to breaches of the asset-freezing provisions. Part 2 makes minor amendments to the Treasury’s financial restrictions powers under schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. Those powers are an important part of the Government’s toolkit to deal with risks posed to the UK by money laundering, terrorist financing and the development or production of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. They also enable the Government to take action where the Financial Action Task Force advises that counter-measures should be taken because a country poses a money-laundering or terrorist-financing risk. The risks that those powers address are of a serious nature and it is imperative that we have effective financial tools to tackle them. We have identified a small number of technical amendments to these powers.

First, we are introducing a prohibition on the intentional circumvention of any restriction issued under the powers in order to ensure that a restriction cannot simply be bypassed. That will prohibit anyone in the UK financial services sector who has to comply with the requirements of a restriction from intentionally rearranging their business to circumvent those requirements.

Secondly, we are introducing a provision to allow restrictions to be targeted against subsidiaries of companies based in the country of concern. Thirdly, we will clarify the point that, when the Government direct a UK financial or credit institution to implement a restriction, that restriction can apply across its branches, wherever located. Fourthly, we are making provision for the transfer from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland to the Financial Services Authority the responsibility for ensuring the compliance of Northern Ireland credit unions with the requirements of a restriction.

This Bill, when passed, will create a secure legislative footing for an important and necessary counter-terrorism power. The Government recognise that such powers are not to be created lightly, and I am confident that the safeguards in the Bill strike the right balance between national security and the rights of the individual. This is the right course of action to protect our national security, to protect the freedom of our citizens and to prevent future attacks, and I commend this Bill to the House.

17:30

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

For the avoidance of any doubt, I should say that the Opposition support the aims and objectives of the Bill, are grateful for the Minister’s explanation and will not oppose the Bill this evening. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill had a considerable genesis in the work of previous Governments on these matters. Its purpose is to continue the asset-freezing regime that the previous Labour Government put in place, and to put it on a more secure legislative platform. It is an aim that we support, and one that, but for the election, we would have progressed ourselves.

At the heart of the Bill is the ambition to maintain a strong, effective and proportionate system in order to tackle the continued threat of terrorism, which the Minister mentioned. The legislation has been sent to us from another place, where it has been carefully scrutinised, and some amendments have been made to ensure that the actions remain proportionate to the threat that we face.

As the Minister said, the Bill had its genesis not only in our international obligations, but in our own assessment of how we tackle the international terrorist threat. There have been a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, demanding that states take action, including by asset freezing. In response to 9/11, the Security Council passed a further set of resolutions, requiring states to take greater steps to freeze the assets of those involved in terrorism. The Minister mentioned resolution 1267, which, in 1999, provided for the freezing of funds and other financial resources derived or generated from property owned or controlled by the Taliban; and resolution 1333 took that further by stating that states should freeze the funds of Osama bin Laden. In the aftermath of September 2001, the Security Council broadened its approach, requiring that action be taken against everyone who had committed or attempted to commit terrorist acts or facilitated their commission.

As the Minister said, the United Kingdom gave effect to those and other resolutions through Orders in Council under the United Nations Act 1946, and he also mentioned the decision on the challenge to those orders in the case of Ahmed and others v. HM Treasury. Indeed, it was the first ever hearing of the Supreme Court, which is just over the road. The Minister will know and the House should know that, on behalf of the Labour Government, the former Minister and Member for Portsmouth North, my then hon. Friend, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, brought forward fast-track primary legislation to restore the UK’s asset-freezing regime. We intended to go on and produce a piece of permanent legislation, of which the Bill before the House is a part, after consultation.

We know that, because the existing terrorist asset-freezing legislation that the then Labour Government introduced is only temporary, new legislation is required, and we welcome this attempt to put the measures on a more secure and durable footing today. That is not to say that we will not fulfil our constructive role as an Opposition and scrutinise the measures in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister would expect nothing less. I am sure that he would have done the same—[Interruption.] He says that he is used to it. The Minister and I have had a number of constructive run-ins over the past few weeks on Bills, and we have a few more to come. On this Bill, I can assure him that there will not be the conflict that we have had in previous discussions, but I am sure that he would want us to test it in Committee.

Indeed, the Committee stage will give the Minister the opportunity to comment on this week’s report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is on the Table of the House. The Joint Committee has looked at the Bill in detail and raised a number of issues, including the need for a higher standard of proof, the need for transparency on the use of closed material and the proposal that the reviewer should be appointed by Parliament rather than by Government.

I say to the Minister that those suggestions do not necessarily have the support of the Opposition; indeed, we may not have supported them in government. However, it is important that they are considered and that the Minister responds to them, so that there is clarity about the Government position and the Opposition position on this issue, and so that we do not just ignore the concerns that have been expressed but at least respond to them in due course.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I am pleased to see that the Chairman of the Joint Committee is in the Chamber and I will certainly give way to him.

[Dr Francis]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for his warm words of support for our report. Can he elaborate on why he would not necessarily support our proposed amendments?

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues in the report, and those need to be examined. However, regarding the three points that I have mentioned—including a higher standard of proof—it is my view that the key issue for the Government and the Opposition is to ensure that we take action to stem the flow of funds to terrorists. That means that there are potentially some issues whereby that lower standard of proof would achieve that objective and is still open, as the Minister himself said, to challenge and review. On closed material, very often information crosses Ministers’ desks—I was the Minister with responsibility for policing and terrorism in the previous Government—that they are aware of and act upon, but the disclosure of which could potentially compromise the security of the United Kingdom.

There is a debate to be had—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) for raising this point—about who the reviewer of this legislation is accountable to. In the Joint Committee’s report, he suggests that the reviewer should be accountable to Parliament rather than Government. We currently have a reviewer of terrorist legislation that is independent of Government but accountable to the Home Office.

We need to have some clarity on those issues, and I think that they are worthy of debate. I am not closing the book on any of them, but I do not wish to come to final conclusions today based on the Joint Committee report, which was produced only over the weekend.

[Dr Huppert]

On the subject of the standard of proof, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Opposition’s policy that we should be applying measures to people where we think it is more likely that they were not involved with any terrorist activity than that they were? That is the implication of what he is saying.

[Mr Hanson]

The official Opposition’s view is the same as that underlying the Bill that is before the House. We have always held the view that there is a need to take action, as set out in the clauses in the Bill that indicate that, when there is information, the Minister can bring forward an order and designate the individual according to a standard of proof that may not be a conviction standard of proof but responds to a level of concern that leads the Minister to want to take action. We support that.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, we will look at the suggestions that were raised on Friday in the final draft of the Joint Committee’s report. However, there are proposals in the report that I suspect I would not have supported as a Minister and that I will therefore not necessarily support as an Opposition spokesman. Nevertheless, we will give them due consideration; indeed, I may even table amendments that reflect the Joint Committee’s deliberations while ultimately allowing the Minister the opportunity to respond to them, so that there is a debate. I may not even necessarily force those amendments to a vote.

[Keith Vaz]

Although I obviously accept the thrust of what my right hon. Friend says, there seems to be something of a love-in going on between the two Front Benchers on this issue, and it always worries me when Front Benchers are in agreement over everything.

I am concerned about those who have had their assets frozen and who have now had their orders revoked; there are 13 people in that situation, according to the written ministerial statement. What do we say to them? They have had their bank accounts frozen and, in a sense, someone has believed that they have in some way been linked to terrorism; there is a reasonable suspicion of that. It will be pretty difficult for them now, will it not?

[Mr Hanson]

First, may I assure my right hon. Friend that there is no love-in between the Minister and myself? We have been jackets-off for the past week and a half in a Committee dealing with another Bill, and I suspect that we will be jackets-off next Monday dealing with the same Bill. However, where there is agreement on this issue, we will maintain that agreement, and I think that the Minister and I agree that the powers before us are proportionate. In the cases that my right hon. Friend mentioned, people will have an opportunity under the Bill to appeal, and there will be independent oversight. Those are important safeguards.

Ultimately, the most important liberty of all must be people’s right to live in a society free from the fear of terrorist attack and from incidents such as those that we have seen not far from the House of Commons in our capital city of London in recent years. We need to ensure that we take action, but that it is proportionate in cracking down on those who look to perpetrate acts of terrorism.

Having said that, I did not intervene on the Minister and I would still welcome some clarification. It is particularly important to know how the role of the independent reviewer of asset freezing will be constituted, and such clarification might, indeed, help my right hon. Friend. I would like to hear from the Minister about certain issues at some point—I give him due notice that these are issues for Committee. How will the independent reviewer be appointed? Will he or she be the same person as reviews terrorism legislation? Currently, that is Lord Carlile, but the appointment of David Anderson QC, was recently announced. Will this be a completely different role or a parallel role? What will the budget for the office be and how will the office work?

We need to look separately at some of the considerable powers that the Bill gives the Treasury; for example, in clause 31, which deals with appointing the reviewer, and in clause 3, on the notification of final designation. Clause 3(3)(iii) gives the Treasury powers to do things that are

“in the interests of justice”,

but that term can be defined quite widely. I will therefore be testing the Minister in Committee, not out of broad opposition to the proposals, but so that he can clarify these issues. Those who ultimately read the proposals that we make in Committee and on Second Reading will then understand the powers that we are giving the Treasury and, in particular, how the Treasury will disclose matters and use those powers. I give the Minister notice that although we are giving him a free ride today, we will still look in Committee at how powers such as those in clause 3 are intended to be used, what

“in the interests of justice”

means, what we define as being

“in the interests of national security”

and what

“for reasons connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime”

actually means. Although we support the Bill, we will continue to look at such issues.

The Minister gave us a powerful reminder of the types of terrorist attacks and actions that individuals and groups have undertaken, and will continue to undertake, as they attack not only our way of life, but innocent individuals across the United Kingdom and, indeed, abroad. The recent discovery of an explosive device on a courier aircraft that had landed at East Midlands airport en route from Cologne to Chicago powerfully brings home to us again the fact that that terrorist threat remains in the United Kingdom.

The Bill will impose severe financial restrictions on those whom Treasury officials “reasonably believe” have

“been involved in terrorist activity”.

I support that test, which will give us the opportunity to use asset freezing as a tool across the international community to prevent the financing of terrorism. We know how devastating and indiscriminate terrorist attacks on our shores and abroad can be.

It will be of interest to the House to know that the attack in London in 2005 cost less than £10,000 to carry out. As of July, as the Minister said, about £150,000 remained frozen in the UK under the regime. If freezing assets intended for terrorist purposes can prevent attacks and potentially save lives, and if blocking the flow of money and working alongside our international partners can disrupt international terrorist networks, we should, quite frankly, do those things. We should do them while cognisant of the human rights implications that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and his Committee have raised, but do them we should.

Any measures that we take forward in the House must delicately weigh up national security and civil liberty implications. We will discuss that in Committee, but I will look at the debate in the other place and the changes made there. I recognise that those are important, but ultimately our purpose is to protect citizens in the country whom terrorists would attack.

Interestingly, in another place, Members raised concerns about how the Bill will fit into the wider counter-terrorism review, which raises further concerns that we will need to explore both this evening, including when the Minister responds, and in Committee. I confess again that I have concerns about the coalition’s position on the counter-terrorism strategy generally. Having been a terrorism Minister in the last Government, I know that things such as section 44, control orders and CCTV usage are important and help to prevent terrorist attacks. That is a debate for another day, but I note the concerns that the Bill might be subsumed by some of the outcomes of the review. I would therefore like to know either in Committee, or even this evening, whether this is stand-alone legislation or whether it will be further amended in light of any review coming out of the counter-terrorism strategy as a whole. I do not wish to waste the time of the House or the Committee discussing issues only to find that the noble Lord Macdonald throws up concerns that have to be incorporated in another Bill dealing not just with this issue but with those to which we might return, such as section 44 and control orders.

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury said in another place that

“where the review’s conclusions are relevant to asset freezing, and should those conclusions alter the balance in favour of introducing additional safeguards, we will take them into account and bring forward any amendments that may be appropriate to the Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. 1252-1253.]

Presumably that also means that if Lord Macdonald says that they are disproportionate, proposals might be introduced watering down the Bill’s provisions. The Minister needs to reflect on that and indicate clearly in his winding-up speech whether the Bill is separate from, or part of, the review.

It would also be useful to know the time scale of the ongoing general review. Under tonight’s programme order, we will complete the Committee stage of the Bill in short order—by 25 November—and will be returning on Report shortly after that. If Lord Macdonald’s report has not been completed by then, will we go immediately to Royal Assent? I need some indication from the Minister of the time scales in order to know the product and concerns we are dealing with.

I want to raise another matter—I hope that I am being supportive—that Ministers need to reflect on. Again, it is something we will return to in Committee. There is a grey area between terrorist financing and some aspects of organised crime. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for—

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Upper Bann.

[Mr Hanson]

I worked in Northern Ireland for two years, but my mind went completely blank then. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) will know that there is a great deal of linkage in Northern Ireland particularly between organised crime and terrorist financing. We need to be clear about the Bill’s purpose in relation to that activity. There might be areas where financial activity under organised crime, while being an organised crime issue, ultimately goes towards financing terrorism. Particularly in the Northern Ireland context, it is worth while our examining that area and whether there will be any consideration downstream of reviewing and harmonising asset freezing in those areas as a whole. I think of the case of Mr and Mrs Chandler today, where allegedly money might have been passed to those who kidnapped them. I do not know whether that is true, but it relates to potentially criminal, terrorist or other activity where these powers could be used. Clarity there will be important in our Committee discussions, so that we are aware of those things in due course.

My only potential criticism of the Minister over this proposal is that it might lead to a state of limbo in the asset-freezing provisions after the counter-terrorism review. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified those issues when winding up today, and in Committee.

In general, as I have said, terrorism is a still a real threat in this country, and although people have a statutory and historic right to civil liberties and freedoms, they also have a right to go about their daily lives without fear of serious threat to their safety. The key test for the Government is to balance those liberties with the actions that we must take to ensure that we secure those liberties for the future.

The Opposition support the Government’s attempts to maintain an effective, proportionate and fair terrorist asset-freezing regime that meets our United Nations obligations, protects national security by disrupting the flow of terrorists’ finance, and safeguards human rights. We believe that the Bill is necessary to help to combat the terrorist threat in this country, and we look forward to scrutinising it. I have indicated to the Minister the sort of areas that will need discussion during its passage through the House, but in broad terms, we wish it well and we will support it this evening.

17:50

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the importance of the Bill, of implementing it and of a legislative structure for freezing terrorist assets. The ministerial statement says that 205 people currently have assets frozen up to a value of £290,000. Most importantly, the measure is part of a global system of freezing assets, which is crucial in this interconnected world.

I do not believe that I need to declare an interest, but I have a history in this area because I worked in the Bank of England on the freezing of assets under the jurisdiction of EC and UN orders. It is surprising that we are talking about this in November 2010, because it has been clear for a while that we need substantive legislation on the statute book to provide a framework for the freezing of terrorist assets. I am glad to be speaking in this debate, but it is a shame that that has not already happened.

I am glad that the Bill has all-party support, but I was surprised by the comment that it is being rushed through. There has been widespread consultation and the Bill has been through the full process in the other place, which included a day of debate on the Floor of the House. It is now going through the full process in this place. The suggestion that it is being rushed through is odd. What is more, it was clear earlier this year, during the previous Session, that there would be a Bill to put asset freezing on a permanent basis. The shadow Minister said that if the Labour party had won the general election, it would have introduced such a Bill.

The system that is now in place is based on UN resolutions 1267 in 1998, 1333, which specifically targeted Osama bin Laden, and 1373, which went through very quickly after the 9/11attacks. As those resolutions were being passed, it was clear that the structure of terrorist asset freezing was becoming more comprehensive, and more important to our national armoury against terrorism. That was supported by terrorism orders in 2001, 2006 and 2009, so the process has been ongoing for many years. In 2002, New Zealand put on its statute book permanent legislation covering a formal structure, which was based on modern statutes for dealing with terrorist financing. Australia has introduced similar legislation.

Over the past decade, we have had many opportunities in terrorism and crime Acts to put such legislation on the statute book. The Ahmed case was started in 2008 on the back of 2006 terrorism orders. It is surprising that anyone can say that the Bill is being rushed through. What is more, for the Opposition to say that it is too soon to put it on the statute book because we need first to know the conclusions of the Home Office’s broader review does not take into account the importance of doing so by the end of December, when the temporary measures will lapse, and we will be back in the same position as when the Supreme Court struck down the previous legislation. It is at least timely, and perhaps too late to be standing here discussing the matter.

A broader question arises about the Supreme Court’s action. It concluded that the United Nations Act 1946 did not intend to support actions on terrorist financing, such as were then carried out under UN and EC structures. We all recognise that it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to give the then Government the ability to put through temporary legislation to ensure that assets were not unfrozen. It is important to note that because of the widespread public policy need for such freezing the Supreme Court recognised the importance of continuing to freeze assets, even while the formal legislative structure was being put in place.

My final question concerns the standard of proof. I am particularly interested in the extent of cross-party support for changes to the standard of proof. I have previously argued that the balance between civil liberties and protection against terrorism in this country has swung too far in favour of autocracy and away from civil liberties. I am pleased to see the new threshold of over 30 days of reasonable belief, rather than reasonable suspicion. I am also pleased that an appeal process is being put in place. However, I was surprised to hear the shadow Minister say that that may not have the support of the Opposition and that they need clarification of the position. The Home Office’s review will look into a much wider array of issues, including control orders, CCTV, border controls and indeed terrorist assets, and I hope that it will ensure that we can go forward and that the freezing of assets will continue to receive cross-party support.

[Mr Hanson]

For the sake of clarification, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) will look closely at those issues. As a Government, we obviously had in place the section 44 regime on control orders and CCTV, and we were introducing legislation. We will examine all those matters, but the balance between civil liberties and the protection of individuals, and securing action against terrorists must be right. That is the balance that I hope the review will seek.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am sure that the review will seek that balance. My question is whether the Opposition will have a position when the review comes out. I am glad that the Opposition believe that the measures are proportionate, and that at this stage there is cross-party agreement.

That brings me to my conclusion that far from being rushed through, the Bill is timely, and far from its being introduced too soon, given that a review is under way, it is important that it is enacted within the timetable, no matter the Macdonald review’s timetable. No doubt it will suggest amendments to many pieces of legislation from the previous decade that have been too autocratic and have not sufficiently respected civil liberties, but we must ensure that any amendments are part of that much bigger picture, rather than criticising the timing of this important legislation, which I would argue is about 10 years too late.

17:59

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is obviously knowledgeable about the internal workings of these issues. He is also right that we need to look at the big picture more than at the immediacy of some of the things we are doing. One problem in the past was that we did not think carefully enough about counter-terrorism legislation until some great event occurred. Then there was a great hoo-hah—quite rightly—and Members in all parts of the House became concerned and wanted to pass legislation. He is right that the Bill is not being introduced with that immediacy, which means that we have an opportunity to look carefully at what is being proposed.

I have always welcomed the unity of the Front Benches on terrorism issues, although in my 23 years in this House I have found that, with one or two exceptions, whenever the word “terrorism” appears in any order or other legislation, there tends to be cross-party support. The exception was when the previous Government rather hastily marched some of us through the Division Lobby in support of 90 days’ detention. On reflection, we realised that that was not the right thing to do.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall the unanimity of view on the Dangerous Dogs Act, but it was not very good law.

[Keith Vaz]

I think that was 1874, which was before even I entered the House, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

[Mr Llwyd]

No, I meant the Dangerous Dogs Act 19—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Shall I vacate my seat while you two have a chat? Please can we have no sedentary interventions?

[Keith Vaz]

I give way to the leader of the Welsh nationalists.

[Mr Llwyd]

I was referring to the latest Dangerous Dogs Act, which was passed in 1991. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that there was unanimity across the House on that legislation, but it was thoroughly bad law.

[Keith Vaz]

The point that the leader of the Welsh nationalists makes is absolutely right. Even though there is unanimity of purpose, it is important that we look carefully at the legislation and scrutinise it, for the reasons that all those who have spoken so far have set out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is no longer in his place, and I am not sure where he has disappeared to. However, notwithstanding the support from the Opposition Front Bench, I am sure that when he gets to Committee and takes off his jacket—as the Minister will do too, in these dramatic confrontations that occur in the Committee corridor—they will be able to discuss the finer detail of the Bill.

We have not had a substantive debate about counter-terrorism on the Floor of the House of Commons since the new Government were formed. It is certainly the intention of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to look at counter-terrorism when Lord Macdonald has finished his review and when Charles Farr, who is conducting the review in the Home Office, completes his consideration of the Home Office issues. I see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), in whose constituency I spent most of the morning. He and the House will know that those issues have to be discussed in great detail. We need to look at control orders, and see whether the legislation passed so far has been adequate to deal with, first, the terrorist threat and, secondly, the civil liberties implications, of which the hon. Member for West Suffolk rightly made mention. That is why what the leader of the Welsh nationalists said is so important. We hope that the Home Affairs Committee can look carefully at those issues, and therefore give a considered view to Parliament when Parliament chooses to discuss the matter.

The figures in the Minister’s written statement, which was helpfully released this morning, I think, applied to the amount in accounts that have been frozen—£290,000— and to the number of people who have had orders revoked. I do not know whether it is just me, but I was surprised at the small figure, given that the City of London and this country in general must have trillions of pounds in bank accounts. Bearing in mind the fact that international terrorism is a global crime—taking into account the concern that we have about our tough legislation on people seeking to come into this country and depositing money here to be used to finance terrorism—I thought that the figure given was, frankly, a bit on the low side. When the Minister—or perhaps his junior Minister—winds up, perhaps he will say whether he agrees, because £290,000 does not sound like an enormous amount to be funding international terrorist activities.

Similarly, on the 205 accounts, it is not clear whether we are talking about 205 people with 205 different accounts, or a smaller number of people with 205 accounts between them. Although we do not want to know who they are—it would be inappropriate, as we know, to discuss individual cases on the Floor of the House—it would certainly help the House to have as much information as possible. Are we talking about fewer people with many accounts, or are we talking about 205 people?

The second issue to do with the figures concerns the number of people who have had their orders revoked. I have not had the pleasure of reading the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report into the issue, but I hope to do so as soon as possible. I do not know whether the report looked at the revocation of orders, but I am concerned about those who have had their assets seized, because somebody had reasonable suspicion that they were involved in, or were funding, some kind of terrorist activity, but who have had their cases reviewed and, as a result, had the orders revoked. What happens to those people? Do they get compensation if they had to pay their bills and continued to have living expenses, despite having their accounts suddenly frozen? Do we explain why their accounts were frozen? I am not sure, so I would be most grateful if the Minister told the House what procedure is adopted once an order has been revoked.

I welcome the fact that orders have been revoked: it shows that the system works. If no orders had been revoked, I would have been extremely worried, because people can have reasonable suspicions, but when they look at a particular case, they may come to another view. I welcome the new appeal process in the Bill—there should always be an appeal process in such circumstances—which will presumably mean that more people might challenge the system. It would be helpful to know what kind of information they would have during that process.

Those may seem to be points of detail, but they are terrifically important to anyone who is caught innocently in the system. Indeed, I would also be keen to know whether there had been any complaints by individuals about the way the system operates currently. If there have been legitimate complaints, do the Government propose to ensure that the legislation covers those complaints in some way or another? People might be pretty delighted that their accounts were suddenly frozen, but then suddenly released. However, I would imagine that if any of us in the Chamber did not have access to our bank accounts, for whatever reason, we would be pretty upset. Therefore, it is important to know whether any complaints under the current system have been addressed.

My final point concerns the Macdonald-Farr review. I know that it is not a matter for this Minister, but he will no doubt talk to the lead Minister on counter-terrorism—that is, the Home Secretary—or other Ministers. It is important that we have a timetable for concluding the review that the Government have set up. I recently wrote to the Home Secretary asking for that timetable. It is important that we know precisely at which point the internal review being conducted by Charles Farr is drawn up and when the views of Lord Macdonald come into any consideration. Do they prevail over what has happened? Those are not issues for this Minister; they are issues for the Home Office. However, in the overarching discussions that are no doubt taking place in Government, they are issues to be considered by all.

The leader of Plaid Cymru reminded us—certainly me—that Parliament legislates in haste and repents at leisure. The hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the Bill was not being rushed through, which we welcome, but a timetable in which the legislation has to return to us in seven days is quite fast. I am not sure how many sittings the Minister intends for scrutiny. It is sometimes considered that those who speak on Second Reading wish to sit in Committee, so I would like to make it clear to any Whips who might be present that I have no desire to sit in the Public Bill Committee. If we are to scrutinise the legislation carefully, however, and if it is going to be with us for some time, we should take into account the concerns of the Plaid Cymru leader and ensure that we scrutinise this Bill very carefully indeed.

18:10

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, on which I also have the privilege to serve. He did indeed visit my constituency of Cambridge this morning and he will doubtless have understood something of the expertise of some of my residents and constituents. He did not on this occasion meet David Howarth—he will be known to most hon. Members as a great constituency MP and an expert on these issues—who worked hard on this legislation and I pay tribute to him for what he did.

The aim of the new revised Bill is clear, and I suspect that no Member would have any problem with it. We need to control terrorism and we need to control the flow of funds for terrorism. We support, of course, UN Security Council resolutions, particularly resolution 1373, although others are also relevant. We all share those aims, so the question is how best to go about achieving them.

Earlier this year, the order was held to be ultra vires in respect of the United Nations Act 1946. Lord Phillips used strong phraseology when he said:

“The draconian nature of the regime imposed under these asset-freezing Orders can hardly be overstated.”

I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that what he meant was not that these were draconian because they were orders, but that they were draconian because of their content. So we need to be careful before reintroducing measures that are very similar to those orders.

There was a Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010. I shall not enter into the argument over whether this particular Bill is being rushed through, but the temporary one clearly was in an effort to catch up with what happens when Government do not take account of legal processes. This Bill is better than the previous temporary one. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that. I am grateful that a number of amendments were accepted in the other place, which have significantly improved the Bill.

I nevertheless have a number of concerns about the Bill, and these are echoed by organisations that are familiar to us all: Liberty, Justice, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I also have the pleasure to serve. I urge Members to look at our short and simple report, which makes a number of clear suggestions and proposes amendments, which I, if nobody else, will table. The key issue is that we must not treat those people whose assets we freeze as effectively “prisoners of the state”, as Lord Hope of Craighead said. That is not the correct intention; we should be careful about that.

I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I shall speak briefly about the amendments that I wish to table. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to many of the issues tonight, which will save time later on in the proceedings. Before I do so, I want to point out a few areas that I believe are missing from the Bill, which is a shame. I would not go so far as to mention the whole counter-terror review, but the Bill does not deal with the parallel asset-freezing powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 or the terrorist financing provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000—despite the fact that the Privy Council recommended in 2003 that these be rationalised. Surely it makes sense to bring legislation together and make it clearer.

I am also concerned that the Bill fails to deal with those designated by the European Union. Under this legislation, such people have no right to appeal or review a decision to put them on the list. I find that disappointing. I am sure that some hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, would naturally be wary of any instruction from the EU. In this case, although not in many others, I agree with them. We should find a way to safeguard British citizens from this process and provide them with some form of appeal or review. I believe that amending provisions could be added to clauses 26 and 27.

There is a fundamental issue at the heart of the matter, which I do not believe has been properly discussed—at least not in this House. It comes down to who should decide whose assets should be frozen. Should it be the Government or the Treasury, as in the Bill; or should it be a court? Do we want punishments—that is what these provisions amount to—to be dealt with by Government or by the judiciary? The appeals process is, I acknowledge, a significant improvement on what obtained before.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am trying to follow the hon. Member’s argument, but does not the concept of a judicial implementation of asset-freezing contradict the fact that this is a global system? Whether it is done through the EU or the UN, the designation is done at that global level and then executed in the UK. The decision is not made in the UK, so while the right of appeal is important, it is crucial that the Executive can freeze assets rapidly in response to a global proposition.

[Dr Huppert]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not correct about that. There are cases where the Treasury designates and it is that act of designation that counts. The provisions could be changed simply—I will propose the wording later—so that the Treasury requests the courts to designate; there would be nothing amiss in so doing.

The present situation is that there is a freeze and then there is an appeal. One problem with that cycle—not to mention the problem of where the power lies—is that the onus is on the affected person to find a way to make an appeal. They will have to get legal advice first and get clearance to secure the funds in order to pay for such advice. I hope that we will have absolute clarity from the Minister on whether they will always be able to get access to the funds necessary to clear their name. They will then have to apply and have their case heard. As I will explain in more detail later, they may not even know the case against them.

That highlights the real questions over who should make these judgments. I think it should be a court that determines the freeze and that it should be done ex parte. I absolutely accept that the courts should be able to go through the process without warning the accused in advance, because if they can simply move the money or assets somewhere else, it will not work, but the courts need to be involved and the people accused must be given a chance to make their case fairly.

I would also like to deal with the issue of standards of proof. I have put the issue to both Front-Bench teams and I have asked a number of colleagues—legal and otherwise—what the standard of proof should be before we take an action like freezing someone’s assets. Should it be the criminal standard of proof or should it be the civil standard? I have been fascinated by the number of people who think that they are somewhat illiberal in believing that it should be a bit below the criminal level. I have heard that from a number of colleagues.

Should things be done separately? Should we require people to have been convicted, tried or just arrested before we apply the provisions? When I asked him earlier, the Minister referred to the problem of arresting non-UK people, and I accept his point, which was well made. I nevertheless seek an assurance that the people involved will at least have been through a process of arrest—for people in the UK, where that is appropriate—and that at least consideration will have been given to taking the person through the full legal processes of trial and conviction. Security Council resolution 1373, with which we are trying to comply, requires us to deal with those who

“commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts”.

It does not say anything about those we “suspect” of committing such acts, so the Bill goes beyond what is required by the Security Council.

I understand the argument for having a slightly lower standard for the interim powers, although I would ask why it was decided to go for 30 days and whether “reasonably suspect” is the appropriate provision. I am very concerned, however, about the idea of “reasonable belief” for a final designation. That means treating people below the civil standard, which is essentially a 50:50. We are saying that it is just as likely to be one way as the other. That is the civil test. The Government are seeking to freeze people’s assets in circumstances where they believe that it is more likely than not that those people were not involved in terrorist activities. I find that alarming. If we think people were probably not involved, we should not freeze their assets. In the Government’s defence, I have to say that the Opposition seem to think that the degree of involvement in terrorist activities could be even less before these provisions are applied, which I find significantly worse.

These are draconian powers and we should be sure, to a reasonably high standard of proof—I could even accept a balance of probabilities—that the people are likely to have been involved with terrorist offences. I am also concerned about what is meant by a “terrorist offence”. Many concerns have arisen over a number of years where actions have been described inappropriately as terrorist offences. I am sure that Members are aware of the figures relating to section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2009. According to the latest figure that I have seen, 101,248 people were stopped and searched and none was arrested for terrorism-related offences. Does that constitute involvement in terrorism? How do we define the term?

[Keith Vaz]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the amount of money that has been seized—about £290,000, although the figure varies according to the fluctuations of currencies? According to a note attached to the Minister’s speech, the amount could actually be less than £290,000, as it depends on the value of the pound. That is approximately the cost of a one-bedroom flat in Westminster North.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not entirely sure how that is relevant to what I was saying, but I do indeed find it astonishing. I suspect that the public, if they thought about the matter, would imagine very large sums, although that might be a result of their having watched too many James Bond films. I certainly find it surprising that we are concerned with the net sum of roughly a quarter of a million pounds.

[Matthew Hancock]

I understand the figure of just under £290,000 to be the amount that is currently frozen, rather than the amount that has been frozen over time. Past figures have been much higher.

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed, but I still consider it to be a relatively small amount. It is certainly a smaller amount than I would have expected if I had not seen any of the data.

Let me return to the question of what constitutes a terrorist offence. We know of specific instances of arrests using anti-terrorism powers that have been deeply inappropriate. I am sure that Members will recall the case of Walter Wolfgang, who was ejected from a Labour party conference and arrested—under anti-terror legislation—when he tried to return. I do not think that we should pass Bills allowing us to deal in such a way with people like that—or indeed Iceland, which was also subject to anti-terror rules, or the BBC photographer Jeff Overs, who was stopped while taking photographs of St Paul’s Cathedral in November 2009 and arrested under the same rules. Surely that is not what the Bill ought to be about.

I should welcome a stricter definition of terror offences from the Minister. As ever, we are seeing an expansion of the present definition. Another recent example, which is highly topical at present, is that of a gentleman called Paul Chambers, who was recently convicted of sending a menacing tweet that threatened a terrorist activity. It read:

“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!”

I should add at this point, for reasons of which some Members may be aware, that I am Spartacus.

The tweet led to a conviction under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 for

“Improper use of public electronic communications network”.

Surely that is not appropriate. The tweet did not actually threaten terrorist activity. It led to legal fees of £3,000 and the loss of the gentleman’s job, which is utterly ridiculous. We need to be careful about allowing these powers to expand and take in more cases. I need hardly remind Members that Jean Charles de Menezes was also “reasonably believed” to have been involved in terrorist activity.

We must also be clear about the reasons for which someone’s assets are being frozen. I fear that the Bill currently allows far too little information to be given to individuals to enable them to defend themselves. I would propose an amendment suggesting that as much information as possible must be given to the relevant person. We must bear in mind the possible public interest in non-disclosure, but, except when it simply is not possible, the balance should be in favour of openness, so that people can genuinely defend themselves.

Similarly, we should require a fair trial and a fair hearing. I would propose an amendment making it clear that the accused must have enough information to be able to instruct the defence. That is an essential part of a fair trial. The report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights contains a detailed case analysis, drawing a comparison with control orders. Many of us are concerned about the impact of excessive powers when victims have had no opportunity to defend themselves properly, and advocates in closed courts do not enable them to know what is going on.

The Government rely on a very thin distinction to avoid some of the legal hearings that have resulted from control orders. They argue that judges have commented that control orders do not apply to terrorist asset-freezing. I do not buy such arguments. I urge the Government to adjust the Bill now so that it works, rather than doing what the last Government did so often: waiting until an expensive court case arose, then being forced yet again to amend legislation in an ongoing cycle.

The role of Parliament is important. I am pleased that reports are to be made, but I believe that they should be made to Parliament rather than to Government. We have a responsibility to the people to verify that the powers are being used. The independent reviewer should be confirmed by Parliament, and should report to Parliament. It should not be up to the Treasury to vet reports before passing them to us; that should be our responsibility.

As I said to the Minister earlier, I am concerned about the licences that are dealt with in clause 17. It should be made absolutely clear that the Government will ensure that there are sufficient funds for reasonable living. As far as I can see, no such requirement currently exists. According to Lord Wallace of Tankerness, there is a “general presumption” that more is needed.

I am also concerned about the level of information that is required by clause 20. It may be very onerous to provide that level of information if the Treasury chooses to make it so. In the case of Ahmed, the Supreme Court noted the extraordinary burden that the requirement could place on a designated person. For example, the wife of one of the designated persons was

“required to report to the Treasury on every item of expenditure, however small, including expenditure by her children”.

Is that really what we want, and what we expect from the Bill? Designated persons will have limited funds anyway. Do we actually want the Treasury to go through itemised lists of toiletries, sweets, school books and bus tickets? The Bill should make clear provision for no account to be taken of very small amounts.

Clause 22 raises the issue of self-incrimination. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights includes a privilege against it, but the Bill does not. According to the Government in the other place,

“the right against self-incrimination would form a reasonable excuse”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 2010; Vol. 721, c. 197.]

It would form a reasonable excuse, that is, to refuse to comply with a request for such information in clause 22. I think that that should be made clear in the Bill. The onus should not be on the accused to make the case after being prosecuted for providing the information.

Another fascinating part of the Bill which I hope can be changed is clause 25(1), which states:

“Nothing done under this Chapter is to be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.”

There are a couple of exceptions, but I find that very concerning. It appears that the Bill is exempt from all rules that might apply to it except the two that are listed in the clause. That might catch, for example, the Human Rights Act. I see nothing in the Bill suggesting that the Act applies to it. Indeed—although I am sure that it would be tested in court—it could be argued that the clause expressly states that the Bill is exempt from the Act’s provisions. I hope that that is not what the Government intend. Similarly, what about common law torts? What about negligence? What about defamation? Nothing in the Bill secures any of those aspects of common law. I hope that the Government will replace section 25(1) with a provision that actually states what they probably intended. At present, it is dangerously unclear.

Asset-freezing is a very strong power, but a very necessary one. Because it is so strong and because it can be so draconian, it must be fair and properly controlled, and it must be applied only to those who are actually involved with terrorist activities.

18:28

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I believe that we need a system of asset freezing. It would be idiotic for anyone to argue that that is not necessary in this day and age, given the link between organised crime and terrorism. It occurs not just in Northern Ireland but, I am sure, throughout the United Kingdom. I take it as read that every Member in the Chamber believes in the principle of asset freezing. The next issue that arises is how we arrive at that position and ensure that it is compatible with people’s civil rights. That is important. I am not a bleeding-heart leftie as such, but I do believe that we have basic human rights and that we need to observe them. Indeed, we are obliged to do so by international law, and by domestic law too now.

I referred in my discussion with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) to the apparent unanimity between the two Front-Bench teams, and I mentioned the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It was introduced following some terrible incidents involving Staffordshire bull terriers maiming people and, in one instance, killing a child. The rush to legislate was understandable, but the measures were not properly scrutinised and, to this day, the Act is unworkable.

Another such Act has passed through the House during my tenure and that of the right hon. Gentleman, namely the gun control legislation following the Dunblane massacre. Everybody was appalled by that massacre, but we rushed to legislate without adequately scrutinising the measures we were putting in place, and I am afraid that the resulting Act did nothing to control the use of illegal firearms. My point is that scrutiny is vital, and that unanimity of purpose between both the Front-Bench teams, and, indeed, all Members, does not matter, because at the end of the day every one of us has a duty to ensure that our constituents live in a safe environment and that we can deal with the terrorism that might threaten them.

There is clearly a terrorist threat; only a fool would deny that. Having said that however, let us examine the Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred in his opening speech to United Nations Security Council resolution 1373. It includes a requirement that UN member states must prevent the financing of acts of terrorism, including by the freezing of funds and economic resources

“of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts”,

and that they must prohibit

“their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets or economic resources”

available to such persons. I submit that there is a world of difference between that requirement and what is being proposed in the Bill.

Initially, the Bill stated that its powers could be used if there was a suspicion that a person might be involved in some form of terrorism. That has now been strengthened somewhat: there must now be a reasonable belief that they are involved. That is quite different from what the UN is calling for, however, and in my view it does not strike the appropriate balance between protecting national security and preserving civil liberties. It is vital that we do that, and this is precisely why so many pieces of anti-terrorism legislation have been struck down by the courts. That has happened not because there is all-out war between the courts and Parliament, but quite simply because we have not been getting that essential balance right.

I believe that if we subject the Bill to proper scrutiny, we can work towards ensuring that we get the balance right. I do not want us to have to argue the same points again in a few months, after the Supreme Court has knocked some of the Bill’s measures on the head a second or a third time because of a perceived lack of respect for human rights.

As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) mentioned, this Bill gives powers to the Executive, not the judiciary, and those powers are potentially harsh and punitive. As has been said, it is a form of punishment for someone to have all their assets frozen—one might argue that it is almost as bad as dealing with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but perhaps we should not go there, folks. There is a right of appeal, which is welcome, but these measures deal with persons about whom it has not been established that they have ever been involved in terrorism, but when there is just a reasonable belief that they could be, or might at some stage have been, involved in some act of terrorism.

I have concerns about the Bill, therefore, and I know that Justice and Liberty also have grave concerns. Let me repeat that I want a proper framework set up. I am not arguing an empty case—I am not saying that I oppose just for the sake of opposing. I want the legislation to be workable and to be seen to be acceptable, and for it to be tested by the courts and to be found acceptable to them. If we ensure that that is the case, we will have done our duty as parliamentarians in that we will have introduced good law.

Allowing the Executive to designate individuals as suspected terrorists is unacceptable. As the deputy president of the Supreme Court has said, these people are

“effectively prisoners of the state.”

Those are strong words from a Supreme Court judge, and I do not think he would have said them unless he felt strongly about the issue.

The Bill goes much further than is required by UN Security Council resolution 1373, a resolution that the UN’s own special rapporteur on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights has said

“cannot be seen as a proper response to a specific threat to international peace and security”.

I also believe the Bill fails to address the UK’s asset-freezing obligations under UN Security Council resolution 1267, recently criticised by the General Court of the European Union as “particularly draconian”.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some fine points, but does he accept that global co-operation is required to combat global terrorism and the financing it utilises, and that that is the intent behind the UN’s actions on this, following the terrible events of 11 September 2001? Does he also agree that for that reason global organisations, such as the committee the UN has set up, must issue orders internationally to all countries to freeze assets? The UK is absolutely key in implementing such orders given the role we play in international finance, and bringing courts into this would make any orders terribly difficult to implement.

[Mr Llwyd]

I do not disagree with that. We are a member of the UN, and we need to co-operate, and I do not disagree with the need for a framework. All that is understandable, but what I am saying is that we want a fair framework, and one that will stand the test of time and not be struck down because of some perceived illegality. That is all I am saying. I am probably ad idem with the hon. Gentleman on the whole issue. I appreciate that this is a global problem. That is why it is, quite rightly, being tackled by the UN, but my point is that we need to be careful about how we introduce any measures.

Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, has said that the basic rights to which I am referring are a “vital part” of the fight against terrorism. He said:

“The so called ‘war against terrorism’ is not so much a military as an ideological battle. Respect for human rights is a key weapon in that ideological battle. Since the Second World War we in Britain have welcomed to the United Kingdom millions of immigrants from all corners of the globe…The Human Rights Act is not merely their safeguard. It is a vital part of the foundation of our fight against terrorism.”

As I have said in respect of resolution 1373, we are going further than required, and by imposing the freezing of assets we could be in breach of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. We must also consider the right to respect for family and private life under article 8, and the right of access to a court under article 6. People who will be subject to these freezing orders will not necessarily know the case against them, which is a clear breach of article 6.

The deputy president of the Supreme Court, Lord Hope, described the effect of designation by the Treasury in the following terms:

“It is no exaggeration to say…that designated persons are effectively prisoners of the state…their freedom of movement is severely restricted without access to funds or other economic resources, and the effect on both them and their families can be devastating.”

So there it is. The hon. Member for Cambridge described the powers as “draconian”, and they are certainly strong and punitive by nature.

In the Ahmed case, the Supreme Court held that the United Nations Act 1946 did not give the Treasury the power to make such a broad order and the asset-freezing regime was immediately voided. Rather unusually, the Supreme Court refused to grant a stay of execution of its judgment. In the Ahmed case, Lord Brown noted:

“The draconian nature of the regime imposed under these asset-freezing orders can hardly be over-stated. Construe and apply them how one will—and to my mind they should have been construed and applied altogether more benevolently than they appear to have been—they are scarcely less restrictive of the day to day life of those designated (and in some cases their families) than are control orders. In certain respects, indeed, they could be thought even more paralysing.”

I have made the point that there should be better safeguards. I appreciate that the appeals procedure and the change from reasonable suspicion to reasonable belief are steps forward, but the argument that the imposition of these coercive orders is best undertaken by Ministers rather than the courts seems to misunderstand the separation of powers and the role that the courts already undertake. In particular, it ignores several decades of practical experience in the courts, which have been making ex parte asset-freezing orders in a wide range of civil and criminal proceedings for the past 35 years or more and so are quite used to the procedures.

As regards national security, it seems highly implausible that the judges who sit in the specially constituted division of the High Court that hears financial restriction cases under part 6 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 are somehow less capable than their colleagues in the commercial division of hearing an emergency application for a freezing order. Freezing orders are just one of many orders that the courts are much better placed than the Executive to make. I agree with a point that the hon. Member for Cambridge made in an intervention that if the measure were operated in conjunction with an arrest warrant, people might be a bit less concerned about what the Bill might mean in due course.

I hope that amendments might be proposed requiring that designation-making powers should be in the hands of the courts and not simply the Executive and requiring the designation regime be brought into the criminal justice system when designations are made against an individual, rather than a group. Applying those coercive powers on the basis of suspicion of or belief in people’s involvement in terrorism will inevitably lead to people who have never been prosecuted having orders imposed on them. The right hon. Member for Leicester East has pointed out that those who have had orders lifted are still in a precarious and highly embarrassing position because they have at some stage been suspected of terrorism, which is hardly going to place them in good standing with anybody.

I should like there to be a requirement on the courts, when making a designation, to grant a licence to enable an individual and their family to have access to such funds as are reasonably necessary for their subsistence and travel and fees for legal representation if that need arises. That would ensure that a licence was made when the matter kicked off. I should also like the Bill to reflect and uphold the basic principles of a fair trial by ensuring that any person who is subject to the regime knows in full the case against him or her and is able to present a full defence. That would involve removing the powers for special rules of court that allow for secret evidence, hearings that the interested person is barred from and the use of special advocates.

The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been mentioned. The Committee would like to table useful amendments on the standard of proof. Its report states:

“We recommend that the Bill be amended to require a summary of reasons to be given in the written notice of designation, subject only to legitimate public interest concerns about non-disclosure. A mandatory statement of reasons in the written notice of designation would help to ensure that the new right of appeal is an effective remedy.”

The report also deals with the right to a fair hearing, recommending that

“the relevant provision of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 be amended so as to require rules of court to secure that the court’s otherwise absolute duty of non-disclosure in asset-freeze proceedings…is expressly qualified by the duty to ensure sufficient disclosure to protect the right to a fair hearing.”

There are one or two other useful suggestions, but this is Second Reading so I shall not go into great detail.

I should like to finish with two quotations. First,

“we will not defeat terrorism by reneging on this law”—

the law being the Human rights Act 1998. The quote continues:

“Upholding human rights may sometimes be terribly inconvenient in the fight against terrorists, but it is the price of democracy. We must have confidence that our democratic values can prevail. The terrorists want us to distort and bend our democratic values as we take them on—if we do that we play into their hands.”

Those were the words of Mr McNulty, an old sparring partner of mine, who was the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing from 2006 to 2008. He has come to the view that we have to reconsider the balance in deciding how to proceed.

Finally, I sincerely hope that the Bill will be drastically improved in Committee, because I do not want to see another example of what is becoming a regular occurrence—the Supreme Court having to do our duty for us. We are the legislators, so let us get it right. If we do not, we must heed the words of Edmund Burke:

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

18:47

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I remind the House of my former profession as a barrister, and I compliment the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on his outstanding contribution to the debate. I could agree, in broad terms, with much of what he said.

In the case of re M, Mr Justice Ognall stated:

“We live in an age when funds may be transferred from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as rapidly as it takes me to speak this sentence.”

Those sentiments encapsulate the difficulties and predicament that we face today. How do we fulfil the UK’s duty to be at the heart of the international fight against terrorism, while protecting the basic human rights and freedoms that Britain has always prided itself on advocating in both theory and practice? We know that the legislation derives from United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, a European directive and the decision in Ahmed v. HM Treasury. Experience shows that most individuals who are engaged in or intent upon serious offending can often live with the authorities taking away their guns or explosives, or with their liberty being taken away, but what hurts them is taking away their money, because that is what fuels so much of the offending and allows the criminal or terrorist to operate.

The Bill goes a long way towards fulfilling that duty: it enables the Treasury to freeze the assets of those suspected of involvement in terrorism, with such decisions being made at national level on the basis of advice from specific law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies. Of course that means that much will rely on the accuracy of the advice received, but I suspect that the vast majority of the British public will not find such a proposal fundamentally objectionable. It should be borne in mind that many of these decisions have to be taken rapidly in circumstances where the stakes are high and the potential consequences for both sides are catastrophic.

UN resolution 1373 specifically states that we should “freeze without delay”. I suggest that the specific content of the resolution is such that there is a real desire to move at great speed. However, that must be seen in the context of our commensurate duty to be at the heart of the international effort against terrorism. Secondly, it must meet the expectations of the British public, by making the work of the terrorist organisation that much harder.

Although other anti-terrorism measures may be already on the statute book, they do not fulfil the obligation set out in resolution 1373. There will be—and this is accepted—an improvement. There are rights of appeal and judicial review that give safeguards to those caught by an order. It should give some confidence to the wider public that a specific individual has his rights properly preserved. It should also be noted that legislation such as this should never be judged by specific statistics. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) quoted specific statistics in his speech, but this type of legislation acts as a preventive measure that dissuades individuals involved in terrorism from using the UK banking system. Prevention is clearly better than cure.

The new Bill provides the power to freeze assets on a preventive basis on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity. Where that threat is involved, it is difficult to envisage how any other test could effectively be applied. The test is also subject to the safeguard that even if the Treasury considers there to be reasonable grounds for suspecting a person to have been involved in terrorist activity, that person’s assets can be frozen only when it is considered necessary for public protection.

I want to deal with three final points in relation to the legislation. I will not go into the detail that others have in the past. First, how will designated persons fund their appeal? At present, they are in a position whereby their ability to fund their appeal is effectively non-existent. Such legislation has cropped up in other matters of asset freezing down the years.

Secondly, and most worryingly, the definition has gone from “reasonable suspicion” to “reasonable belief”. That is, at best, a marginal change. Many a good lawyer would argue that there is almost no difference there. What is quite clear is that that is less than 50%. Something that is less than 50% always concerns any lawyer—it does not matter whether we are talking about a human rights lawyer or someone who is against the whole idea of terrorists in every particular way. When we talk about less than 50%, we have to ask what we are dealing with. Are we dealing with something that is 49%, 40%, 30%, 20% or 10%? That discrepancy is a concern, and I hope that it is addressed when it comes to the individual protestations of change that will be put before the House at a later stage in consideration of this Bill.

Finally, there must be a more wholehearted review of all these matters. We keep enacting piecemeal legislation after individual Acts have been passed over a period of time. It is not a good situation to have specific Acts dealt with on a specific short-term basis. My concerns are assuaged by what the Supreme Court said in the Ahmed case. It quashed the terrorism order on the grounds that the inclusion of “reasonable suspicion” as a threshold was not necessary or expedient. It noted that “reasonable suspicion” was not specifically referred to in UN Security Council resolution 1373, and it concluded that the general words of section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 did not give anyone the authority to make an order that interfered with fundamental rights on the basis of a “reasonable suspicion” threshold. However, and I suggest that this is the key point in relation to why the Government are going ahead on this basis, the Supreme Court did not condemn the terrorism order on wider grounds of incompatibility with human rights. Those members of the court who commented on the arguments in the Ahmed case suggested that the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 was disproportionate and dismissed such arguments. I hope that we will go forward with a greater sense of will so that when the Macdonald report and other such reports come before the House, we are in a position to consider everything together.

18:56

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Bill is a sincere attempt to deal with important issues. As such, I give it a very general welcome, but I have a number of issues that I should like the Minister to respond to when he winds up. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), made reference to Northern Ireland. As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, he will be aware that in Northern Ireland we had the Assets Recovery Agency, which was amalgamated into the Serious Organised Crime Agency, so we are somewhat familiar with the freezing of terrorist or criminal assets.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) made reference to UN Security Council 1373 and some of its elements, I will not go into that now. Suffice it to say, the resolution makes it the duty of Government actively to prevent the financing of terrorist acts. Secondly, it makes it the duty of Government actively to prohibit, and not just prevent, their own nationals and those within their territories from making funds, financial services or economic resources available to such persons.

This Bill deals with important matters. All of us who live within the United Kingdom, live at a time when those elements of that resolution are very relevant in every corner of the country. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland are all too well aware of the fuel laundering, the cigarette smuggling, the illegal sex trade and a host of other money-making activities that have been used to finance, in the past, the Provisional IRA and other terrorist groups. We are also aware of the way in which such activities continue to be employed as a financial engine for dissident groups. It is important that every possible step is taken not only to close down such operations and prosecute those involved in them, but to clamp down on anyone who would facilitate or enable the accumulation of resources by such groups, the attempted concealing of such financial arrangements, and any attempt to put assets to deadly use in the pursuit of terrorist goals.

On a general level, I welcome the intentions of the Bill and I wish it well, although I have some concerns. On the detail of the provisions, the Bill applies to designated persons—that is, those who have been designated as being liable to fall within its constraints and to feel the full force of its provisions. There are two kinds of designations. I apologise if I am repeating some of the material that was mentioned earlier, but that is probably the luck of being the last speaker.

There is a final designation and an interim designation. The final designation lasts for one year and then expires unless it is renewed. An interim designation may last up to 30 days. One would suppose that an interim designation could well be enacted in order to allow for a temporary intervention while the details of a final designation were completed. Surely, then, there is a case for a provision to allow for the renewal of an interim designation.

In relation to designation, there is another question that deserves to be raised. Under the Bill, there are a number of circumstances in which a designation is not made public. I can well understand how there could be a need for some such exceptions, but chapter 2 on prohibitions states that a person has committed an offence if they deal with funds or economic resources

“owned, held or controlled by a designated person”

if they know or have reasonable cause to suspect that the person is dealing with such funds or economic resources. Under the terms of the stated possible exceptions, a decision has been taken not to publicise the designation then. Is there not a possibility that a person genuinely would not have been aware of it? Alternatively, a person could state that they were not aware of it.

The same would apply to all the offences listed in chapter 2. That is reinforced by chapter 3 and the reporting obligations of relevant institutions. In chapter 2 the obligation placed upon an individual relates exclusively to a designated person, but in chapter 3 the obligation is extended to include both a designated person and someone who is suspected of having committed an offence under any provision of chapter 2. Would there be merit in looking again at chapter 2 and bringing it into line with the obligations set out in chapter 3?

Also under chapter 3, there are civil liberty concerns that need to be considered. Provision is made to grant power to request information. The Bill bestows upon the Treasury the right to disclose this information and even provides the offences relating to the failure to comply with a Treasury request for such information. But what of circumstances in which such a request is made and it is later determined that there is no case to answer? What becomes of that information?

I should like to comment on the sentences laid down for offences set out in the Bill. Let us consider for a moment what kind of terrorist threat we are dealing with. There is the ongoing threat from dissident republican groups not only in Northern Ireland and in the Republic, but across the whole United Kingdom. In recent days these groups have attempted to kill police officers with grenades. In my own constituency they planted a bomb which very nearly killed young children. Again in my constituency, they succeeded in murdering Constable Stephen Carroll. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) they murdered two soldiers in Massereene barracks. In recent days the Police Service of Northern Ireland raided a house that was being used by dissident republicans. Some weapons, I understand, were found and just over £100,000 in cash.

Then there is the kind of terrorist threat that resulted in the 7/7 London bombings and the desire to commit mass murder expressed by some Islamic militant groups. Those who assist them economically, those who provide the economic and financial muscle to allow them to obtain their arsenal of murder, are complicit in those murders. They aid and abet those murders. To set out a sentencing policy that lays down a maximum—not a minimum, but a maximum—sentence of seven years is wholly unsatisfactory. The tariff should be considerably higher.

On the subject of offences and sentencing, I draw attention to clause 36 and the subject of time limits. As we are dealing with people and groups who are determined to kill police officers, military personnel and ordinary men, women and children, why on earth would we allow their economic backers the opportunity to escape justice after a period of only three years following the offence? How is justice obtained for the victim and how is society made safer if those who finance terrorism are allowed to walk free once the calendar moves on to three years after the offence?

I said at the beginning that I regarded the Bill as a sincere attempt to deal with important issues and that I agree with the need for measures to be put in place. There is a need to stop the flow of resources to such groups in every possible way so, in general terms, I wish the Bill well and I hope that when the Minister concludes, he will address some of the concerns that I have raised.

19:07

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said at the beginning of the debate on Second Reading, we support the Bill in principle and will not press it to a vote tonight. It is a measure that we would have introduced ourselves, had we still been in government, to meet our international obligations and to replace the temporary legislation and put it on a permanent footing.

The Bill has been subject to thorough scrutiny in the Lords, but in the Committee sittings next week we will not shirk from our duty to examine it robustly. As my right hon. Friend said, we will table amendments. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has only just been placed before the House—I think it was available on Friday—and it contains some suggested amendments that we may table, as my right hon. Friend indicated to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), who chairs the Joint Committee. We will keep some of the issues under review in the light of the review being carried out by Lord Macdonald and the internal review.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is no longer in his place. I think he slightly misunderstood some of the points made in the opening remarks made from the Opposition Benches. We did not say that the Bill was being rushed through with undue haste. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. He did not speak in the debate—[Interruption]. I thought he had just made a number of interventions, but I stand corrected. He is such a frequent speaker in this place that I lose track of when he pops up and when he does not.

There was also a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for West Suffolk about the amendments that we might table in Committee, but I hope that he will decide to become a member of the Committee and that we will be able to take up those points with him then. I should point out that it is certainly our intention to co-operate with the Government to try to get the Bill through.

I shall now turn to my notes on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said—which does indeed confirm that he spoke in the debate—and a fascinating contribution it was, too! He said that the Home Affairs Select Committee would look into this issue more generally after Lord Macdonald had reported, and that it would examine issues such as control orders and the wider civil liberties questions. He also asked the Minister a number of questions about whose accounts had been frozen and whether the 205 such accounts related to 205 separate individuals. He also said that not much money seemed to be involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those points in his closing speech.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is a member not only of the Home Affairs Select Committee but of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so he has a double interest. He said that he intended to table some amendments in Committee, which presumably means that he wants to be a member of the Committee. I am not sure whether the Liberal Democrat Whips will be quite so enthusiastic about his doing that, but we look forward to seeing him next week if he is allowed. He raised some important points tonight, as did the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), particularly about the test of reasonable suspicion being replaced after 30 days by one of reasonable belief. He said that that was still a lower standard of proof than that of the balance of probabilities. That is an important point, and it has been discussed in the other place.

[Guy Opperman]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am spoiled for choice! I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Hexham.

[Guy Opperman]

I have no issue with the fact that I have been chosen over Cambridge. Do the Opposition have a specific view on what the percentage is? The hon. Lady will recall that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and I mentioned this in our speeches. Is it 40%, 30% or 20%?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Would the hon. Member for Cambridge like to intervene now, so that I can answer both hon. Members at once?

[Dr Huppert]

I was going to ask a very similar question of the hon. Lady. Will she clarify the Opposition’s policy? Should the test be one of reasonable suspicion, as under previous legislation, or one of the balance of probabilities? The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) seemed to suggest that there should be a very low threshold, perhaps even lower than the one the Government propose.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We welcome the fact that the reasonable suspicion test is to be in place for only 30 days before it moves to one of reasonable belief, which is slightly tougher. In response to the hon. Member for Hexham, it is a matter for the courts to interpret what “reasonable belief” would be. We need to thrash out in Committee whether that constitutes a much lower standard than the balance of probabilities. We do not have a firm view on that, but we need to debate the matter in Committee.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) spoke from his experience of the Northern Ireland situation, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, who is a former Northern Ireland Office Minister. The hon. Member for Upper Bann described the Bill as a sincere attempt to deal with important issues, but raised some questions about the interpretation of civil liberties, and it is important that they should be thoroughly debated in Committee.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said that it was absolutely vital to scrutinise these matters, and that, although there seemed to be unanimity of purpose across the House in that we all want to ensure that assets are not misused for terrorist purposes, that was not quite the same as ensuring that the legislation would actually work. He referred to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and to the legislation that followed the shootings at Dunblane, and made the valid point that we must ensure that the legislation will not be struck down because of a perceived illegality. He quoted Burke saying that bad law was the worst kind of tyranny. This highlights the importance of scrutinising the Bill in Committee, and, although we broadly support its intentions and principles, we will subject it to robust scrutiny next week.

19:15

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a pleasure to be able to conclude today’s Second Reading debate. This is a most important Bill that covers issues of national security and civil liberties. These are significant issues that deserve full scrutiny and I would like to thank all hon. Members for their eloquent contributions.

My hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) brought experience and expertise to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) spoke in a way that I am sure his predecessor, David Howarth, would approve of. He raised a number of questions in regard to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I shall address in detail in a moment.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made a memorable speech—[Laughter.] Well, at least I will remember it. He noted that he was somewhat suspicious of anything that had cross-party support from both Front Benches. I imagine that he did not experience that very often when he was a Minister. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for highlighting his concerns about knee-jerk legislation and making a similar point to that of the right hon. Member for Leicester East. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) brought to the debate the experience of his part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, which has suffered so much from terrorism over many years. He asked a number of questions that I hope to be able to respond to later.

A number of issues have been raised in the debates over the course of this year, and I am pleased to say that the Government have responded to the concerns raised in the House earlier this year and to those raised in the public consultation exercise on the previous Government’s draft legislation. We introduced legislation as soon as possible, to ensure that Parliament has sufficient time to scrutinise the legislation properly and still meet the 31 December deadline to avoid a gap in the regime and the unfreezing of assets. The Bill before the House today is a significant improvement on the current asset- freezing regime, because it strengthens civil liberties safeguards without undermining the effectiveness of the UK’s asset-freezing regime in disrupting terrorism.

Let me address in more detail the striking of the right balance between national security and liberty in the context of the Bill. I shall deal first with the national security element of that balance. Let me be clear that, while it is true that the asset-freezing regime has an impact upon human rights, it is the Government’s view that the interferences set out in the Bill are necessary in the interests of national security and public protection. We have recently been reminded of the very real threat posed by international terrorism.

To achieve our objectives, the Government must have the right tools to combat terrorism in the UK and overseas. It is not sufficient for us to be reactive, and to be able to deal with an atrocity only after it has happened. We must be able to act preventively, to disrupt terrorist plots in their planning stages. Hon. Members will acknowledge that one of the most effective ways of doing this is to limit terrorists’ access to finance. We know that terrorists need finance to carry out attacks, to maintain their infrastructure, training, equipment and recruitment, and to promote their message of hate. In order to contain the threat that these extremists pose, the Government need to be able to act quickly to freeze the funds and finances of those involved in terrorism who are considered to present a real threat to the general public. The Government believe that the UK’s asset-freezing regime is the right means to achieve that.

There is no question but that the asset-freezing regime has proved a valuable tool for disrupting and preventing terrorist financing. The £140,000 of currently frozen assets could be used to devastating effect were they to be released. The right hon. Member for Leicester East made the point that the total amount that has been frozen is perhaps surprisingly small, but it is worth remembering that disproportionate damage can be done with a small amount of money. As we have heard, the 7/7 attacks cost less than £10,000.

[Keith Vaz]

We clearly understand that it takes only a small amount of money in certain circumstances, but will the Exchequer Secretary clarify those figures for us? Is he saying that £140,000 is frozen at the moment? Does he know the total amount that has been frozen since the previous Government introduced the original legislation, or would he be able to write to me with the number or place it in the Library so that Members will all know it?

[Mr Gauke]

The current figure is £140,000, as I said. The figure that the right hon. Gentleman talks about is £290,000, which as I understand it is the amount that has been frozen in total. He asked earlier about the 205 accounts referred to in the written ministerial statement. That does not necessarily mean that 205 people are involved, and it is worth pointing out that 24 people in the UK are subject to asset freezes under the legislation that the Bill will replace.

[Keith Vaz]

I think the fault is perhaps in the drafting of the written statement. It states:

“As of 30 September 2010, a total of 205 accounts containing just under £290,000”

were frozen. It would be helpful if, perhaps through the next such statement, we could know the current figure. That is where my figure comes from.

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman’s comments are helpful, as always, and I am sure they have been duly noted.

It is right to point out that asset freezing is a preventive tool, and that people can be subject to a freeze only if the legal test is met—in other words, if they represent a terrorist threat and so the freeze is necessary for public protection. The Treasury must have reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in terrorist activity. I will return to that point in greater detail when I turn to the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is also worth pointing out that 21 of the 24 persons in the UK subject to these measures have been charged with, or convicted of, terrorist offences.

Asset freezing is not just an effective domestic tool, it is necessary. The UK has an international obligation to freeze the assets of terrorists, and the Government are content that the Bill’s provisions remain fully compliant with international standards and are sufficiently robust to meet the needs of the police and security services, who are engaged in a day-to-day battle to maintain the security of the general public.

The right hon. Gentleman asked one or two questions about complaints. Any person who is not satisfied with a decision taken by the Treasury may request a review of the decision, and if after that review they are still unsatisfied, a complaint regarding the handling of the case can be made under the Treasury’s official complaints procedure. A senior official not directly connected with the case will then take the review decision. A designated person may appeal against their designation through the courts, and in the case of any other decision, such as on licensing, applications can be made to the High Court for the decision to be set aside.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what happens to people whose freezes have been revoked. As he pointed out, the revocation of a freeze does not show that the system is failing to work or that the imposition of a freeze in the first place was wrong. Circumstances can change, so it may no longer be necessary to maintain a freeze even though it was necessary when it was imposed. When a freeze is revoked, the individual concerned is notified, the revocation is brought to the attention of the financial sector and the outside world and the restrictions on their financial activity are removed.

One concern that has understandably been raised is whether the system is well targeted on terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made that point. Terrorism, for the purposes of the Bill, is defined in clause 2(2) as involving one or more of

“the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism…conduct that facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or that is intended to do so”,

or conduct that supports or gives assistance to persons believed to be involved in such conduct.

To respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) about organised crime, the Bill contains very specific powers designed to meet our UN obligations to freeze the assets of terrorists. They are not intended to be used against organised criminals unless they are also involved in terrorism, and the Government have other powers to deal with organised crime.

I turn to the very important issue of civil liberties, because we have to get that right and ensure that the balance is correct. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary set out, the Bill does not simply reintroduce the previous regime, which the Supreme Court quashed. We have introduced additional safeguards and made changes to ensure that the regime operates in a clearer and more transparent manner. Those changes reflect the civil liberties concerns that were raised in Parliament during the passage of the emergency legislation and in the public consultation exercise conducted over the spring and summer. We do not believe they will undermine the effectiveness of the regime or continued compliance with international best practice.

I shall highlight the key elements of those changes. We are introducing more targeted prohibitions, to limit the impact of asset freezing on innocent third parties. There is provision to ensure that the regime does not catch the payment of state benefits to the spouses or partners of designated persons, and so does not have the draconian impact on family life about which the Supreme Court was concerned. The establishment of an independent review function will ensure that there is proper independent scrutiny of the asset-freezing regime.

As the Financial Secretary highlighted, during the Bill’s passage in the other place the Government introduced significant further safeguards to raise the legal test for freezing assets for more than 30 days from reasonable suspicion to reasonable belief, and to strengthen judicial oversight by ensuring that there is a full merits-based review of designation decisions. Those are important new safeguards that will make the asset-freezing regime significantly fairer, more proportionate and more transparent, and I welcome the endorsement that they have received from hon. Members today. However, we have also heard in today’s debate, and read in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, some calls for the Government to go further and introduce more civil liberties safeguards. I wish to respond to those points.

One concern that has been raised is that reasonable belief is still too low a threshold for freezing assets, and that the Government should be able to do so only on the balance of probabilities—in other words, if someone is more likely than not to be involved in terrorism. It has even been argued that asset freezes should be imposed only in cases of criminal charge or conviction. I shall reiterate why the Government do not agree with, and cannot support, those proposals.

To meet our UN obligations and protect national security, asset freezing must be preventive: that is, it must be capable of being used at an early stage to disrupt and prevent terrorist attacks. Setting the legal test higher than reasonable belief would make it more difficult to use the asset-freezing tool in a preventive manner, and therefore make it less effective because the level of evidence needed may rule out the use of asset freezing when it could be most useful.

[Dr Huppert]

Does the Minister genuinely think it appropriate to freeze people’s assets when the Treasury believes that it is more likely that they are not involved in terrorism than that they are so involved?

[Mr Gauke]

I reiterate that it is necessary to have a tool available to use at an early stage, for preventive reasons. The asset freezes imposed on those suspected of involvement in the transatlantic plane bomb plot in 2006 provide a good example of the value that preventive asset-freezing can have for national security. It is important that we preserve that element of asset-freezing. In the Supreme Court, Lord Rodger spoke of the nature of intelligence and the need, sometimes, to act on information that is fragmentary and not certain. For the same reason, the Government cannot support limiting asset-freezing to those charged with, or convicted of, a terrorist offence.

Although a significant majority of those in the UK whose assets have been frozen have been charged or convicted of a terrorist offence, limiting freezing to such people would have two significant drawbacks. First, preventing the Treasury from freezing assets when it reasonably believes that someone is involved in terrorism and when it considers that asset-freezing is necessary to protect the public, but when a person has not been, or could not be, charged, would incur a significant cost for national security. Secondly, limiting freezing in that way would severely curtail the Treasury’s ability to freeze the assets of international terrorists or terrorist groups operating overseas. Many such persons and groups operate in countries where they will not be prosecuted, perhaps because the country does not have the capability or the will to prosecute terrorists.

[Dr Huppert]

I understand the Minister’s point about those not in Britain, but what about those who are, and hence subject to our controls? Given that the threshold for powers of arrest is reasonable suspicion, does he agree that anyone who has enough evidence to freeze assets would also have enough evidence to arrest?

[Mr Gauke]

Given the flexibility that we need, I believe that we have struck the right balance by allowing an interim arrangement on the basis of reasonable suspicion followed by a longer-term arrangement on the basis of reasonable belief. Sometimes, it is a question of timing and we may need to act first on freezing assets and subsequently to make an arrest—we must remember that after all, the vast majority of those in the UK who have been subject to a freezing order have gone on to be arrested. For example, if we limited the Treasury’s freezing powers to those charged or convicted, we could prevent the UK from co-operating with international partners when we are trying to prevent funding getting to international terrorists and terrorist groups. For those reasons, the Government remain convinced that the legal test as set out in the Bill—reasonable suspicion for an interim period of 30 days and reasonable belief for a final designation—strikes the right balance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned the role of the courts, which has also been raised by civil liberties groups. They have called for a mandatory court involvement in asset-freezing. They want freezing decisions either to be made by the courts or to be approved by them mandatorily, but the Government do not support those proposals. Decisions to freeze assets are national security measures taken on operational advice from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and fall squarely within the remit of decisions that Ministers should and do make on other matters, such as prescription, deportation and exclusion. Ministers are accountable for their designations both to Parliament and to the courts.

We also do not believe that mandatory court approval for asset freezes is the right approach. Only a very small minority of asset-freezing cases—around 10% of current cases—concern people in the UK who have not been prosecuted for a terrorist offence. The remaining 90% of cases concern either individuals in the UK who have been prosecuted or individuals and groups overseas. Mandatory court approval would therefore add no value in those 90% of cases. Indeed, it might even be unhelpful. For example, overseas terrorist groups who do not currently challenge asset freezes would nevertheless have their designations subjected to mandatory court scrutiny.

My hon. Friend also mentioned written reasons. We heard today that the JCHR recommends that an express requirement to provide reasons for a designation, subject to public interest requirements of non-disclosure, be written into the Bill. The Committee’s reasons for that were eloquently put, but the Government are not convinced that an express obligation on the Treasury to provide reasons for a person’s designation is necessary. It is already a requirement of the basic principles of administrative law to provide reasons for a designation where possible, subject to public interest requirements. If this Government or any other were to write into a Bill all the Treasury’s obligations under administrative law, such a Bill would be considerably longer. I do not see that as desirable. The time available for parliamentary scrutiny should not be spent debating unnecessary provisions. I should also make it clear that there will be times when the Government cannot divulge the case against a person or the reason for a designation, such as when sensitive intelligence has been relied on for a decision and there is an obvious case for withholding information. None the less, where possible, the Government disclose information when that can be done without, for example, damage to a pending prosecution or to national security. There is no sensible reason to go beyond that and write such a requirement into the Bill.

The JCHR also sought to convince hon. Members that the Government should accept the principle set out in the House of Lords in the case of AF on the use of special advocates and closed-source material. It said that that principle should apply to asset-freezing provisions. I am sure that hon. Members have read Hansard and are aware of the debate on that in the other place. I can but restate the points that the Government made then. First, the courts have not considered whether AF applies in asset-freezing cases, and it is not the role of the Government to prejudge what the courts would say. Secondly, the Supreme Court will consider the wider application of AF (No. 3) in January 2011 when it hears the Tariq case. Thirdly, the Government are committed to ensuring that any challenge to a Treasury decision is heard fairly. Finally, the application of AF (No. 3) is part of a wider debate on the use of special advocates and intelligence material, and we have already announced that we will be considering the use of special advocates and closed-source evidence as part of a Green Paper next year.

There will be plenty of opportunity for the JCHR and other interested parties to relay their views as part of the consultation that informs that Green Paper. It is right and proper that the Government give all parties the option of commenting on such an important mechanism without prejudging the outcome.

The final matter raised by the JCHR is the question of transparency and accountability. The Bill strengthens transparency and accountability in two ways. First, we are enshrining in legislation the Treasury’s existing practice of presenting quarterly reports to Parliament on the operation of the powers in the Bill. That will guarantee transparency on the quarterly operation of the regime. Hon. Members will note that the most recent quarterly report was laid today. Secondly, we have written into the Bill that the operation of the regime should be independently reviewed nine months after the Bill is passed and every 12 months thereafter.

The JCHR maintains that the provision in the Bill for an independent reviewer does not go far enough and that the independent reviewer should be more independent of the Government—the right hon. Member for Delyn made that point in the debate. I am sure that that will be debated further in Committee, but the Government cannot accept the JCHR position. We are committed to effective scrutiny of the asset-freezing regime and the independence of the reviewer will be a principal objective of any appointment, but for Parliament to approve the independent reviewer would be a significant departure from standard practice. The appointment of the reviewer by the Government reflects the long-standing principle that Ministers are directly accountable to Parliament and the public for those whom they appoint and for the operation of the regime.

[Mr Hanson]

I tend to agree with the Minister, as I indicated in my discussions, but can he tell the House whether the reviewer for this piece of legislation is likely to be the same one as is currently in post, which is Lord Carlile, who is soon to be replaced by David Anderson QC?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. The final decision on that is still to be made, so if he will just be a little patient, he will receive the answer in due course.

[Dr Huppert]

The Government have recently started taking the approach that independent people can be scrutinised by a Select Committee to check that they are sufficiently independent. Could we go down that route to check the independent reviewer?

[Mr Gauke]

I am on the record many times as arguing why Parliament should have a significant role in a number of public appointments, but in this area we have arrangements whereby Ministers take responsibility and are accountable. We will ensure that the independent reviewer is free to examine any aspect of the regime, and his or her findings and recommendations will be released in full to Parliament. We also think that the Treasury has to have sight of the independent reviewer’s report prior to its being laid before Parliament, but that is only for the entirely sensible and understandable process of ensuring that no material detrimental to national security is inadvertently released. To answer the question specifically, Ministers have to take responsibility on this and we are not inclined to move away from that position.

I wish to address a point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge about ensuring that a designated person has reasonable expenses and is not left in desperate hardship. There is a requirement in law for the Treasury to implement asset freezes proportionately, taking full account of the human rights of a designated person and their family. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham asked whether a designated person is able to fund their appeal—there was concern that that might not be the case. The Treasury has issued general licences to enable any legal aid payments to be made to a designated person’s solicitors where they are eligible for legal aid and to allow third parties to pay a designated person’s legal expenses. Where a designated person wishes to use their own funds for legal expenses, an individual licence can be applied for. The asset freeze does not, therefore, hinder a designated person from challenging their designation or any other decision, such as to impose particular licence conditions.

I wish also to pick up on the points raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. He raised the concern about decisions being taken not to publicise a designation and asked whether there is a danger that third parties are not aware of the designation—that is a perfectly fair point. The offences in the Bill apply only where a third party is aware, or should be aware, of the designation; if they do not know, and have no reason to know, no offence will be committed. I hope that that provides some reassurance to him. Where a designation is not publicised, financial institutions will still be informed, as that helps to ensure that funds are frozen. I reassure him that decisions not to publicise are rare and are always taken for very good reasons, and that the designated person will be told.

I also wish to pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s point about whether someone could be subject to a 30-day freeze on the basis of suspicion and then be subject to another such freeze after the first one is dropped. Freezes cannot be continually retained on the basis of reasonable suspicion by dropping a freeze after 30 days and then reimposing it as the new interim freeze based only on reasonable suspicion arising from the same or substantially the same evidence—clause 6(3) makes specific provision on that. A new interim freeze could be made if there is significant new evidence that significantly contributes to a fresh reasonable suspicion on the Treasury’s part. Without such new evidence, a freeze could be maintained after the 30 days only if there was reasonable belief that the person is involved in terrorism.

I shall now deal with the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn about the overall counter-terrorism review and its relationship with this Bill. This is a stand-alone Bill and it is not intended to be further amended by the counter-terrorism review. The Government have already considered civil liberties safeguards for this Bill and introduced amendments at Committee stage in the other place, as I have mentioned. There is no intention to amend the Bill further.

In conclusion, today’s debate has been about the balance between national security and safeguarding civil liberties. I am convinced that the Bill strikes the right balance between both. It is effective and fair, it takes the necessary steps to prevent the raising and use of funds for terrorist purposes and it sets the terrorist asset-freezing regime in primary legislation for the first time. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to further discussion in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.



Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords] (pROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not usbpreviously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 25 November 2010.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.



Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by

the Treasury or any other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act; and

(2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Sports Grounds Safety Authority Bill (Money)

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Queen’s recommendation signified.

19:46

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sports Grounds Safety Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.

I should like to take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) for introducing this important Bill, and I am pleased to be able to confirm the Government’s support. On Second Reading, it was the will of the House that the Bill should be discussed in Committee. The Bill repeals and replaces the statutory basis for the Football Licensing Authority and thus triggers the need for a new money resolution. The Bill seeks to reconstitute the FLA as the sports grounds safety authority and will extend its advisory functions so that it has the power to provide advice about safety at sports grounds to any national or international organisation, person or body.

The FLA receives grant in aid funding from my Department of just under £1.2 million a year to carry out its statutory functions, including advising on spectator and venue safety issues at football grounds in England and Wales. The Government are very clear that the FLA carries out an important role and want this to continue, but we also want to allow it more freedom to develop and thus become more independent from government and less reliant on public funding. The FLA has built up a national and international reputation for expertise in the area of sports ground safety, but the statute prevents it from formally sharing that advice with other sports or with those in other countries, and it is right that we remove that restriction.

Extending the FLA’s advisory role will be especially important as we approach the biggest sporting events that this country has ever staged, including the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. It makes complete sense to free the FLA from current constraints and allow it to provide advice to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and local authorities in relation to non-football Olympic venues. That would allow the authority to offer such advice to other sports, creating the potential to help to ensure greater consistency in the application of sports grounds safety advice across all sports.

The new role will not extend the FLA’s regulatory role, nor will it add any burdens to football clubs, other sports or local authorities or, indeed, change the safety regime for football or other sports grounds. The Government are committed to reducing regulatory burdens, not increasing them. In addition, local authorities and others will not be required to seek advice from the new authority in relation to sports grounds.

Although the authority will be able to charge for its advice in certain circumstances, providing that it has the consent of the Secretary of State, that will be limited to cost-recovery only, so there is no risk of the fees being unreasonable. Those charges will simply ensure that the costs of providing the advice are generally met by those who receive the benefits of that expertise, rather than by any increased public expenditure. However, there still may be occasions when it is not justifiable to charge, and when the organisation can easily absorb the costs of that advice. It is therefore important that there are no doubts in relation to the use of publicly funded resources by the sports grounds safety authority. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

19:51

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his courtesy earlier today. As he said, the Football Licensing Authority was established in the wake of tragedies at football grounds such as Hillsborough in 1989 and Heysel in 1985. Following Lord Justice Taylor’s final report on the Hillsborough disaster, the FLA was charged with responsibility for monitoring local authorities’ oversight of spectator safety at international, premiership and football league grounds.

The Minister is absolutely right about the FLA’s importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) referred to the establishment of the FLA as a debt of honour to the families of those who lost their lives at Hillsborough; my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who was at Hillsborough on the day of the tragedy, said that he believes the FLA was the correct response to helping to ensure that nothing like that happens again; and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has already raised a series of concerns and questions about the Bill with the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), and I know that she will scrutinise its details as it proceeds through the House. Other hon. Members with Merseyside constituencies and interested members of the public have also raised a number of questions.

Margaret Aspinall, of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, for example, said that the Government

“must make sure there is no cost-cutting on safety.”

We agree and believe that any dilution of the focus on safety at football grounds would be a cause for concern. I welcome the additional details that the Minister has provided today, because it is fair to say that the detail of the Government’s intentions had not been crystal clear.

The Government announced the abolition of the FLA in the spending review and said that its responsibilities were being “transferred to another body”. They obviously support the Bill, but the Minister for the Cabinet Office has been reported as saying that the responsibility for safety at grounds will shift to local authorities, so although we will not oppose the motion, we will vigorously scrutinise the Bill in Committee in order to ensure that safety is not compromised.

19:53

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for moving the motion and supporting my Bill, and to the shadow Minister for his guarded support at this stage. I hope that we can make that the Opposition’s full support in due course. I hope also that the House will allow the Bill to proceed into Committee.

The Football Licensing Authority was set up by the Football Spectators Act 1989 in the wake of the Hillsborough disaster. Over subsequent years, the authority and its key personnel have gained an extremely good reputation for their expertise and experience in football ground safety, but the organisation has been forced to turn down requests from other sports and sports grounds for safety advice, as its existing statutory remit extends only to football—even though those seeking that advice had indicated their willingness to pay.

The increased advisory role that the Bill proposes will usually be provided at no additional cost to the organisation or to the public purse. The sports grounds safety authority will be able to charge to recover its costs for providing advice about the safety of sports grounds, but that will be with the consent of the Secretary of State, and there will be no requirement for the authority to offer its advice.

A charge for the authority’s advice will not always be appropriate or necessary, for example when giving one-off, informal views, so such costs will be easily absorbed by the authority’s existing resources.

As the Minister explained, his Department is committed to funding for the FLA of just under £1.2 million a year, and that figure should not have to rise as a result of the Bill. The Bill will allow the sports grounds safety authority to generate additional income streams, especially from advice to other sports. Charges for that advice will not be allowed to generate profits, but the authority will be able to include an element of fixed and running costs, thereby relieving pressure on public funding.

In particular, the Bill will enable the authority to become fully involved with safety advice and guidance to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and to local authorities in relation to the 2012 Olympic venues. As we prepare to welcome the rest of the world to our shores for the Olympic and Paralympic games, I trust that the House will approve the motion and, in due course, the Bill in order to help to ensure that the games are as safe as we can possibly make them. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Delegated legislation

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 11 October, be approved.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Sunderland Point

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

19:56

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

I tabled this Adjournment debate to highlight the plight of an area in my constituency called Sunderland point. Sunderland point is a narrow sliver of land. It could not be described as a peninsula or as an island, yet it is effectively an island when the tide comes in. One has to travel across the estuary to reach it.

Sunderland point is the only area of its kind left in the whole world. It is literally an area of outstanding natural beauty, and it is steeped in history. The point flourished in the 1600s and 1700s because of the slave trade and the import of wood. It was Britain’s main port at the time. Over the years, it has become a shrimping community where people get on with their daily lives, but, owing to the death of a slave boy called Sambo at the point in the early 1700s, the movement to enact the abolition of the slave trade began there.

The child believed, legend has it, that his master had deserted him, and he took ill and died. There was outrage, because the boy was buried in an unconsecrated grave, and, although the issue took years and years—several decades indeed—to reach this House, eventually Wilberforce pushed through his Bill to abolish slavery. On the child’s tombstone, there is a poem, and the very last line—

“Not on Man’s color but his worth of heart”—

was a clarion call for abolition. Bonnie Prince Charlie also landed at Sunderland point, from where he invaded the British isles.

More recently, Sunderland point has been under threat from coastal erosion. The point is estimated to be eroding by 1 metre a year. The locals say more, but official figures state about 1 metre. Nevertheless, the point is now eroding rapidly, because the sea has started to reach an area of fields, where there is mainly clay, rather than rock. The problem is that the question of who can help the community seems to have fallen between the cracks of various points of officialdom. Natural England seems to be the main roadblock. This is supposed to be an area of special scientific interest, but I cannot for the life of me see why it would have any scientific interest if it is not going to be there in 50 years’ time. The Environment Agency has a strategic plan to hold back the tide, but no money to enact it. This story has been running for the whole week on local radio and television and in the regional media.

The community is well on the way towards getting the money to put up a wall of aggregate to stop the point eroding. That will not cost the taxpayer any money whatsoever. It is a shrimping community, and people want to preserve their way of life. It is the only place left in the whole world like it. There is evidence to suggest that George Washington’s family sailed from Sunderland point to the new world, and we all know what happened from there on in.

I am fighting against the plight of my local residents on their behalf because this is an area of outstanding historical value. Once it has gone, it will have gone for ever—and it will be gone within 100 years. Moreover, the way that the waters move and swell in the bay means that they will eventually start eating away at Glasson dock, which is a working port and a big employer, and affect the village of Overton. The Environment Agency has a management realignment plan for that, but let us say it in plain English: in layman’s terms it is coastal erosion.

I am asking the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider using its powers under section 16(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to overrule Natural England if it continues to block efforts to install the flood defences that the local community badly need to put in place to save Sunderland point.

20:01

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) for raising this important issue and for offering me the opportunity to discuss the Government’s approach to managing erosion and flood risk on our coastlines and to respond to his specific points.

The area that my hon. Friend describes is one of extraordinary historical value, and I genuinely appreciate its importance for so many people in his constituency and beyond. The connection that he made with George Washington will no doubt excite interest from beyond our shores. The historical connection with the abolition of slavery is a remarkable story. One can only imagine the tragic consequences that led to the siting of the grave he mentioned, and the importance of that in leading to the whole debate that ended up in this place and saw one of the scourges of the history of this country and of the world consigned to the history books.

I fully appreciate that coastal flooding and erosion are issues of significant concern for my hon. Friend’s constituents and for other coastal communities living in vulnerable areas. On a recent visit to another part of the coast, I saw at first hand the difficulties that coastal change causes for communities.

Before I turn to the detailed points that my hon. Friend made regarding Sunderland point, I would like to outline what was agreed for funding in the spending review and to explain the Government’s general approach to managing flood and coastal erosion risk. The Government are committed to protecting people and property from flooding and coastal erosion where it is sustainable and affordable to do so. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point about money, and I will talk about that specifically in a moment. In the recent spending review, flood and coastal erosion risk management was identified as a priority area for DEFRA. My Department has made it clear that we will protect front-line services such as forecasting and warning services and incident response, and prioritise the maintenance of existing defences. Times are tough, and it will be difficult to kick off new defence projects over the next couple of years, but as a result of the investment that we are making, we expect to deliver better protection from flooding and erosion to 145,000 households by March 2015. Annual budgets are yet to be finalised, and my hon. Friend will therefore appreciate that it is not possible to discuss individual projects. However, for the benefit of the House I should add that defences already under construction will be completed under existing arrangements.

It is important that we are honest with communities about what can and cannot be done. As I have said to the EFRA Committee, a generation of politicians across several Governments have given assurances about coastal defences that it has not been possible to live up to. The idea that we could “hold the line” on the whole of our coastline in perpetuity, and defend every house, was a notion that was wrong from the outset, but that does not mean that we cannot successfully work with local communities in areas such as the one that my hon. Friend describes. However, although it is not possible to protect all areas, there is more that we can do through innovative approaches. A number of communities are already taking the lead in identifying alternative sources of funding for defences or trialling ways of “rolling back” homes and maintaining local amenities where erosion is taking place.

Let me turn to the specific case of Sunderland point. As my hon. Friend points out, Sunderland village is located on a headland and is frequently cut off from the mainland by the high tide. Properties in the village have flooded on six occasions in the past 20 years. Sunderland point is an uninhabited area at the tip of this headland. As a result of coastal erosion, it has retreated by 75 metres since 1848. I appreciate that this has been an issue of significant concern for the residents of Sunderland village, who fear that the erosion of the point may increase the risk of flooding to their homes. That is a point of concern to a wider population who recognise the amenity and the historical value of this site.

The Environment Agency has investigated the issue and has concluded that erosion of the point is not increasing the flood risk to Sunderland village. I appreciate that that conclusion will concern my hon. Friend. I am aware, however, that flooding continues to pose a threat to the village. As he intimated, there is not a sufficiently strong case for national funding of flood defences for Sunderland village because there are not the benefits to justify the costs. However, the village did benefit from a DEFRA grant scheme in 2008, through which the Environment Agency and the local authority provided property level flood protection measures to 30 houses that are at risk.

As my hon. Friend said, people in the local community have done precisely what we want them to do, which is to come forward with innovative local solutions that can secure a coastline that they feel is important to deal with the risk that they face and to protect a much-loved environment. We have to unblock a blockage within government, at whatever level that is, as regards whether, in protecting a site of special scientific interest, we may be causing other damage that neither I nor my hon. Friend are aware of. That is the conversation that I will be having in response to the very sensible points that he makes. I will talk to Natural England as a matter of urgency to get to the bottom of this issue, because I recognise its importance locally.

It is clear that flooding and coastal erosion are very serious issues for this community and many other communities along that part of the coastline. We know that the effects of climate change will only increase the pressure on such communities. Funding is clearly the key issue but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, taxpayer funding is not an issue in this case. That is a very important matter that I will take forward. We in DEFRA are consulting on a new approach to funding that will be more transparent and give local areas a bigger say in what action is taken to protect them in return for more local contributions. The Government will continue to focus on those at greatest risk and on people in the most deprived areas of this country.

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to debate these issues today. I give him the firm assurance that I will take up the points that he raises and, if necessary, get him together with the officials whom he believes are holding up the situation. I want to ensure that all agencies of government are working together and that we are not only doing everything we can to protect sites of special scientific interest in important historical locations such as the one he describes but working to reassure local communities that everything that can be done is being done to support their obvious and expected intentions in wanting to protect their homes from flooding and coastal erosion.

Question put and agreed to.

20:09

House adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 15th November 2010 Written Statements

Monday 15 November 2010

Counter-Terrorist Asset-Freezing Regime

Monday 15th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The Government are committed to reporting quarterly on the operation of the UK’s terrorist asset-freezing regime. We believe this is essential to ensure transparency and accountability of the regime. The Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill will enshrine in law the commitment to report quarterly to Parliament.

This report covers the period July to September 2010.¹

Asset-freezing designations

In the quarter July to September 2010, the Treasury gave no new directions under the UK’s domestic terrorist asset-freezing regime.

During this quarter, the EU added seven people to EC Regulation 881/2002, implementing the UN al-Qaeda and Taliban asset-freezing regime established under UNSCR 1267.

As of 30 September 2010, a total of 205 accounts containing just under £290,000² of suspected terrorist funds were frozen in the UK.

Reviews under the Terrorism Orders

The Treasury keeps domestic asset-freezing cases under review and completed 34 reviews in this quarter. From these 34 reviews 13 persons had their designations revoked.

The Terrorism Order 2009 contains a provision that designations made under the previous Terrorism Orders 2001 and 2006 expired on 31 August 2010 and that beyond 31 August freezes can only be made or renewed under the 2009 Order. All persons subject to domestic terrorist asset-freezes in the UK are now subject to the 2009 Order and benefit from the additional safeguards set out in that order compared with the previous orders.

Licensing

Maintaining an effective licensing system is important to ensure the overall proportionality and fairness of the asset-freezing regime, whether the individuals concerned are subject to an asset-freeze in accordance with a UN or EC listing, or domestic terrorism legislation. A licensing framework is put in place for each individual on a case-by-case basis. The key objective of the licensing system is to strike an appropriate balance between minimising the risk of diversion of funds to terrorism and meeting the human rights of affected individuals and their families. Licences contain appropriate controls to protect against the risk of the diversion of funds for terrorist finance.

Eighteen licences were issued this quarter in relation to 15 persons subject to an asset-freeze under the al-Qaeda and Taliban and domestic terrorism regimes.

Of these 18 licences, 11 revoked and replaced earlier licences. There were no variations to licences this quarter.

Proceedings

In the quarter July to September 2010, no proceedings were taken for breaches of the prohibitions of the Terrorism Orders or the al-Qaeda and Taliban (Asset-Freezing) Regulations.

Developments

The Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill: The Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and Second Reading in the House of Commons takes place on 15 November 2010.

Kadi v. Commission: Yassin Abdullah Kadi was listed under EC Regulation 881/2002. This regulation gives effect to the UN al-Qaeda and Taliban asset-freezing regime (UNSCR1267) in the EU. Mr Kadi challenged his listing under this regulation, arguing that it breached his fundamental rights under European law.

On 30 September the European General Court upheld Mr Kadi’s challenge, annulling the EC regulation, in so far as it applied to Mr Kadi. The judgment will take effect on 10 December unless an appeal is lodged, in which case it will be stayed until the appeal has been decided.

The Kadi case concerns how EU member states implement their obligations to freeze the assets of sanctioned individuals under the UN al-Qaeda and Taliban regime. It does not concern the UK’s domestic terrorist asset-freezing regime.

¹ The detail that can be provided to the House on a quarterly basis is subject to the need to avoid the identification, directly or indirectly, of personal or operationally sensitive information.

² This figure reflects account balances at time of freezing and includes approximately $58,000 of suspected terrorist funds frozen in the UK. This has been converted using exchange rates as of 15/10/10. Future fluctuations in the exchange rate may impact on the contribution this sum makes to future totals of suspected terrorist funds frozen.

London 2012 Community Sport Legacy

Monday 15th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Following my statement of 20 July, Official Report, columns 8-9WS, on the coalition Government’s priorities for sport, I am today announcing the community sport and mass participation Olympic legacy programme. Places People Play.

Places People Play will be delivered by Sport England, in partnership with the British Olympic Association (BOA), the British Paralympic Association (BPA) and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG.) It is a £135 million lottery funded initiative that will help build and upgrade sports facilities, protect playing fields and create sporting opportunities and challenges to encourage people up and down the country to get into sport—whether that be as a participant, leader or volunteer. This investment has been made available through the Government’s lottery reforms that have resulted in more lottery money going to sport.

This programme will help to deliver Lord Coe’s commitment to a lasting sports legacy to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. Over the coming months Sport England will engage with the national governing bodies of sport and other key delivery partners to ensure that this commitment is realised.

Justice and Home Affairs (Post-Council Statement)

Monday 15th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Kenny MacAskill the Scottish Secretary for Justice, and I attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 8 and 9 November in Brussels.

The Council began with Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen States). The Commission provided an update on the progress of the second generation of the Schengen Information System II (SIS II). Since there were no major developments reported, it was suggested it may not be necessary to discuss SIS II at every Council as was the present standing commitment.

Next the Council noted progress towards an amending regulation on Frontex, the EU external borders agency. The new regulation is intended to increase the capacity of Frontex to strengthen the security and surveillance of the external Schengen borders, to develop relationships with third countries, and to better assist member states to return those with no right to remain in the EU. The UK is not directly affected as the amending regulation relates to those elements of the Schengen Acquis in which we do not participate. However, the Government support the extension of Frontex’s remit to allow it to handle the personal data of those suspected of involvement in criminality at the border. We believe that being able to gather and share these data with other agencies, such as Europol, is vital to Frontex’s contribution to the fight against human trafficking and smuggling. The Commission confirmed that it had dropped its opposition to Frontex handling personal data, but emphasised that the purpose should be limited, with necessary safeguards on data protection and the respect of human rights.

The Commission updated the Council on the draft regulation establishing a network of immigration liaison officers, with a view to reaching agreement between Council and Parliament before the end of the Belgian presidency. The amended regulation is intended to strengthen the EU’s capacity to address illegal migration, and seeks to achieve greater benefit from Immigration Liaison Officer (ILO) networks for Frontex and the Commission. The UK supported the proposal’s aim to strengthen partnership working on illegal immigration, but objected to the failure of the text to reflect the application of the UK and Irish opt-in protocol. The UK had a right to opt-in to measures pursuant to this part of the treaty and highlighted that a recital should be inserted to reflect the Government’s decision to opt-in. The UK would not be able to support agreement until that amendment was made.

Next the Council discussed the sixth report from the Commission on the maintenance of visa requirements with third countries. Commissioner Malmstrom said progress was being made on the lack of Czech-Canada reciprocity. The Council then adopted an amendment to the Common Visa List to grant Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina nationals access to the Schengen area without an EU visa, subject to a strengthened monitoring mechanism to allow for a rapid suspension in the event of a sudden inflow. Ministers from Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina joined the Council for this item to welcome the decision. The UK will not be affected by changes to the regulation on the Common Visa as it builds on elements of the Schengen Acquis in which we do not participate.

Following Mixed Committee, the presidency gave a progress report on those dossiers being prioritised by the Belgian presidency under the Common European Asylum System noting that the Council was close to agreement on the Dublin and Eurodac regulations, although several delegations intervened to argue for the inclusion in the latter of law enforcement access. The UK acknowledged the presidency’s determined efforts to reach agreement on these measures, but thought the EU’s emphasis should be on practical co-operation. The UK highlighted that support for Greece was vital, that the Greek action plan was a real step forward, but there was an urgent need to act with strong leadership by the Commission. The UK stated that in the right circumstances we could send asylum caseworkers to support Greece, but there had to be a proper funding source at EU level. The UK highlighted that Dublin should be supported, not suspended. Rather than legislation that would increase the rights of all asylum seekers (whether or not their claims were valid), member states should provide faster protection for those in need, while protecting EU asylum systems from abuse.

Over lunch Interior Ministers discussed solidarity in the field of immigration and asylum and, at the request of Germany, the aviation security incident, involving cargo freight originating in Yemen. The UK updated on the current threat and its response to date. The UK also raised the importance of an EU PNR directive that included intra-EU flights.

The French Minister also informed the Council of the establishment of a “Mediterranean Office for Youth” in 2011; an intergovernmental initiative to improve mobility for young people through, for example, work experience opportunities.

After lunch Council conclusions on the creation and implementation of an EU policy cycle on organised crime (Project Harmony) were adopted. The mechanism should allow an intelligence-led approach to prioritising and tackling agreed threats from serious organised crime.

The presidency then sought a firm political steer on the way forward for implementation of the Prum Council decisions. The UK stated that it would not meet the August 2011 deadline for implementation. The UK acknowledged the offer of EU funding and suggested the deadline should be reconsidered. The UK could not support harmonisation of post-hit operational business rules. The presidency called on all member states to fulfil their commitments and make use of the support available.

Under AOB the Commission presented their initiative for a regulation on the marketing and use of explosives. The regulation proposes to limit access by the general public to specific chemicals that can be used to manufacture home-made explosives by restricting their use and possession above set concentration thresholds. There was no discussion.

The Hungarians called on the presidency and Commission to focus on the Eastern Partnership and on delivering a migration dialogue with the Russian Federation during discussions on the Prague process-building migration partnerships. The process is intended to implement strengthened practical and operational co-operation with main countries of transit and origin based on the global approach to migration—specifically the Eastern migration route, which includes Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

On the Justice day the Commission presented its proposal for a directive on attacks against IT systems which would replace the existing framework decision, which was part of a broader package of measures to combat cybercrime. The presidency looked forward to negotiations under the Hungarian presidency. The Government are considering whether the UK should opt in to this proposal.

There was an orientation debate on the European Investigation Order (EIO) which deals with cross-border requests for evidence in criminal proceedings. The UK supported the proposal but highlighted that some issues needed further debate at working-group level, in particular grounds of refusal. We needed to look further at cost, proportionality and dual criminality, in particular in relation to coercive matters. Proportionality must be a consideration in both the issuing and executing state. The presidency concluded that it would report on progress in December after further negotiations.

The presidency then provided an information point on the directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. This is the second measure in the road map for strengthening criminal procedural rights and it aims to set common minimum standards and improve the rights of suspects and accused persons by ensuring that they receive information about their rights. The presidency stated that while progress has been made on this directive, it was essential to take account of the common law systems. The Commission reiterated this and encouraged member states to support the presidency in finding a solution that worked for all. The presidency will seek a general approach on this directive at the JHA Council on December 2-3.

The Commission presented the mid-term review of the Drugs Action Plan and stressed the seriousness of the drug abuse problem in Europe and the need for implementation of the plan. It accepted that it was not the right moment to expect higher investment in drug prevention and treatment programmes but it was also not the moment to cut investment. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) presented its annual report which was published on the 10 November.

Over lunch Justice Ministers received a presentation from the presidency on whether EU action was required to enhance cross-border co-operation in border regions: this was intended to give guidance to the EU Prosecutors Forum at the end of November.

Pension Protection System (Administration Levies)

Monday 15th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am pleased to announce that for 2011-12 the rates for both the PPF administration levy and the general levy will remain at the same levels set for 2010-11.

Some of the administrative resource costs of the Pensions Regulator (tPR), the Pension Protection Fund (PPF), the Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) and the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) are recovered through levies raised on pension schemes. The rates for these levies are set in regulations.

Levy rates in year are set to avoid frequent changes and do not directly reflect forecast future costs but also take into account accumulated deficits or surpluses in expected levy collection. In holding rates stable, the Government are seeking to avoid additional cost pressures on pension schemes. The rates have remained unchanged since 2008; this stability will be welcomed by levy payers, pension scheme trustees, members and sponsoring employers.

State Pension Credit Research Study

Monday 15th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Starting from today, the Government are running a study exercise to look at ways of making better use of the data they hold about individuals, both from DWP administrative records and those of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in order to help improve take-up of pension credit.

This study has been designed to meet the following objectives:

Provide information about how people might feel about a system which makes more use of personal information that the Government already hold to pay people pension credit without the need for a claim.

Evaluate ways of using the data available to the Government to improve take-up under the current pension credit regime.

Deliver evidence about how in the long term a reshaping of the benefit or acquisition of better data might enable the Government to streamline radically the process for awarding pension credit.

This study will involve making awards of estimated pension credit to a randomly selected group of some 2,000 pensioners who, based on the personal information held, appear to be entitled to pension credit but not claiming it. These payments of benefit will be made for 12 weeks without those selected first needing to have made a claim. The first payments will be made in December and conclude in March 2011.

At the end of the study there will be a thorough evaluation, with initial findings expected from summer 2011.

House of Lords

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Monday, 15 November 2010.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Introduction: Baroness Hollins

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

14:39

Sheila Clare Hollins, having been created Baroness Hollins, of Wimbledon in the London Borough of Merton and of Grenoside in the County of South Yorkshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Rix and Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Lord Drayson took the oath.

Justice: Magistrates’ and County Courts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked By

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effects on local justice of the closure of magistrates’ and county courts and of holding such courts in multi-use buildings.

[Noble Lords]

Come on!

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

I beg your pardon; I am not playing for time. My Lords, the Government are committed to the principle of local justice. However, our court estate must reflect changes in population, transport and communication links, technology, workload and the needs of today’s communities. These are the factors that will be in mind when judging where to locate courts.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister give a commitment that, in making final decisions on which county and magistrates’ courts will be closed, they will take into account: the fact that local justices and local courts have been the bedrock of criminal justice in this country for many centuries, and successfully so; that the cost and inconvenience to public users of distant courts is considerable, and for the one-third who have to use public transport is unsupportable; that the magistrates’ courts reckon that only a third of the 100-plus magistrates’ courts closures are justifiable: and, finally, that the better alternative would be to revert to using multi-purpose buildings, such as town halls, which would be much cheaper?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the attraction of multi-purpose buildings has a superficial appeal. The problem is that many of them that might offer that up have no facilities for custody or for victims and witnesses and poor security for professional staff and judges. Therefore, although we will look at the case for that use, the best way is to have modern, purpose-built courts that can dispense justice efficiently. On the first part of my noble friend’s question, yes, we are well aware of the long-standing role of magistrates. Next year will be the 750th anniversary of magistrates in this country.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former president of the Sussex Magistrates’ Association, and I am sorry to say that the magistrates’ court at Lewes is currently under threat of closure. Does the Minister agree that the more work we can channel into the magistrates’ courts, the better? If so, why do we not now consider raising their jurisdiction limit from six months’ imprisonment to 12 months’ imprisonment?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I take note of that advice. One of the objectives in the Government’s review of sentencing, which will be published shortly, is to ensure that a proper volume of work goes through the magistrates’ courts.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Apart from the inconvenience to the public, is there not a danger that, when justice becomes less local, justices will not be able to reflect the prevalence of certain offences in their district in the sentences that they give? Is there not also a danger that good justices will be lost to the system because of the extra travelling time involved?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, to a certain extent those are concerns, and we will keep them under close review. However, we live in a more mobile age and justices will be given assistance with travel costs. The longest journey to court—this is an extreme under the new proposals—will be 40 miles, and most journeys will be much less. I understand the concerns but they do not outweigh the fact that, as the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said:

“It is obvious that a number of courts in different parts of England and Wales no longer fulfil any sufficiently valuable public purpose”.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Trumpington!

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, why was Bow Street magistrates’ court, home of the Bow Street Runners, the first court and a listed building, allowed to be sold as a hotel when, I am told, there was an offer from a group of ex-police officers to buy it and turn it into a museum? Is the Minister also aware that it was the only court without a blue light outside because Queen Victoria did not like it?

[Lord McNally]

I was not aware of that. I do not know whether this was undertaken by the previous Administration but the most distinguished ex-Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is nodding. He obviously did the dirty deed. One of the things that I have asked for in the review is that we keep a check on which courts are listed buildings and what is likely to happen to them.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

In none of the Minister’s answers has he mentioned the victims of crime having to attend magistrates’ courts or county courts that are some distance further from their homes than they otherwise would be. Is he aware of the number of cases that are adjourned because somebody does not turn up to court? A victim of crime may have to attend court two, three or four times before their case is heard. What assessment has the Minister made of the financial, let alone emotional, cost of victims returning to court several times to have their case heard?

[Lord McNally]

I think the roar of approval is very apt. It is something that we are looking at very carefully. One of the issues that I know the Lord Chancellor is looking at is the almost casual ease with which adjournments are agreed to. As well as good justice, we want to see efficient and quick justice in the magistrates’ courts. Certainly, the point that the noble Baroness refers to is one that needs to be addressed with some urgency.

[Viscount Tenby]

Can the Minister indicate the Government’s response to the 10 specific recommendations made by the Magistrates’ Association last month in the light of future plans mooted abroad by the Lord Chancellor? In asking that question, I declare an interest both as a former magistrate and, in that capacity, as someone who has had to oversee the merger and closure of courts.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I assure the noble Viscount that we have been in the closest touch with the Magistrates’ Association. We have listened carefully to its recommendations. I hope some of its concerns will be reflected in the statement that we will make in response to these consultations before the end of the year.

Educational Psychology

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked By

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they will give to educational psychology.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

Educational psychologists play an extremely important role in supporting children and young people who have special educational needs, and their families.

The Children’s Workforce Development Council administers a voluntary subscription scheme for local authorities to fund the entry training of educational psychologists to help ensure supply. This scheme has become unsustainable because so many local authorities are not contributing. We want to place the training of educational psychologists on a more secure footing in the context of the forthcoming Green Paper on SEN.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

I thank the Minister for that semi-positive reply. Does he accept that many children who have social and emotional problems need educational psychologists to support them and their families? Does he further accept that without the help of educational psychologists many of these children simply will not receive the support they need? Could he give more details about the recruitment and training of psychologists? What will the Government do to insist that these educational psychologists are present in schools?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I certainly accept the two points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about the importance of educational psychologists and the role that they play. As I explained in my first Answer, the difficulty with training is that the money that has been given to local authorities so that they can make a voluntary contribution to the Children’s Workforce Development Council is not being paid. Only 16 local authorities have paid that money. We clearly need a better solution than the current one to make sure that funding for training is on a secure footing, which it clearly is not at present. In addition to that, the Green Paper, which looks more generally at the whole future of special educational needs, will look at the question of educational psychologists and, for example, whether we should separate funding from assessment. That is an extremely important issue, which we debated in this House a couple of weeks ago, and it would be part of that process.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of any cost-benefit analysis of the value of early assessment of children’s difficulties by properly qualified professionals? Does he agree that there is probably an opportunity cost if those professionals are not available?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I very much agree with my noble friend that there clearly must be an opportunity cost if those professionals are not available. I have not seen any cost-benefit analysis but I do not need to be convinced of the benefit and the good that educational psychologists do.

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, given that 50 per cent of adult mental health problems begin in childhood, and that educational psychologists are utterly crucial in identifying those and providing the children concerned with the right care, does the Minister agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and me—I think he was agreeing with us—that leaving training to the vagaries of the local authority is simply not working? Can he reassure us that educational psychology will join the other healthcare professions in having a training strategy that is determined by central bodies rather than being left to the vagaries of local authorities?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am not sure that I can give the noble Baroness the specific assurance for which she has asked. However, I can give the assurance that all these issues and the best sustainable system will be considered by my honourable friend Sarah Teather as part of the Green Paper consideration. There are a number of ways in which one can approach this matter and I know that she will be keen to give it the fullest possible consideration.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not simply the training of educational psychologists that is a problem but the number available, given that so much of their time is spent purely on annual statements? Will he give the House an assurance that when his right honourable friend—sorry, he is my right honourable friend as well—devolves all budgets to individual schools, the funding for educational psychologists and their training will come from a separate pot rather than from individual school budgets?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As I am sure my noble friend knows, currently educational psychologists are funded separately and the relevant money does not come from schools’ budgets. I accept his point that it is important not just to get the training right, although that is important, but that one has to look at the numbers as well. The advice we have received from the CWDC is that the numbers seem to be appropriate, but I agree that one needs to keep that very much under review.

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords, in anti-bullying week, can the Minister say what the future prospects are for educational psychologists to carry on their work not only with vulnerable children but with their families and school professionals if the Educational Psychology Service has such a question mark over it? Can he also say what contact he has had with local authorities and schools on this issue?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that educational psychologists play an extremely important role, not least in the context of anti-bullying. My honourable friend Sarah Teather, the Minister for Children and Families, has had a whole series of meetings with local authorities about these important issues. The department generally has been talking to a range of local authorities about the future arrangements for special needs education. I agree that it is vital to get those right. I certainly give her the undertaking that we will continue to keep a very close eye on it. We need to ensure that there are enough educational psychologists and that they are properly trained. I do not accept that there is a serious question mark over the future, but I do accept that we have a short-term issue about training and getting the funding from local authorities, which we have to address.

Healthcare: Costs

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked By

[Lord Taylor of Warwick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking to control rises in health care costs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the Government have guaranteed that health spending will increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament. However, in order to meet rapidly rising demands while improving quality, substantial improvements in economy and efficiency will be required across all areas of health spending. This response is best led by the NHS locally, while the centre will focus on reforming the health service to create a long-term sustainable NHS.

[Lord Taylor of Warwick]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree with me that putting more funding now into research into terrible conditions such as dementia, in which I include Alzheimer’s disease—for which there is no cure—will ultimately bring down healthcare costs? We must find a cure, and I ask the Minister to commit more research funding to the terrible condition of dementia.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to identify dementia as a particular cost pressure over the next few years. The coalition Government signalled in their programme our intention to prioritise funding for dementia research. The spending review confirmed that and committed to real-terms increases in spending on health research. This investment is indeed essential if we are to increase the quality, productivity and cost-effectiveness of the NHS.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I return to a question which I posed previously to the Minister and which remains unanswered. Does he not agree that if patients in the health service knew what the costs of their treatment, care and drugs were, as they do in the private sector, this would create a downward pressure, which would reduce costs overall?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I know that this is a question to which the noble Lord and other noble Lords regularly return, and it has a superficial attraction. The problem with it, I am advised, is that patients who are informed of the cost of their treatment—some patients, at any rate—take that as a deterrent to accepting the treatment in the first place. That is something we need to avoid. Nevertheless, there is an underlying point here; there is a need to provide better information to patients about their treatment so that they can take ownership of their state of health.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, what consideration are the Government giving to seven-day working in the NHS, including renegotiating Agenda for Change, to make better use of the NHS’s equipment, promote early diagnosis and decrease morbidity from complications of treatment that is not overseen by senior staff—particularly over weekends and bank holidays?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, creating a seven-day service is a particular concern of mine, and the noble Baroness is quite right to raise it, particularly given her long experience in the health service. As for Agenda for Change, any alterations to existing terms and conditions, such as the unsocial hours payment or sick pay, would need to be negotiated in partnership with NHS Employers and trade unions, through the NHS Staff Council.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I know it is extremely difficult, but has my noble friend had the opportunity to explore how much of the increase in health service costs in recent years has come about because of the increase in administration and management costs? I refer not simply to the salaries of administrators and managers but to the administration for the administrators, and to the amount of time that clinical and professional staff must spend in servicing the requirements put on them by administrators and management.

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is right to pinpoint this area. If my memory serves me correctly, the average annual increase in management and administration costs over the past 10 years has been 6.2 per cent per year, which is by far and away higher than the increase in costs in clinical areas, for example. That is why we are determined to reduce the administrative cost of running the NHS, and we are in the process of planning for exactly that.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

Does the noble Earl agree that that is an opportunity for us to look at saving costs in the health service by ensuring that we think of methods to persuade people to attend their day clinics? The cost of people not attending—DNA, as it is called in the health service—is huge, particularly in day surgery.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is quite right, and I am well aware that she speaks from personal experience. Many hospital trusts, and indeed GPs’ surgeries where applicable, have devised inventive ways of reminding patients of their appointments, either on the day or on the day before, perhaps by text. Good practice in this area is something that we need to focus on.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, clinical leadership is critical if we are to secure the greatest benefit for patients from NHS spending and the appropriate use of resources. What strategies do Her Majesty's Government have for developing clinical leadership in the NHS? I declare an interest as patron of UCL Partners’ NHS staff college.

[Earl Howe]

Again, my Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to focus on clinical leadership, which will be critical if we are to deliver the improvements in the quality of care that we wish to see, and also to roll out the vision laid out in the Government's White Paper. The department has a number of initiatives under way, as do deaneries in strategic health authority areas around the country, to promote clinical leadership. There are also active programmes in acute trusts. Without good clinical leadership, the programme cannot proceed as we all hope and wish.

[Lord Eden of Winton]

My Lords, can my noble friend say what proportion of total National Health Service costs is represented by drugs and medicines? Might it not be that if there were tighter control over the dissemination of pills and medicines, particularly in outpatient departments, there could be important savings?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend is right that drugs and medicines account for a sizeable proportion of the NHS bill. Successive rounds of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, combined with what we call the category M scheme for generic drugs, have held down the cost of drugs to the NHS very successfully over the years. However, this is an area to which we are devoting a great deal of attention, not least in our plans for value-based pricing in the longer term.

Health: Private Medical Insurance

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:08

Asked By

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the imposition of fixed fee schedules and restricted hospital and consultant networks for the provision of services to private medical insurance subscribers, as now practised by the two principal insurers in this field, is in the public interest.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a policyholder with AXA PPP.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, private medical insurers are entitled to offer policies on a variety of terms and offering different levels of benefit. The Financial Services Authority’s Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook does not prevent insurers restricting choice of healthcare provider. However, it does require that the insurer provides information on any such restrictions. Provided that policyholders are covered as they expect in the event of a claim, this is to the benefit of consumers as cost control serves to keep premiums at an affordable level.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Office of Fair Trading is receiving a large number of complaints from individuals who believed that they had fully comprehensive healthcare insurance with organisations such as BUPA and PPP but are now finding in many instances that their recovery is only partial, that they are restricted in the choice of consultant to whom they may be referred, despite their GP’s advice, and also that they are not allowed to go to certain hospitals? Is this not contrary to the policy that should be carried out, and is the Minister aware that last week my noble friend Lord Crisp said that private healthcare insurance was becoming a lottery, and that the Financial Services Authority should examine the matter in the light of these complaints?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, private medical insurance policies are held by some 6 million people. I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is a very distinguished member of the profession, for drawing attention to this matter because it is clearly important for those 6 million people and for the country as a whole that this is a well functioning market. However, that market is the business of the policyholders, the insurance companies and the doctors. The FSA’s role is to make sure that essentially policyholders are sold policies on terms that are fully disclosed to them and that those terms are upheld. In June this year, the FSA carried out a review of the conduct of business rules and found no evidence of risk of consumer detriment in the PMI market which could be addressed by changing its regulatory approach. However, I am sure that the FSA, like the OFT, hears complaints coming in.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that quite often medical insurance companies require a direct debit payment and that it is only after the direct debit payment has been made that they inform the person that certain things which they thought were going to continue to be covered no longer are?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I do not pretend to be an expert on the precise ways in which medical insurers carry out every aspect of their business, but clearly, as I said, it is critical that people understand what policies they are buying and that the policy terms are met. That is the critical interest of the Financial Services Authority in this matter.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the complaints from National Health Service consultants that, when there is a failure by the private healthcare system, patients are put into the National Health Service in front of other people? Would he also care to comment on my view that there is no comprehensive healthcare policy through private insurance and that everyone in the country is dependent on the NHS?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am happy to confirm the really critical point, which is that the National Health Service is available to the population as a whole and that this is therefore an area in which the nation has access to the best-quality healthcare. If, on top of that, people wish to invest their money in private healthcare policies, it is important that those policies work effectively. However, as the noble Baroness points out, it is critical that the health service is there for everyone. As she raises the question of complaints, it is worth pointing out that the complaints that are relevant to this Question are those that go to the Financial Services Authority or the Financial Ombudsman Service. The latest figures that I have are for 2008. There were 514 complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service in that year, of which 170 were upheld, and that represents one complaint upheld for every 8,000 people treated under private medical insurance.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Minister says that the FSA is content that the system is working well. However, does he accept that many people who feel that they have been let down by their policies do not share that view? As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out last week, this problem seems to be more general than just one or two people not reading their instructions properly. Could the Minister possibly go back to the FSA and ask it to look at this problem again in the light of the concerns that have been raised about it in recent months?

[Lord Sassoon]

I thank my noble friend for raising that point. Of course I am happy to convey to the FSA the points that have been raised this afternoon.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, the noble Lord has taken a remarkably complacent view in his answers about the position of policyholders. Surely the FSA’s responsibility to ensure that financial institutions treat their customers fairly requires that this matter be investigated and that better information be given to policyholders about the limitations of their cover.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I think I have responded to the noble Lord’s points in the answers that I have given to a number of questions.

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, I declare a similar interest to that of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Is not the trouble the fact that the terms, which many of the 6 million knew they had, understood they had and have had over many years, are often changed so that people can no longer go to the doctors and hospitals recommended by their GPs, but have to go to ones nominated by the company? People cannot deal with that situation because, when they took out the policy, they had the cover that they required. In many cases, they no longer are offered the cover they thought they had and had reason to expect that they had.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, as I have said, it is absolutely the focus of the FSA and the conduct of business rules that people who buy private medical insurance, just as they buy household or any other insurance, are properly sold and have explained to them the terms of the policy and that the terms of the policy are carried through. Normally, these are annual policies and the terms of policies in this area, just as in other areas of insurance that no doubt we all buy, change from year to year.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:16

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, immediately after the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will repeat a Statement on the G20, followed immediately by my noble friend Lord McNally, who will repeat a Statement on legal aid and civil costs reform.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, given the very large number of noble Lords—more than 50—who wish to speak in the Second Reading debate and given the heavy business programme that we have today, and the relatively light business programme for tomorrow, will my noble friend the Leader of the House consider the possibility of deferring these two Statements, fascinating though I am sure they will be, until tomorrow?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, perhaps in the first instance, I might respond. My noble friend makes a constructive and interesting suggestion. I would be happy to discuss in the usual channels postponing those Statements until tomorrow while the debate on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, continues.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I know that she will do her best to accommodate the House, if at all possible—I know only too well how difficult it is to schedule business. Given that the earliest we can start the Second Reading debate is six o’clock today—it is more likely to be later than that; given that it would be most unusual to delay Statements, particularly the important one from the Prime Minister—I cannot remember it happening more than once or twice in the past and it will be completely out of date by tomorrow and it is bad enough having it today; and given that tomorrow’s business is incredibly light and will finish by six o’clock tomorrow—it is a debate on an interim report from the Leader’s Group on Members leaving the House, which we have been discussing on and off for nine years—surely the Second Reading debate could be split, three hours today and three hours tomorrow, at no inconvenience to anyone, as far as I can discern. I do not expect an instant reply as the noble Baroness will obviously have to discuss it with other people. To me that seems to be a common-sense solution.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Grocott has made an eminently sensible suggestion and, as Chief Whip on this side, I am more than happy to enter into discussion on his sensible proposal.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am intrigued by the estimate of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on the length of business for today and tomorrow. I know that the more than 20 Members who have signed up to speak in tomorrow’s debate consider the future of the membership of this House to be a very serious matter, as I do, and are therefore very concerned that they should not be disrupted.

I am also intrigued that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, refers to the fact that Second Reading is not expected to start today until six o’clock or later. No doubt, the Opposition have a greater idea about how long their debate on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will persist. I do not know. It is not time limited. Clearly, if it is a straightforward matter to resolve, it should take markedly shorter than that.

It is the expectation of this House that Second Readings where there are about 50 speakers commonly are scheduled for one day only. The former Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was very much aware of that. He was still Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms when I became Opposition Chief Whip, and we worked closely together on that basis: that the normal procedures should be upheld. I am extremely keen that normal procedures continue and that this House has the opportunity properly to consider all business. That also involves the Government being able to take part in discussions whereby the normal procedures continue, and we have obviously been involved in doing just that on a constructive basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, refers to the fact that it is unusual for Statements to be deferred. That is not quite true, but I know that we can trade statistics between each other. A couple of weeks ago, the Opposition themselves asked that a Statement should be deferred by a day—very constructively—because it was not time-limited, and I had every expectation that they might wish to do the same on this occasion. The G20 debate would be as substantive and important to this House tomorrow as it is today. Clearly, the Opposition have decided to take a different view and wish to delay the start of the Second Reading debate today.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I am very much open to discussions through the usual channels. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said. I am willing to take up discussions across the whole range of timing today, but it is the normal procedure that where we have a speakers list as it was on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and at the weekend, there should be one day for Second Reading. I should remind the House that it is my duty and that of the usual channels to organise the business of the House on behalf of all Back-Bench interests. That means providing certainty as to timing in advance, so that all noble Lords may make a disposition of their outside work and other commitments to be here. Therefore, when a request is made at a late stage today, it would clearly be improper of me to agree that the Second Reading should somehow be changed when others have already made the commitment to be here today to take part in and conclude Second Reading.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I thought I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggest that we may have discussions, and I hope that they can be constructive, but I think that it goes broader than just discussing the issue of the Statements. I understand entirely what the noble Baroness is saying, and I share her concern to stick to first principles in the organisation of business, but events overtake circumstances and we need some flexibility. It is flexibility that the House is seeking here, and I hope that we can proceed on that basis.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness, when she is considering this matter, to bear in mind that the Companion also states that the House normally rises at 10 o'clock, and that the House has risen at later than 10 o'clock on a number of occasions already this year.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as ever, the noble Countess is careful and proper in the way that she refers to procedure of the House, on which she is authoritative. I have of course looked at the Companion, as the noble Countess would expect. It states:

“It is a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 10 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays, by about 7 p.m. on Thursdays, and by about 3 p.m. on Fridays. The time of meeting of the House can be varied to meet the convenience of the House. In exceptional circumstances the House has met on Saturday and on Sunday”—

which I do not propose.

I was of course keen to ensure that my memory was more accurate than perhaps it might be without having looked at the statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will not be surprised that I looked at the position when I became Opposition Chief Whip, when he was the Government Chief Whip. In that period, 2006-07, the House sat beyond 10 o'clock on 36 occasions; and in the following year, 2007-08, on 53.

Communications Committee

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:24

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Stevenson of Balmacara be appointed a member of the Select Committee.

Motion agreed.

European Union Committee

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Liddle be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Paul.

Motion agreed.

Statutory Instruments Committee

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Kennedy of Southwark be appointed a member of the Joint Committee.

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

Tabled By

[Lord Sassoon]

That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 20, Schedule 2, Clauses 21 and 22, Schedule 3, Clauses 23 to 26, Schedules 4 and 5, Clause 27, Schedule 6, Clauses 28 to 31.

Motion not moved.

Freedom of Information (Time for Compliance with Request) Regulations 2010

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:25

Moved By

[Lord McNally]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11 October be approved.

Relevant Documents: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 8 November.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to refer to the Examiners

15:25

Moved By

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

To move that the Bill be referred to the Examiners.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper to refer this Bill to the Examiners to consider whether it is hybrid. This point arises before we move to Second Reading.

I should say that my noble friend Lady Royall, the shadow Leader of the House, gave notice of this point to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, last Monday, when she sent him the advice of leading counsel on which we rely. That advice has been placed in the Library since Friday of last week. My noble friend Lady Royall suggested that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, refer the matter to the Examiners straightaway. If the Examiners say no to hybridity, there will be no delay. If, however, they conclude that the Bill is hybrid, the consequences could be worked on as soon as possible to ensure a transparent process within the Lords’ Standing Order to select exemptions to this new Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, did not reply but sent my noble friend Lady Royall by return a letter that he had received from the Clerk of Public and Private Bills in this House saying that he considered that the Bill was not prima facie hybrid on the basis that it engaged no private interests. It is our case that the Bill is hybrid.

Before I come to that argument, perhaps I may set out the consequences of such a reference today. Referring the Bill to the Examiners, which is what the Motion seeks, would result in the Examiners seeking argument from those who say the Bill is hybrid and those who say that it is not. As experts and without political bias, they would then determine whether it is hybrid. If they conclude that the Bill is hybrid, the Standing Orders of this House require that the procedures for private Bills have to be followed in part. Those include the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to hear argument and evidence called by those whom the Committee allow to petition it on the issue of whether there should be any other exceptions to the new rules apart from Shetland and Orkney and the Western Isles. The matter of exceptions would then be decided by a fair evidence-based process where the reasoning was transparent for all to see, not by what appears to be the fiat of the Government without explanation.

The Bill is divided into two main parts. Part 1 provides for a change to our electoral system from first past the post to an alternative vote system and it also provides for a referendum on whether to introduce such a system. If the vote is passed in the referendum, the Minister will be obliged by the terms of the Bill to introduce the alternative vote system. Part 2 introduces a whole new method for fixing the boundaries of constituencies. Instead of it being a matter of judgment for the Boundary Commission as to the most expedient place for the boundaries, taking into account geographical and other community factors, county and ward boundaries and the likely number of constituencies in a constituency, under the new Bill the role of the Boundary Commission will be primarily to ensure that every constituency under 13,000 square kilometres contains the same number of constituents plus or minus 5 per cent. Constituency boundaries will be allowed to pass through county and ward boundaries. Numbers will be all.

The consequence of such an approach is certain to be, for example, that the Isle of Wight will be divided into two and the constituency of one of the Isle of Wight’s MPs will be joined to the mainland. Constituencies will frequently cross county boundaries. There is bound to be at least one constituency that crosses the boundary between Devon and Cornwall. The two constituencies that are to be excluded from this approach are the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. The relevant provision reads:

“Preserved constituencies … There shall continue to be … a constituency named Orkney and Shetland, comprising the areas of the Orkney Islands Council and the Shetland Islands Council”,

and,

“a constituency named Na h-Eileanan an Iar, comprising the area of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar”.

The Explanatory Notes may be helpful to some Members of the House:

“Rule 6 provides for the two Scottish island constituencies of Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles) and Orkney and Shetland to be preserved, and for the electorates of those two constituencies to be removed from the UK electorate and the Scottish electorate for the purposes of calculating the UK electoral quota”.

The Bill excludes those two constituencies from the effect of the new approach. Note that this is not an exception of the normal sort where, for example, no constituency can be above 13,000 square kilometres, which applies to the whole country; this is just two constituencies being taken out of the Bill. We support an approach that makes constituencies more equal in size, but we recognise that there should be a proper and transparent basis for determining which communities should be kept out of the Bill. The justification for the two exceptions was given by a Mr Harper, a junior Minister, who said:

“These constituencies have small populations and are not easily reached from the mainland. They have already been recognised either in legislation or in practice in previous boundary reviews as justifying particular treatment. We have concluded therefore that exceptions for these areas are justified by their particular geography”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/7/10; col. 1071W.]

To that answer, I say the following: first, there are many other constituencies with just as small populations that are not being preserved and no explanation is given for their exclusion; secondly, the Western Isles have never been so recognised before in legislation; thirdly, remoteness applies just as much to the many isles of Argyllshire as it does to these two islands; fourthly, geography could be applied to justify communities such as Anglesey or the Isle of Wight being excluded. No consistent basis is being advanced.

Is the Bill hybrid? The House of Lords Companion to the Standing Orders defines hybrid Bills as:

“public bills which are considered to affect specific private or local interests, in a manner different from the private or local interests of other persons or bodies of the same class, thus attracting the provisions of the Standing Orders applicable to private business”.

Is the Bill hybrid? I submit that it is. The easiest definition of hybridity comes from the Speaker in another place in 1988 in rejecting a claim to hybridity in respect of the Education Reform Bill that was passed in 1988. He said:

“In considering the question of hybridity, I have to look at the terms of the Bill. Provided that the formula or description used in the Bill deals with a category or class which is relevant to the purposes of the Bill and the Bill does not expressly specify or single out an individual or corporation within the category for different treatment, the Bill is not hybrid”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/87; col. 770.]

This Bill does precisely what the Speaker said in 1988; it singles out two constituencies that are not to be subject to a formula or description laid down in the Bill. Instead, they are singled out for special treatment.

[Lord Naseby]

Can the noble and learned Lord inform the House what exactly has changed since the Bill left the other place? The challenge of hybridity took place in another place and the Speaker was not called upon to rule. All that I can say to the noble and learned Lord is that, in the five years when I had the privilege of being Chairman of Ways and Means, there was never a single instance in which the upper House challenged the lower House on hybridity.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

No ruling has been given on hybridity by the other place and I would strongly urge this House not to regard itself as bound by the other place, which looks at constitutional issues in an entirely different way from us. The matter was never considered by the House of Commons. If this House were to say, “Once the House of Commons has not considered it, we are not to consider it”, that would be a fundamental abdication of our position.

[Lord Renton of Mount Harry]

Will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether any other areas such as those that he mentioned, including the islands off Argyll, have requested that they should have the same privilege—if that is the right word—as Shetland and Orkney and the Western Isles? Has he received any such requests?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Mr Reid, who is the MP for the relevant area, has complained bitterly, as have the MPs for the Isle of Wight and for Anglesey. Far from flying off on my own on the issue, I am reflecting the views of many people who would argue that places such as Anglesey, the Isle of Wight, Devon and Cornwall should have special recognition for their community position. As I have said, the Bill does precisely what the Speaker referred to in 1987, in that it singles out two constituencies that are not to be subject to the formula or description laid down in the Bill but are instead to be given special treatment.

The Bill is public, but the relevant provision in the Bill will affect the specific local interests of the people who live there in a different way from those who live elsewhere in the country. Others in the country who say that they should have the same right should be entitled to argue for it. Their specific interests are also affected. I respectfully submit that the matter is pretty clear. I urge the House not to be motivated by political interests but to listen to the merits of the argument.

Why is the Bill not hybrid? Three arguments have been advanced. It is said, first, by the Clerk of the Public and Private Bills Office that there are no private or local interests engaged here. The relevant Clerk was kind enough to have a conversation with me this afternoon, when I put my arguments to him and he put his arguments to me. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement. I submit that he is wrong. Hybridity does not apply only to cases where a person’s property rights are removed—as, for example, in the nationalisation Bills or the early 19th century railway Bills. Hybridity also applies where the powers, for example, of a local authority are treated differently in one part of the country from another or where the very issue is where local authority boundaries can be drawn.

Many in the House will remember the Charlwood and Horley Bill in 1973, which was a hybrid Bill concerned with whether two parishes should be in Surrey or in Sussex. No one for one minute considered that that was not a legitimate interest on which to found hybridity. The arguments in that Bill were around, “I would like to be in Surrey because Surrey is better than Sussex” or “I would like to be in Sussex because Sussex is better than Surrey”. Do not tell me that that is a property interest. That is an interest about where I want my politics to be conducted and who I want to be my representative. The important point is that that shows that the reference to local interests goes much wider than simply property interests.

Issues might arise about who should be entitled to petition the committee about the terms of the constituency boundary process. Should such an entitlement apply to individuals, or should it apply to, for example, the local authorities for the Isle of Wight, Cornwall and Devon, or to the local MPs? Those issues can be worked out and resolved by the committee adopting a workable procedure, but the key point is that the hybridity process recognises as a legitimate, specific local interest the geographical unit within which you elect your representatives.

The second argument—this is dealt with fully in Mr James Goudie’s advice—is that it is said that it is not the practice to treat as hybrid those Bills that deal with matters of public policy whereby private rights over large areas or over a whole class are affected. If one examines, as I have done, the Bills on which this principle is based, it is clear that the principle is that, if a Bill deals with the whole of a section or an industry, hybridity will not apply even if it deals with different parts in different ways. If, however, some people are left out of the new scheme, that is a classic case of hybridity.

I give two examples on either side of the line. On this side is the Railways Bill 1921, which nationalised all the railway companies but nationalised the Great Western Railway company in a different way from the others. That Bill was held not to be hybrid because it dealt with the whole of the railway industry. On the other side is the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, which left out one aircraft builder and was held to be hybrid because it left someone out. On which side of the line does this Bill fall? I have read out the relevant provisions and the Explanatory Notes, which state basically that the two constituencies are to be preserved and kept out of the whole process.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord help the House by explaining the difference between the Bill that we are due to consider today and, say, the Scotland Bill that was introduced in 1998? That Bill, which was brought in by the previous Government and provided for the creation of the Scottish Parliament, also contained measures to change the boundaries of constituencies in Scotland, and in particular to create separate constituencies for Orkney and the Shetland Islands. That Bill, introduced by a Labour Government, was never considered to be hybrid. Can he explain why this Bill should be?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I have cited the example of the Railways Act, which was a piece of legislation that dealt with the whole issue, whereas this Bill does not. This Bill leaves two constituencies out.

Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has pointed out, it has been said that the Commons have not declared the Bill to be hybrid. That is true, but no vote was sought and no application pursued. It is for each House to make its own decision, and I strongly urge this House not to accept that, if the Commons reach such a conclusion, we are bound by it. That would diminish the importance and independence of this House on constitutional issues.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would correct a remark he made at the beginning of his speech. He said that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, wrote to me and that I did not reply. In fact, I consulted the Clerk at the Table who is the expert on hybridity in this House. Prompted by the discussion, he wrote me a definitive letter on hybridity, a copy of which I sent to the noble Baroness, as well as placing a copy of the exchange in the Library of the House. I certainly did not ignore the noble Baroness’s letter.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I withdraw the point. The noble Lord did not write a letter to my noble friend, but it was a bad point for which I apologise. I certainly did not intend to suggest that the noble Lord had been in any way discourteous, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, had not for one moment suggested that to me. I therefore apologise to the noble Lord.

The practice of this House is to refer a Bill to the Examiners if the House is satisfied that it is reasonably arguable that the Bill is hybrid. That happened recently in the case of the Bill that covered Exeter and Norfolk. Subsequently, the Examiners held that that legislation was not hybrid. No argument was in fact advanced to them that the legislation was hybrid because a court case after the vote in the House made the issue academic. I hope very much that the House will consider our arguments on their merits rather than on the basis of the previous occasion.

I respectfully submit that this Bill is hybrid. I have dealt with the arguments advanced against, but all that I need to do is to satisfy the House that the case is reasonably arguable. My argument also reflects the merits of ensuring that the process to determine what the exceptions are is transparent rather than just dealing with things by fiat. This Motion would allow a proper approach to be followed in selecting those constituencies that are to be exceptions to the Bill. I suggest that the House should be urging for a non-political basis to this.

[Lord Roberts of Conwy]

Can the noble and learned Lord explain the substantive difference between the two constituencies preserved in the Bill and the other constituencies of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

These two constituencies will never have to be connected to the mainland. Unlike the Isle of Wight or Anglesey or the islands off Argyll, Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles will not have to be treated with a constituency on the mainland because the Bill states that the numbers-driven approach will not be applied to them. They will for ever be kept separate. That is the difference. They are being treated in a completely different way from the rest of the country.

15:45

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I yield to no one in my affection for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton—apart from Lady Falconer of Thoroton, I expect—but today he has disappointed me in his little piece of parliamentary mischief-making when most of us had expected to be here to discuss the important Second Reading of the Bill. However, late on Thursday, he raised a question not raised by the 650 Members of the other place affected by the Bill—namely, that it be referred to the Examiners on the grounds of hybridity.

The noble and learned Lord built up an unparalleled reputation in the long years of the previous Government: whenever there was a dud case to be put or a hopeless position to be defended, the cry went up from his old flatmate, then in No. 10, “Send for Charlie”. Whatever it was, up he popped at this Dispatch Box to put the case. His charms unfurled, his words dripped honey, but somehow we all knew that he knew what we knew—that the case he was arguing was built on straw. Your Lordships were never fooled then and will not be fooled today.

The noble and learned Lord comes armed with a 28-page legal opinion from the chambers founded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and written by Mr James Goudie QC, no less—a close associate of the Labour Party, I understand. After 28 pages, it concludes that it is a fine line but it is arguable that the Bill may be hybrid.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

The noble Lord has declared an impossible standard as far as James Goudie is concerned. He is a distinguished QC and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw what he said about him.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if it is not distinguished to be a close associate of the Labour Party, I withdraw it. None of my other comments was meant to remark on Mr James Goudie’s professional capacity. I said that he was a QC; I stand by that and the House knows what that means.

On the question of whether it is arguable—

[Lord Goldsmith]

I declare an interest as a QC. Is the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect, suggesting that the opinion of Mr James Goudie QC, which we have seen, does not represent his genuine and honest opinion on the matter? If he is not suggesting that, then the remarks he has just made, with respect, are ill-timed and ill-placed.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, of course I do not say that; nor do I think my remarks were ill-timed or misjudged. I was going to precisely make the case that Mr Goudie QC said that it was arguable that the Bill may be hybrid. Did anyone in the House hear a lawyer say that a case like this was not arguable? And when did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, fight shy of arguing it?

As is well known and understood, I am not a Silk like the noble and learned Lord or his friend Mr Goudie, but I have spent enough time in the countryside to know a sow’s ear when I see it—and I see it in this Motion. On what do I rest my case? Your Lordships have the benefit of the crisp opinion of the Clerks of your Lordships’ House, who have confirmed the view—a view they had taken even before the Bill was introduced—that this Bill is not prima facie hybrid. Indeed, in the opinion of the Clerk of Public and Private Bills, the Bill, “cannot be hybrid”. Had it been, neither the Clerks of this House nor of the other place, having examined it for that specific purpose, would have let it pass. That letter is in the Library.

Furthermore, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern wrote in a letter copied to me, the Leader of the Opposition and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers:

“A hybrid Bill is a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category”.

On that, I am sure that we all agree. He went on to write this short line:

“I can see no ground on which it could be argued that this is a hybrid Bill”.

So what are the facts of the matter? No one’s right to vote is affected. No one’s right to vote is withdrawn. No one’s right to representation is diminished. All that the Bill seeks to do is to ensure that constituency sizes are more equal and that each voter’s voice is more equal. Underneath all the legal argumentation, what shines out from the noble and learned Lord is that equalising constituency sizes upsets the Labour Party. We all know that Labour has long benefited from this system. No one talked about hybridity then and we all know why, don’t we? It seems that the Labour Party is upset that those unique communities in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland are protected under this Bill.

[Lord Tyler]

Can my noble friend confirm that, whenever any legislation has referred to the Orkney and Shetland constituency, although that constituency has never been considered to be part of the United Kingdom as a conventional constituency, the legislation has never been treated as hybrid?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, not only is my noble friend, like my noble friend Lord Rennard, right, but this relates to a Bill on which the former Lord Chancellor advised. The Scotland Act 1998—legislation of a Labour Government—made provision for Orkney and Shetland each to be a separate constituency in the Scottish Parliament and not to be part of any future Boundary Commission review. The noble and learned Lord raised no question of hybridity then. In addition, the same legislation—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Perhaps the noble Lord could move his guns towards the argument. The reason for that is that the Scotland Bill dealt with the whole of Scotland. This Bill excludes two bits from it. Answer that, please.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there was no private interest affected in 1998 and there is no private interest affected today. If the noble and learned Lord really wants to remove the protection that we have put into the Bill, let him make Labour’s case in Stornoway, Lerwick and Kirkwall, but he should not waste the time of this House with these tactics.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

We make it clear that we support those two being exceptions. The question is whether other people should be entitled to argue for being exceptions as well. That is the point that the noble Lord needs to deal with.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Not at all, my Lords. I have brought two qualitative arguments—those of the Clerks of the House of Lords and those of my noble and learned friend the former Lord Chancellor, who have said that there is absolutely no question to answer.

Why has this popped up now? No one raised hybridity in the other place—the place affected by the Bill. No one challenged the legal drafting of the Bill in the other place—the place affected by the Bill. The Motion is a political tactic designed to delay a Bill concerning elections to the House of Commons, which the Commons, after long and careful examination on the Floor of their House, have agreed.

Frankly, the Labour Party in this House has to decide what sort of Opposition it wants to be. Does it want to engage with the great issues that led to its ejection from power and the loss of 100 seats in the other place, or does it want to use the kinds of procedural ploys, wheezes and games that we see today? Does it want to engage in the proper work of this House in scrutinising and revising legislation line by line, or does it want to manufacture time-wasting debates?

More than 50 speakers are waiting to speak on the Second Reading. There is an important issue here. We saw it last week in the vote on the referral of the Public Bodies Bill and we see it today. This House can debate procedure or it can debate substance. There is a great liberty in our procedures and we all want that to be preserved, but I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and the noble and learned Lord do not intend to try to take this House the way of the other place, where hours are spent debating procedure and many clauses of Bills are never discussed.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, in respect of the Second Reading of the Public Bodies Bill, the House as a whole was debating a matter of extremely important constitutional relevance. That is why my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath put down the Motion that he did. As with today, it was nothing to do with wasting this House’s time; we were trying to ensure that we acted properly in holding the Government to account.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, years have gone by when we have not discussed these issues, either of hybridity or special Select Committees. It seems extraordinary that within six months of the Labour Party going into opposition we have had to debate them on three separate occasions. I do not think that anyone in this place outside a few zealots in Labour’s back room wants to see the kind of opposition and government politics that we have seen develop over the course of the past few months.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House has made an assessment of how long the Examiners would take. Is it weeks or months or days?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that would be up to the Examiners, but, based on the precedent set earlier this summer, it would be between a week and 10 days. Everybody knows that this Bill is on a tight timetable, which is precisely why we are discussing this Motion today. Six years ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, submitted from the Cross Benches that the Constitutional Reform Bill, a Bill profoundly affecting this House, which ended centuries of this House’s judicial role, be referred to a Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, condemned that as political mischief-making and strongly urged the House to resist it. Now on a Bill that has nothing to do with this House at all and has been approved by another place—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, but he will also know that once the Bill was referred to a Select Committee by the noble and learned Lord’s Motion it was made so much better, and I publicly said that. I recanted, but what has happened to him? He supported that Motion.

[Lord Strathclyde]

But on that occasion, the noble and learned Lord did not have the support of the Clerks or my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The point is that today he comes forward as the political mischief-maker in chief, hoping to use the strength of his party’s vote as the biggest party in this House to delay your Lordships’ consideration of this important Bill.

The Clerks of this House are clear that this Bill is not prima facie hybrid and “cannot be hybrid”. I submit that if the noble and learned Lord and his friends do not have the good sense to stop this charade, withdraw this Motion and let us all get on with the Bill, your Lordships should put a stop to this outbreak of party-political mischief-making with our procedures and do so decisively.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Again, I point out to the House that yes, we are proud to be the biggest party at this moment in this House, but the coalition Benches have a greater majority than we have as a single party. I just wanted the House to be aware of that.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

Is the noble Baroness aware that the Examiners to whom this Bill is to be sent are the Clerk of the Parliaments here and the Clerk of the other place?

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I wonder if I could take a little heat out of what has just been said. Will the noble Lord address the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and give his own reasoned argument why other constituencies should not be allowed to make the argument that would take them to the position of the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland? I am not arguing about the two exclusions; I am asking why nobody else has the privilege of making that argument, as we have heard that the Isle of Wight would wish to make it. What is the reasoned argument against that form of hybridity?

15:59

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the question before us is whether there is a case for the Bill to be hybrid and whether it affects a particular private interest in a manner different—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Private or local.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Private or local; I am very happy with that as well. It is whether it affects it in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category. In the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and many others the right to vote is a public right and the manner and place in which it may be exercised are not private interests. It is on that basis that I agree with my noble and learned friend and with the Clerks of the House of Lords that there are no grounds on which it could be argued that this is a Private Bill.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I listened to the Leader of the House many times when he was Leader of the Opposition and was often almost seduced by his oratory. However, that was not the case on this occasion and I do not think that it was a speech that he will be entirely thrilled about, because it was based almost entirely on suggesting that my noble and learned friend’s argument was spurious, shallow, pointless and simply and avowedly party-political. The noble Lord is nodding, so he is obviously confirming that. I want to comment initially on two points that he made, which are important considerations for the rest of us during this debate.

The noble Lord said that we know “that this Bill is on a tight timetable”. In other words, it has been guillotined quite severely in the Commons; that; of course, is what he hopes to be able to achieve in the Lords. I simply ask him: who is responsible for this Bill being on a tight timetable? The Government have made that decision in the full light of all the information. It is also, presumably, the reason why the Government say that it was not even possible to have pre-legislative scrutiny on this huge constitutional Bill—one which I think the party leader of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has described as being part of the most important reforms since 1832, with characteristic understatement. Your Lordships need not worry; I am coming to hybridity. I am sure that the noble Lord will deal with that as seriously as I am dealing with the comments that he has been making.

The noble Lord enunciated what I thought a unique constitutional principle—at least as far as I have heard in this House; it was an astonishing one to come from the Leader of the House—in which it is not this House’s business to consider issues which have not been voted on or considered in the other place. He has commented on it enough times to make me realise that this means that large swathes of business under this coalition Government will not be possible for us to discuss, because he knows perfectly well that in the other place large sections of business are frequently not discussed and not voted upon. That is due to timetabling, which obviously took place under the previous Government as it does under this one. But please let us not pretend that he is making a serious constitutional argument that we must not consider it ourselves because it has not been considered by the other place.

I come to a severely practical point on the issue of hybridity, which was partly touched upon in an earlier exchange. No one could seriously argue that this particular clause of this particular schedule did not have characteristics of hybridity: “Preserved constituencies” is all it says. It then lists two constituencies with no explanation whatsoever of why they are preserved. I put this as a procedural point to the Leader of the House; I would have thought that there is clearly no reason on earth why any other constituency that wants to be added to the preserved list should not be able to make out a case for doing so. There are 648 parliamentary constituencies not covered in the preserved list. I shall certainly be trying to persuade this House that Telford is a constituency that should not be interfered with. It is a fast-growing town in the West Midlands, whose population changes much more rapidly than other constituencies. I put only that point to him. I will not develop the argument now—it would not be to the specific point of hybridity—other than to point out that these amendments, should they be tabled, could not possibly be grouped because the nature of the hybridity means that each case is individual and is unrelated to all the other constituencies. That is the basis on which these two constituencies are put down.

If, for the sake of argument, many amendments were tabled making the case for individual constituencies, it could not then be sustained, even if you concede that this clause is hybrid, that it was only a small part of the Bill, as some of the proponents of this not being a hybrid Bill are advancing. If, during the passage of the Bill through this House, other constituencies were added to the “exempt” clause, it would become a much bigger part of the Bill. I put it to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that these are serious questions; the case is certainly serious so far as I am advancing it. There is hardly a constituency in Britain that could not put its case on the basis of its boundaries, its communities and their relationship of the communities to each other.

In passing, we have to acknowledge that all local contribution to this by way of public inquiry, which has always been the case in the past, is being bypassed too; as the noble Lord the Leader of the House has told us, the Bill is under a very tight schedule. I acknowledge that there are different opinions on this, but it is not worthy simply to use the characteristics of normal parliamentary banter, which I enjoy as much as anyone else, in responding to a very serious Motion that my noble and learned friend has tabled which, on the noble Lord’s own admission, will delay the Bill, if that is what it does, by only a week and a half. On a matter of such constitutional importance—the Government’s words, not mine, although on this occasion I agree with them—should we really not be able to delay the Bill by that time in order to establish where there is clear and serious doubt, although the noble Lord will no doubt be able to persuade enough people to his point of view? We should at least have the opportunity of dealing with that question in the proper way by referring it in the way that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is suggesting.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

In a brief intervention some months ago, I acquired an entirely undeserved and unsought reputation for being an expert on hybridity. On that occasion, though, I detected what I thought to be a serious issue that needed to be considered in the way described. On this occasion, I can detect no such issue. I have listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has said. I accept that the threshold is a low one, a point that I made on the previous occasion, but an elector’s interest in voting is not a private interest in the sense described in the Standing Orders. There can therefore be no question of treating one private interest differently from another. I am saying, only in a roundabout way, exactly what I believe the Clerk of the Public Bill Office has himself said in the letter that has been mentioned.

Before I am asked, I shall say that I have not read—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords—

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am about to be asked, I think.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not the case that the act of voting is an individual one, yes, but as an elector you want wherever possible to be with a community of others? Surely the point about constituencies is that they are about communities. If you break up communities that are naturally together, that has severe consequences for the interests of all the individuals who make up that electorate.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Of course communities matter. I yield to no one on that view but we are talking here about the specific question of whether the right to elect is itself a private interest, as described in the Standing Orders.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The argument I am making, which is based on the Charlwood and Horley Bill from 1973, is that the interest lies in the group with which you vote. The argument over the Charlwood and Horley Bill was about whether you should be in Surrey or Sussex. It was not about an individual right to vote; it was about who you were grouped with. I earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord to consider his view on the Charlwood and Horley Bill and why I am not right in what I am saying. He is putting the argument back to me in a way that is not how I am putting it to him.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Of course I am; that is my purpose. I am putting it in the way it should be put. To my mind, whatever group the individual may be in, it remains his individual right. That is not a private right as described in the Standing Orders.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the noble and learned Lord turn to the question of locality? What does “locality” mean if not what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and my noble friend Lord Harris referred to?

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am still on the question of whether the right to elect is a private right. That is the question. Unless it is, these so-called private rights are not private rights within the meaning of the Standing Orders.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the determination of the size of a constituency affects not only the right to vote but, subsequently, the nature of the relationship between constituents and their Member of Parliament? In the case of Orkney and Shetland, where there would be only 37,000, and that of the Western Isles, where there are only 22,000, would their local and private rights not be differently treated by a Bill which otherwise created constituencies of 76,000, plus or minus 5 per cent? Would it not mean that the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his or her constituents in these two constituencies was fundamentally different from that of the Member of Parliament to his constituents elsewhere? Does that not therefore indicate that local and private interests are differently treated by the Bill? In that case, have we not passed the low threshold? I remind the House of what the Speaker said in the 1962-63 Session:

“I accept the true position to be this, that if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/62; col. 45.]

Have we not cleared the low threshold?

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I have already dealt with the threshold point. I accept and have always accepted that the threshold is low, but in this instance I suggest respectfully to the House that the threshold has not been crossed. As to the rest of the noble and learned Lord’s argument, it seems to go much further than the simple point that I am trying to make, which has to do with the meaning of “private interest” in the relevant Standing Orders. On that, I find myself in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Clerk of Public and Private Bills. I expected to be asked whether I had read the opinion of the leading counsel, who appears to have expressed a different view. I have no doubt that if I had read that opinion I would be better informed than I am, but I am not altogether sure that I would necessarily be any wiser. Certainly, doing the best that I can, it seems that the Bill is not hybrid.

16:09

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

This matter turns on a very narrow and, indeed, very simple issue. I can put it in one sentence; it is a question of what is meant or not meant by “a local interest”—not a private interest but a local interest. As far as I know, this is not defined in any statute or authoritatively defined in relation to the definition of hybrid Bills.

There are two issues, both of which are very simple, and I do not believe that one of them really arises. The first issue is whether there is a body that has a distinctive reality in relation to the words of the Companion that have been taken from page 556 of Erskine May. The second question is whether, if it has that distinction, it is dealt with differently from all the others that belong to that body. I take the second question first. There clearly is a difference in approach here in that the Western Isles and the Islands of Orkney are inviolate from any prospect of change. Many of the 600 constituencies that will remain may well escape unscathed, but they have no guarantee of being inviolate. Therefore, it seems to me that, as far as the second limb is concerned, one has clearly shown that a distinction is clearly drawn. There are 600 constituencies—assuming that 50 are lopped off—598 of which are dealt with in one way and two in another.

The first question—what is a local interest?—is not a question of a private interest. Local interest is defined in the Companion and, as I say, is taken verbatim from page 556 of Erskine May. There is no definition. In my submission, a local interest—if I am wrong in this, I will gladly come to the stool of penitence—is not a proprietary interest; it is an interest involving persons living in a locality as persons living in that locality. If I am wrong, it means that even though people living in the Orkneys or in the Western Isles are in a locality, nevertheless their locality status does not count. I believe, with very great respect, that the matter is as simple, clear and narrow as that.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, I am not sure that it is necessary for your Lordships' House even to go as far as that. I invite your Lordships’ attention back to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on whether the Bill should be referred to the Examiners, not whether it is hybrid. It is a very long time since this House has sat as a court determining difficult questions. The whole point of referring a Bill to the Examiners is for them to decide independently whether it is hybrid.

I should declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee on the Constitution. I have my name down to speak in the main debate. Given that I am taking up some of your Lordships' time now, I withdraw my name from that debate, but I underline the importance of determining what test your Lordships' House should use to decide this Motion. It is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, has said, and as stated by the Speaker in another place when he ruled on the Local Government Bill in the 1962-63 Session and commented that,

“if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill, it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/62; col. 45.]

In the light of the discussion that has taken place, I invite noble Lords to consider the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on the one hand, and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on the other, on whether it can conceivably be said that there is no doubt about it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke in the way that he did about Mr Goudie, but in answer to my intervention he accepted that he is not saying this does not represent the honest and genuine opinion of someone who is experienced and learned in these matters. His conclusion was that it certainly could be said that this Bill was hybrid. That is why, in his view and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, it should go to the Examiners.

I wish to underline two further points. First, a lot has been said about whether the Bill affects private interests. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is absolutely right; that is not the question. The definition in the 23rd edition of Erskine May is that hybrid Bills are public Bills that are considered to affect specific private or local interests. One cannot ignore this question of locality.

Secondly and finally, I draw attention to what Mr Goudie said in his opinion at paragraph 17. That for me is the critical question which has been raised before. It is not a question of whether or not these two constituencies should be subject to special treatment—for myself, I can well see why that should be so—but a question of what the position is regarding other constituencies. Like other noble Lords, I have received communications from people in different parts of the country—from Cornwall and the Isle of Wight—asking and expressing their views about being treated in a different way. Mr Goudie says in paragraph 17,

“it is … reasonably and properly arguable that the justification (whatever precisely it may be) is capable of being urged as being applicable to other constituencies”.

My understanding of the process which is taking place is that if the examiners agree that the Bill is hybrid, it will provide an opportunity for those other constituencies to put forward their case as to why they, too, should be treated in a special and favoured way. Good luck to them if they succeed in that endeavour. For those reasons, I will support the Motion.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, perhaps I may make two brief points. I had not intended to speak. Currently, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, but that is not the point I really want to make. We are hearing passages from the written opinion of a distinguished member of the Bar, a Queen’s Counsel, and, like me, other Members must think that that is profoundly unsatisfactory. We ought not to be asked to vote—as we shall be—on hearing little snippets. If the QC’s opinion is to be used in this House, we should all have an opportunity to read it.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

First of all, we gave a copy of the opinion to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and to the other side, and we placed it in the Library of the House on Friday. I apologise, but I did say that in my opening remarks. I completely agree with the noble and learned Baroness—she is obviously right. However, we have made the opinion available to everyone. If the noble and learned Baroness would like to go to the Library and read it, and quickly come back to vote in my favour, I would be very grateful.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, having had the privilege of being in this House for 13 years, I say that this debate is one in which this House, most unusually, should not feel one jot of pride. I have listened with great care to what has been said. I have to say to the Leader, who knows the affection in which I hold him, that this is not his finest hour. I say that because we are faced with a subject of some importance. I have listened to the laughter and watched Members with a deal of disappointment because this subject is not very funny. It is serious, it is important, and it needs and deserves your Lordships’ serious consideration.

I wish to take particular issue with the point raised by the Leader, who made reference to our debate last week on the Public Bodies Bill. That was not a party political debate. The noble Lord will remember that it was, in many ways, led by the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and every former law officer who spoke did so with one voice.

Let us be frank. This is a real issue that we are asking the House to consider, and it is easy to dismiss what lawyers say as “mere technicality” and say that people are trying to take advantage of points for political reasons. However, there is a reason why they say, “Shoot the lawyers first”; it is because they are the ones who tend to tell people what they do not want to hear. But if not them, who? And if not now, when should we have this debate on hybridity?

The House knows that hybridity can be raised at any stage in the other place and here. This House has rightly received a great deal of praise for the sobriety and the reasoned way in which we conduct ourselves; listening courteously to each other and responding in a way that is right. Is there a real issue of hybridity here? Yes, there is. What is hybridity? In essence, it is about fairness. Should different groups and different individuals be treated differently? That is what hybridity does. We are asking for the House to consider whether the low threshold that everyone has spoken about has been crossed.

When we talk about our constitution, speed may not work to our long-term advantage. Therefore, it is important for us to think soberly. Every Bill that we have spoken of in relation to constitutional importance has had a White Paper, and often a Green Paper, a draft Bill and consideration. This Bill comes to us fresh, new, young and unseasoned, without an opportunity for mature and quiet contemplation. We do have an opportunity to do that. It is a simple question: does the House think that this matter should be delayed by a few days to enable the Examiners to decide the matter one way or the other?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble and learned Baroness is the shadow Attorney-General. She cannot say that this is a fresh, new Bill. Her party and her shadow Cabinet have been studying it since June. Why have they taken until now to raise what she calls extremely important issues?

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, the reason I described the Bill as fresh and new is that with every other constitutional Bill that we have had—the noble Lord knows this—we have had the advantage of a White Paper. We have talked about draft Bills. Pre-legislative scrutiny is something that many noble Lords who sit opposite have spoken about. I do not want to go on any further—the short issue for us is this—

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords—

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

I will finish and give way in a moment, if I may. The short issue for the House is whether or not we think enough has been raised for this matter to be put to the Examiners.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness will recall that she was a member of the Government who brought before your Lordships' House the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which included provisions for the alternative vote but was not given any pre-legislative scrutiny and was not the subject of anything like the discussion that has taken place recently in the other place.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, noble Lords will also know what happened to that Bill. There is still time for discussion: we will be discussing the new Bill now. I say very clearly that this is not merely a political instrument being used for pernicious purposes, which is what has been suggested and what has made me feel very disappointed in noble Lords opposite.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the Bill comes to us not only fresh but substantially unexamined in the other place? Very important elements—Clauses 3 to 6 and Clause 11—were entirely unexamined in Committee and on Report. Is it not incumbent on this House to make absolutely certain that we follow the correct procedure to ensure that this extremely important constitutional legislation is examined in the appropriate manner?

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, of course I agree.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly. The reason that this Bill should go to the Examiners is that we have heard one former Lord Chancellor say one thing and another former Lord Chancellor say another. We have heard advice from eminent QCs. When I was Speaker, I got advice from eminent QCs and sometimes it was not too good. Quotations have been made about previous Speakers giving rulings on hybridity. However, a Speaker would most certainly have taken advice from his Clerks, and Speaker’s counsel would also have been present. Therefore, a procedural expert and legal expert would have been present before the Speaker went to the House.

I do not really want to get into arguments about special cases around the country, although I support the case for the Orkneys, the Shetlands and the Western Isles being special. Anyone who knows Members of Parliament who have represented those constituencies—as some here previously did, the law officer being one of them—will know that sometimes the distance that MPs have to travel in doing their duty is such that they have to stay overnight in Glasgow before going on to their constituencies. This is not just an argument about people being allowed to vote; we are going beyond that—the electorate should also have access to their Members of Parliament. There are other constituencies with difficulties similar to those of the Western Isles and the Orkneys. I know the geography of Scotland but this is not just about Scotland. I also understand the argument that has been put forward about the Isle of Wight and I sympathise with that case. However, it is also true that, on leaving Glasgow airport, I could be in my constituency within half an hour, whereas the MP for Argyll and Bute would take a two-hour journey to get to his constituency. Getting to the famous island of Islay would involve taking a ferry, which would also take hours, and two ferries are required to get to Mull and Iona.

Although I did not intend to do so, I am beginning to put cases for special consideration because there are very difficult circumstances in which MPs have to operate because of the location of their constituencies. It would do no harm for the Examiners to look at the matter. I remember that when I was a lay magistrate, I was told not to worry about an appeal because it was a safety net. We could get the Examiners to look at this matter and it would be clear for everyone to understand.

16:32

[Lord Myners]

My Lords—

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I think that it is our turn. I wonder whether the Front Benches consider that we have now heard as much as we are likely to take in that is relevant and that we should now divide.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not know whether many of the questions were put to me or to the noble and learned Lord, but I shall be extremely brief. A number of issues have been raised this afternoon. They are important issues that will be raised and dealt with, quite rightly, in Committee—in particular, the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, concerning Telford—but they have nothing to do with the question of hybridity. I make two very brief points. First, the Bill is not hybrid and, secondly, the motivation behind the Labour Party’s anger is one of delay on this all-important coalition Bill.

[Lord Barnett]

Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? As I understand it, it is only a matter of timing. The Bill is important and the timing is tight. He told us that it would take 10 days if it went to an independent examiner. How long does he think it would take if 400 constituency amendments were tabled in Committee?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if the Examiners decided that the Bill was not hybrid, that still could not stop 400 constituency amendments being tabled.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, it seems to me—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think that the mood of the House is that we should move to a vote on this matter, but perhaps I may deal with two points. It was disappointing that the Minister did not choose to answer them. I know that if I had been a Minister, I would have been provided with material that would have answered the points, and it was disappointing that what he sought to do was political burlesque.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for being the only person who gave a reasoned argument about why I was wrong. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I submit that he is wrong because he has failed to deal with the Charlwood case, in which the issue which contributed to making it hybrid was two parishes saying, “We want to be in this county, governed by them and not in that county”. That was accepting the principle that localities are really interested and that it is a local issue as to which group they elect to local authorities and local councils. That was important in relation to it. I respectfully say to the noble and learned Lord, whom I respect greatly in every single respect, that he has had no opportunity to read either the opinion or what was said in relation to the Bill that I refer to, which is my fault rather than his. The threshold is whether or not there is an argument about it. No one other than the noble and learned Lord said that it was not arguable. I had the support of the former Attorney-General—

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must understand that many of us did not choose to make the argument, not because we do not feel strongly about it or do not have a very clear and argued case in our minds, but because we did not want to disadvantage the House in moving on to the Second Reading debate.

The noble and learned Lord must not mislead the House on this point, particularly when he talks about locality. The reality is that locality applies to every single constituency throughout the land. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is that if the Examiners start to meet, there is no reason why every single constituency might not come forward. It is not necessarily a matter of a week or 10 days at all. The question of locality is properly considered by the Boundary Commission when every constituency can look at local interest; it is not on a political motion about hybridity.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for not knowing what his arguments were, but as he did not express them and I am not able to mind read, I could not deal with them. The Boundary Commission will not deal with the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland because the effect of the Bill—this is my point—has been kept completely separate and out of the arrangements; therefore, their locality has been protected and no one else's has. I ask noble Lords to consider whether there is an argument about hybridity in this case. I say to those behind me as well as those in front of me, please address this as an issue on which this House has a good reputation. I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House.

16:37

Division 1

Ayes: 210

---

Labour: 170
Crossbench: 26
Bishops: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 224

---

Conservative: 125
Liberal Democrat: 58
Crossbench: 34
Independent: 1

Arrangement of Business

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Announcement

16:53

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I would like to make a brief business statement. All those present will be aware that earlier on there was an exchange of views about proceedings today. I made it clear that my first duty, as with all other usual channels, is to take into consideration the needs of all Back-Benchers. Even though those outside this House, who know less about our proceedings, might point out that the vast majority of speakers today are from the opposition Benches, my duty is, and always will be, to treat all Back-Benchers equally.

Following further constructive discussions between the usual channels, we have come to the view that it may be for the convenience of the House if we proceed with the two Oral Statements today before starting the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. The Second Reading will then be adjourned tonight after the contribution by my noble friend Lord Teverson and will be resumed tomorrow after the debate on the interim report from the Leader’s Group on Members leaving the House. That means that we will recommence tomorrow’s debate with the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. This approach has the agreement of the usual channels, and I hope that the whole House will support it.

G20

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:54

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister earlier today. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on my visit to China and the G20 summit in Korea. First, I am sure that the whole House would want to join with me in welcoming the liberation, at last, of Aung San Suu Kyi. Her tenacity and courage in the face of injustice has been truly inspiring. I spoke to her this morning to pass on the congratulations of everyone in this country on her release and on her remarkable stand on democracy and human rights. We must now work to ensure that her release is followed by freedom for more than 2,000 other political prisoners and that this becomes the first step towards the people in Burma being able to choose the person they want to run their country.

In China and Korea, my main focus was on jobs and growth. In China, I led one of the biggest and most high-powered British delegations ever. This helped to win new business for Britain worth billions of pounds, involving businesses all over the UK and cities across China. We strengthened our ties on trade, education and culture, all the while raising our concerns with China on issues like human rights where we have differences of view.

In Seoul, Britain had four priorities: first, to continue to win recognition for the importance of fiscal consolidation, with those countries with the greatest deficits taking the fastest action; secondly, to get a clear commitment from all countries to fight protectionism and take the steps necessary to boost global trade; thirdly, to help move development issues up the G20 agenda; and, fourthly, to address the global imbalances which were at the root of the global financial crisis and which still hold back growth in the world economy. We made important progress on all four.

Let me take each in turn. First, on fiscal consolidation, it is now perfectly clear what the consequences are if you ignore the dangers of deficits. You see markets questioning your economy, interest rates rising, confidence falling and the economy back in the danger zone. That is where Britain was only a few months ago, but because of the measures we have taken that is no longer the case. Countries with larger deficits need to act on them and to do so now. This is absolutely vital for the confidence and stability we need for businesses to invest once again.

That was exactly the view of the G20. In Seoul, we agreed that,

‘the failure to implement consolidation … would undermine confidence and growth’,

and we agreed to,

‘formulate and implement clear, credible, ambitious and growth-friendly fiscal consolidation plans’.

There can be no clearer statement of our collective intent than this. Big deficits are dangerous. We simply have to deal with them.

Secondly, on trade, as the world comes out of recession with some countries moving more slowly and others, including the new emerging powers, forging ahead, there are inevitable pressures in some quarters for protectionism. The G20 has been a vital forum in fighting to keep markets open. Increasing trade is the biggest boost and the biggest stimulus we could give to the world economy. It does not cost any money. It is not a zero-sum game. It creates wealth and jobs. So, against a background of rising protectionist pressures, the G20 reaffirmed its determination to learn the lessons of the past and avoid the trade barriers and beggar-my-neighbour policies that wrecked the economy in the 1930s. It refreshed its commitment,

‘to keeping markets open and liberalizing trade and investment as a means to promote economic progress for all’,

and it pledged to,

‘roll back any new protectionist measures that may have arisen’.

On the Doha round let me say this: it is incredibly frustrating that this trade round is almost 10 years old and that world leaders say again and again that it is going to be completed. Yet the situation still remains stalled. The longer it has gone on, the more difficult it has got, because the world economy has changed so fast that the deal has become outdated. Both developed and developing countries are looking for more from the round.

I do not want to raise hopes artificially but I do think that some real progress has been made. Vitally, the language of the communiqué says:

‘2011 is a critical window of opportunity’;

that our engagement to secure a deal,

‘must intensify and expand … to complete the end game’,

of the negotiations; and that, as I proposed at the Toronto summit, we have to make the deal bigger by having a wide ‘across the board’ negotiation. What changed at this summit was that the US said that if a good and fair deal comes forward, it will take it to Congress. All of us instructed our trade negotiators to put more on the table so a deal can be done. I am determined that Britain should do everything it can to push this forwards. That is why I have asked Leon Brittan to continue helping to co-ordinate our trade policies, an effort in which he will be joined by our new Trade Minister, Stephen Green, from January.

Thirdly, on development, it is right that the G20 is now playing a bigger role on this issue. As well as the richest nations, the new emerging powers have a great role to play in helping some of the poorest. There is a real recognition about the importance of trade, infrastructure and finance in the Seoul agreement, and I also raised the importance of continuing our aid programmes. Britain is keeping its promises on aid, and I pressed others to do the same.

On the trade agenda, together with South Africa, Ethiopia and Malawi, who were there to represent Africa, Britain mobilised the G20 behind,

‘the vision of a free trade area’,

for Africa. This was a fundamental pillar of a new approach to supporting economic growth and development in Africa set out in the Seoul consensus. Only 10 per cent of Africa’s trade is within the continent of Africa, so knocking down the trade walls between African countries will help to unleash economic growth. It is not just that we want Africa to be less dependent on aid; we want Africa to be a source of growth and new jobs for the world, including for Britain.

Fourthly, uneven growth and widening imbalances are fuelling the temptation to diverge from global solutions into unco-ordinated actions and, according to the IMF, those balances are forecast to get worse, not better. Alongside protectionist pressures, we have seen the signs of so-called ‘currency wars’. The G20 agreed the Seoul action plan. This includes agreeing to move,

‘towards more market determined exchange rate systems’,

and to refrain from the ‘competitive devaluation of currencies’. But the issue of trade imbalances goes beyond currencies. Just as countries with big budget deficits must cut public spending, which is right for them and right for the world economy, so countries with big trade deficits need to save more, consume less and export more. If that is not accompanied by higher consumption by surplus countries, world growth will be lower and protectionist pressures higher, and we will repeat the mistakes of the past. It is as simple as that.

By acting together we can maximise world growth and cut world unemployment. This is not some obscure economic issue; it is about jobs. Trade imbalances have led to an imbalance of funds: a wall of money in the east and a wall of debt in the West. This was part of the problem that helped pump up some of the bubbles which led to the crash that affected us all. As part of the Seoul action plan, we agreed that we would,

‘pursue the full range of policies to reduce excessive external imbalances and maintain current account imbalances at sustainable levels’.

We also agreed that this should include assessing imbalances,

‘against indicative guidelines to be agreed by our finance Ministers and central bank governors’.

The issue of imbalances is never going to be solved overnight, but the key thing is this: it is being discussed in a proper, multilateral way, with some progress being made.

The summit also delivered important progress on deepening co-operation on financial regulation and the reform of global institutions. We agreed the core elements of a new financial regulatory framework, including bank capital and liquidity standards, and more effective oversight and supervision of globally important institutions. The last Basel accord on capital ratios, Basel II, took nine years. With the G20 behind it, Basel III has been done in 18 months.

Reform of the IMF to make it more representative of the global economy has been discussed for years. The G20 has finally got the deal done. On climate change, President Calderon briefed the G20 on the plans for Cancun, and we received a report from the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing. We reaffirmed our resolute commitment to fight climate change and agreed that we would,

‘spare no effort to reach a balanced and successful outcome in Cancun’.

This summit delivered important progress in managing the tensions that are present in the global economy. In my visits to China and the G20 summit we protected and promoted our national interests. We have taken vital steps towards the strong, balanced and sustainable global growth we need. We secured recognition for acting on the deficit, support for more action on trade and development, and agreement on working to rectify the imbalances that threaten global economic stability. Ultimately, this will win more jobs and growth for Britain. I commend the Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

17:05

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the G20 made by the Prime Minister. We endorse wholeheartedly the congratulations that the Prime Minister has passed to the remarkable lady, Aung San Suu Kyi. However, we also agree that as we celebrate her freedom, there is still a long journey before there will be a free and democratic Burma. I also welcome the release of Paul and Rachel Chandler.

On the G20, I welcome the South Korean Government’s success in keeping development on the G20 agenda. Development aid is not only important for the lives it saves; it also makes an important contribution to global growth. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister pressed the G8 countries that were there in Seoul to keep their promises on aid.

On climate change, can the Leader of the House tell us how the promises made at Seoul will be turned into action at Cancun?

On banks, we welcome the continuation of work to reform the financial regulatory framework set in motion at previous G20 meetings. The increased stringency of the Basel Committee’s capital requirements is a welcome step in making banks across the world more stable. However, further work is needed to implement these reforms. We recognise that this is difficult. Can the Leader of the House tell us what he believes is the way to balance the need for financial stability with the economic recovery?

On growth, we all know that for the UK global growth is always important—we are a trading nation. Jobs in this country depend on strong exports, which in turn depend on a growing global economy. Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that dependence is even greater because of the decisions that his Government have taken on the economy here at home? Cutting public spending and increasing VAT will dampen domestic demands and hit jobs. The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that because of the cuts he is making, Britain must increase exports by more than £100 billion to sustain jobs and growth. How can that happen if our export markets are failing to grow? Do the Government recognise that the global economy on which we are now even more reliant is fragile?

That is why this G20 was so important. The most recent figures show that growth in our largest export market—Europe—has halved and that the US is still facing high unemployment and slow growth. Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that with growing disagreements between major economies about currencies and trade restrictions, co-ordinated action through the G20 is more important than ever?

I suggest, therefore, that the G20 was a missed opportunity. No one expected the problems to be solved overnight, but there was no co-ordinated action to support jobs and growth worldwide; little progress on reaching agreement on currencies, particularly between China and the US; little assurance by way of anything practical to prevent a resurgence of protectionism over the next few years, but I hear what the noble Lord said on that issue; and no action to restart the Doha round of trade negotiations, however difficult that may have been.

This was the fifth G20 summit since the global financial crisis hit in 2008. During that time the UK provided leadership for co-ordinated global action. Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister failed to offer that leadership in the run-up to Seoul, and at Seoul itself, at such a crucial time for jobs in this country and for the global economy?

Now that the summit is over, the questions that remain are: what was the Prime Minister’ strategy; what was he aiming to achieve; did he have any proposals for jobs and growth, and if so what were they? We are told in the media that tonight, in a speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet, the Prime Minister will talk about,

“a Britain at the centre of all the big discussions. Producing the ideas”.

What were the Prime Minister’s ideas for the G20 and what did he say in those discussions? Is it not the case that, because the Prime Minister has refused to take action on jobs and growth in Britain, he would find it difficult to lead in the debate about jobs and growth internationally? Is it not true that, because the Government refuse to recognise that the economic crisis was global, they find it difficult to engage with international efforts to tackle it?

No one expected the summit to be straightforward and it was not. It saddens me, however, to think that rather than showing strong global leadership—strong leadership in the search for global solutions to global problems—we in Britain looked as though we were on the sidelines.

17:10

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, not surprisingly, I cannot agree with everything that the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said, but I certainly welcome her remarks about Aung San Suu Kyi and about development at the summit, which is to the advantage of us all, including those countries that are most affected.

I particularly cannot agree that the Prime Minister showed no leadership. Of course he showed leadership. On many of the achievements, which were common to many of those who attended the summit, we should all be extremely glad that they were agreed. There is a pledge to continue co-ordinated efforts to generate strong, sustainable and balanced growth, with an action plan setting out the policy actions that are needed to move closer to this objective. There are comprehensive quota and governance reforms to the IMF, instruments to strengthen global financial safety nets and so on. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that the meeting would not be an heroic summit, and it was not. The summit was meeting not against a background of crisis but against the background that the world needs to unite over growth, which is what I believe it did.

The noble Baroness asked about climate change. The summit reaffirmed the commitment to negotiations under the UNFCCC and to a successful and balanced result in Cancun. We very much welcome the work of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, whose report was published at the beginning of November. We agree that its recommendations should now be considered by Finance Ministers. In the summit, we also recognised the ongoing importance of green recovery and green growth. Leaders committed themselves to stimulating investment in clean energy technology, to energy and resource efficiency and to developing long-term energy strands.

Of course the key to all this is growth. The noble Baroness and I will, I suspect, have to agree to disagree about the medicine that this economy has had to take and the reasons for taking it. She prayed in aid the Office for Budget Responsibility, yet it says that unemployment in this country will fall next year and every year after that and that employment will increase by around 1.4 million over the next five years. The OBR forecasts that public sector employment will fall, as it would have done under the previous Government, but by less than if we had not frozen pay and stopped the jobs tax. We will strengthen the economy by stimulating enterprise and jobs, by taking 880,000 people out of tax altogether, by having a £1 billion regional growth fund and the green investment bank, by cutting corporation tax and the small profits rate, by reducing new businesses’ national insurance in certain areas and by cutting red tape. We believe that this is the right policy to provide for the long-term growth, prosperity and employment prospects that this country needs.

17:14

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, we very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement about the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the lone figure who suffered so much at the hands of the military rulers in Burma. We are thankful for her release, but we must ensure that the ASEAN countries do not recognise the recent elections in that country, which were a sham. Until such time as democracy and human rights prevail in Burma, we should take a tough stand against that political regime.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, before the visit to Korea, the Prime Minister visited China. On matters of human rights, different opinions are being expressed, but—although this was very much a trade visit—was the question of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to a person now languishing in prison discussed, and what was the outcome of that particular discussion? Secondly, China is constantly undervaluing its currency while competing so heavily with the rest of the world. Is there any solution to that matter to ensure that the rest of the world does not suffer because of how China behaves with its currency?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he has just said. Of course, I echo his words on Suu Kyi and democracy. Aung San Suu Kyi’s detention has always been arbitrary and outrageous, with its sole purpose being to exclude her from political life. Now that the military leadership has released her, we urge it to continue to release other political prisoners immediately and unconditionally.

As to the China summit, my noble friend is right in saying that this was a dual visit—first, to China on a trade mission and then to the G20. Of course, the issues of human rights and trade are entwined. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that he was committed to engaging with China on human rights and that he was convinced that the free circulation of ideas, the development of independent civil society and the objective application of the rule of law are critical to China’s long-term prosperity and social stability, which is equally vital to the global economy and therefore to the United Kingdom’s interests. As for a discussion of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, such issues are raised in the sense that no subjects between our countries are off limits as part of the mutual understanding and respect that exists between our respective leaders.

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, the Prime Minister and his team are to be congratulated on their work in Seoul with President Zuma of South Africa on promoting the initiative on intra-African trade, but will Her Majesty's Government continue to press the case for a rethink of the economic partnership agreements currently being promoted by the European Union in Africa, whose contents militate against further integration among the regional economic groups in Africa and in many ways make that integration more difficult? Will Her Majesty's Government also raise with the European Trade Commissioner the issue of the negotiation currently taking place with a number of African countries that seeks to persuade those countries to cease to protect indigenous industries such as the leather industry? Without that protection for that industry and a number of growing industries in Africa, there is no way that indigenous African producers will be able to develop their industries as we have developed ours. I offer congratulations on the initiative, but will the noble Lord accept that there is yet more to be done if Africa is to fulfil its potential?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, brings to our debates a very particular interest and expertise, which are very greatly valued by this House. I know that we will hear a great deal more from him on this subject. He is right to say that a great deal more needs to be done; he is equally right that we have taken another step forward in the process of providing for the long-term prosperity of the continent of Africa. Our view, which is well known and is a collective view across the parties, is that trade is the greatest wealth creator ever known and it is right that we should press hard to secure a strong, comprehensive and balanced trade pillar within the development working group’s multi-year action plan, including action on duty-free, quota-free access. For Africa’s small economies to achieve faster and sustained growth, they need to be able to trade better with each other and with global markets. African political leaders are increasingly recognising the importance of regional integration as a key objective of the African Union, with a view to the eventual creation of an African economic community. I agree with the noble Lord that there is still a great deal more to be done, but things are considerably better than where we were 10 or 20 years ago.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, it is very good to know that the Prime Minister raised appropriately the question of human rights on his visit to China, but could the noble Lord the Leader of the House give us some indication of what response the Prime Minister received?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I cannot say what the answer was because a wide range of issues was covered in the discussion between my right honourable friend and the leadership in China, but that included an in-depth discussion on human rights. As I said earlier, no subjects were off limits. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said at the time of the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize that the decision to award the prize to Liu Xiaobo,

“shines a spotlight on the situation of human rights defenders worldwide”.—[Official Report, 20/10/10, Commons, col. 727W.]

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord two questions? In the first place, I applaud the Prime Minister for taking a large delegation to China and for his dealing with the wider aspects of our relationship with China. After all, China is an emerging superpower and we should look after it. In regard to trade with China, and indeed with the rest of the world, our manufacturing industry has fallen as a proportion of GDP, from 32 per cent in 1973 to 10 per cent in 2008. Are the Government going to do anything to resuscitate and revive our manufacturing industry, especially in the north-west and north-east of this country?

My second question is about the discussions at Seoul on trade, particularly with emerging countries. Is the noble Lord aware that the greatest barrier to trade with those countries is the CAP? Will the Government do something about that? Unless it is reformed, people in Africa will find it particularly difficult to export their goods to Europe.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raises two good questions. On the question of China and trade, he is right that the main purpose behind the visit was to demonstrate the degree of commitment that exists not only on a Government-to-Government basis but on a business-to-business basis, which is why so many people from business were pleased to join the Prime Minister as well as a substantial number of Ministers. That has shown our national commitment to developing our relationship with China, to pursuing our commercial interests and to co-operating more closely on global issues, as well as to raising the role of human rights in China’s development, in which this country has a vital interest.

The visit added momentum to our trade and investment relationship with China, with the agreement of a new trade target of $100 billion by 2015. The visit itself delivered over 40 agreements across the whole range of the bilateral relationship, from trade to low-carbon growth and cultural and education initiatives. The largest contract was Rolls-Royce’s contract of $1.2 billion, but others included an agreement on China’s first securities joint venture with the Royal Bank of Scotland, the geographical identification and registration of Scotch whisky and an education agreement to train 1,000 new teachers of Mandarin. All those were substantial achievements, but they are just building blocks in developing the relationship.

The noble Lord made a second point about trade with emerging countries and the effect of the CAP. I am not surprised that he should raise that question, which goes to the heart of the agreement that we are seeking on the completion of the Doha trade round. One of the best pieces of news to come out of the summit was that there was an international agreement that all countries should take the final step towards reaching agreement on Doha, and that may well include the European Union taking a fresh look at the role of the CAP.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that our fiscal deficit is actually the largest in the G20 and that the fact that the G20 is endorsing the action now taking place to tackle that deficit is very welcome? Does he also agree that the fact that we are reducing the corporation tax level to the most competitive level within the G20 is another reason why we ought to be encouraged about the direction going forward? Following the huge success of the trade missions to China and India, what plans do the Government have to send similar high-profile trade missions to Brazil and Russia?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend’s last question is a good one, which I wish I had thought of myself when I was discussing such matters with those who know the answers. It is right that we should set up visits to other countries. I do not know where next in the world the Prime Minister’s eye will fall upon, but I am sure that he will be as gratefully received as he has been in China and India.

My noble friend is also right about the case that we have made for reducing the deficit—consolidation, as it was called at the G20—and that there was universal agreement that this was entirely the right direction to take. Equally, the reduction of corporation tax will make us more internationally competitive, will help our businesses to export and will also increase jobs in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, given that the Statement today was about the Prime Minister’s visit to China as well as to the G20, it is a little disappointing that it says so little about climate change. I welcome the Statement where it says that the Government’s intention is to fight climate change and that they will,

“spare no effort to reach a balanced and successful outcome in Cancun”.

That is precisely what was said at the Copenhagen summit, which failed largely because people attempted to enforce a legal agreement. That is the difficulty that we face at the moment. Having visited China and Japan in the past two weeks, I can tell the Minister that a legal agreement does not have a chance of being agreed at Cancun. Will the Government perhaps consider changing their policy and supporting the voluntary system embodied in the Copenhagen accord, under which nations commit themselves to cutting greenhouse gases and providing action plans? That would mean that we were likely to get some agreement at Cancun—perhaps a small step for mankind—whereas failure would be a disaster.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s words and his reporting back of his own visit to China. He is right that there are elements of the protocols on climate change on which we have to go a great deal further. As the premier economic forum, the G20 is right in recognising the importance of low-carbon growth in preventing climate change and creating a sustainable global economy and in sending positive signals ahead of Cancun, but the meeting at Cancun is the key forum for negotiation on climate change. None of us should have false hopes about what is going to happen at Cancun. Immensely difficult decisions need to be taken. It is only a few weeks away now, and we shall have to wait for the results of that to see whether we have succeeded in our objectives.

[Lord Myners]

I welcome many of the Prime Minister’s comments, in particular those about protectionism and rolling back those areas where protectionist measures have already been taken. I take great encouragement from the Prime Minister’s positive statements about the Doha round and the need to address imbalances. On both sides of the House we accept the need for growth in global economic activity, although on this side we believe that the policies the Government are currently pursuing are alien to good growth outcomes.

However, the Prime Minister overstates the achievement in the banking industry. I express my grave concern at the lack of real progress. The Prime Minister referred to Basel III being completed within 18 months. With all respect to the Minister, nothing has been achieved under Basel III, which is not due to be implemented until 2018 and, in some respects, 2023. Not a single bank has had to increase its capital as a result of Basel III. We have seen no material progress on the identification and agreement of process for globally systemically important financial institutions. We have seen no progress on the agreement of a net stable funding ratio. These are all critical to creating a more stable banking system. Is the noble Lord pleased with the progress that has been made under Basel III? If so, could he identify the tangible things that have happened as a result of it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I very much welcome the early remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Myners. He was agreeing with me so, naturally, I agree with him. The right approach is about growth, getting the deficit under control, international trade and fighting the battle against protectionism—a path other countries would like us to head down. The noble Lord can easily make the case that it is still too early to decide whether Basel III has been a success. It is true that there is a long transition period between 2013 and 2019, when it needs to be put in place.

Having said that, a significant strengthening of capital and liquidity requirements and a binding constraint on leverage are essential to strengthening financial stability. Therefore, we welcome the G20’s endorsement of the Basel reforms to global capital and liquidity standards. Full, consistent and non-discriminatory implementation of these new international standards is now crucial to minimise the risks of regulatory arbitrage and the fragmentation of international financial markets. The UK, as the noble Lord well knows, has consistently argued for strengthened international financial regulation to address the failings that were laid bare by the crisis. The G20 has agreed major reforms to international financial regulations and we aim to move these forward. The key to this is to maintain the momentum that has come from Basel and the G20.

[Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland]

It is impossible at the moment to persuade China to be more flexible over its currency. What is the Prime Minister doing to develop a powerful consensus that surplus countries have a responsibility equal to that of deficit countries in dealing with global crises?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that one of the key issues has been the global imbalances. Part of what was discussed at the G20, and much of what was agreed on, was a protocol to reduce these global imbalances. The Prime Minister, in a speech at Peking University, said:

“We need a more balanced pattern of global demand and supply, a more balanced pattern of global saving and investment … We all share an interest and a responsibility to co-operate to secure strong and balanced global growth … just as China played a leading role at the G20 in helping to avert a global depression so it can lead now”.

That was the clearest signal to policy-makers in China that they need to play a full part in sorting out global imbalances. The recognition that we need to move towards more market-determined exchange rate systems was a vital ingredient of that and was agreed by all parties in the G20. I contend that that is a positive step forward.

Legal Aid and Civil Costs Reform

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:35

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I wish to repeat a Statement made earlier today by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to announce today proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales and proposals for the reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales. I have today laid before Parliament two documents, Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales and Proposals for the Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales, which consult on these issues and copies of which will be available in the Vote Office and on the Ministry of Justice website. The changes will require primary legislation and, subject to consultation, I hope to include proposals in a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Legal aid forms a vital part of a system of justice of which we are rightly proud. The Government strongly believe that access to justice is a hallmark of a civilised society. However, I believe that there is a compelling case for going back to first principles in reforming legal aid. The current system bears very little resemblance to the one that was introduced in 1949. Legal aid has expanded—so much so that it is now one of the most expensive systems in the world, costing the public purse more than £2 billion a year. It is now available for a very wide range of issues, including some which do not require any legal expertise to resolve. It cannot be right that the taxpayer is footing the bill for unnecessary court cases, which would never have reached the courtroom door were it not for the fact that somebody else was paying.

The previous Government made many attempts to reform legal aid, conducting more than 30 consultations since 2006. However, successive changes have been of a piecemeal nature and have failed to address the underlying problems. I have gone back to basic principles to make choices about which issues are of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, subject to people’s means and the merits of the case. I have taken into account the importance of the issue at stake, the litigant’s ability to present their own case, and the availability of alternative sources of funding and of alternative routes to resolving the issue, as well as our domestic and international legal obligations.

My proposals have also been designed with the aim of achieving significant savings. No other Government in the world believe that the taxpayer should pay for as much legal aid and litigation as we do in the United Kingdom. We have made clear our commitment to reducing the fiscal deficit and encouraging economic recovery. Last month’s spending review set out the scale of the challenge. My department’s budget will be reduced by 23 per cent over four years. Legal aid needs to make a substantial contribution to that reduction. I estimate that the proposals in the consultation paper, if implemented, will achieve savings in the region of £350 million in 2014-15.

I do not propose any changes to the scope of criminal legal aid. However, I propose to introduce a more targeted civil and family scheme, which will discourage people from resorting to lawyers whenever they face a problem, and instead encourage them to consider more suitable methods of dispute resolution. Legal aid will still routinely be available in civil and family cases where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home. For example, I plan to retain legal aid for asylum cases, for debt and for housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk, and for mental health cases. It will still be provided where people face intervention from the state in their family affairs which may result in their children being taken into care, and for cases involving domestic violence or forced marriage. I also propose that legal aid should remain available for cases where people seek to hold the state to account by judicial review and for some cases involving discrimination which are currently in scope. Legal assistance to bereaved families in inquests, including deaths of active service personnel, will also remain in scope. However, prioritising these areas requires that we make clear choices about the availability of legal aid in other areas. Therefore, we propose to remove from the scope of the scheme issues which are not, generally speaking, of sufficient priority to justify funding at the taxpayer’s expense. I therefore propose to remove private family law cases, unless there is domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction involved. I will continue to provide funding for mediation which can benefit those involved in family disputes by avoiding long drawn-out and acrimonious court proceedings.

Other cases which I am proposing to remove from the scope of the civil legal aid scheme include clinical negligence, where in many cases alternative sources of funding are available such as no-win no-fee arrangements. They also include education, employment, immigration, some debt and housing issues and welfare benefits, except where there is a risk to anyone’s safety or liberty or a risk of homelessness. In many of these the issues are not necessarily of a legal nature but require other forms of expert advice to resolve.

I recognise that there will be some cases within those areas of law which I propose to remove from scope which international or domestic law will require to be funded by the taxpayer. I therefore propose a new exceptional funding scheme for excluded cases. I want to ensure that those who can either pay for, or contribute to, their legal costs do so, so that we ensure continued access to public funding in those cases that really require it for those who have little or no funds of their own. I therefore propose that all clients with £1,000 or more disposable capital should make a minimum £100 contribution to their legal costs and that the capital of any prospective legal aid clients is taken into account when considering eligibility.

I have also looked at how best to reform the way in which we pay lawyers who provide legal aid services. I want to ensure that criminal cases are resolved quickly and cost-effectively and that legal aid fee structures support that aim. In the long term, I propose to fulfil the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, to the previous Administration to move towards a competitive market to replace the current system of administratively set fee rates. However, it will not be possible to fulfil that aim in the short term. Therefore, I propose some more immediate changes to the current fee structure. I propose to ensure that in Crown Court cases that could realistically have been dealt with in the magistrates’ court, a single fixed fee for a guilty plea will be paid based on fee rates in the magistrates’ court. I also propose that the same fee should be paid in respect of a guilty plea in the Crown Court regardless of the stage at which the plea is entered, and to do more to contain the costs of very high-cost criminal cases.

These proposals complement other reforms to the justice system which I will be bringing forward, designed to encourage cases to be brought quickly and efficiently to justice, so sparing the victim the ordeal of giving evidence in court unnecessarily and the justice system significant but avoidable costs. It is important to strike a balance between the need to ensure that legal aid provision is innovative, efficient and good value for taxpayers’ money on the one hand; and ensuring that people can continue to access legally aided services where necessary on the other. I believe that there is more that can be done to strike that balance. I propose to reduce fees paid in civil and family cases by 10 per cent across the board and make similar levels of reductions in rising experts’ fees. I also propose to extend telephone access to advice through the Community Legal Advice telephone helpline, which has a high rate of public satisfaction, to help people find the easiest and most effective ways to resolve their problems. I am also consulting on proposals to make much better use of alternative sources of funding for legal aid. In particular, I would welcome views on making use of the higher rates of interest generated on money invested in a pooled account used by solicitors to hold their clients’ money, and on making use of a supplementary legal aid scheme. Lastly, I seek views on how to make the administration of legal aid less bureaucratic for solicitors and barristers doing legal aid work. I recognise that processes have become overly complex and want to do what I can to simplify these while remaining consistent with the highest standards of accounting practice.

Also, Mr Speaker, on 26 July this year, the Government announced their intention to consult on implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on the reform of civil litigation costs and funding arrangements. Sir Rupert Jackson’s independent and comprehensive report published in January 2010 makes a clear case that the costs in civil cases in England and Wales have become too high, and he makes a broad range of recommendations for reducing those costs. I am convinced by Sir Rupert’s argument that achieving proportionate costs and promoting access to justice go hand in hand. I believe that the consultation proposals for the reform of civil litigation funding and costs presented today will help rebalance access to justice with proportionate costs in civil cases.

In particular, Sir Rupert’s proposals would reform the operation of no-win no-fee conditional fee agreements or CFAs. CFAs are funding agreements under which lawyers are not paid if they lose but may charge an uplift or a success fee of up to 100 per cent on their base costs if they win. CFAs as they currently operate allow claims to be brought at no financial risk to individual claimants, but the other side of the coin is that CFAs impose substantial additional costs on defendants. The Government have already accepted the recommendations of my right honourable and noble friend Lord Young of Graffham’s recent report on health and safety and the compensation culture, Common Sense, Common Safety. My noble friend’s typically cogent report endorses Sir Rupert’s proposals. The key proposal is to abolish recoverability of success fees and the associated after-the-event insurance premiums in CFA cases. Under the current regime, defendants must pay these additional costs if they lose. These additional costs can be substantial, as the success fee can be double the base legal costs. In addition, significant costs can arise from claimants’ purchase of after-the-event insurance. After-the-event insurance can be taken out by parties in a CFA-funded case to insure against the risk of having to pay their opponent’s costs and their own disbursements if they lose. We are proposing that claimants should have to pay their lawyers’ success fee and will therefore take an interest in controlling the costs being incurred on their behalf. This will also reduce the disproportionate costs burden on defendants.

We are also seeking views on implementing other recommendations which are designed to balance the impact of these major changes, in particular to assist claimants. These recommendations include a 10 per cent increase in general damages to help pay the success fee and introducing a mechanism of qualified one-way costs shifting. This would protect the vast majority of personal injury claimants from paying a winning defendant’s costs and will therefore reduce the need for after-the-event insurance. We also propose to allow damages-based agreements or contingency fees in litigation before the courts. These are another form of no-win-no-fee agreement under which lawyers can take a proportion of the claimants’ damages in fees. This would increase the funding options available to claimants.

Other proposals would further encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers, as well as introduce a new test to ensure that overall costs are proportionate. We also propose to increase the modest costs which can be recovered by people who win their cases where they represent themselves without lawyers.

Taken together, my reform proposals complement the wider programme of reform which I will be bringing forward to move towards a simpler justice system: one which is more responsive to public needs, which allows people to resolve their issues out of court, using simpler, more informal remedies where they are appropriate, and which encourages more efficient resolution of contested cases where necessary.

I commend this statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

17:50

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the right honourable and learned gentleman, the Lord Chancellor, and for allowing me an advance sight of the Statement; but I have to say, thanks to the very comprehensive briefing that has clearly been given to two newspapers over the past 24 hours, we have had the chance of looking at the Statement more than in just the past few minutes.

The Green Papers on cutting legal aid and reducing civil costs are among the most important published by the Government to date. Legal aid, as the Minister said, is one of the pillars of the welfare state that were set up by the post-war Labour Government. It plays a crucial role in tackling social exclusion, especially in difficult and hard times such as these, and ensures, or does its best to ensure, that everyone can obtain access to justice in both the criminal and civil fields, regardless of their means.

Under successive Governments, the legal aid budget has grown to the point where it now stands at more than £2 billion per year. That is not sustainable, especially in the current economic context. Indeed, the previous Labour Government had moved to cap the legal aid budget and to reduce it. We also planned to turn the Legal Services Commission into an executive agency, and the then Opposition—both parties that now make up the Government—supported us. Why have the Government not introduced legislation to achieve that aim? It was quite clear that that was a necessary step to take as quickly as possible. They have not done so, thus far; when are they planning to do so?

In recent years, we brought the principle of fixed fees into civil and family legal aid cases. That principle has applied to criminal cases for some time past. We introduced means-testing into the magistrates’ courts and this year into the Crown Court. Indeed, on the very day that the general election was called, we signed off cuts to advocates’ fees in higher courts without any support from the parties opposite; so much for the accusation that the then Government were somehow economically irresponsible.

We took those decisions because we recognised the need to reduce the legal aid budget, and it should be said that many of our actions were taken in the teeth of opposition from the legal profession, as one would of course expect, and from the parties that then made up the Opposition—by that I do not mean just the Liberal Democrat party. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that had we been in government today, we would have announced, perhaps not today but earlier, further cuts to legal aid. That is a reality that we have to acknowledge.

The crucial question, however, is where those cuts are to be made and how the money that is left—still a large sum—will be spent. Our policy was, and is, to control the legal aid budget and to get value for money for the taxpayer while optimising services for people who need support the most. That is why we concentrated so much of our investment on what is described, perhaps a little uncomfortably but accurately, as social welfare law legal aid, by increasing it over the years and—even towards the end, when we were cutting back other parts of the legal aid budget—making sure that we protected it at all costs. That is because we argue that legal aid, delivered in the form of legal advice and delivered early, has the power to change lives and, of course, save huge amounts of public money further down the line.

The housing possession court duty scheme, for example, still saves thousands of people from repossession. It delivered a social and financial good. Are the Government committed to preserving that and similar schemes? What balance do the Government intend to strike between the needs of criminal legal aid and civil legal aid? Everyone knows that, over the years, criminal legal aid has had the majority of the spend. Do the Government believe that that should continue?

The Minister said that the Government propose in the Green Paper to reduce fees paid in civil and family cases by 10 per cent across the board. That proposal is, on the face of it, disturbing. Does it mean, for example, that when a fixed fee is paid for advice from solicitors who practise social welfare law, or from the not-for-profit sector—whether it be the CAB or law centres—solicitors in that field will lose 10 per cent on each piece of new advice that they give? This will make life very difficult indeed for those lawyers, who by no stretch of the imagination can be described as rich. I ask the noble Lord to answer that question, if he would be so kind.

I turn to another serious point that I should like to ask the Minister about: the proposal that all clients with £1,000 or more disposable capital should make a minimum contribution of £100 to their legal costs. Full ineligibility is extremely worrying. We as a Government increased civil legal aid eligibility rates by 5 per cent last year to deal with the unfairnesses that the recession had meant for those who needed that vital piece of advice. However, the Government’s proposal in the Green Paper reduces eligibility a great deal more than that, and we are concerned that it will take many people who cannot afford the private insurance that the Green Paper talks of away from getting the legal advice that they need and deserve. Does the Minister agree that that is likely to happen if civil legal aid eligibility is reduced by so much? Will that not harm what we all want: access to justice?

One other disturbing part of the Statement talks about some housing, social welfare and debt cases being taken out of the scope of legal aid, although some will be left in, apparently. Can the Minister help by telling us which cases in those categories will be taken out of scope and which will be left in?

I turn briefly to the important and massive report of Lord Justice Jackson on civil legal aid costs. Before we respond in detail, we will consider that report carefully, as we will consider the Green Paper on legal aid. I remind the Minister and ask a question about what Lord Justice Jackson said at paragraph 4.2 of chapter 7 of his final report, on page 70. He stated:

“I … stress the vital necessity of making no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility”.

He is talking about civil legal aid and continues:

“The legal aid system plays a crucial role in promoting access to justice at proportionate costs in key areas”.

Do the Government agree with what Lord Justice Jackson wrote in chapter 7 of his report?

The basic test that we will apply to both Green Papers is whether the proposals will deliver a saving to the public purse while ensuring that no one is denied access to justice simply because of their means.

18:00

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord about the press coverage over the weekend. I wonder what advantage it gives, with something that is going to be the subject of a three-month consultation, if somebody leaks to or briefs the press. I will say that neither report is entirely accurate, but this is the world that we live in. I would much prefer that Statements were made to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords and then reporters could do their job.

I welcome the noble Lord’s assertion that we are talking about one of the most fundamental parts of our society: namely, access to justice. I also welcome his recognition that a £2 billion legal aid fund is not sustainable in present circumstances. The Statement, all the comments that the Lord Chancellor and other Ministers have made and we in the Ministry of Justice all recognise that these decisions are influenced in part by our having to cut £2 billion from our budget over the next five years of the spending regime, and that legal aid is one of two or three big-ticket items in the MoJ budget.

I hear what the noble Lord says about social welfare law. In reviewing this, we are trying to focus legal aid on the most serious cases. We are looking at where other sources of funding may be available and where advice can be given to take some of these matters out of the legal system to tribunals and other instruments of resolution. However, we are not trying to pretend anything other than that we are taking hard but necessary decisions to move some cases out of scope and out of legal aid.

The noble Lord asked about the Legal Services Commission. We will take action on that as soon as parliamentary time is available. We are battling for that time at the moment. The 10 per cent across-the-board cuts will apply to the assistance that the noble Lord referred to, and to social welfare work. The noble Lord asked in particular about housing cases. We made it clear that in cases where there is the threat of absolute homelessness, assistance will be retained. We propose that legal aid will be retained for both housing and debt cases where there is the risk of homelessness, and for housing cases where there is a serious problem to be addressed. We propose that legal aid ceases to be available for employment and welfare benefit matters, because the vast majority of these are heard before tribunals. We propose no changes for community care. On the question of contributions, it is critical that those who have the resources to pay for or contribute towards their legal costs should do so, and that the public purse must be the fund of last resort where people own substantial assets.

I hope that I have covered most of the specific points. I understand that the noble Lord will want to study carefully what Lord Justice Jackson said. Like the previous Government, we are trying to take away the inflation pressures caused by the way in which no-win no-fee operated and by the way in which costs, damages and add-ons were calculated. Our old system was inflationary in costs, and encouraged litigation. We hope that what we have extracted from Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations will address problems that were recognised by all parts of the legal profession.

18:07

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I cannot welcome the Statement, but I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that not principle but finance has caused the reductions that we have seen. When I read the Statement, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, could easily have issued a similar Statement in the previous Government. No doubt that is why his criticisms were so muted.

This is a considerable challenge to the legal world. Here I declare an interest as a practising criminal Silk, paid very often by legal aid. The suggested reforms set out in the Green Papers require very considerable attention from both the criminal Bar and the family Bar. It is the latter that will really suffer under the provisions that are being put forward.

I ask the Minister about the suggestion that there will be a new exceptional funding scheme for excluded cases. I had a number of discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he was in the previous Government, on that very issue. Its importance is that it is wrong for an individual to be in a court, tribunal or inquest and to find himself facing a state-funded organisation such as the Army or the Air Force, or a well funded public company, when an allegation of negligence has arisen. The previous provisions for an exceptional funding scheme were largely concerned with inquests. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, will recall that it was not easy through that mechanism to obtain proper funding for families in distress who faced paid advocates at a very high level who were trying to make sure that their clients were not accused of any negligence. What is the new exceptional funding scheme? Will the mechanisms be improved? Will they be more apparent so that people understand how to obtain exceptional funding in the future? That is a very important issue and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond.

[Lord McNally]

I thank my noble friend. His question gives me the opportunity to mention a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to which I did not respond. If not exactly ring-fenced, criminal legal aid is more protected because we take the view that when people are on trial for a criminal offence, it is important that they have access to justice and legal aid. However, that does not mean making a choice between criminal and civil cases, other than that, in terms of access to justice, a criminal charge is more serious.

The exceptional funding scheme will go wider than assistance for inquests, and it will indeed be available for those who may find themselves out of scope in these decisions but who have an exceptional case to make. I note what my noble friend says. We are well aware that we are making tough decisions that are needed to ensure access to public funding in cases that really require it and in protecting the most vulnerable in our society, as well as encouraging the efficient performance of our justice system. As we have made absolutely clear, those decisions are motivated partly by economic circumstances but also by a view that the legal aid system, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, acknowledges, needs to be recalibrated and rebalanced, and that is what we have tried to do.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am very sorry that the noble Lord just brushes aside the leaks in this case—

[Noble Lords]

Cross Benches.

[Viscount Slim]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord said just now, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for the sensitive way in which, during the previous Government, he dealt with many issues relating to the military and, in particular, veterans and war widows. He would always listen and I know that he then went off and did his best. I did not like the phrase “out of scope” and I am not sure about “eligibility”, but there are many veterans and military widows who, the moment they leave the protection of the services, are on the streets and very vulnerable. I feel that somewhere in the Minister’s and the Ministry of Justice’s plans there should be special provision to see that these very fine people are not left out in the cold.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I associate myself with the comment of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, about the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and his record in this area. Within the constraints in which we find ourselves, we certainly intend to make sure that our responsibility to service personnel and their families remains. Exceptional funding will remain available where there is a significant wider public interest in the applicant being represented at an inquest. Therefore, the families of service personnel will still be able to access legal aid funding for representation at inquests into their loved ones’ deaths. Rebuilding the military covenant is one of the top objectives of this Government, and the Ministry of Defence is currently considering how best to fulfil that covenant.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am very sorry that the Minister just brushed aside the leaks in this case, as the Government always seem to do, by saying that it is just a matter of the world that we live in. It is a matter of the world that we live in only because it is tolerated. It is about time the Government adopted a slightly more rigorous approach to investigating and pursuing these things, as the Ministry of Defence did in the previous Parliament. I very much welcome the Government’s decision to propose that success fees should no longer be chargeable to defendants. It seems quite wrong to penalise defendants because of the funding structure that plaintiffs agree with their lawyers. Does the noble Lord agree that one of the great anomalies and problems of legal aid is that the costs incurred by a successful defendant cannot be claimed against the plaintiff? That is not only unfair, unjust and unbalanced between plaintiffs and defendants and legally aided plaintiffs and non-legally aided plaintiffs; it clearly reduces the financial disincentive to litigate marginal cases. Do the Government have any plans to deal with that anomaly?

[Lord McNally]

I think that I had better duck for cover in this case. I hear the point that the noble Lord makes. If we already have specific plans in this area, I shall write to him; if not, I shall make sure that that point is fed into the discussions that will be part of the review, which will go on for the next three months.

On investigating leaks, at the very beginning of my career I recall the Labour Party, under Harold Wilson, setting up a leaks inquiry and the first meeting of that inquiry being leaked to the Guardian. I was not dismissing the issue; I deplore it and, as I said at the beginning, I wish that we could get back to the rather old-fashioned idea that statements are made to Parliament and then the newspapers report them.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, can my noble friend clarify the response that he gave the noble Lord, Lord Bach, just a few moments ago, when I believe I heard him say that welfare cases are to remain the same? The House will be aware that, with all-party support in both Houses during the previous Parliament, the Autism Act is now on the statute book. One thing that triggered the need for that Act was the fact that many adults and adolescents with autism find themselves in dispute with their local authority over not being able to access appropriate packages of support. That applies not just to those with autism but to people with a great many lifelong disabilities. One of the difficulties in challenging a local social services department is that often the key person who knows most about you is the social worker, who is an employee of the very department with which you have to negotiate. These disputes often become legal cases, although those in social services departments to whom I have spoken about this openly put up their hands and say that, once a legal challenge is made, they very often settle out of court before the case reaches that stage. However, I should be very concerned if vulnerable adults—and they are vulnerable—across the disability spectrum were denied the support of the courts.

[Lord McNally]

My noble friend’s question points to many of the problems that we face. If legal aid is automatically given in many of the areas that we are removing from scope, it becomes almost a first stop. We are actively trying to promote a different, cheaper and quicker mechanism for settling disputes. A dispute between someone suffering from autism and the local social services department almost automatically ends up as a battle between lawyers in court. We have got something wrong somewhere. We have taken tough decisions; we have taken people out of scope; and we shall look at different ways of getting advice. We propose that legal aid be retained for community care cases and for judicial review in community care cases. As I said before, we are not hiding the fact that this is a removal of legal aid from areas and cases that have previously been covered. We seek to encourage the alternative resolution of disputes, partly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, successive Governments have found that the creep of legal aid makes it very difficult to keep overall control of it.

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, no one would seriously suggest that we should not reform the legal aid and civil costs regime. However, citizens advice bureaux and the law centre movement have long played a distinguished part all over our country in providing access, not just for the most vulnerable but for the middle classes, to the law and to legal advice. It is cost effective and involves paid volunteers, lawyers, mediators and experts from a whole variety of sources who are needed to ensure that people get justice. The Minister’s right honourable friend has been silent in his Statement about the role of citizens advice bureaux and the law centre movement. Can he give some words of encouragement and support for the contribution that they currently make? Can he indicate whether they will have an opportunity to play an enhanced role in the future and perhaps do something about the crisis in funding that CAB centres face up and down the country, even as we speak?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I can give some limited encouragement. It is true that the law centre movement and other such bodies, which rely on certain cases of legal aid, will have difficulties with this Statement. I also think that there are likely to be difficulties for the CABs which, as the noble Lord indicates, face the problem of the impact of cuts in local authority funding and the likely loss of legal-aid work in the legal advice that they cover. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor is fully seized of these problems and is very willing, during the period of consultation, to talk to those bodies and to explore alternative assistance and funding. The noble Lord points to the real impact made by the decisions that we have taken.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I welcome the reference to promoting alternative dispute resolution to accelerate and simplify the resolution of disputes. Can my noble friend indicate what the criteria are to be where exceptional funding for excluded cases is awarded? In particular, will he recognise that it is an issue not just for the excluded individual but for the courts, because if a case is of a particular complexity it can clog up the courts: a point that was made by a former Lord Chief Justice and a former Master of the Rolls when a previous Conservative Government cut legal aid?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, if we are going to recalibrate legal aid, we shall have to explore the alternative resolution of disputes through mediation and other means. On the exceptional cases fund, part of the consultation will be about the criteria and the range of that fund. The recommendations of the Legal Services commission to the Secretary of State will determine how the fund is used, but the opportunity to consult will be taken to ensure that the fund is flexible to the needs of those who really need access to justice.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the conflation of the costs of civil and criminal legal aid in the sum of £2 billion, to which my noble friend Lord Bach referred, disguises the greater proportion devoted to criminal legal aid? What will the percentage cut on the civil legal aid budget be? Can he also indicate where he expects alternative provision to be made and at what cost, and who will fund that cost? Perhaps he could also identify an estimate of the number of cases currently in receipt of legal aid in the categories that will no longer receive legal aid: that is, as the Statement made clear, education, employment, immigration, debt, housing and welfare benefits.

On a slightly tangential matter, will the Minister ask his right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor to look again at the court fees that local authorities are required to pay in child protection cases and which are widely thought to inhibit the necessary promotion of those cases? I declare an interest as an unpaid consultant in my former practice as a senior partner in a Newcastle firm of solicitors.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on the specific numbers that are being dealt with in areas that are now going out of scope. I shall raise the issue of court fees with the Lord Chancellor. The target saving is £350 million, and I made it clear that that would come mainly from the civil side.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, first, are the Government aware that the greatest advances in the development of law happen in legal aid cases? By diminishing legal aid, you end up undermining law as a whole. Secondly, family law has already suffered cuts, and we are seeing legal aid deserts in certain parts of the country. Women, for example, are not getting the kind of expert help that they need in cases of domestic violence. Thirdly, if the Ministry of Justice is concerned to look at spending on legal matters, has consideration been given to the money paid to lawyers by government, not as legal aid money but money paid by government departments to lawyers at the market rate, which is often excessive? Perhaps we should do something to drive those costs down instead of limiting access to the law by the poor.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is encouraging me to cheap populism by agreeing that we should drive down the cost of legal advice to government. Legal costs in general are certainly being looked at. I can reassure the noble Baroness that in the key areas of family law, which I referred to as domestic violence and child protection, legal aid will be retained.

On the breakdown of the savings, I have a slip of paper that says that the aim is roughly to try to find £100 million savings on criminal aid and £250 million on the civil side.

On the Statement’s intention, I can say to the noble Baroness only that, against the financial constraints that we face and a general agreement that legal aid needed recalibrating, we have tried to take some tough decisions in a way that protects the vulnerable and retains the core sense of our system: that all have a right to access to justice.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (1st Day)

18:30

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, it is considerably later than we had intended to start the main business of the day, but I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time. This Bill is a core part of the coalition Government’s programme. It is a simple measure that provides for three things: a referendum on the voting system for the other place; a modest reduction in the number of MPs; and fairer, more equal constituencies. It would not have existed in its present form without the creation of the coalition. Speaking for my party as well as for the Government, I say clearly that we are completely committed to honour the coalition agreement. That is why, as Leader of this House, I open for the Government on the Bill.

Of course, I would have liked 20 more Conservative seats at the general election, but that was not the people’s choice. They did not deliver a majority for a single-party Government. They asked us to work together —and that, I believe, is our duty.

This Government have started on the giant task of restoring this country from the economic, diplomatic and social wreckage of the past 13 years.

[Noble Lords]

Shame on you!

[Lord Strathclyde]

It would be madness to risk that coalition to stop the British people having a say in how they choose their Members of Parliament.

I know that many of my noble friends do not like or want the alternative vote system. Frankly, I am inclined to agree. As this Bill allows your Lordships to vote in the proposed referendum, I can let you into a secret: I will vote no.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

You will not have a vote.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I will have a vote in the referendum.

I can let your Lordships into another secret: my noble friend Lord McNally will vote yes. Some might think, as our votes will cancel each other out, we should just stay at home and have a quiet dinner together, but we will not, because both of us are agreed that the British people should have this choice, and we will each campaign for the answer we seek.

How odd it would be if this unelected House, which lately voted overwhelmingly against the very idea that your Lordships should be elected, should have the temerity to tell the elected House how to proceed on its own election or to deny its wish to give the people their say.

The Lords Constitution Committee has now published its report on the Bill. It states that there has not been enough consultation on it. Respectfully, I disagree. The proposals in this Bill apply entirely to the other place. It has been rigorously examined there over eight days on the Floor of the House and through 35 Divisions. It reflects the settled will of the elected House.

On the referendum, the Government have worked closely with the Electoral Commission and administrators, and the commission has declared itself broadly satisfied that sufficient progress has been made to enable the local returning and counting officers to run the polls well and that voters will be able to participate in them.

The provisions in the Bill are sound, and Members of this House should consider carefully the clear signal from the elected House before making major changes in it.

There has been speculation about the last possible date for Royal Assent to allow the referendum to happen on 5 May. I believe there is more than adequate time. It is certainly important that, commensurate withfull scrutiny in this House, we give participants and campaigners in the referendum as much time as possible to prepare for a full and informed campaign. We owe that to the electorate, but it is possible to do that and allow enough time to examine the Bill, which I hope will complete its passage as soon as possible in January 2011.

I do not want to make unnecessary political points, but I remind noble Lords opposite of a forgotten document: A Future Fair for All, the manifesto of the party opposite only this spring, written by their current leader. On page 62, it talks of, “A New Politics”. It continues:

“To ensure that every MP is supported by a majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons”.

That was what Mr Miliband thought then, so I take it that we will have full support from the party opposite for the part of the Bill that provides for what it itself promised at the general election.

There is a small quibble: the party opposite promised a referendum by October 2011. The Bill proposes it in May 2011—one year into this Parliament, but that is a far slower timetable than the six-month one used by the party opposite for the referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution in 1997.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is not there a big distinction, in that what the Opposition, then in government, were proposing was a pre-legislative referendum, not a post-legislative referendum, which is an important constitutional distinction?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords, but on the whole I think it is better for people to know what it is they are voting on, which is what is envisaged in the Bill.

[Lord Grocott]

Further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I hate to have to admit it in public, but we lost the general election. Can the noble Lord point me to a constitutional principle which tells us that parties which lose the general election are thereby bound to put to the electorate ad infinitum the same proposals on which they lost?

[Lord Strathclyde]

There is none. I was just hoping that there might be a little consistency from the party opposite and that it would wish to support the coalition in giving the people their say on whether there should be an alternative vote system.

The reason to have the referendum on 5 May is that it will save money—about £30 million—to hold it on the same day as other votes. About 84 per cent of the UK electorate can go to the polls for local elections or elections to the devolved assemblies on 5 May. I do not see the purpose of dallying a few months, at a cost of £30 million, to get to the self-same place.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

On that particular point, is the Leader of the House not aware that because of the chaos in the Scottish elections in 2007, when many people lost the right to vote because of spoiled ballot papers, the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament have now legislated so that council elections, which were due to take place next May, will take place a year later, in 2012? Is it not absolutely daft then to add the referendum to the complex elections for both the constituencies and the list that will take place, when the Scottish Parliament has freed it, as it were, by getting rid of the council elections on that day?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I do recall the chaos, and the noble Lord is right to refer to it. I hope that a number of lessons were learnt as a result of that, but the referendum question is different from the issues raised in May 2007. It is a very simple yes/no question. I am sure that our respective countrymen in Scotland will be able to decide between the two.

I hope that we can agree with the other place on the question of the date and the other provisions in the Bill: that the size of that House should be reduced, and the unfairness resulting from imbalances in the size of parliamentary constituencies rectified.

Surely, under any electoral system, people’s votes should have as equal weight as possible. That is not the case for the people of Warrington South, which last December had just under 80,000 electors; their vote is worth a quarter less than the people of Preston, which had 60,000. This is not an anomaly: these differences are repeated up and down the country. As of last December, a vote in Arfon in Wales had twice the weight of a vote in Falkirk. This inequality is compounded by the drawn-out process by which boundaries are drawn. It took more than six years to complete the last review in England. The constituencies in place for the 2010 general election were based on data that were a decade old. That is not fair for electors. Other countries draw their boundaries far more quickly.

Then, we are all pledged to reduce the cost of politics.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

We must be even-handed, my Lords. The noble Lord will know that, because of the Scotland Act, there was a reduction from 72 seats down to 60. It was Lady Cosgrove, the High Court judge, who looked after these matters. This matter was dealt with very efficiently and a report was put before Parliament in due course. So it is not always the case that it is a long drawn-out process.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that of course is right, which is why I pointed out the case in England. In Scotland there was a reaction to the Scotland Act and the reduction in the number of seats. It does not mean that it always has to take a long time, but in England it demonstrated that it did. Maybe in Scotland these things are, on the whole, managed rather better.

The new rules put in place by this Bill will require that every constituency is within 5 per cent either side of a single size. To ensure that constituencies remain equal and up to date, boundary reviews will take place on a five-yearly basis. The Bill will also set the size of the other place at 600 MPs. This is a modest reduction of around 8 per cent and will save the public an estimated £12 million a year.

[Lord Snape]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. In his opinion, which political party would benefit from these changes?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I cannot possibly predict what will happen at the next general election, but all taxpayers will benefit from a saving of £12 million each year.

[Lord Maples]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Does he agree that an electoral system which, at the general election in 2010, required the Conservative Party to get 40 per cent of the vote to get an overall majority but Labour to get only 34 per cent cannot possibly be considered fair?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point—but it is not the fundamental case that the Government are making in the Bill. This is about a general fairness across the country.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he moves off this point about the size of the reconstituted House of Commons, does he recall that at the election both the coalition partners were committed to reducing the House of Commons to below 600? Can he explain to this House what exactly changed their minds about that?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, in the same way as the figure of 650 is one that has developed over time and is basically an arbitrary one, so the figure of 600—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, plucks a figure from the air. It was not quite like that. Six hundred strikes me as being a nice, round figure. But these are precisely the points that we will take up in Committee.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

If the motive, as the noble Lord says, is to save money, can he say how it is consistent with the constant churning out of new Peers by this coalition?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the number of new Peers since the general election is infinitesimally small compared with the number of new Peers introduced during the period of new Labour. Moreover, no one is suggesting that these new Peers will cost £12 million to house and look after in this House.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, can the Minister say how much could be saved by a downward adjustment of ministerial salaries by reducing the size of the Government?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Given that ministerial salaries have already had a 5 per cent cut since the general election, the answer to that is: not much more. The other place has considered all of these questions carefully.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

Does the noble Lord accept that this is a constitutional issue, not a financial issue; and that by reducing the number of MPs but not reducing the size of the Executive, the Government will weaken the Commons’ ability to hold the Executive to account?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I fully expect that this will be an issue that we shall discuss in detail when we get to the Committee stage. The Government have already expressed a desire to reduce the size of the Executive, but not in this Bill, not at this time, not at this stage.

My right honourable friend's proposals will result in constituencies of around 76,000 electors, and over a third of existing constituencies are within the approximate range that will result from this Bill. That, I believe, is a reasonable proposal.

We look back at how the Duke of Wellington wisely led this House to allow reform of the constituencies in another place, and we marvel at the fact that your Lordships originally resisted it. So I think that, in future generations, if people read our debates, they will marvel at any speech by noble Lords or any other ditchers or diehards who venture to suggest that the disparities in current constituencies should be preserved.

As is now well known since the debate earlier today, the Bill preserves two specific constituencies: the island groups of Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. Both are dispersed island groups which cannot readily be combined with the mainland. In recognition of the fact that certain parts of the United Kingdom are very sparsely populated, the Bill caps the size of a constituency at just larger than the largest now—Ross, Skye and Lochaber.

The Bill also reforms the process for boundary reviews. As one leading academic has commented on the present system of local inquiries,

“it would be wrong to assume that the consultation process largely involves the general public having its say on the recommendations”.

It is important that consultation is effective, and that is why the Bill reforms the system. It triples the time that people and political parties have to make written representations from one month to three. Local people will be better able to make their points to the commissions, and the overall review process will be faster and more efficient.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the Leader has given way, and I appreciate that it is difficult at this stage. However, I wonder if he will comment on this section of the Bill in the context of constituencies where there is a low level of electoral registration. His noble friend sitting next to him referred to an “average” on the radio this morning, but we all know that non-registration is much higher in impoverished communities in city centres. What are the Government doing in advance of this proposal to change constituency numbers to ensure that the electorate have a proper chance and are encouraged to register?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, of course registration is important, and currently the average registration in the United Kingdom is 90 per cent, which, by international comparisons, is extremely high. We will continue to encourage people to register their votes and play a part in the democracy that we have in this country.

The commission will continue to use the electoral register as the basis for its reviews, as it has done for decades. To go on to the point that the noble Baroness just raised, as the secretaries to the Boundary Commissions themselves have noted, the register is the most comprehensive data source that is regularly updated, and this Government will continue to seek ways of ensuring that more individuals exercise their right to register.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does the noble Lord accept that low registration in inner-city constituencies means high-population constituencies? Is that not a central flaw in the Government’s whole approach?

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, my Lords. First, the basis of deciding constituencies based on the size of the electoral register is well precedented. Secondly, the Government will continue to seek ways of ensuring that individuals exercise their right to register. So we will want to avoid the problem that the noble Lord raises.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does the Minister not accept that it is extremely difficult to get high levels of registration in inner-city constituencies?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that does not negate the reason for creating fairly based constituencies of 76,000 electors plus or minus 5 per cent.

Members of this House have opposing views on which is the better system with which to elect Members of the other place, but the place for that debate is during the campaign. At the end of the campaign, it will be for the voters to decide which system will be used in the future, and this is fair too.

Before I finish, I will briefly outline the effect of the substantive clauses. I know that many noble Lords wish to speak, so I will not detain the House with a clause-by-clause commentary. I hope it will suffice to say that there are three main parts to this Bill: provisions for a referendum to be held and combined with other polls on 5 May are found in Clauses 1 to 7 and Schedules 1 to 9; provisions for implementation of the alternative vote system in the event of a yes vote in the referendum are found in Clause 9 and Schedule 10; and provisions to reform the setting of parliamentary boundaries are found in Clauses 10 to 13. The remaining Clauses 14 to 19 and Schedule 11 deal with technical and financial aspects of the Bill, and that is it.

It is not a complex Bill. It offers a referendum on the alternative vote, reduces the size of the House of Commons and makes the size of constituencies more equal. This is a fair Bill and a clear Bill. It gives people choice on how they vote and a more equal say when they do vote. The other place, which is uniquely affected by it, has approved it, and I commend it to the House.

18:49

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, together with my noble friend Lord Bach, I shall pick up the baton so expertly carried by my right honourable friend Mr Sadiq Khan and my honourable friend Mr Chris Bryant in another place. We have heard two speeches today from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House. In the first, he refused to engage with the issue at all, and in the second, he said that we should not think about amending the Bill because the House of Commons has approved it. I regard this House as responsible for improving legislation so, if the noble Lord does not mind, we will reject his second invitation.

This has been described as the most important constitutional Bill since 1832. Those are not my words but a description of the Bill by the right honourable Mr Nicholas Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, who came to office stressing that his job is to raise what he described as the hitherto lamentable standards of our politics. As he put it on 19 May 2010,

“This government is going to persuade you to put your faith in politics once again”.

The Deputy Prime Minister had the opportunity in this Bill, the most important constitutional change since 1832, to put his sanctimonious mouth where his money is. Instead, there has been no Green Paper, no public consultation and no pre-legislative scrutiny, which are all things that over the years we became so used to hearing the Tories and the Liberal Democrats demanding. At the first opportunity, they have disappointed us and they have disappointed the public out there. This is hypocrisy, and hypocrisy does not help to restore trust.

This Bill spent nine days being debated in another place, the place to which it is most important. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the Commons said of the process:

“The Deputy Prime Minister has accurately described the Bill as ‘fundamental to this House and to our democracy’. We regret that the Government’s timetable has denied us an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the Bill”.

The Bill before your Lordships' House today is an ill-thought-through, partisan muddle of a piece of legislation that, in truth, seems to be more about ensuring the longevity of the coalition than about nobler aims of equality of representation. As the Minister has told us, the Government seek to hold a referendum to ask the British public whether they would like to adopt the alternative vote system for Westminster elections. The intended date for the referendum is 5 May 2011, a day on which more than 80 per cent of the population will, in addition, be asked to vote in local council, devolved Assembly or mayoral elections. The Bill is being rushed through to meet this desired target date.

However, can the Minister explain to the House why the rush with Part 2? The independent boundary commissions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are being asked to redraw every single parliamentary constituency in three years, which is less than half the time that previous periodic boundary reviews have taken. They are being asked to do so before the electoral register, on which the new constituencies are to be based, can be brought up to date to correct for the estimated 3.5 million voters who are currently missing from it. Under-representation is the real scandal, but this Government feel that that can wait to be addressed until after they have railroaded through new constituencies based on flawed data that will inevitably punish the people to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred. This is not fair but nonsensical.

If all that were not illogical enough, the Government—and the noble Lord did not even mention this—seek to take away any serious public say in the redesign of constituencies. Public inquiries, which are the democratic life-blood of boundary reviews and which allow local people a say in what happens to their local representation, are being removed. Why? Obviously, to fit in with the timetable. There is no rational justification for this haste, which is born of a wish to hold the next general election in 2015 and subsequent elections every five years after that using the favoured electoral boundaries. The Bill before us proposes five-yearly boundary reviews in future to match this election cycle. As our all-party Constitution Committee noted in its excellent report on this Bill,

“the provisions of this Bill and the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill are interrelated”.

The damning conclusion of that all-party committee was that,

“the constitutional relationship between the provisions of this Bill and the Government's other proposals for constitutional reform have not been adequately thought through”.

We wholeheartedly agree.

The committee’s criticism of the process is all the more heated—rightly so, we would argue—for the lack of any pre-legislative consultation. It is an insult to democracy and to the principles that we in this House hold so highly that a measure to enact constitutional change of such lasting significance has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. Only last month, the Leader of the House said that the Government are committed to pre-legislative scrutiny because,

“it improves the quality of legislation and provides an opportunity for public engagement”.—[Official Report, 28/10/10; col. 1306.].

What was wrong with this Bill, the most important constitutional Bill since 1832, that it did not require that? The Constitution Committee concluded:

“This is an unsatisfactory basis on which to embark on fundamental reform of the legislature”.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I do not like to overquibble with the noble and learned Lord, but I went on to say that early Bills in a Session could hardly be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny because they were early Bills in the Session.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

What a load of nonsense. Of course they could be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. I shall tell the noble Lord what you do. You say, “Let’s have pre-legislative scrutiny first”, as I understand the Government are doing in relation to House of Lords reform. Why could that not have been done in relation to Part 2 of the Bill?

[Lord Tyler]

The noble and learned Lord was a very distinguished member of the previous Administration. Does he recall that it took two years to bring forward any proposals on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill and that, when the Bill came forward, it acquired a completely new clause on AV that had not been subject to any pre-legislative scrutiny? Was that not just the same thing as what he is now suggesting?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, exemplifies the attitude of the Liberal Democrats, who seem to think that the Bill is splendid and marvellous. Look at them. The moment that they have the most important constitutional Bill since 1832, they simply ignore the—if I may say so—entirely admirable approach to which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers. I do not know why he is looking at me. He should be looking at the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

This is an unsatisfactory Bill. As its specific proposals are not to be found in either of the coalition party’s general election manifestos, we must conclude that not only is it an unsatisfactory Bill but, as the noble Lord appeared to be conceding, it has no mandate. This is truly a shame. We on this side of the House support the holding of a referendum on the electoral system for elections to the House of Commons and we approve of the stated intention to bring the size of Westminster constituencies more into line with each other than they are at present, but the way in which the Government articulated their proposals and rammed them through in another place quite hypocritically—as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has demonstrated—was shoddy. Then they say, “We can’t change it because the other House has approved it”. I should say to the noble Lord that this has succeeded in uniting opposition to their plans.

First, on the Liberal Democrat part of the Bill, the AV referendum, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the provisions in Part 1 are not in reality a referendum Bill. The Bill seeks to change our system of voting from first past the post to an alternative vote system, but it makes the introduction of those changes subject to a yes vote in a referendum. The referendum in this Bill is not advisory, as in all previous referendum Bills in this country, but binding. There is a requirement on the Minister to lay the order that will introduce the changes. It is totally unclear from the Bill whether it will be a negative or an affirmative order that will fundamentally change our electoral system. We need therefore to scrutinise very carefully the provisions concerning the new system.

The Bill proposes that the referendum will take place on the same day as elections already scheduled in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and most local authorities in England. The Government have failed to consult with the devolved institutions on the timing of the referendum. The plans have been condemned by the devolved Assemblies, but the Government have arrogantly ploughed ahead regardless and have not explained the magic of this date. We need to ensure that, if there is a referendum, it is one that best addresses the development of the electoral system in our country.

The following are points that we will explore in the next stages of this Bill. First, the referendum should be advisory and not binding. Secondly, the referendum should give voters the opportunity to vote on other systems apart from just first past the post or AV. Thirdly, the date should be moved to a date when there are no other elections. Fourthly, there should be a threshold of yes votes measured against a total number of those who can vote in the referendum.

Part 2 proposes a reduction in the size of the House of Commons by 50 MPs and a redrawing of constituency boundaries that—give or take 5 per cent—will prioritise the equal size of parliamentary seats above all other factors. Considerations of community, local ties, shape and accessibility of constituencies and geographical and natural boundaries are all to be subordinate to achieving the numerical ideal. On this side of the House, first, we ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, where the magic total of 600 constituencies has come from. I apologise for asking that because he has answered that question. He said that it came “from the air”. It certainly does not derive from either of the—

[Lord Strathclyde]

I did not say that the figure came from the air. I said that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, had grabbed it from the air. I said that it was a nice round figure.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I apologise. The noble Lord is absolutely right. It was the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who said that the figure was plucked from the air. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that it was “a nice round figure”. Thank you very much. Does the 600 figure have anything to do with research from the University of Liverpool, conducted for “Newsnight”, which clearly demonstrates that Labour will be the net losers in this situation? Labour would lose 25 seats to the Tories’ 13 and the Lib Dems’ seven.

[Lord Dubs]

I did not say anything. I just waved my arm a bit and I have become the centre of the debate. I am sitting quite quietly, behaving myself.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Perhaps I may say that the unspoken interventions of my noble friend Lord Dubs are more powerful than the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. What is the effect of removing 7.7 per cent—some 50—of the total of MPs? According to Professor King, the respected psephologist, the average constituency size will go up from 66,000, which it was at the end of the Second World War, to around 105,000 by the time of the next election.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Does the noble and learned Lord appreciate that the figure given by Professor King was not of electors but of the total population?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I appreciate that. The reason why I refer to that figure is because that is the group of people that the MP has to deal with. If someone comes in and says, “I want some help”, I do not think that you say, “Can you prove to me that you are a voter?”.

MPs provide the pool from which Ministers are chosen. That pool would be reduced. The removal of 50 MPs would reduce at a stroke the number of MPs available to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account. Professor King said:

“The House of Commons, compared with other national legislatures, is already a feeble affair. The present proposal would enfeeble it further”.

I hope that, in the five days that it cobbled together this agreement, the coalition thought about what effect this number—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, “a nice round number”—would have on our democracy.

Why does the coalition propose the reduction? The Deputy Prime Minister, whom I mentioned earlier, said that it was because the legislation underpinning reviews had meant that the number of MPs had crept up. That is what he said in the House of Commons, but it is not so. The number of MPs is lower than it was a decade ago and no higher than it was 20 years ago. It is virtually impossible to discern any principle underlying the proposal to reduce the number of MPs. We will oppose the reduction and we will in any event make any reduction conditional on a proportionate reduction in the number of Ministers in the Commons.

Crucial in the Bill is the method for determining new constituency boundaries. With the exception of Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, a new system will apply to all constituencies. The crux of the new system is that the driving factor will be the number of constituents in a constituency. We agree with the need for substantially greater equalisation of constituency size and that there should be a small number of exceptions to the process, but we consider that the constituencies to be treated as exceptions to the system should be identified and chosen in a fair way. Why not choose the Isle of Wight? Why not recognise the importance of keeping Cornish and Devonian constituencies separate from each other? We support the inclusion of the two exceptions that are already there, but we think that there should be more and that their selection should be entrusted to someone other than a politician. Let there be a fair process. If the hybridity route has been rejected by this House, perhaps there should be an inquiry conducted by the boundary commissions, which have proved themselves over very many years to be above politics.

As regional, council and even ward boundaries are crossed in the onward march to perfectly sized constituencies, representation will become more strained and harder to navigate. For instance, the Government’s insistence on only 5 per cent leniency in constituency size would require 385 extra electors to be found for the Forest of Dean and 59 electors to be expelled from Warrington. The prospect is ridiculous.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My noble and learned friend has mentioned the report of the Constitution Committee. Is he also aware of the recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee in the other place, which is a Conservative-dominated committee? It said:

“in terms of … geography, culture and history … We recommend that the Government brings forward amendments to the Bill to permit the Boundary Commission to give greater weight to these factors when drawing up new constituencies than it is currently allowed under the current proposals”.

Again, a committee of this Parliament rejects what the Government are doing.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I was not aware of that. There seems to be a trend that any independent body within Parliament that looks at this matter criticises the way in which it has been done and criticises the conclusions. The only way in which we can give effect to that is by this House introducing amendments to the Bill.

The prospect of the sort of fiddling around with constituencies to which I have referred is ridiculous and unnecessary. It can be removed by increasing the leeway to 10 per cent either side of the standard constituency size, which would give considerable equalisation but at the same time give the ability to reflect local needs. Mathematical purity should not be allowed to carve up communities. We advise the Government that they should seek a balance between equalisation and recognition of tradition, culture, and local authority boundaries rather than aim for bland uniformity.

To add insult to injury, the Bill plans to remove public inquiries from the boundary process. The proposals in the Bill have been described by Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg of Democratic Audit as,

“the most ambitious attempt to redraw the UK’s electoral geography in six decades”.

As acknowledged by the chairs of the boundary commissions, every constituency will have to change. If this is not an ideal moment to include the public, who will be most affected by these changes, in a meaningful way, I cannot think what is. The Government talk—just as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has talked—of the big society and of a new politics where power is handed to the people, but they stubbornly ignore the calls of the constituencies of the Isle of Wight or Argyll and Bute to special recognition of their communities. The Government may talk of the big society, but with the abolition of public inquiries they will remove the one meaningful mechanism that allows ordinary people to have their say. I hope that the coalition Government will realise their mistake, but I am not optimistic.

The Electoral Reform Society has described the coalition’s proposals as meaning that,

“most constituencies will pay less regard to what most voters think of as community and natural boundaries, and change more frequently, destabilising the link between MPs and constituents”.

The United States, notes the Electoral Reform Society,

“has rigorous requirements for arithmetical equality of population in congressional districts, but the worst gerrymandering in the developed world”.

We want to support proposals for greater equalisation and we would welcome discussions with the coalition to achieve it. This sort of Bill is a classic vehicle for seeking consensus rather than ramming things through in this way. We will not support operating in this overly hasty way, which places the power to influence constituency boundaries out of reach of local people and which in the short-term will disfranchise 3.5 million people in the country, the vast majority of whom are young, living in private rented accommodation, in poverty and from the BME communities.

This Bill will promote rapid and damaging changes to our constitution in order to have the new boundaries in place by the next election. It will do so at great cost to local communities and to the unregistered voter, and it will do long-term damage to faith in our politics. We can achieve the goal of equalisation without the damage that this Bill will cause. I hope that the fact that there is now a coalition embracing the Tories and the Liberal Democrats does not mean that this House loses its reputation for amending Bills when they need amending. I hope that the House will join together to make this Bill a much better Bill than the poor, partisan Bill that it is at the moment. It can be done, and I ask your Lordships’ House to help us to do that.

19:13

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I find myself in considerable agreement with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Within six days, this House has seen the Government deal with two Second Readings of Bills of immense constitutional importance. Noble Lords will recollect that last Tuesday we had the Second Reading of the Public Bodies Bill, and now we have this matter before us. The Bills have a great deal in common, but what is most striking is the fact that the Government seem to be very much on the defensive and, if I may say, on to a loser in respect of them both. They are on a loser in relation to the arguments that have been and will be deployed in this House later today and tomorrow, and very much on to a loser in relation to the castigation of both Bills by that most distinguished body of persons, the Select Committee on the Constitution. The committee’s castigation has not been a mild dissertation on what the alternatives might have been. It was not a slap on the wrist, as I described it the other evening. Rather, it was a magisterial rebuke of such dimensions and intensity that it would cause, I suggest, any sensitive Government to smart in embarrassment.

One is tempted, in relation to both these losses, to remember Oscar Wilde’s “The Importance of Being Earnest”. Losing one is indeed unfortunate, but losing both smacks of carelessness. That will be the verdict of the community not only in relation to these two matters over the long term, but also very probably in relation to the third, which will be with us in a few weeks or perhaps months, on the Government’s protection of their position in the House of Commons. They will be protecting themselves on a five-year basis, taking out a lease on a certainty of five years rather than having a month-by-month tenancy, as it were, along with the other provisions of that Bill.

On the question of the attempt to equalise the size of constituencies in the United Kingdom, it is of course superficially attractive to aim for equality all round. But that is the most shallow and superficial approach imaginable. It is based entirely on the mirage of a chimerical conception. You cannot achieve, with a mere mathematical formula, any form of total equality. Even with constituencies of exactly the same size, you would not achieve equality. Let us assume for the purposes of argument that the AV provision is not carried by a referendum—and I would be surprised if it would be. If that is so, you would still have inequalities. Constituency A will have a successful Member elected by 37 per cent of the electorate, while constituency B would have a 55 per cent vote and constituency C 65 per cent. Where is the equality in the situation of a compact urban constituency covering a few square miles in which a constituent living at the furthest periphery can walk to the office of his Member of Parliament in 20 minutes, compared with a massive rural constituency comprising a couple of counties where it would take half a day’s travel to achieve the same result? No equality is possible. Slavish adherence to a mathematical formula does nothing to bring about equality save in the most shallow and chimerical way.

The price that has to be paid for this is high. Many constituencies are communities that have a history. They have a soul, an identity and a cohesion that will disappear completely or, at the very best, there will be so much doubt and uncertainty about the matter that no one will know who their Member of Parliament is or might be, or where his constituency is going to be. I had the great honour of serving the county of Cardigan in the other place for eight short years. That community is one of the oldest in the United Kingdom, going back around 1,500 years. The community in that land from the estuary of the Dyfi to the Teifi and to the west of the Plynlimon range to the sea has been hammered out on the anvil of the centuries. But under this formula it will virtually disappear and its identity will be lost totally. That uncertainty will apply to hundreds of constituencies in the United Kingdom. If there is any real benefit to be gained, even superficially and over a short period of time, by a slavish adherence to a mathematical formula, it will all be lost and counterproduced by uncertainties and the sheer chaos brought about by this attempt at equality in relation to constituencies.

That position is one which will bring about the greatest injustice of all in Wales. The total number of seats in Wales will inevitably be reduced under the plus or minus 5 per cent on 76,000 rule from 40 to 30—a reduction of 25 per cent. Wales will have fewer seats than it had at the time of the Great Reform Act 1832. Many will say, “Come off it. You should be saying not that it is wrong now to change the system but that it was wrong not to change it over the decades”. That argument was put to Mr Kenneth Clarke when he was Home Secretary and dealing with the Boundary Commission Act 1992. He said, “No, I am not having it. Wales is a national entity; there is here a constitutional arrangement of long standing which I am determined to honour”. The situation now is exactly as it was in 1992.

There is one further consideration in relation to Wales—the question of devolution. I raised that point with the Deputy Leader of the House in June of this year and asked him whether there would be an over-cull of Scotland and Wales because of devolution. I received a straight and clear answer—no. So the situation in relation to Wales turns entirely upon the question of the 76,000 plus or minus 5 per cent rule. That is entirely wrong and the matter must be looked at again.

The question of reducing the total number of Members of Parliament compounds the evil. We are in a situation where Members of Parliament—some of them deservedly; most of them undeservedly—have been castigated and regarded as extremely unworthy persons. The coalition Government are saying, “Yes, we agree with you. They are pretty rotten chaps so we will get rid of 50 of them”. I will not animadvert on the question of why it is 50 rather than 115, as proposed by the Conservative Party, or 150 as proposed by the Liberal Democrats but, be that as it may, I make the point, with as much force as I can possibly command, that there never was a factual basis for that calculation. One could easily argue that, if an in-depth inquiry had been held into the number of seats the House of Commons should have, it is at least as possible that the inquiry would have found that we needed more Members of Parliament rather than fewer.

Let us consider the facts. It is said that we have more Members in our House of Commons than most other Parliaments in Europe. That is perfectly true, but we have a much greater population than most others. However, the ratio of Member of Parliaments per 1 million of the population is, in this country, lower in the main than in many other countries. We compare roughly favourably with France and Italy. Many of the states in Europe are federal states and do not heap upon the shoulders of their Members of Parliament the constituency duties that we have given ours. In the 60 years leading up to now, the population of this country has increased by 25 per cent; the increase in relation to Members of Parliament is 4 per cent. So there is at least an arguable case that an inquiry could have recommended a greater number rather than a lesser number, or indeed leave the matter as it was.

The point has been eloquently made more than once already in the debate that it is not as though slavish adherence to mathematics is of itself any panacea because you cannot slavishly adhere to that which is impure and incomplete in itself—in other words, a register of December 2010 that is inaccurate to the tune of 3.5 million.

I doubt very much whether the Conservative Party really believes that it is necessary to reduce the numbers of Members of Parliament. It has given the wrong message—a message which belongs more to Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado”, Pooh-Bah and Ko-Ko—remember the little list of the people who should disappear—than to the bringing about any equity in this situation.

I refer the House to the evidence given in 2003 by a Member of Parliament, a member of the Conservative Party, to the Boundary Commission in relation to the question of reducing the numbers of Members of Parliament. He said that he was entirely against it and that he hoped very much that the idea would be abandoned. He was the Member of Parliament for Witney, Mr Cameron.

This Bill, the one that we dealt with six days ago and the one that we will be dealing with in a couple of months’ time will have a massive impact on the whole situation; it will be epoch-making. It will not cause equity but it will bring about total chaos.

19:25

[The Lord Bishop of Blackburn]

My Lords, the Church of England has been around for some very considerable time. We have centuries of experience of making changes and we have not always got it right. What we have learnt, though, is that change management is a skill which has to be honed with experience—and my experience still tells me that trying to run two unrelated and non-interdependent changes at the same time is fraught with difficulty.

With regard to the voting system for the other place, noble Lords will know that the established church has for many years adopted the principle of the single transferable vote for election to its own governing body, the General Synod. While the church will not be putting forward a corporate line on the alternative vote, I would comment that there is a danger that under this system the member elected, rather than being “the one whom most people like”, as is often claimed, could better be described as “the one fewest people dislike”. Is this a move to the lowest common denominator rather than the highest common factor? Perversely, this can be less proportional than the first past the post system we currently have.

The redrawing of the constituency boundaries may seem, on the face of it, to be a welcome move in equalising the size of constituencies, but surely we must not forget the law of unintended consequences. If, as we are assured, the revisions are to be speedy and often to ensure that the constituencies remain roughly equal in size as registered voter numbers change, small communities on the edge of larger populations could find themselves being moved in and out of a particular constituency at consecutive elections—a kind of electoral ping pong. A different though related problem could arise for a rural community surrounded by urban communities. The small pockets of population in the rural area could be used similarly to the “makeweight chocolates” that I remember from my youth; they would be added to larger urban areas just to make up the numbers.

An advantage of our present constituency system is that a community of interest develops over a period of time. I would suggest that such communities of interest are important, not only to those who live in them but also to those who represent them. To move parts of communities from one area to another, with no recourse to representation from the members of those communities, is in my view wrong. It may suit the numerical purists to be able to work it out on a spreadsheet, but it is destructive of the very thing that we are trying to produce, which is better accountability.

Noble Lords will note that I referred to “those who live in them”—elected Members of the other place represent all who live in their boundaries, as we have heard this evening, and not just those who are registered to vote. There is strong evidence that the urban, more deprived areas are those that have the highest number of unregistered eligible voters. That view is supported by the Electoral Commission. These are the very areas that are likely to be affected most by the redrawing of the boundaries and the consequent reduction in the number of elected Members.

The north-west as a region has the lowest deviation from the mean electorate in England, based on the election of 6 May 2010. However, under the proposed revisions, it would lose the most representatives of any English region. I hope that these proposals will be looked at again and that a solution will be found that is both locally supported and fairer in impact than the present suggestion. To do less would, I suspect, be to disfranchise large numbers in my diocese.

“Act in haste and repent at leisure”: I fear that that may be the most useful comment with regard to this Bill. The changes proposed are far-reaching and, as the noble and learned Lord said, they are untested—they were not even in an election manifesto. The Bill also has major implications for other constitutional changes that are being talked of, not least in relation to your Lordships’ House. In humility, I ask that we think carefully about separating parts of the Bill and allow time for that community of interest to develop around an agreed way forward.

19:33

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

My Lords, I hope that it will not come as a shock and surprise to my noble friend the Leader of the House that I intend to support this Bill.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Any port in a storm. I say to my noble friend that I am supporting it because I am very much in favour of the second half of the Bill, which deals with the reduction in numbers in the House of Commons and the equalisation of votes in constituencies. I do not care for the first half of the Bill, but that is the price for having the Bill; it is the coalition price. I think that it is a price worth paying, because I do not think that the referendum will succeed. I am sure that there will be a majority of no votes.

I am opposed to the alternative vote system. I shall speak against it at rallies and all the rest of it. I am rather surprised that my new friends the Liberals are quite so keen on the alternative vote. After all, Roy Jenkins’s commission savaged it and said how unsatisfactory it was. However, my surprise is even greater that large parts of the Labour Party have embraced the alternative vote. I would have thought that they had had enough of the alternative vote. They have just gone through the process of having an alternative vote in electing their leader. It wreaked havoc on their party and did not produce the best man as the winner. The result of every alternative vote is that you have to try to persuade yourself that the person who won was the best man, when everyone knows that he is not the best man; he is the lowest common denominator rather than the highest common factor. If the Labour Party continues to embrace the alternative vote system, all I can say is that the position was well described by Kipling, who said:

“the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire”.

[Lord Snape]

I am sure that the House is grateful for that bit of doggerel, but will the noble Lord accept from me that not all of the Labour Party is in favour of the AV system? I will find myself campaigning alongside him against that prospect later, but will he come to the nitty-gritty of the Bill and his support for it? Is it not about political advantage for his party rather than anything else?

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

I say to my new ally in the campaign—Snape and Baker ranging the country—that we will draw great crowds. I will come on to political advantage later, if I may.

I favour the second half of the Bill because three years ago I took a Bill through your Lordships’ House that did very nearly the same thing. The Bill was to reduce the House of Commons by 10 per cent, which was then Conservative Party policy, so there would have been not 50 but 65 fewer Members. It was also designed to equalise votes. I was interrupted by my new noble friend Lord Rennard—yes, he is in his place—who knows a thing or two about constituencies and electorates. He reminded me that the policy of the Liberals was to reduce the number in the House of Commons to 500. The Liberal policy was to reduce the number by 150; the Conservative policy was to reduce it by 65. Well, in the sweet compromise that figures the coalition’s proposal, the figure 50 was settled on and I am happy to settle for 50 now. That will be a considerable improvement.

Why do I think so? The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, talked about the numbers in other countries. We have a population of 60 million and we have 600 MPs. Compared to other countries, we could be described as well represented. Japan has twice our population and 470 MP equivalents. Russia has two and a half times our population and 450 MP equivalents. America has five times our population but just 430 Congressmen and 100 Senators. Six hundred is quite a good number for the electorate’s representation. In Scotland and Wales, there are also the local Members of Parliament, who deal with most of the complaints of their constituents, as powers have been considerably devolved. There is plenty of representation at all levels where people can go and seek support from their elected representatives.

Under the Bill, the new constituencies will have an average electorate of 76,000, give or take 5 per cent either way. The former Lord Chancellor wanted 10 per cent, which would largely negate some of the Bill’s effects, but he is used to putting forward such amendments. At the moment, the size of an electorate in England is 72,000, in Scotland it is 65,000, in Northern Ireland it is 63,000 and in Wales it is 56,000. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and I were both in the House of Commons. It was a long time ago.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

A very long time.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Time runs not to the memory of man. The noble Lord had quite a small constituency compared to an English constituency. I think that his electorate was about 50,000. That meant that English seats had 14,300 more electors than Welsh seats. There is substantial overrepresentation. You cannot deny it. If democracy means anything, it should be that one vote is equal wherever it is, but it is not. The Welsh voters who put the noble Lord into power as an MP were much more powerful than the voters who put me into power in England; they had a greater say on our nation’s affairs. The noble Lord cannot shake his head; it is a fact. It is true and realistic. There is massive overrepresentation.

That can be seen not just in Wales. Islington in London has an electorate of 67,000, whereas just a little way away in Brent—these are Labour seats—the electorate is 87,000. There is no logic to this and it is indefensible.

[Lord Snape]

My Lords—

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Can we have our campaign meeting later, please?

[Lord Snape]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I remind the House that he did at one time represent Marylebone, which was one of the smallest constituencies in the country.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Yes, and I enjoyed that enormously. I do not see where that comes into it. The constituency eventually disappeared altogether, it was so small. But if you think generally of all the other, great constituencies in the country—I would not want to make a personal matter of it—that is the plain fact. There has to be a greater equality.

Labour’s attitude, from what the noble and learned Lord the former Lord Chancellor was saying tonight, is that this Bill should not proceed because a large number of people are unregistered in our inner cities. The general comment was that it was not fair to do it until registration had gone up. I find that rather an astonishing argument. Some electoral scholars call the people who do not register non-people, although they are not non-people but actual people. It is quite possible for people to register if they are interested in politics; if they are interested in affecting society, they can register. It is their duty and responsibility if they wish to have it. If the Labour Party wishes to pursue that argument very far, it should ask itself what it did in office about registration of the electorate.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

We introduced individual registration and it drove up registration to more than 90 per cent. It is completely wrong to say that people do not want to register because they are not interested in politics. If you have a registration drive, registration goes up. The noble Lord is talking rubbish.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

With great respect, I ask the noble and learned Lord to address the figures. That is a total exaggeration, which is not unknown from the former Lord Chancellor. In fact, very little was done, and I have read apologies from those on the former government Front Bench in the other House saying that they did not do enough. I ask the noble and learned Lord to read Hansard occasionally.

Among the other things I favour in this Bill is the proposal that the Boundary Commission should do five-yearly reviews. We have been accused of just looking after the Conservative interests in this Bill, but I have seen situations when Labour in office has deliberately delayed boundary reviews. Let me give an example. Before the 1970 election I had won a by-election in Acton, which was a Labour seat. We were coming up to the 1970 election and a boundary review was published, which was going to make my seat a safe seat, so I had a vested interest in it. Alas, the Home Secretary of the day, Jim Callaghan, did not share that interest and did everything that he possibly could to manoeuvre to prevent the Boundary Commission proposals coming before Parliament. It was a shameful process; he tried to jiggle a few seats here and a few seats there, and it had to be withdrawn. So for electoral advantage the Labour Party rigged the system in the 1970 election, and it has done it before.

Successive Governments have always been rather slow to introduce Boundary Commission reports. As a result, you had the electorate of 2000 for the 2010 election, while the 2005 election was on the electorate of 1991. Successive Governments have delayed. So I welcome the fact that this will be done on a five-yearly basis.

I am also glad that public inquiries are going to be scrapped. I do not know how many Members of this House have attended a public inquiry of the commission, but they will all agree that it is a misnomer to call it a public inquiry. At the ones I attended, no ordinary citizens turned up at all. The only people who turned up were the ward councillors and their wives—I suppose they are ordinary citizens—the sitting Member of Parliament, the various candidates and their election agents. It was really a rehearsal of all the submissions they had made to the Boundary Commission. Those with the small interests of the locality were not there at all. Moreover, with regard to the findings of those inquiries, the greatest changes that they have ever instituted were to change the name of the new constituency. In the whole history of the Boundary Commission there have been three inquiries leading to significant changes in the boundaries.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The Boundary Commission report for England and Wales in 2007 said that 64 per cent of public inquiries affected a change in the initial proposal of the Boundary Commission.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Those changes are as modest as the change that the noble and learned Lord was speaking about earlier concerning the movement of Charlwood from Surrey to Sussex. That happened to be in my constituency. They are very minor changes on the edge.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That brings to mind two public inquiries that I was involved in when the constituencies that I represented in Liverpool were abolished in two successive reviews. A quite significant change was made as a result of the first public inquiry. I regret that significant change was not made as a result of the second. But many ordinary people and communities did attend and participate in those inquiries and I very much regret the removal of the right of people to appear at those inquiries to contest decisions made by the Boundary Commission.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

I appreciate that some will feel that, but in my experience no members of the public turned up at all and I think that that was more the pattern. Occasionally they do, but very rarely. Obviously, they did in the case brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

Finally, if you are going to have an equal and fair democratic system, where votes should have equal value, you have to address the problem of unequal boundaries. Other countries do this on a regular basis, such as Australia and New Zealand, and in America it goes on all the time. It is a sensible thing to do. I know that it upsets local communities. I remember listening to a speech by Michael Foot in the House of Commons when he represented Ebbw Vale, which was very reminiscent of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, when Ebbw Vale was to be very much changed and expanded. It was a most moving speech of the kind that Michael Foot could make, about the old hammered communities and how they had lived there over the centuries, how the pathways were defined and all the rest of it. But the arguments that he was using were exactly the arguments used to defend rotten boroughs in 1832. One has to reflect changes in population movement.

I come back to the point made by my new-found campaign colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, about political advantage. Yes, I am glad that the Bill removes quite a large part of the advantage that the Labour Party has at all general elections. At the general election, we had to be eight to nine points ahead in the opinion polls before we got to a level playing field with the Labour Party. What fairness is there in that? That is partly due to the maldistribution of seats around the country. So I want a fairer and more equal playing field; I want the checker board of politics to be on an even table. That is what this Bill does.

19:47

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

My Lords, I put on record that I am a member of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, whose report was published last Thursday. The Bill today is one of three promoted by the coalition. Two have commenced their parliamentary process and the third, for an elected House of Lords, will appear at some unspecified date next year. Each impacts on the other, but the coalition is proceeding with them in isolation. The evidence of the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Harper was that the underlying purpose for constitutional reform is a desire to win back the confidence of the British people by electoral reform, greater accountability and legitimacy, reducing the power of the Executive and increasing the power of the legislature. Those are important ideals and put in a rather more high-flown way than the noble Lord, Lord McNally, put them this morning on the radio, when he said that the Bill was really about ironing out a few wrinkles. That seemed to assume that the House of Commons was a crumpled frock that needed a bit of tightening.

The Constitution Committee points out that proposals for major constitutional reform should be subject to prior public consultation and legislative scrutiny. There are obvious advantages in doing that: first, by seeking consensus on important issues, not just in principle but in detail, in order to ensure that the principles work; secondly, by testing the evidence for the proposals; thirdly, by considering the implications of one proposal on another; and, fourthly, by seeking to explain and justify, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, constantly reminds us, how the proposals fit into an overall constitutional framework.

The coalition seeks to justify the rush to legislation on the basis that the referendum on AV needs to take place on 15 May next year, but that only justifies Part 1 of the Bill. It does not justify Part 2. The timetable for the Bill is so tight that it runs the risk of deadlines not being met. That is why the Bill was rushed through the Commons. Hansard records the controversy in the five heavily whipped and guillotined days, with some Members of the other place expressing the hope that your Lordships would provide the scrutiny that they could not, while the report from the House of Commons Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform is heavily critical of the Bill.

The absence of any full, proper and normal consultation and scrutiny for a constitutional Bill is nowhere more apparent than in the provisions relating to parliamentary constituencies. There has been: no coherent explanation for the number chosen for the reduction in constituencies to 600; no analysis of population shifts and increases; no proper analysis of comparable legislatures or the missing millions from the electoral register; no proper examination of the roles and functions of MPs; no action on the increase in the power of the Executive at the expense of the Back Bench; and no account of the inter-relationship of the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House in the context of proposals for another elected House. How ironic—somebody has mentioned this already—that as 50 elected MPs are hurtled to oblivion from the other place, the door to paradise in here is thrown open and in come another 50 unelected Peers.

Many of your Lordships will wish to comment on the speeding up of boundary reviews, so I simply observe that if the fixed term of Parliament is shorter than five years, for whatever reason, a review could be completed a mere six months before the next election, with the attendant crisis at local level as attempts are made to adapt the new constituency boundaries and contests. Similarly, many will wish to comment on the proposed basis for equalisation. Here, there has been no attempt to achieve consensus and no consultation with the public. What evidence is there that a strict arithmetic formula with little flexibility—just 5 per cent—is preferred by the electorate to more weight being given to geographical, customary or traditional local and historic boundaries?

Finally, may it not be that by removing a right to a local inquiry, many will feel that a sense of legitimacy has been taken away from them, for no good reason, at a time when the confidence and trust of the public is so important? How is this Bill likely to achieve the objectives that I outlined as being the coalition’s avowed intentions? First, the Bill will increase the power of the Executive, not diminish it, while by an absence of consensus, consultation and scrutiny, and by an absence of any solid evidence for its proposal, it has failed to make out a case for greater transparency and accountability for constitutional change. All these arguments are ones that the two parties opposite constantly put forward when in opposition. I see now from the papers that the coalition is going to have the audacity to ask us all whether we are happy. I fear that there may be many who, when they actually hear of the provisions of the Bill, will answer in the negative.

19:54

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I will be brief and confine myself to a single point. I have chosen not to speak on the issue of alternative voting, the referendum or the size of the other place, because many in your Lordships’ House are far more knowledgeable and can make a far more effective and informed contribution on those subjects than I can. I speak as a man of Cornwall and to issues relating to Cornwall, which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has already referred to twice today. Cornwall is bounded by the oceans and the Tamar. At the last general election, we returned six Members to the other place: three for the Conservative Party and three for the Liberal Democrats. At the previous election, we returned five Members of Parliament to the other place. As recently as 1832, we had 44 Members of Parliament sitting for constituencies in Cornwall, which tells your Lordships something about the economic decline of that beautiful part of England.

The boundaries, however, of Cornwall—the boundary of the Tamar river—have not been crossed by a parliamentary constituency for 750 years. The Tamar has not been crossed by any local government reorganisation in the past 200 years. Yet this Bill proposes such transgression into the county of Cornwall by voters from the county of Devon. We heard earlier about the preserved status of the Western Isles and the voters from Orkney and Shetland. I am persuaded of the good reason why they are given such a preserved status, but I ask myself whether they are the only constituencies that so qualify. It seems clear to me that Cornwall does, by dint of its geographical extremity. In terms of getting from there, it is probably a longer distance from north Cornwall to London by public transport than from any other constituency in the country of England.

Cornwall has a distinct culture. It has a Celtic history and an economy which is very distinct and different from that of Devon and of Plymouth in particular. The economic position of Cornwall is dire; it is one of four parts of this country which qualify for EU poverty-related grants. The people of Cornwall, even where their homes, their schools and their communities abut the county of Devon, look to the south and west for leadership and self-identity. They look to Cornwall and regard themselves as Cornish, even if they live on the borders of Devon. They do not want to be absorbed into Plymouth or north Devon and it is, quite frankly, shameful that arithmetic should take precedence over identity and common sense.

Not a single Member for a constituency in Cornwall spoke in the other place against this proposal. Not a single Member from Cornwall in the other place voted against the Bill. Today, we had an opportunity, on the earlier Motion from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, for those Members of this House who have had associations with Cornwall to have voted in support of the hybrid proposal. They did not do so, and those from Cornwall and with associations in Cornwall will be recognised as such for their failure to vote and speak up for Cornwall in our earlier debate.

Some people in Cornwall are saying that now is not the time for dissent. They mislead their constituents, arguing that the Bill is not important and that the real point where you exercise your leverage is with the Boundary Commission for England. Yet under the powers of the proposed new schedule in Clause 11(1), in its paragraph 5(1)(a) to (d), the interests of local communities are recognised by the Boundary Commission but are at all times subordinated to the 5 per cent tolerances, while no arguments about boundaries are to be taken in a public arena. I regard this as a very unhelpful step if we want to engage people in democracy, with a sense of being involved in the choice of their own constituency and in having control over the political process.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, who I see is not in his place, asked earlier whether there was any opposition to these changes from the people of Anglesey or those of the Isle of Wight. I cannot speak for people from those constituencies, but I can tell your Lordships that the feeling in Cornwall on this issue is absolutely intense. In our anthem, we sing of Bishop Trelawny and of 20,000 Cornishmen who will want to know the reason why. But 250,000 Cornishmen will want to know why the Liberal Democrats are supporting this change, which strikes at the heart of the identity of Cornwall and its uniqueness.

When we come to Committee, I for one will be proposing that we widen the tolerances from the 5 per cent currently allowed in the Bill to 10 per cent or 15 per cent. As noble Lords have suggested in this debate, that will also provide a greater continuity of relationship. We simply do not want, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn pointed out, people in a constituency for one election but out for the next election. That would be a terrible outcome anywhere in the country but would be devastating in Cornwall.

In the same way that preserved status has been granted to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that parliamentary constituencies will not cross national boundaries, I will argue that that should also apply to Cornwall. The integrity of Cornwall should be protected by preserved status.

20:01

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my fellow Cornishman in this debate. He may well know that I am a direct descendant of the great bishop Jonathan Trelawny, about whom he spoke and about whom we sing in our national song. He is, though, technically incorrect: it would have been totally inappropriate to deal with Cornwall under the hybridity issue. It is much more appropriate, as my colleagues in the other place indicated, to deal with it under Clause 11 and revised Schedule 2. It would be quite possible to amend the Bill if that was the wish of your Lordships’ House.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, seemed to have one core message for the House today. What he was really saying was that, because his Government failed in 13 years to make progress on central constitutional reforms, promised to the electorate in their manifestos at a series of general elections, somehow the present Government should therefore proceed more slowly. That seems to come within the definition of “hypocrisy” that he was preaching to us about earlier.

I turn to Part 1 of the Bill. I do not want to spend precious minutes on the merits of AV; that, as has been indicated, is a debate that we will take to the country next year. It seems, though, that the public already see that the first past the post system is no longer fit for purpose. In the 1950s, when I was first interested in politics, that system worked—the two-party system was well represented by first past the post. In the 21st century, though, it patently does not work; the electorate are cheated. When the battle is joined next year, those in the yes campaign can surely robustly challenge the idea that two-thirds of MPs should continue to be elected with only a minority of support in their constituencies. Surely they will challenge the stark fact that, at present, no single Member of the other House could put their hand on their heart and say that they represented more than half of those who could vote for them. That is how we should be approaching the change to our electoral system.

I hope, too, that when the public are given the opportunity, they, not politicians, will enthusiastically sell AV’s potential to strengthen the connection between people and Parliament that was so woefully damaged last year, affecting both Houses; to end the scandalous complacency of safe seats; and to make politics positive again so that elections are about expressing a full preference for those who want to represent you rather than a bald vote against the candidate that you most fear.

That will be the case, and it is a strong one. I am delighted that Ed Miliband, in his speech to his conference, said,

“I support changing our voting system and will vote yes in the referendum on AV”.

Hear, hear to that. I am sure that all those on the opposition Benches who have supported AV during the general election and since in supporting their new leader will support Part 1 of the Bill.

That brings me to Part 2. This is where there will be legitimate and proper concerns that we will need to address carefully in your Lordships’ House. I agree that, by drawing attention to this section of the Bill and making it clear that this is the really controversial part that we have to analyse and scrutinise, the Constitution Committee has given us a great deal of assistance.

I feel confident that your Lordships’ House will not want to challenge the basic principle of Part 2; I think that that was indicated even in the speech from the opposition Front Bench. I hope that we will not challenge the right of the elected House of Commons to give people a say in how MPs are elected, as in Part 1.

The principle in Part 2 is quite simple, as well, as has already been indicated. It is that votes should have an equal value, an equal weight, whether you are in the farthest reaches of rural Cornwall or in the inner cities, and whether you are in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. That is the principle spelt out clearly nearly 200 years ago by the Chartists, from whom Labour claims political descent. Along with their calls for a universal franchise, they recognised that votes for all would be of little use without challenging the rotten boroughs.

Incidentally, I should say to the noble Lord from Cornwall that it was not because of Cornwall’s economic strength that we had so many rotten boroughs there—it was because of the Duchy of Cornwall. As it was a royal possession, it was always possible to promote the Court party by having more Members improperly elected from that part of the country.

So, the Chartists expounded the key idea of constituencies of equal size—or, rather, of equal worth. There would be no seat that could simply be constructed to suit vested interests, and no election could be bought with the votes of a few poor and pliant electors.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The fifth point of William Lovett’s charter was equal-sized constituencies. Whether he meant it literally is another matter; he was applying his mind to the question of Old Sarum having, I think, seven people living in it and one Member of Parliament while Manchester had two MPs. At the same time, of course, along the same avenue of thought—trying to make Members more answerable to the public—the noble Lord will remember what the sixth point was: annual general elections. Thank God it never came to that.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I should not have gone so far into the issue of the Chartists; the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is an expert on everything that can be taken literally. I do not wish to pursue him down that course. Perhaps I should say, though, that I represented North Cornwall, and one of the rotten boroughs in that constituency was Bossiney, of which Sir Francis Drake was the rotten borough Member. I think that here were only two electors, one of whom might have been himself.

We in this House would be incredibly unwise to subscribe to the hubris in the other House about alleged gerrymandering, led ad nauseam—I have followed this both in print and in person—by Mr Chris Bryant. At best this was misplaced and, at worst, deliberately misleading. At present, Mr Bryant has 51,554 constituents. I had over 87,000 constituents when I represented North Cornwall. If ever there was a gerrymander, that is it. That is something to which we must surely attach a principle, and it is justifiable to do so.

Since the Bill is about voters and their relationship with Members of Parliament, though, we need to look in detail at how Part 2 will be implemented. There must be a vital role in your Lordships’ House for revising that. Having represented Cornish constituencies for some 14 years, I know that special connection between MPs and their constituents. For years people campaign in an area, helping constituents or putative constituents and hoping to earn their trust. We must be careful that the Bill ensures that those links, those distinct local ties, are enabled to stay in place. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly wants that. I carefully examined the statements that he gave to the Constitution Committee, and he said that he is seeking only to give primacy to the electoral numbers in each seat, not to completely override the other factors, which he—not I—lists as follows: community relations, community cohesion, history, the character of an area and the disruption that might be caused. So the issue of disruption to existing constituencies and communities is, at the moment, a serious question under the Bill and we will have to look at it carefully. I think that there are Members on all sides of the House who have formally performed that important constituency role and will agree with me that that is a proper role for us to undertake.

The Bill could lead to an electoral map drawn from scratch, with all the ties that constituents and campaigners have made with one another severed at a stroke. However, I do not believe that that is what Ministers or indeed your Lordships want, and we have a vital role in addressing that problem. I look forward to hearing the Minister.

[Lord Wills]

I was interested in the noble Lord’s quote from the Deputy Prime Minister. This is what the Bill says—no matter what the Deputy Prime Minister says—in relation to the factors that the noble Lord just outlined:

“This rule”—

in other words, the effect of community and so on—

“has effect subject to rules 2 and 4”.

It says “subject to”, not “alongside”. The rules about the equalisation of numbers take precedence over all those other considerations. That is what we are so worried about on this side of the House.

[Lord Tyler]

That is precisely the role of your Lordships’ House. When we reach Committee stage, I am sure there will be general agreement on both sides of the House that we need to look carefully at the order of priority of those criteria. That is precisely what I said. I am delighted to have the support of the Minister who was previously responsible for these matters and sadly had so little effect on other, more senior members of the Administration. We would have made more progress on these issues if he had had his way.

As I have already said, I have a special connection to Cornwall. My ancestry is there and my constituency was there. There is strong evidence from the people I have spoken to and heard from—whom I knew over 40 years in public life there—that keeping Cornwall whole, as the campaign is called, is a priority. It may be that it is a higher priority even than the equality of representation. I hope we can do something in this House to meet that demand, as perhaps we might for others with a particularly compelling case, such as the Isle of Wight. However, we should recognise that it is a dilemma. In both cases it may be that the communities concerned are prepared to accept a lower level of representation in exchange for maintaining their identity. That dilemma is one that should be put fairly and squarely to the people concerned.

The Bill is not a panacea. It is not some holy grail in the scripture of political re-engagement, but it is a good start. Again, I say to noble Members opposite: it is a great pity that they did not start this process when they were given such a long opportunity to do so. The Bill says that people, not politicians, should have the final word over the architecture of their voting system. It says that whichever system we use, everyone’s votes should be of roughly equal value. These are good principles from a good Government, and principles that the latter day Chartists on the other side of your Lordships’ House should endorse as well. In short, it is a good Bill and, with some work along the way to improve Part 2, it is a Bill we should all be able to support.

20:10

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, as a Welshman in your Lordships’ House, I will direct my remarks to the impact that the Bill will have on Wales and address three main issues: the impact of the Bill on the union; the ending of community-based representation; and the silencing of local opinion in parliamentary boundary changes.

As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, Wales will be more adversely affected than any other part of the United Kingdom by the Bill. If this measure becomes law, Wales will lose 25 per cent of its elected representation in this, the Parliament of the union. It will be the biggest shake-up in representation since the 16th century and it will leave Wales with fewer MPs in Parliament than at any time since 1832. One hundred and seventy-eight years ago Wales sent 35 MPs to Parliament. If the Bill gains the statute book, we will send just 30. It will weaken the voice of Wales in Parliament and it will weaken the union—something I and many others have fought against all our political lives. As I look across to the almost empty Benches opposite, occupied by a once great party that was proud to call itself the Conservative and Unionist Party, I cannot believe that for short-term party-political advantage the Conservatives are prepared to put our union at risk, but that is what the Bill will do.

The Bill will adversely affect the predominantly Welsh-speaking parts of Wales. This was powerfully illustrated in a letter that Lewis Baston, senior research fellow with Democratic Audit, sent to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place. The committee, which has also been mentioned and which has a Conservative chairman and a non-Labour majority, conducted an inquiry into the implications of the Bill, concluded it was wrong and roundly condemned it. Mr Baston said:

“There are currently 5 majority-Welsh constituencies: Ynys Mon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Arfon, Ceredigion and Carmarthen East & Dinefwr. All of these are undersized, and the Bill will mean reduction accompanied by radical boundary changes. The Bill risks severely depleting the representation of Welsh-speaking areas in the UK Parliament”.

As I look across the Chamber to the left, I shake my head in disbelief at the Liberal Benches. How can the heirs to Lloyd George, who loved Wales, loved its people and loved its language, support this Bill? Lloyd George must be turning in his grave. Both Tories and Liberals will pay a high price for the Bill when their candidates face the electorate in Wales next spring.

Mr Baston, in the paragraph I quoted, mentioned constituencies that are undersized. This brings me to the heart of the second part of the Bill. The mantra that the Bill’s supporters use is “fairness of representation”. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke about it on the radio this morning. Its supporters say fairness of representation can only be achieved by creating constituencies of equal numbers of electors. Why is that the only criterion? Why is that the only definition of fairness that they will admit to? The union of the four nations of these islands, which has allowed us to live as a united country for centuries, recognises that fairness means allowing the smaller nations to have greater representation in Parliament than their population might justify. That sense of fairness and understanding is the glue that has held this union together.

We do not have a written constitution. Some of us say, “Thank God for that”, but had we sat down to write a constitution, would we not have had the good sense to allow for the smaller states of our union to have greater representation in our Parliament than their populations must justify? The United States did that, as did the Australians. Both the United States and Australia give greater representation to smaller states within their unions, recognising the benefits for the whole—the benefits for the union. Look across the Atlantic. California, with a population of 37 million, sends two senators to Washington, as does Wyoming, which has a population of 544,000. Even at this stage, I urge the Government not to lose sight of the wood for the trees. Do not harm the union. If noble Lords will forgive me for paraphrasing: it is the union, stupid. That is the big impact that the Bill will have. I can think of no single act more likely to threaten the union than to cut Wales’s representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom by one in four.

My second point is that the Bill will bring an end to community-based representation in Parliament—a feature of our parliamentary system since the earliest times. When giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, Mr Paul Wood, a member of the Boundary Commission for Wales, said that,

“issues such as local ties and historical ties, which may have had more weight previously, are clearly subsumed in the legislation to the numerical issues”.

My good friend the right honourable Member for Torfaen, who is a former Northern Ireland Secretary and has twice been Secretary of State for Wales, said:

“The creation of very large constituencies, rigidly defined by numbers, will destroy community-based constituencies since it would appear that, to create such constituencies, local ties, geography and tradition are likely to be ignored”.

What will the ending of community-based representation in Parliament mean in practice? I see from an exercise carried out by the Electoral Reform Society to redraw the boundaries in Wales based on this Bill that my former constituency of Islwyn will disappear. I am not suggesting that the society’s report is definitive but it gives a flavour of what could happen. It suggests that the community of Abercarn should be part of the new constituency of Caerphilly. Abercarn is in the Ebbw Valley; Caerphilly is in the Rhymney valley. They are separated by two mountain chains and three rivers. There is no community of interest between the two. The community of Cefn Fforest, the society suggests, could become part of the new constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Ystrad Mynach. Historically, Cefn Fforest and Merthyr Tydfil are in different counties—they are miles apart—separated by mountains and rivers. There is no community of interest between the two. If this Bill becomes law, we will not need a Boundary Commission to settle new boundaries—the new parliamentary seats can be created by anyone with a map, a pencil and an abacus. We might as well give the job to the Flat Earth Society for all the good it will do in preserving local representation.

My third and final point is the proposal to end local public inquiries into boundary changes. The Bill, most disgracefully, does away with this, thus denying local people a say in the drawing up of constituency boundaries. The abandoning of local public inquiries into proposed parliamentary boundary changes will silence the voice of local people. What price the big society now? The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement said of the big society that the aim is,

“to create a climate that empowers local people and communities, building a big society that will take power away from politicians and give it to people”.

The Prime Minister said in an article in the Guardian in September that this is the Government who will give power back to the people. How hollow all that sounds now with this Bill, which is silencing the voice of dissent in a way that only people such as Robert Mugabe is used to deploying. The Bill is partisan and there is no motivation for redrawing the constituency map other than Tory Party self-interest. The Liberals have gone along with it in exchange for the holy grail of electoral reform, except that the Bill does not give them electoral reform—it merely promises a referendum on changing the voting system to AV. They do not like it and nor do the Tories, so why on earth are they pursuing it in this way? I suspect that many Liberal supporters in Wales will think that is not much of a prize to gain for the betrayal of selling out the Welsh people.

This is the most partisan Bill I have ever seen. Its aim is to manipulate our constitution to assist the governing parties to remain in power. This House has long prided itself on being the guardian of our constitution. This is the great challenge we face now in defending our constitution from subversion to party-political interests. If we are worthy of our role as constitutional guardians, we need to find the stomach to fight and tackle this Bill head on. To do anything less would be a dereliction of our constitutional duty.

20:22

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, my interest in this Bill is not so much in the reduction in seats and its effect on boundaries, although I regard the truncation of process in the boundary reviews as outrageous, and from what I hear it is causing concern across the Commons.

I have been through two Boundary Commission inquiries and I know that you simply cannot short-circuit the whole process—it leads to mistakes. For those MPs who do not pull their weight, it does not really matter, but for MPs who take pride in offering a service it is hugely important and can be very disruptive. Anyhow, enough of that, that is for the Committee stage.

My interest is AV and the question asked in the referendum—the Liberal Democrat agenda. Therefore, I direct my contribution to their Benches. I hope that they seriously consider my concerns. I believe in electoral reform and in a preferential voting system for the Commons which allows for the use of more than a single preference. I do not believe in STV for the Commons. I could stomach an additional member system but I am not advocating it. If AV as proposed survives the Bill, I shall reluctantly vote for it but I believe that the system is flawed and should be amended. Furthermore, I do not believe that the public will vote for it. A turnout of more than 30 per cent would surprise me.

A system which allows voters to number candidates 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, eliminating the least popular in turn, has major flaws, which will be exposed during a referendum campaign. I believe that the Liberal Democrats are allowing their electoral reform agenda to be hijacked by a system which they do not believe in and which, if defeated, will delay the electoral reform agenda for a generation. They bear great responsibility. Even at this late stage, they should take stock and change tack. Too much is at stake.

The system is far too complicated. Even the Electoral Commission reports admit that the public find it difficult to understand the numbering of candidates and their relevance to the result. The commission believes that public education will help. I do not believe that. People will not be interested. Secondly, Ministers have repeatedly stated that candidates need more than 50 per cent of the vote to win. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said it again this morning on the “Today” programme. That is plainly not true. Furthermore, they are still peddling this myth, using carefully crafted language and skilful juggling of statistical argument. It will all fall apart when exposed to public scrutiny. The 50 per cent argument has become the central plank pushed by advocates of optional preference AV. It will crumble when exposed, as indeed will the argument of those who suggest that AV is some form of proportional representation.

Then there is the argument, so clearly expressed by a Mr Attenborough of Lincoln in his article in the Daily Mail of 9 September, under the headline,

“Why this unfair system won't get my vote”.

He reveals in simple language a real concern already known to we anoraks. In tightly fought seats, the second preferences of the bottom candidate, the first to be eliminated, can determine who wins the seat. What that means is that the BNP and other extremes, can actually determine who wins, while all second and subsequent preferences of the majority are not even taken into account.

Then we have the work of Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, of the University of Plymouth. Their research into voting behaviour in Queensland, Australia, which uses the Government’s proposed system, concludes that the most likely scenario over time is that many voters will treat an AV election just like first past the post, and not cast multiple preferences. Incredibly, in Queensland in 2009, 63 per cent of those who turned out at the state elections voted for just one candidate. It defeats the whole raison d’être of the initiative that the Government are taking. This will be music to the ears of my noble friend Lord Grocott. We then have freak results. Do we really believe that when the public learn that third-placed candidates on the first ballot and, in extremis, fourth-placed candidates, can leapfrog the top-placed candidates and win seats, that they will support the AV system proposed? I believe not.

So why did the Labour Government propose a similar system? The answer is very simple. It was due to a combination of a lack of detailed research, insufficient consultation and a failure to draw lessons from our experience in the mayoral elections. We should have acted years ago and learnt from our experience. In 1990, in an attempt to select a credible system, Labour established the Plant commission, under my noble friend Lord Plant. The commission undertook the task of examining a number of electoral systems, and in its landmark and authoritative report recommended the introduction of a variation of AV called the supplementary vote—SV. In the previous year, prior to the Plant commission being established, I had worked on this system with the support of Professor Patrick Dunleavy, of the London School of Economics, and I recommended it to the commission. The benefit of SV was its simplicity. It would be easily understood by the public and it has subsequently been described by Dunleavy as “London AV”.

With the supplementary vote, there are two columns on the ballot paper—one for first choice and one for second choice. Voters can mark an X in each column if they so wish. All the first preferences are counted. If a candidate has more than 50 per cent, they are elected. If no candidate wins more than 50 per cent, then the top two remain and the rest are eliminated. The second preference votes of the eliminated are then added to the top two candidates and counted. The candidate with most first and second preferences is then the winner. It is simple and easy to sell to the general public.

When the system of mayoralties was established in 1998, Nick Raynsford MP and his department had to select an electoral system. They opted for the supplementary vote, the London version of AV, because of its simplicity and the fact that it was easy to sell to the public. It is a well proven system, already in use in the United Kingdom, that has worked very successfully for millions of voters in multiple elections. Boris Johnson and the mayors are elected under it, so why not MPs?

Professor Dunleavy at the LSE, Professor Helen Margetts and a number of other academics, including Professor Simon Hix and a few international commentators, all seem to prefer the supplementary vote, or London AV. Peculiarly, when asked to comment on how the Bill’s version of AV would work, both Labour and government spokesmen have used SV arguments to support AV. They did not even know how the system they were supposed to be advocating works—a sort of plagiarism in advocacy. I have often asked MPs how AV works in detail, and most of them got it wrong.

London AV is very popular in London and elsewhere. If we chose the London AV system, support among Labour and Conservative voters for a yes vote would go up and the referendum would be won, whereas the Bill's complex and problematic imported Australian AV model will fail to gain public support.

How do we get ourselves out of this mess? The Liberal Democrats might wish to ask themselves that question, as they control the agenda. We could amend the referendum question in Committee or on Report. I intend to table an amendment on London AV/SV, which I regard as a form of alternative vote, as does Professor Dunleavy. Alternatively, we could amend the referendum question in Clause 1, which states:

“Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?”.

This could read, “Should an ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?”—we could substitute “an” for “the”. The effect would be that, after a yes vote in a referendum, Parliament would have to decide between AV systems. Professor Dunleavy's view is that the electorate may have difficulty in supporting a system that had not been specified. He suggests that an amendment might refer to a question being placed before the electorate after Parliament has specified the system that it wishes to legislate for. I shall therefore also table such an amendment.

Some of my amendments will introduce delay. I am afraid that that is inevitable if we are to place a credible system before the electorate. I appeal to the Liberal Democrats, who have it in their hands to sort out this problem. I am sure that they will find support on the Conservative Benches for a tweaking of the proposed referendum question. I remind the House that it was a Conservative Member of Parliament who moved the SV amendment in the Commons only a few weeks ago. It is not too late to do the same in this House and to change the question that will be asked.

20:33

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in talking about the alternative vote system and the question that will be put in the proposed referendum. Before turning to the main burden of my remarks, I will make one or two observations about things that have been said, and will ask the Minister three questions.

First, I return to a point that I made in an intervention on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. I refer to the question of public inquiries and reiterate my belief that the public should have the right to contest decisions made by the Boundary Commission. In the 25 years that I served as a local councillor, and the 18 years as a Member of Parliament for an inner-city neighbourhood of Liverpool, I was struck by the alienation and the detached nature of democracy from the grass roots. It is important that we do not entrench that further. Having been through two public inquiries and successive boundary reviews in the constituencies that I represented, Liverpool Edge Hill and Liverpool Mossley Hill, I was very conscious of how important it was that the process was given legitimacy. As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, remarked a few moments ago, if we do anything to undermine the legitimacy of the process, it will not inspire confidence in our democracy.

I am also struck by the remarks that have been made about registration in inner-city areas—which, again, I wholeheartedly support—and by what has been said about geographical and community considerations being taken into account, as well as sheer arithmetic. In another place, Mark Durkan MP said that he felt that the process had been,

“driven by robotic computer-generated arithmetic”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/10; col. 718.]

He particularly raised the issue of Northern Ireland, which has not yet been referred to in our Second Reading debate. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will say something about the effect of the arithmetic on the very delicate balance that has to be sustained in Northern Ireland. Of course, we should do nothing in this legislation that in any way jeopardises what has been achieved there.

My other remark concerns the process through which we have got to this point today. I am aghast at the fact that we have not used pre-legislative scrutiny and that we have not had the opportunity in a Select Committee to try to reach more consensual positions on issues that I think need not divide the House as much as they have done today. I think that we have been driven on by other factors and considerations which the coalition Government will come to regret in due course.

I said that I had three questions that I should like to put to the Minister. First, given that Jenny Watson and Peter Wardle, the chair and chief executive of the Electoral Commission, have said that they need at least six months to prepare for a referendum, how can that requirement now be met, as we have passed 5 November and the ballot is scheduled for 5 May 2011? Secondly, can the Minister explain why the Government resisted threshold amendments in another place? Will he confirm that a referendum could be won on as little as 15 per cent of the popular vote? Furthermore, does he accept that such an outcome would, again, call into question the legitimacy of the process? Thirdly, do the Government regard the proposed change to the voting system as a constitutional change—hence the need for a referendum—or is this simply an incremental change in how we govern ourselves? If it is a constitutional change, will the referendum be used as a precedent for how the voting system is determined for your Lordships’ House when the Government’s next reform Bill is laid before the House? If not, why are elections to the two Houses to be treated differently?

I said that the main body of my remarks would focus on the referendum question which will be used to determine the future shape of our voting system. I will join others in seeking to amend that question, so I was particularly pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, say today that he intends to table amendments to broaden the scope of the referendum question, and I am sure that many others will support him in that.

On 11 January this year, I initiated a short debate in your Lordships’ House and argued the case against closed party-list systems, which of course we continue to use in European elections, and for carefully assessing other electoral systems before contemplating any changes to Westminster elections. In that debate, I recalled that at the age of 17, and perhaps in danger of being called an anorak—a word used earlier by one noble Lord about those who are interested in electoral systems—I chaired a meeting for the late and indefatigable Miss Enid Lakeman, who was then director of the Electoral Reform Society and had been sent to our town by Mr Grimond to extol the virtues of the single transferable vote, or STV, system.

We currently use STV in Northern Ireland, where, for well known reasons, we say that we need the fairest possible system. However, we also use it in local elections in Scotland—an experience addressed in evidence by Mr Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy in remarks that he made to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. He said on 22 July, reported at page 3 of the oral evidence:

“I think that STV in Scotland is a very clear example of something which increased accountability and increased the influence of voters compared to first past the post”.

Therefore, I was particularly glad last May to see that in the general election Mr Clegg gave a pledge that his party would support the single transferable vote in any reform of the voting system. Sadly, pledges seem to have become a devalued currency in politics. Our politicians should beware of losing authority and respect if they too easily jettison their beliefs and commitments.

On 5 October last, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, gave an explanation as to why the decision had been made to jettison previous support for STV. He said:

“If we could persuade our coalition partners and the Labour Party of the merits of STV, on which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I agree … we could then go to one system in all elections”.—[Official Report, 5/10/10; col. 8.]

I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, truly believes that, but it is not about persuading his coalition partners or even the Labour Party about the merits of a particular system; surely it is about allowing the electorate to express their views on several alternatives.

We were told earlier that the referendum is to cost £30 million of public money; I think that was the figure given. If it is entirely to exclude a question on whether we might move towards a proportional system—which the alternative vote, AV, is not—this political deal, which superseded the manifesto commitment, will miss a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a truly fair, just and representative system. Even worse, from the noble Lord's point of view, it is likely to create an alliance among those who oppose the political fix of the alternative vote and leave us with the status quo. Certainly from some of the speeches we have heard today from both sides of the Chamber, the noble Lord would agree that he is likely to be caught in that kind of pincer movement.

This argument is not about persuading other political parties; it is about whether the public should be allowed to decide on something other than the alternative vote, which is neither proportional nor much of an improvement on the present system. This argument involves popular sovereignty and it is surely a matter for our fellow citizens to settle, not political caucuses.

I need hardly remind the noble Lord—in those times we were noble or at least honourable friends—that the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead’s 1998 commission reported to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, that AV can be even less proportional than first past the post and that:

“So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it”.

Contradicting something that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said earlier, he said that,

“there would still be large tracts of the country which would be electoral deserts”,

and that most seats in the country would remain safe. As the late Lord Jenkins warned:

“AV on its own is unacceptable because of the danger that in anything like present circumstances it might increase rather than reduce disproportionality”.

Mr Clegg has reportedly said that he sees AV as a step towards a proportional system. Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify that remark. What is the timetable? What would be the system? In political life, do you not get some credit for arguing for what you believe in rather than something less? In any event, you do not usually get to your destination by walking in the opposite direction.

As it stands, the Bill provides that the question should read: do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the alternative vote system instead of the current first past the post system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons? As proposition questions in the United States illustrate, voters are quite capable of understanding multiple choices and they are also capable of understanding when real choices are denied them. What are these arguments for STV, arguments which the public have a right to hear?

I set out some of those considerations in my short debate on 11 January when I said:

“By contrast with AV, single transferable votes give voters a choice of different candidates whom they can support within each party—a kind of built-in primary, without the extra expense ... Since each party has more than one candidate, there is wider voter choice and the power to eliminate the least suitable”.

I pointed out that:

“There is also far more scope under STV to promote candidates from such underrepresented groups as women, ethnic minorities and so on, without quotas—a point highlighted this weekend by the Speaker, Mr Bercow … in comparison with STV, AV would still allow parties with minority support to have large majorities in the Commons”. —[Official Report, 11/1/10; col. 354.]

Like AV, but unlike list systems, STV retains a crucial geographically determined constituency link, something that I greatly valued during my 18 years in another place.

Another contrast between STV and AV is that AV would still allow parties with minority support to have large majorities in the Commons. That is something which many of us are vigorously opposed to. By contrast, STV would ensure fairness, with the parties’ share of the seats more closely reflecting their share of the vote, while avoiding the fragmentation and centralising effect of party lists. That would change the culture and the conduct of politics, ushering in a permanent need to build relationships and alliances and to win pre-legislative agreement before introducing legislation.

One of the outcomes of the 2007 Scottish elections, to which I referred—elections which used STV—was that nearly three-quarters of voters are represented by their first-choice candidate. They now have a choice of representatives to turn to when the need arises. By contrast, AV would leave many voters without a local representative whom they had supported at the ballot box. Nor would AV do anything to end the relentless focus on a handful of key marginal seats—100 or so—which so distorts British politics. Under STV, there are no safe seats and no no-go areas for any party. STV has the added advantage that it requires political parties to coexist, as it has done to such historic effect in Northern Ireland.

By comparison, AV is a very complicated and uncommon voting system, used only in Fiji, Papua New Guinea and, as we have heard, Australia—where, incidentally, 60 per cent of people are reported to want the system scrapped. That does not seem like a compelling case for taking a small step in the wrong direction.

The political reality is that we are saddled with a proposal which neither coalition partner likes. The Conservatives will campaign against it, and the Liberal Democrats—and certainly the old Liberal Party, of which I am a one-time Chief Whip—have never supported it. Only the Labour Party argued for the alternative vote at the general election and, from the debates on the Bill thus far, there seems to have been some sort of aberration when that support was given.

When we come to Committee, this House should do its historic duty and amend the referendum question so that there is genuine voter choice about the way in which we cast our ballots. In this generation, there will be only one opportunity—one chance—to achieve electoral reform, and we have a duty to get it right.

20:47

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has already outed me, I begin with the confession that I was indeed the Minister in the previous Government responsible for the issues with which the Bill is concerned. Had my party been re-elected, I am sure that we would have approached these issues rather differently, but that has not led me to oppose the Bill. I oppose the Bill because a large part of it attempts to rewire our constitutional arrangements for partisan advantage; and that is unacceptable.

Part 1 sets out to deliver a referendum on the alternative vote. Had the Government adopted the approach pursued by the previous Government, I might have felt able to support them on that, although I recognise that some of my colleagues in this place will differ from me on this in all conceivable circumstances.

If agreed in a referendum, I believe that the alternative vote could help to tackle the problem of legitimacy created by the phenomenon of Government after Government—including the present Government—being elected to power with the support of only a minority of the electorate. The alternative vote system is not a panacea for all the problems of legitimacy faced by our political system, but it at least ensures that more MPs will be returned from their constituencies with the support of a majority of those voting. Crucially, it does so while retaining the MPs’ direct link with their constituents. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who made exactly that point. That is vital for accountability in our democracy.

Sadly, the Government have not followed the careful approach of the previous Government, they have pushed ahead with a process which, as we have already heard, is precipitate; it denies Parliament a proper opportunity to scrutinise such an important constitutional measure. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, this referendum is post-legislative.

I shall return to some other flaws with this process shortly, but I turn to Part 2. It aims to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons and equalise the size of the constituencies that remain. It is reasonable at the very least to debate such reduction and equalisation. There is nothing axiomatically right about that Chamber's current size. As the House will know, the principle that all constituencies should be a broadly similar size is already written into legislation.

However, when we examine how the Government are setting about these tasks, we see principles and practice which have long ensured the fair working of our constitution rejected in what I am afraid can only be construed as partisan self-interest. It has long been accepted, as we have heard over and over again this evening, that the boundaries of a constituency should be shaped not only by numbers but also by the specific character of the constituency, local identities and natural boundaries, such as mountains and rivers, which have throughout history helped to define communities. But in this Bill such considerations have been demoted by the Government.

Nor do the Government appear to have given any consideration to other relevant factors—for example, the optimum size for a constituency; not a number plucked out of the air, like 76,000, but the optimum number, taking into account the respective role of MPs in their constituencies and their role in Parliament, and the implication for both those roles of further decentralisation of power to local authorities and, indeed, then to local councillors.

Instead of a proper consideration of all these important issues, what we see is the Government claiming that the equalisation of constituency size must be elevated above all these other important considerations. Why? We are not given any satisfactory answer whatever. But then they do not uphold even this dubious principle consistently. Wales, as we have heard, is to lose in one swing of the axe 25 per cent of its parliamentary representation while Northern Ireland, for perfectly understandable reasons, is allowed to depart from the electoral quota rule.

Moreover, as we heard in a previous discussion earlier today, the Bill makes an explicit and privileged exception for two Scottish seats, one of which, I am sure coincidentally, is held by the Liberal Democrat MP, the Deputy Chief Whip of the Government. And then again, as we have already heard, a further exemption from the electoral quota is given on the basis of the territorial extent of a constituency, drawn up coincidentally, I am sure, in such a way that it can have practical effect in only one area of the United Kingdom—the Scottish Highlands, where only one constituency currently falls into this special category: the seat held by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats. So why exactly does the Bill allow the factors of sparsity and geography to be given priority over electoral equality in these places but nowhere else?

It is hard to find anywhere in the Bill anything that could pass as a consistently applied informing principle. The Bill abolishes the ability of local people to have any significant say in the shape of the constituency in which they live, even though local representations have significantly influenced boundary revisions in the past. As we have heard, the Boundary Commission report in 2007 found that just about two-thirds of local inquiries had led to changes in the original recommendations of the Boundary Commission.

The Deputy Prime Minister has justified this change with these words—I quote them because they are worth hearing:

“The review process is lengthy and time-consuming”.

Lengthy and time-consuming—exactly the same might be said for democracy itself. Administrative convenience for the Executive is never a good argument for attacking the foundations of accountable democracy.

Then we have the decision on the proper size for the House of Commons. How exactly did the Government alight on the figure of 600? Both the coalition partners were committed before the election to reducing the House of Commons to below the number of 600. They had different figures but they were united in their belief that the House of Commons should be reduced to a figure below 600. So what exactly changed their minds? Will the Minister tell the House whether any modelling was done by the Government or the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative Party on the effects on those parties’ representation in the House of Commons of reducing the number of MPs below 600; and if so, what such modelling showed?

Then the Deputy Prime Minister tells us—we have heard a lot about this from the government Benches already tonight—that,

“it is patently obvious that individuals' votes should carry the same weight”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 35.]

That is right—but they already do. They are only counted once. Every vote is only counted once. What the Deputy Prime Minister appears to mean is that on average it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative or Liberal Democrat MP. However, that is not because votes for the Labour Party weigh more than votes for other parties; it is the consequence, in part, of the fact that turnout and electoral registration are lower in Labour areas and in part it is because Labour’s vote is currently distributed more efficiently within the first past the post system. There is no inherent, systemic bias in favour of the Labour Party. The same system worked against the Labour Party throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

As Liberal Democrat MPs, of all people, should know, if each vote weighing equally means that the share of the vote translates directly into an equal proportion of seats held in the House of Commons, there is only one electoral system that delivers that. We have already heard that tonight. It is proportional representation, which is not on offer in the Bill and carries with it all sorts of other problems that mean that I for one would never want to see it introduced as a method of election into the House of Commons.

If the Government were really so concerned about equality among voters, they would not be seeking to redraw the electoral map on the basis of a register that fails to include over 3 million voters who would otherwise be eligible to vote. Do the Government seriously believe that any credible equalisation of boundaries can take place when some constituencies achieve nearly 100 per cent registration rates while others achieve barely half that? When we look at it, another so-called principle crumbles.

Then there is the way the Bill has been introduced in a display of contempt for Parliament by the Executive. The Labour Government introduced a raft of constitutional reforms, and they always did so by seeking consensus wherever possible on the grounds that whenever constitutional changes are made, they should be made in the interests of the legitimacy of our constitutional system as a whole. This is a crucial principle. These changes should not be subject to claims that partisan advantage is being pursued. I am truly sorry that this Government have rejected this approach.

In the rushed passage of the Bill through the other place, not a single Opposition or Back-Bench amendment was accepted by the Government. That is not the only example of the Government’s contempt for good practice. The Electoral Commission has consistently made clear its view that:

“The rules on how the referendum will be conducted must be clear from at least six months in advance”.

For that to have happened in this case, the Bill would need to have been passed on to the statute book two weeks ago.

If due process and consistent principle do not underpin the Bill, why are the Government bringing it forward? A clue might be provided by the speed with which these measures are being rushed through: speed in rushing this through the other place, speed in holding a referendum less than six months from the presumed passage of the Bill on to the statute book and unprecedented speed in completing the wholesale revision of constituency boundaries. Why the rush? Surely such important constitutional measures deserve appropriate pre-legislative and legislative scrutiny. Surely people should have the time and opportunity to have their say on the shape of the constituencies in which they live.

It is clear that the reason for this haste is that the Government want to get the new system in place by the next election, but why? Important as I believe these measures to be, there is no popular clamour for them, nor any other compelling reason to rush these measures through. Why rush to draw up the boundaries on the basis of an inaccurate and incomplete register when legislation has already been passed by the previous Government—this is the answer to the charge laid by the noble Lord, Lord Baker—to task the Electoral Commission to make the register comprehensive and accurate by 2015 and gave it new powers to do that? The Governments that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, so illuminated in his time in the other place never did anything like that to achieve a proper register. The date selected in that legislation was 2015 because it was judged that that time was needed successfully to compete the task, not least because the key to guaranteeing that the register is comprehensive and accurate is going to be using the results of the 2011 census, the most up-to-date figures we have on the population, to validate it.

Such an analysis is unlikely to be available before 2014. So why are the Government rushing it through before that crucial analysis is available? Why could the Government not wait just a few months longer to be sure that boundary revisions can take place only on the basis of a comprehensive and accurate electoral register, which is the only fair basis on which such revisions can be conducted? The only reason can be that the new boundaries would not be in place for the next general election, but constitutional changes of this significance should be drafted to endure for generations. In this context, whether they are in the place for the coming general election or the one after that really should not weigh in the balance.

Why, after all this, might the Government still be so anxious to get these measures in place by the time of the next election? They must have foreseen these criticisms. I am sure that they did. But why are they proceeding like this nevertheless? Is it too cynical to suspect that it is because they expect to benefit from them? It is widely accepted that revising the boundaries when millions of eligible voters are missing from the register is likely to damage the Labour Party most.

Let me quote from a prominent Conservative, Mr Mark Field, Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster. On his website, which is available to all Members of this House, noble Lords can read that,

“the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by Party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office”.

That is the purpose of this legislation in the words of Mr Mark Field MP.

It should not need me to say that political expediency for one party is an unacceptable basis for constitutional change. This is not the new politics we were promised. It is an old politics where constitutional arrangements are subverted for partisan advantage, which should have no place in our democracy. Far from restoring legitimacy to our politics, as the Government claim, this Bill will damage it further. It is a bad Bill. I hope that this House will do its duty in making all the changes necessary to make it a better one.

21:02

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I have only one quibble about what he said: it is not just one party attempting to rig our constitution in this Bill, it is two of them; it is the coalition. That is the purpose of it all and what is behind it. There is no magic figure of 76,000 as far as electors are concerned. Anyone who has read reports from the Boundary Commission—I do not say that they are exactly compulsive reading, although those of us who served in the other place will know that they are if they refer to your own constituency—will know that sheer numbers is not what they are about. I think that the figure was 66,000 in my time in the other place. That is a general aim, and an avowed intention when new constituencies are created and old ones are altered. But it is not a hard and fast rule. There are other considerations too.

As my noble friend Lord Touhig said earlier, there are geographical considerations to be looked at. He amplified the nonsense of seats in Wales where it is possible to cross two mountain ranges and three rivers, or whatever the figure was, in order to arrive at this magic figure of 76,000 electors. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said, it is community that is important—community is the vital aspect of any constituency. This is a cynical attempt at gerrymandering.

As my noble friend Lord Hart reminded us, this is part of a triple attack on our constitution by the coalition Government. It does not apply just in the other place; it applies here too. They want to reduce the other place by around 50 and to increase this place by, coincidentally, the same number. The problem is that they will not be the same people. The idea is to get rid of a majority of Labour Members from the other place and plant—it has been said in the newspapers—another 50 or so Liberals in your Lordships’ House. I am not sure, given the rate of attrition in the Liberal Party currently, that there will be 50 of them left to come in here before Christmas. But certainly that seems to be the avowed intention, which would make this House anything but a revising Chamber where traditionally it has been said that that is what we are about.

In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, threw out a comment about the number of Labour Peers created by the Labour Government. I would remind him that it took more than a decade of Labour Governments, two of whom had majorities in three figures and one with a substantial majority, before Labour Members of your Lordships’ House outnumbered the Conservatives, let alone formed a majority on the Floor, which of course we never did. But that is the clear intention of the gerrymandering that is taking place in both Houses. It will ensure that a Conservative/Liberal alliance or something similar will continue up to and, they hope, including the next election in 2015. But I hope it is our job to see that such a philosophy does not go unchallenged, and when we come to the Committee stage, I hope that the battle for some of the things that have rightly been pointed out during the course of this Second Reading debate is waged loud and long. I say that because if we are still a revising Chamber, at least until the parties opposite have done their worst, then if ever a Bill needed revising, it is this one.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was at his ebullient best earlier today, saying that the Bill is almost a tidying-up exercise that makes a few minor alterations, with nothing really to concern your Lordships. But that is not the view of his distinguished noble friend Lord Baker, who let the cat out of the bag in his speech. I have always envied his capacity for swallowing his words and inventing new ones. He talked about the small size of some constituencies, predominantly Labour ones, but I remember that he won a by-election in St Marylebone. His hair was darker and shorter in those days, if I may say so, but I am sure it was he who represented one of the smallest constituencies in the country. However, I do not think he made any protest at the time about the relatively low number of constituents. Indeed, like many of us who represented inner city areas, I bet he was grateful that his constituency was a bit smaller because your Lordships will recognise that social problems in the inner cities are enormous. I do not say that Conservative or Liberal Democrat Members in the other place have fewer problems so far as their constituents are concerned, but in my experience the number of social problems in inner city constituencies can considerably outweigh those in the more affluent parts of rural areas. So there is a good reason for the relative size of constituencies.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

My Lords—

[Lord Snape]

Let me finish the point. I certainly have not finished with the noble Lord yet. However, I shall give way to him now, as he did for me.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

I did represent a small borough which disappeared completely. But we should dwell on the rest of my political career, when I went on to represent a constituency in Surrey that was one of the biggest seats in the country.

[Lord Snape]

I shall reflect on his distinguished career, but I was surprised that he failed to point out to your Lordships that he has had some experience of a small constituency and made no protest at the time.

Let me turn to his article, a copy of which I have with me. I am not sure whether the Times is compulsive reading on either side of your Lordships’ House, but I can imagine the conversation that took place between a senior journalist on the Times and the noble Lord at the beginning of October: “Ken, what’s your view on the coalition?”. “Oh, I am broadly in favour of it”. “Good. Knock us out a thousand words for 4 October”. Being the sensible man he is, my computer says the article is only 985 words, so I hope the Times does not ask him for a rebate for the words he has missed out. The very readable article about this legislation appeared under the headline,

“Stop worrying and learn to love the coalition: A Tory government with a tiny majority could not achieve what we are able to do now”.

The noble Lord then set out exactly what the coalition hoped to achieve. I have to say that the article is not entirely accurate, and again I hope that there will not be a demand for his fee to be returned. However, it is eminently readable, as one would expect given the talents of the noble Lord. He said:

“It begins to look as if the chances of one party having a significant overall majority will only come about if an incumbent government is greatly unpopular”.

We might test that theory over the next few years. He went on to say,

“as it was in 1979 to the benefit of Margaret Thatcher, and in 1997 to the benefit of Tony Blair”.

Again, that rather ignores the lessons of history. I seem to recall that Tony Blair, if I can call him that in your Lordships’ House—repeating the noble Lord’s words—was pretty successful in 2001 as an incumbent and did not do too badly in 2005, again as an incumbent. I am not sure about the accuracy of that part of the article but I am sure about the part I am about to read out because, despite the emollient words from the Leader of the House to which I have referred, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, went on to say:

“The greatest prize for the Tories is yet to come: constitutional change that will eliminate Labour’s 8 per cent advantage at every general election. This will be achieved by equalising the votes in each constituency to around 76,000 and by reducing the size of the House of Commons by 50 MPs”.

That brings it down to the 600 figure that my noble friend Lord Dubs was accused of mentioning and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was afraid to mention, or chose not to mention, during the course of his speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, went on to say in his eminently readable article:

“MPs of all parties are coming to accept that there will not be an election in 2011 or 2012, when the British public will not want to be diverted from enjoying the Olympic Games”—

to get rid of this lot, some of them might be prepared to be diverted—

“and celebrating the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee”.

I was around for the silver jubilee, as was the noble Lord, but it did not stop us having by-elections and a continuance of the normal political toing and froing. The article continued:

“In 2013 the rewards of austerity are still likely to be meagre, so an election in 2015 looks odds-on. This coalition has staying power”.

For the sake of the noble Lord’s colleagues in another place, he had better hope that that is right because, in the short term, the coalition is going to be unpopular.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

I thank the noble Lord for drawing to the attention of a wider audience the words that I wrote in this article in the Times. The point I wanted to make is that the Bill will be very significant in removing the basic unfairness in our democracy that at the last election we had to be eight points ahead in the opinion polls even to come level with Labour. That is manifestly unfair in any democratic system and cannot be justified. The Bill removes not all but about half the unfairness and means that the checkerboard of politics will for a long time be set out on a level table.

[Lord Snape]

There were a few clichés there which I would not care to follow too far. I do not agree that the present electoral system gives the Labour Party an 8 per cent advantage, nor do many independent commentators, for the reasons amply outlined by my noble friends during the course of the debate.

Before I leave the noble Lord’s article, I should say that I am pleased that he feels the two of us should embark on a crusade against AV because, like him, I am against it. Before we go round the country together, however, I have one request to make of him: that he lets me speak first because, given the quality of what he has said tonight, he could empty a hall even faster than me. However, it would be worth while to undertake such an exercise because on this issue he is right. During my 27 years in the other place I never heard a great clamour for AV. Indeed, I have yet to hear from any of my former constituents that they would be happy in West Bromwich only if they had AV at the next general election. AV is about transporting the party that traditionally comes last in the electoral system—that is, the Liberals—into permanent second place and, of course, into permanent coalition with whichever party happens to come first.

The Bill is a blatant attempt at gerrymandering. It arises not from a desire to do good in our thankfully unwritten constitution but from a desire to survive. The coalition Government hope that the voters will have short memories and that, with a rigged and gerrymandered system, they will sneak back into power in 2015. It will be up to us during the Committee stage and in the debates on the Bill to ensure that none of that comes about.

21:14

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, as someone whose title was taken from Lerwick in Shetland, I was somewhat startled and delighted this afternoon to arrive here to find that Shetland is once again in the cockpit of history. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, was equally delighted as a former MP for Orkney and Shetland. I do not think that Orkney and Shetland have been so near to the pulse of the nation since Charles James Fox was for a short time the Member of Parliament for the rotten borough there. That was after he had contested the Westminster by-election and there was an inquiry into whether the result was fraudulent. However, I do not think that I ought to go into the merits of the special treatment of Orkney and Shetland.

I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snape, in one respect, as I shall talk mainly about AV. On Part 2 of the Bill, which seeks to reduce the size of the House of Commons, I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Baker that, when we compare the size of our legislature with the size of legislatures in other countries, we should look not at Europe—as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, did—but at countries such as Japan, the United States and India. There is a strong argument for saying that our legislature is too large.

Briefly, on the second principle of equalising constituencies, I will listen carefully to what the Opposition say, but I do not think that so far the case has been wholly convincing.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I want to deal briefly with this, as I really want to talk about AV, if the noble Lord does not mind.

We heard moving speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Myners and Lord Elystan-Morgan, about natural boundaries, rivers, county boundaries and history. I remember in my suburban constituency of Kingston that people used to think that Worcester Park should be excluded simply because it was on the other side of the bypass. I am sure that in Shetland, too, some people think that Orkney should be excluded because it is too far away. These are, as has been said, important points and principles, but the overriding factor must be the integrity and fairness of the democratic system and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, elegantly said, ensuring that as far as possible each vote is of equal value.

Part 1 of the Bill stems from the coalition agreement. As I support the coalition and the necessity of a coalition because of the economic situation that we face, I support the general principles of the Bill. However, I have some suggestions for improving it. In the coalition agreement, there is one statement with which I disagree. The agreement says:

“The Government believes that our political system is broken”.

The phrase,

“our political system is broken”,

was last used by Sir Oswald Mosley. I do not believe that our political system is broken. Of course we have had, rightly, anger and disillusionment with politicians over expenses. We have had some rotten apples. We have had some people who should be and will be punished. However, that is not the same as saying that our constitution is broken. There is no connection between the scandal of expenses and arguments about fixed-term Parliaments, an elected House of Lords or, indeed, AV; they are totally separate. There might be more respect for politics, which is what we all desperately want, if we admitted that AV is being put forward because of a political alliance, as a result of which one party that would not naturally have favoured it has conceded it to the other party. There is no reason to justify this by saying that our political system is broken.

Bismarck once remarked that laws are like sausages, in that it is better not to see them being made. Many laws, many aspects of our constitution and many anomalies in our constitution are the result of accidents of politics and political deals. That applies even to the wonderful and pure theory of PR in Europe. In continental European countries, PR was often introduced in order to save the Liberal party from the rise of socialism and Labour parties.

None the less, we should be cautious about trading permanent changes in the constitution for short-term political advantage. We do not want to get into the situation of Latin American countries, where people campaign on changes to the constitution. We do not want to get into the situation of the fourth republic in France, where there was an old joke about the man who went into the library and asked for a copy of the constitution and was told, “We don’t stock periodicals here”. We do not want to get into the situation whereby one political change is seen as a precursor to the next. Some see AV as precisely that—as a precursor to a move towards PR.

The support for AV in the Bill and the coalition in some ways seems quite surprising. In February this year, the Deputy Prime Minister described AV as a “miserable little compromise”. As has been said, AV is the system used in Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia. In Australia, AV has proved to be often less proportional even than first past the post and to lead to even larger swings—the large swings under first past the post have been among the things most criticised about our present system. AV has not reduced the proportion of safe seats, which is a very high proportion that is similar to the number in this country. In addition, the system of AV often leads to deals, which are not always declared publicly, between major and small, minor or fringe political parties in order to secure office.

The intellectual justification for AV seems somewhat elusive. The system was first proposed in 1917 in the Speaker’s conference, which is more likely to be remembered for having proposed votes for women over 30. The system was put forward in 1931 as a positive solution, and Winston Churchill described it at the time as,

“the worst of all possible plans … the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal. The decision … is to be determined by the most worthless votes given to the most worthless candidates”.

As has been said in this debate, in many cases the outcome of a poll in a constituency under AV will be decided by the person who comes bottom, who might be the British National Party candidate, as has been said. In any case, it seems difficult to justify why the result should always be decided by the second preferences of those who voted for the candidate who came bottom, even if he is only the third candidate. I recently read an article by an Australian academic who suggests that, under AV in Australia, it is possible that, depending on the number of candidates standing, someone might actually be elected who was nobody’s first choice.

As was said by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the referendum proposed on AV is unusual in that it is not an advisory referendum but an implementary one. That raises an important matter. Changing our voting system is a very significant move. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said, when we make such changes they ought to be for generations—for the long term—and the outcome must be seen to command confidence and respect. They must be seen to reflect a real demand for change. If there is a derisory turnout, those conditions will not be met. I submit that this is a significant change.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made some points against the first-past-the-post system, but I say that it has served us well. The same system is followed by leading democracies such as the United States, India and Canada. It has accommodated change, such as when the Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party in the interwar period. What some see as inflexibility or the insensitivity of the system has often protected us from extremism, such as we see when we look at the different electoral systems in Europe and the rise of far-right parties in Holland and Belgium. That was particularly the case in the 1930s, when extremists of both left and right failed to get any parliamentary representation whatever in this country, which was quite different from the experience in continental Europe. We like to put that down, of course, to the moderation and good sense of the British people. I am sure that that exists, but we should not deceive ourselves too much. It may also have a lot to do with our electoral system, so I suggest that we have to think carefully before we change that.

That brings me on to the point about referendums and constitutional change. Many countries have a specific threshold, either of turnout or of the numbers voting yes, before constitutional change can be made in a referendum. Germany and Spain have provisions for a fixed majority before they can effect a change in their constitutions. In Denmark and Italy, the requirement is for a specified proportion—in Italy, it is 60 per cent, I think—not in outcome but in turnout. In 1979, of course, George Cunningham inserted into the Scottish devolution bill a requirement for a 40 per cent yes vote. That has possibly somewhat scarred the Labour Party—I am not quite sure why—so I was particularly interested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, returned today to the subject of a threshold.

I want to put a question to my noble friend Lord McNally, the Minister who, as I understand it, will answer at the end of the debate. I understand that the coalition agreement specified that there should be a simple majority in the referendum without an outcome-specific threshold—that is, there should not be anything similar to the Cunningham amendment. Am I not therefore right that the coalition agreement does not specify that there could not be a turnout threshold and that a provision in the Bill which said that the result of the referendum would only have the effect of law provided that there was a certain turnout would not be inconsistent with the coalition agreement? That turnout provision could be put at whatever level the House decided. It could be quite low. It could be in accordance with the recent turnout in local elections—in the high 30s or higher than 40 per cent—which would mean that, to get a yes vote, you would have to get the votes of 20 per cent of the electorate as a whole.

Some people object to a turnout threshold on the grounds that it encourages people to abstain but, first, the referendum is to be held—this is a subject of controversy—on the same day as local elections, when people have every reason to participate. Secondly, in order to encourage someone who would have voted not to vote as a gesture with political meaning, you would have to have some sort of campaign. I do not really accept the argument that having a turnout threshold would simply encourage people to stay away and would invalidate the whole idea of initiating a debate on this subject. The result of the referendum vote would be much strengthened if there was a provision for a minimum turnout. That would lend much greater legitimacy to the outcome of such a referendum, and I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give it serious consideration.

21:28

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, having sat through this debate so far, I have been greatly encouraged, as I suppose we all are, by the number of people who I found myself agreeing with wholeheartedly—not least the previous two speakers. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made a series of points very effectively—I will not repeat them—while my noble friend Lord Snape, with whom I have not knowingly disagreed for 36 years, likewise made some very powerful points indeed. Yet I do not want to put false optimism into this debate because, overall—trying to find the right adjective to describe the Bill—I find it depressing. That is the best adjective I can offer to the House.

I find it depressing, in part, because it is a political fix. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, tactfully described it as a political alliance but we know what we are talking about. I was not born yesterday; I know perfectly well that parties have to reach agreements and that compromises are made. However, I cherish many aspects of our constitution and I do not like the idea of it being the subject of a political fix, not least for the reason, which was mentioned earlier, that once constitutions are changed, the chances are that they will stay changed.

I am also depressed because there is no overall view of the constitutional reform structure, if I may put it as grandiosely as that, that the Government are engaged upon. There is no attempt to explain how each of the three Bills that we are promised—there is another one as well, I think, about recalling MPs, so I make that four—relate to each other. Not least, why are we discussing changing the electoral system in the Commons in such detail when we are about to talk about introducing an electoral system into the Lords? Surely those things should be considered, at least in part, in relation to one another.

I am depressed as well because the Bill damages two or maybe three important parts of our parliamentary democracy. First, it damages the relationship between MPs and their constituencies, which for me has always been at the heart of our democracy. It is what brings all MPs back to earth every weekend, whatever part of the stratosphere they have inhabited during the week. It is what gives you strength and direction. What is more, it is generally appreciated by the public; amid all the difficulties of recent months and years, the one constant has been that, while the public do not like MPs in general, generally speaking they quite like the work that their own Member of Parliament does.

I find the Bill depressing because it weakens Parliament in relation to the Government. There is no answer to that and no Minister, as far as I know, has tried to offer one.

The Bill is depressing for another reason too, and the Minister really will need to address this. He repeatedly prayed in aid big majorities in the Commons. Now, he knows the Commons pretty well, as do a lot of people in this House, and he should know it well enough to know that if people had been voting in the way that they strongly felt—in a free vote, let us say; a funny thing for an ex-Chief Whip to talk about, but let us surmise for a moment—my guess is that there would have been at least a two-thirds majority against changing the electoral system. Nearly all the Conservatives would vote against it, although they can speak for themselves, and my estimate, although it is a low one, is that 60 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour Party would have voted against it. I do not suppose that any Liberals would have done so because they vote as a bloc in a Stalinist way, but the rest of us would have made our own minds up. That is my guess. So let us not feel any inhibition whatever about what we do in dealing with the Bill, because the House of Commons, and I could cite names if that were required, wants us to do some work on the Bill and make changes to it.

I shall say a word or two about first past the post versus AV, which is a crucial part of the Bill. If anyone should hate the first past the post system, it really should be me. I have lost more elections under that system than I care to remember: four out of eight general elections, not to mention sundry country council elections and others. In this case, though, experience gives me an even greater respect for the first past the post system, certainly in comparison with AV. Indeed, for me it is not first past the post versus AV; I prefer to see it as being first past the post versus second or third past the post, which is obviously what AV amounts to. It means that the person who comes first is not necessarily declared the winner. As someone who spent a bit of my youth talking to bookies, I must admit that I quite like the notion of the horse that comes third or fourth being declared the winner—I would be richer—but that is not a good basis on which to operate a constitution. I find the arguments in favour of AV almost totally unconvincing and almost dishonest. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, suggested, it is not at all the solution to the difficulties that the parliamentary system has encountered recently.

A whole new concept has been introduced, which made me do some research. I was suddenly being told by Liberal Democrats and others that there was a crucial determinant of someone’s eligibility to be a Member of Parliament—namely, whether they achieved 50 per cent of the vote. That is what gave them legitimacy. If they did not have 50 per cent, they did not have legitimacy. Not being an anorak as far as numbers are concerned, I thought I would check whether I achieved 50 per cent in those four elections that I managed to win. Frankly, I did not have the faintest idea. I am happy to report to the House that the figures were as follows. My first win was on 42.6 per cent; my second was on 42.8 per cent; and my third was on 48.3 per cent, so at least the figures were moving in the right direction. My fourth win was on 57.8 per cent; at last I was legitimate.

I simply report to the House as a matter of fact—I am happy for someone to intervene or contradict me on this—that not only did I not know whether I had got 50 per cent until I checked the figures, but I absolutely assure the House that my constituents would not have had the faintest idea. Whether I had 50 per cent did not make a scrap of difference to the work that I did in the constituency. The same people came to me about the same kind of problems. Nor did it make a scrap of difference to my work as a Member of Parliament. As far as I know, no one said, “Don’t listen to him” or “Listen only to 48.3 per cent of what he says because he hasn’t got 50 per cent of his electors behind him”.

I hoped I could pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on this. I took the precaution of checking the result in Stockport South in 1979. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, achieved 45.1 per cent of the vote. I had not appreciated the angst that he must have suffered because of this. When the returning officer declared him duly the Member of Parliament for the said Stockport South constituency, he would have been consumed by guilt, I imagine, because he was not a legitimate Member of Parliament. He must have felt quite ashamed when he came down here as an illegitimate Member. It is beyond parody or sarcasm. It simply bears no relationship whatever to how people here or in our constituencies ever think about the legitimacy of an MP.

I will say two other things about the weakness of the alternative vote system, which I hope are relevant to our debate. First, we surely have enough different electoral systems operating in this country at present. We have five by my calculation: first past the post, the additional member system, single transferable vote, supplementary vote and—wait for it—the d’Hondt system of proportional representation, which I do not understand and I suspect many other people do not either. More to the point, we will now not only have another electoral system for the Commons if the coalition has its way, but we will also have another electoral system for the House of Lords. That makes seven different electoral systems in this country. I would have one simple question in the referendum: would you like to revert to the first past the post system, which has served us so well in the past, for all these elections? I am certain that it cannot possibly be right to have seven different electoral systems. Added to which, we are warned—let us acknowledge the warning—by Nick Clegg and others that this is only a temporary phase. I wish those who are going to vote in favour would be honest with the electorate and this House and say, “We are voting for it but, as Nick Clegg has said, it’s a miserable little compromise. It won’t last long. Get ready because we’re coming with the real job later”. That is no basis on which to change the electoral system of a country. When its most prominent supporter describes it only as a miserable little compromise, that is not a great rallying cry: “What do we want?” “A miserable little compromise!” “When do we want it?” “Now!”. It is not the kind of thing which inspires an audience, quite apart from the fact that it will cost a lot of money. We keep being told that it will save £12 million to have fewer MPs, yet we are embarking on this hugely expensive referendum.

I want to comment on the “making constituencies bigger” section of the Bill, which I prefer as a title. Again, I offer the House my own experience, which may or may not be accepted. I had the privilege of representing two constituencies during my political life: one was Lichfield and Tamworth, with an electorate then of 101,343; the other was The Wrekin, which, before its redistribution, had an electorate of 90,872. Thank heaven, the dear old Boundary Commission came along and split that constituency into two, as it has also done with Lichfield and Tamworth. The link between MPs and their constituents is at the heart of our constitution. However hard you work—and, my word, I did work hard, as do most Members of Parliament—you cannot give the same service to constituents when you represent 101,000 as you can when you represent 60,000 or 70,000. For the life of me, I cannot see the justification for increasing constituency size in the way enshrined in the Bill.

I can conclude only where I started. I hope that this speech is not too depressing because I feel depressed about the Bill. The coalition has a huge majority in this House and in the other House and so far there is no sign that the Government are listening to any of the arguments. However, I am encouraged by the overwhelmingly hostile contributions which so many noble Lords have made today. Their speeches were overwhelmingly hostile to large sections of the Bill. I hope that we will do our job in this House and put it into better shape.

21:42

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, whoever drew up the speakers list clearly had a good sense of humour since my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I have debated the electoral system just about since the river Tamar came to mark the boundary between Cornwall and Devon, and I am sure that we will go on doing so in the run-up to the referendum, whenever that may come.

Before I turn to the other side of the case that he has put so well this evening—the case for AV—I want to refer to the other bits of the Bill in a couple of considered sentences. Governments of every complexion have generally proceeded cautiously on electoral matters, giving them due consideration, using, where possible, the independent judgment of the Boundary Commissions, and avoiding any charge of partisan manipulation. Most Governments have been extremely wary, and rightly so, of making electoral arrangements a kind of war booty to go into the hands of whatever party wins. We have only to look at France, which has enjoyed no such tradition, to see how wise we have been to adopt that. Therefore, it is our duty in this House to ignore the spurious arguments that have been put forward that somehow this is the prerogative of the House of Commons, which, incidentally, has not had a chance to consider very much of the Bill. We must do our duty and give this Bill the most careful, objective and, where possible, non-partisan consideration.

I want a referendum on AV but I do not want it on 5 May next year. Whenever it comes, I hope that the country returns a yes vote. I speak as a member of the Jenkins committee on electoral reform, on which my noble friend Lady Gould, who is not in her place this evening, also sat, and which recommended AV as part of its recommended solution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who rightly quoted the report, that Lord Jenkins, who chaired that committee and was held in respect on all sides of this House and in British politics, had, by the end of his life, changed his mind. He wanted a move to AV, and he would be arguing for it if he were here tonight.

What is wrong with first past the post? In days of yore, maybe there was not much wrong. In 1951, 97 per cent of voters backed one of the two big parties—Labour or Tory. Nine MPs in 10 received half or more of the votes cast in their constituencies. The change has been dramatic. Today, the two big parties have just two-thirds of the national vote between them, and only one-third of MPs—one-third—are the choice of at least half the voters in their constituencies. That may not bother the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—as long as he was there, he felt all right about it—but it should worry anyone who believes in majority rule.

These facts create a disproportionate House of Commons, of course, but that does not particularly bother me. My objections to first past the post are quite different. It starves MPs of the legitimacy that comes from election. First past the post delivers Menshevik MPs. It encourages perverse political tactics by MPs. We should seek an inclusive politics where MPs try to get as many votes by reaching out to as many voters as possible. With first past the post, the temptation all the time is to concentrate on just enough of your core voters to get you back into Parliament. It gives too many MPs safe seats for life—a matter to which I shall return in a minute. It robs voters of choice. What do you do if you are a voter? Do you back the candidate you most want, or the candidate who has the best chance of beating the candidate you most do not want? First past the post, like rotten boroughs, the all-male franchise and university seats, is a system which people back out of nostalgia. Its day has gone, it is broke and it must be fixed.

Should we therefore go full circle?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord alluded to the situation in the 1950s when he said that first past the post worked very well. We are often told that the Conservatives received a majority of the votes in Scotland in 1955. Was not part of the reason for that that really only two parties stood in most constituencies, because the Liberals had been destroyed as a result of their involvement in a previous coalition?

[Lord Lipsey]

The noble Lord is, of course, completely right historically, although he makes a wholly irrelevant point. In the political circumstances of those days, in a two-party system, first past the post was great. Once you do not have a two-party system and you have a multi-party system—with nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, a complicated situation in Northern Ireland, and a resurgent Liberal Democrat Party—first past the post does not work any more. It is as simple as that.

I do not want to go full circle by going for a fully proportional system—partly because I have never seen the advantage of it. I do not very much like the additional member system, which applies in Germany, because it too much erodes constituency loyalties. I do not like STV, loved by the much-mourned kind of Liberal who went around in sandals. STV again breaks the constituency link. In any case, in our constitution, we prefer to proceed by evolution rather than revolution. That is why we should have AV now and then in a few years, we could take stock again, or go further, stay where we are or, if you like and you can make your case, go back to first past the post.

I want here to confront a paradox. We AVers argue that AV is a relatively modest change and that it would be a change significantly for the better. How can we ride both these horses at once? As Jimmy Thomas said, if you cannot ride two horses at once, you should not be in the political circus. The resolution is like this: it will not make an enormous difference to the results of elections. At the general election in 2010, according to the academics David Sanders, Paul Whiteley, Marianne Stewart and Harold Clarke, it might have led to 22 fewer Tory seats, 10 fewer Labour seats—sorry about that—and 32 more Lib Dems. The effect, if there were to be a general election tomorrow, according to Professor Patrick Dunleavy, would be much less. Even changes of this magnitude would of course have mattered in a close election such as that in 2010, but they are scarcely seismic. However, there would have been far more seats in which the result was genuinely in doubt—so more MPs would have had to work harder to reach out to more people to win them.

I come finally to the main argument that I hear used against AV; namely, that it would help to create a situation where we had permanent coalition government and disproportionate power was given to the third party. I hear this complaint mostly from Conservative politicians. I am not sure how they square their enthusiastic support for the present coalition with the belief that coalition government is by definition a bad thing. It must be understood that in the new political geography of Britain, the strong probability is that coalition will be the norm. It is true that the eight general elections up to 2005 all produced majority Governments, but psephologists have compared this to tossing a coin that comes up heads eight times in a row—unlikely, but it happens. I often back eight even-money shots in a row at the races and they all lose.

First past the post has lost its potency to deliver majority Governments in most circumstances. There has been a very sharp decline in the number of seats that are marginal. According to Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University, the number of marginal seats has fallen from 166 in 1955 to just 85 in 2010, so a given swing is much less likely to bring about the number of changes in seats that will deliver a majority to one party or another. There will be fewer majority Governments under first past the post in future.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Perhaps my noble friend will give way. One of his arguments is that first past the post creates rotten boroughs. Would he tell us what happened to the Tory rotten boroughs of Stirling, Dumfries, Eastwood and South Edinburgh in Scotland? Are they still Tory rotten boroughs?

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, over a very long period of time, of course, political geography changes; but, in each contest, most MPs contest boroughs that I would not call rotten, but in which they can reckon themselves to be wholly safe. That is why so many MPs do not reach out as widely as they should, and as we would desire them to, to get the support of a wide section of the electorate.

I was about to say, when we took a slight diversion into Scottish local politics, that AV may indeed make it more likely that there will be majority Governments in future, because AV tends to be good for parties that are making ground and advancing. Anyone who can predict that first past the post will deliver more majority Governments than AV simply has not done the electoral arithmetic.

I would not expect AV to be popular in this House. Among those who benefited from first past the post in the House of Commons, there is a great affection for that system, though I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, lost some elections as well as won some. However, I am confident that when the arguments are put fully before the British people in the referendum that is to come, voters will opt for a system that gives them more choice and more power.

21:53

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I will speak mostly about the principle of the referendum proposed in the Bill. I would like the House to imagine an organisation with 650 consultants working for it, each of them on a fixed-term contract. What would we think if that organisation gave the 650 consultants the exclusive power to determine all the details over whether to renew their contracts? We would say the organisation was barmy, yet this is effectively what happens at present with the House of Commons. It is a closed shop of the sort that employment law some time ago rightly prohibited trade unions from operating. At present, only Parliament has the power to determine the system by which MPs are elected. Unsurprisingly, MPs in the past have tended to support the system that got them there and that they feel is most likely to keep them there. However, the people who pay for their services have had no say in how their representatives are chosen.

I will look briefly and in turn at the positions on this referendum of the Constitution Committee of the House, of the Labour Party and of the coalition Government.In my view, the Constitution Committee was right to be sceptical about the legitimacy of the widespread use of referendums, but in its report, which we recently debated, it accepted that, if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues, of which this must be one.

Secondly, the commitment to holding a referendum on AV was of course a core item of the most recent Labour Party manifesto. It said:

“To begin the task of building a new politics, we will let the British people decide on whether to make Parliament more democratic and accountable in referenda on reform of the House of Commons and House of Lords, to be held on the same day, by October 2011”.

The Labour Party manifesto said six months ago:

“To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons”.

Thirdly, it is greatly to the credit of the Prime Minister that he agreed, as part of the coalition agreement, to allow people to have their say on the fundamental constitutional issue of making a change to the voting system. The coalition agreement says:

“We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies”.

I do not propose at this stage to enter into the subject matter of the referendum itself but I will say that I think it is right that it should be held. I will address briefly two areas of controversy relating to the referendum. First, there is the timing issue.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord, when arguing the case for the alternative vote system, said that it is important for the person elected to get 50 per cent of the votes. Does he favour thresholds for the referendum? Is it important to receive 50 per cent of the votes from the electorate in a referendum, for example?

[Lord Rennard]

I shall turn my attention to thresholds very shortly because in my view they are tied to the issue of turnout, and turnout is tied to the question of when the referendum is held. If it is held at the same time as other elections, in my view there will be a higher turnout and greater legitimacy.

First, on the issue of timing, there is in my view no ideal or perfect time to hold a referendum. However, we know that we struggle to get voters to turn out at polling stations to choose their elected representatives, and we should not assume that they will be any more likely to want to turn out to vote in a referendum which is held on a day separate from when any elections are held. It is actually convenient for many voters if an election and referendum are combined, and I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of people in this country to put an X on two or three different pieces of paper within the space of a few minutes. Indeed, it is a rather easier task than filling in a National Lottery form.

On the question of a threshold and whether there should be a minimum turnout for voters’ views to be deemed valid, there are those who want to say that anyone who does not turn out to vote should effectively be recorded as having voted no. However, I do not see any democratic argument whatever in counting abstentions as no votes. There is no more legitimacy for that argument than in counting them as yes votes and saying that change should certainly happen unless most people turn out to vote against it. We have elections in this country for councillors, MPs, MEPs and Members of devolved Assemblies with sometimes very low turnouts. If a minimum turnout threshold were imposed in this referendum and it were held at the same time as other elections in most of the country next May, would we be saying that those elected representatives—members of local councils and Members of the Assembly in Wales and the Scottish Parliament—with the same low turnout should be disqualified from serving because the turnout was not sufficiently high? That is not a logical argument. A minimum turnout threshold—

[Lord Hoyle]

My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that there is a difference between voting in local and parliamentary elections and voting for constitutional change. Surely, we are arguing that there ought to be a bigger majority for constitutional change than for a normal election.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I am arguing that if people do not turn out to support an alternative, it is equally valid to say that their vote could be counted in favour, as it is to say, as other noble Lords have argued, that they should simply have their vote counted as a no. It is in the interests of democracy always to encourage high turnouts and that is why I believe that the first Thursday in May next year would be a good time to hold the referendum.

I also want to address briefly the issues of boundary reviews.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but perhaps he can help me. Is not one of the problems the fact that the question that is being put is between AV and first past the post, with no mention of STV, for example? Might there not be many Liberal supporters who support STV who might abstain because they were not getting any of the choices that they wanted?

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, there are other noble Lords who favour a two-horse race between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In an ideal world, I would not favour a two-horse race between AV and first past the post, as many noble Lords will know, but in the practical politics of not having won the general election and having to make compromises, the overarching principle is to allow the voters to have some say in how their representatives are chosen. People have been appalled in recent years that MPs were able to fix effectively the benefits of being in Parliament. A much more important issue is the means by which MPs are chosen and allowing people to have some say on that is of paramount importance. Risking giving them a further choice, which would be my first choice, may mean that they get no say whatever.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. Is he recalling that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House has not only said that there should be,

“a general presumption against the use of voter turnout thresholds and super-majorities”,

but also that,

“the presumption should be in favour of questions posing only two options for voters”?

On both counts, as many Members of your Lordships' House have been quoting the Constitution Committee earlier today, they have stated specifically their advice to the House.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that point.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, my noble friend has said that it would not be difficult to have multiple choices on the same day, with people voting in several different contests, such as for a devolved Parliament, a local election and the referendum. Therefore, why is it such a problem for people to vote on, for example, propositions for AV, STV or against first past the post?

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that point. As many noble Lords will know, I was very proud to be his agent in elections some years ago. We have discussed this issue many times. I noted very carefully his comments when he spoke of it not being a question of persuading people that they should have more options than simply two. I wish it were as easy as that because I think the electorate could cope very easily with that choice, as other electorates do in a number of elections in other countries. It is not a matter of persuading the people that they could do this; it is a matter of persuading people in other parties to allow this to happen. Sadly, people in other parties will not allow it to happen so we have to make what progress we can.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I remain very puzzled by the noble Lord’s explanation. Surely, Mr Clegg simply messed up the negotiation. He was in a very strong position indeed to get anything he wanted into the coalition agreement and he missed the opportunity to get STV on this ballot paper.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I can think of a number of very good books that are to be recommended, some of which are currently in circulation and more are due out, which will explain the fallacy of that argument. From personal experience of the 1990s, I know there were clear commitments from the party which the noble Lord now represents to hold a referendum on proportional representation and to support the outcome of that referendum. In 13 years of trying, no progress was made. More progress has been made in the past six months at least in allowing the voters to have some say on this key issue of how representatives who serve them should be chosen than was made in the 13 years the Labour Party was in office with three good majorities and a manifesto in 1997 pledging to give people the choice between proportional representation and first past the post. I am grateful now that at least some progress is being made and a precedent is being set to allow people some say in how their representatives are chosen.

Let me briefly address the question of the boundary review, because it is a very important part of the Bill. I think that the consequences of the reduced and equalised proposals are greatly exaggerated by many people. Most of the academic research on the issue confirms that marginally reducing the number of MPs increasing slightly the size of the average electorate, and making the number of the electors in each seat close to the average will not have much benefit or disbenefit.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is not in his place, but he made the most effective points psephologically in our debate so far. He pointed to a number of factors as to why there is the apparent advantage—it has been described as an 8 per cent advantage—that the Labour Party holds over the Conservatives in the present voting system. He highlighted a number of reasons why, of that apparent 8 per cent advantage, very little is to do with the different sizes of electorates in Labour and Conservative-held constituencies.

The highly respected psephologist, Lewis Baston, was also prayed in aid by noble Lords opposite a few hours ago. He has made calculations suggesting that perhaps eight or 10 seats may be varied between what the Conservative Party or the Labour Party might have as a result of these reviews. Those are figures in line with all the previous Boundary Commission reviews—and there have been three in the past 27 years. There is no big change out of this.

To some of those whom I must now call my noble friends, I must say that the enthusiasm in their party for making these changes—although I note a little lack of enthusiasm looking at their Benches at the moment—is misguided, but so is the opposition on the Labour Benches to the changes, because they will not actually have a big outcome in the general election. Of course, changing boundaries is never an easy process for MPs, candidates or parties, but the principle that MPs should generally have the same number of electors must generally be a sound one. It is the same principle for which the rotten boroughs were eventually abolished by the Great Reform Act 1832. It is not a principle that is unusual, unfair or undemocratic, and it has been at the heart of all the previous boundary reviews—perhaps in a less rigid way—conducted under previous Governments.

I close on what is a very important point for me about the process of the boundary reviews. I think that the Bill may make the problem of redrawing the boundaries a little more problematic than it needs to be. All the previous Boundary Commission reviews have had a guideline asking them to respect the need to minimise inconvenience among other logical factors when redrawing boundaries. The Bill provides for that provision to apply in reviews for the 2020 general election and in subsequent reviews, but it does not do so for the next review to be published in September 2013 for a general election in 2015. There will, of course, be significant changes to constituency boundaries when there are significant reductions in the number of MPs.

Of course, it would be much easier for the staff in the Boundary Commission to start with clean maps that do not have existing boundaries marked on them which must be considered as part of the new configuration, but I believe that it would be much better to allow the commission to take into account the existing boundaries—at least as far as it sees fit. This would go a little way, at least, to addressing the many concerns raised in the debate about the consequences of the review in many areas.

[Lord Hoyle]

Does the noble Lord agree or not agree that there should be an independent inquiry if there are objections raised, rather than just written objections, which could be ignored?

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, the parliamentary Boundary Commission has always been respected for being independent. I happen to think that the process of reviewing whatever it might decide might be far better conducted openly and transparently online than through expensive and slow public inquiries, some of which have produced changes. Having been a part of them on many occasions, I also think that many of the arguments made by QCs representing the parties, not generally the voters, have had disproportionate sway in the forum of the public inquiry and that a legitimate online consultation and proper, open representation may be a much better way of dealing with these issues. But the significant point on which I would like to finish is simply that if the Boundary Commission was asked in the next review—as it was in the past, and will be in the future—to take into account the existing parliamentary constituency boundaries, a number of the problems that have been raised in both Houses would be more effectively addressed.

22:10

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, I do not think that I have ever agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, but I certainly agree with him that it is absurd to suggest that our politics is broken. It is manifestly not broken, but we are naive if we do not accept that the craft of politics has seldom been held in lower regard. I regard this legislation as a wasted opportunity. Had the constitutional conventions been adhered to, had we had proper consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, and had we had time to go through the Bill in its entirety, there would have been the opportunity for cross-party agreement on the issues that are raised in the Bill. That would have been for the good not only of the country but, especially, of this House and the other place. Instead, we are left with a shoddy piece of legislation that has been cobbled together at short notice. The only thing on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is his comment that his party did not win the general election. My party lost the election. No party won the election. In such circumstances, I should think that it is important to show humility rather than arrogance; this is an arrogant piece of legislation.

It is very notable that in the other place there were very few Liberal Democrat or Conservative Back Benchers who supported the legislation. It has also been extremely interesting tonight to look at the Benches opposite—the wasteland on the other side of the Chamber. Where are the supporters? Among those who have spoken tonight I have counted three who support the legislation. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who is not in his place, supports the Bill or whether he just supports AV.

I support the idea of a referendum on AV, but I also have to say that, after four and a half years in Australia watching AV in operation, I have become extremely sceptical about it for one simple reason. Deals have to be struck for AV to work. Some of those deals are done openly and transparently, but some of them are done behind closed doors and you get very bizarre results as a consequence. The balance of power in the Australian Senate is held by the No Pokies party. “Pokies” to people of my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s generation and mine usually means ice cream cones, but in this case it means one-armed bandits. Because of the operation of the system of preferences, No Pokies, which is a one-man party, can hold the Australian Government to ransom. That is one of the consequences of AV.

Australia has compulsory voting. If we had had the opportunity properly to scrutinise this Bill, perhaps we could have discussed issues such as compulsory voting, which would provide a long-term, rather than short-term, benefit to society. In Australia, the fine for not voting is peanuts—something like 20 or 30 Australian dollars—but people are so used to going out to vote that they do so automatically. You do not have to vote for a political party; you can spoil your paper. If we had had the opportunity to discuss these matters, we would have had a real opportunity to advance the progress of the legislation.

I also find it bizarre that the Prime Minister, immediately after the election, went up to Edinburgh and spoke about respect for the Scottish Parliament. What respect was shown when it was told, not even consulted, that the referendum would be on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections? A Motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament opposing that, and we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Touhig about the situation in Wales. That lack of consultation does not show respect, nor does it show a proper understanding of, and respect for, the constitution.

I want to address the issue of 600 seats. I am pretty agnostic about the size of constituencies, but I find it bizarre that in the coalition discussions the Conservatives, who have a history of arguing for 585 seats, and the Liberal Democrats, who have a history of arguing for 500 seats, reached a compromise of 600 seats. How did that work out? It is incumbent on the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he replies to this debate, to explain to us why we are to end up with more seats than were in the manifestos of the two parties that are now in coalition. It is bizarre. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, could not keep his face straight—as well he might—when he had to answer questions on these matters. We need an answer on these matters.

I do not want to delay the House too long as the hour is late, but I want to look at the parliamentary boundary commissions and public inquiries. In the other place, I was privileged to represent the town of Airdrie, which is even older than the Church of England. The first references to Airdrie were in 576, but it was at the peak of its national significance between 1160 and the middle of the 19th century. Airdrie was a base for the Covenanters. In 1832, the town hall became a hospital for the victims of cholera, which is very much in our minds at the moment. The reason that I make those points is that Airdrie is an historic town. In the early 1990s, a proposal was made to split Airdrie right down the main street. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, pooh-poohed the idea of local communities being interested in such matters, but I have to say to the noble Lord, who is not in his place, that he needs to get out more because, where I come from, people are passionately interested in the history of their communities—perhaps that is because my constituency included 19 mining villages, as we know that miners are passionately interested in history. In that public inquiry, there was great unanimity of support for retaining Airdrie as one town and a very convincing case was put for retaining Airdrie’s historic links with the towns and villages known as the Fortissat villages—a reference to the 40 who sat with the Covenanters in those villages. That case was made by John Smith, who died 36 hours later. As a consequence of the hugely persuasive argument that he put on behalf of his community, the constituency of Airdrie and Shotts was preserved and I went on to represent it.

I make that point about local inquiries because, if you come from where I come from—I take my title from the village of Coatdyke, in which I was born and brought up, which lies between Airdrie and Coatbridge and has been alternately contained in a constituency, split and quartered in all sorts of different shapes such that it should probably be renamed “Hokey Cokey”—everyone in the communities of Airdrie and Coatbridge has a real view about the importance of their community. Years on—and, like Miss Jean Brodie, I am in my prime—I am still referred to in Coatdyke as Bessie Lawrie’s daughter, regardless of the fact that I am now a noble Baroness, because communities have histories and those histories are very important indeed. For this House and this Government to demean that sense of community and involvement is to show contempt for society. As we heard earlier, the hypocrisy of a Government who promote the big society to argue against people’s faith in society and love and admiration for the society that has forged them, is indeed a travesty.

My mother used to say, “Marry in haste; repent at leisure”. Here, we are legislating at haste, and the country will repent at leisure. I hope that, in the best traditions of this House, we can be a genuine, revising Chamber to save the coalition from what it has achieved with this legislation. There are many Members of the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House and in the other place whom I count as friends. They have been let down by this legislation. AV is not PR but a miserable little compromise, which has been cobbled together only to save skins for the future. However, the electorate are not daft and will see through it. That is why, in the days and weeks that lie ahead, we must do our utmost to amend this legislation to make it at least in some way fit for purpose. As of now, the Bill is not fit for purpose.

22:21

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. We can tell the degree of interest by the number of noble Lords who wish to speak. I am sorry that the government Benches have been so sparse all evening. I do not want to repeat the points made by many other noble Lords, other than to say that I have similar concerns about the Bill. It seems to be being rushed through and pulled out with indecent haste. I take on board the comment made by my noble friend Lady Liddell about the Bill being a missed opportunity.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, with his perhaps usual modesty may have overstated it when he said that his plans for change were the greatest constitutional reform since the Reform Act 1832, which we should recognise had deficiencies in itself. But it remains that this legislation is highly significant. It is extremely important for the future of and the legitimacy of our democracy.

I want to address two issues. The first is the constituency boundary changes and the abolition of public inquiries as outlined in Clause 10. While it may be initially superficially popular, I have not been convinced by the arguments put forward of the need to reduce the number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. If we are to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons, should there not first be an examination of why it is considered to be the right course of action and, if so, what would be the appropriate number of MPs? Nowhere have I heard a coherent case being made, other than the Deputy Prime Minister’s assertion that the Government need to reduce costs and that this will save around £12 million a year. I do not think that factored into that are the additional costs of the greater workload for MPs with larger constituencies. But it has to be said that that reason alone is insufficient. It is also an argument that is difficult to sustain when the Government are also seeking to increase the number of paid professional politicians in the second Chamber, the costs of which we do not know yet. There may be a great deal of good arguments, but the case has not yet been made.

The number chosen seems random, as we have heard from other noble Lords. When the Leader of the House was asked about this earlier, he should have been embarrassed to admit, although he seemed quite gleeful about it, that 600 was “a nice round figure”. I assumed that he was making that comment in jest, but nothing else came forward. There was no other explanation of why 600 was a good figure. I have too much respect for him to believe that he thinks that 600 is “a nice round figure” and should be used. But he did not even try to give an explanation of why 600 MPs is the right number.

As a former Member of Parliament for 13 years, I represented my home constituency. The relationship between the constituency and its Member of Parliament is important and precious. It possibly is more so today because the workload of MPs is increasing, particularly in constituency work. I could never support any form of electoral reform or change which would reduce that relationship between an MP and his or her constituency.

The proposals before us today have the potential to change every constituency in the country—bar two, bizarrely—and we have to recognise the enormous upheaval that will bring. The boundary commissioners will have the duty to define the new boundaries of the 600 constituencies. Every election sees reviews. At the last election, my own constituency of Basildon suffered significant changes; indeed that constituency no longer exists in that there is no longer a seat named Basildon. Sometimes we get electoral changes we like from the boundary commissioners, and sometimes changes that we do not like, but that is not the issue. The system in place allows representations to be made and in some cases inquiries to be held. It confers legitimacy on the system. The Government say that public inquiries do not add much to the process and they will not be missed. They also argue that there will be few changes and most of them will be minor. That entirely misses the point.

In the last boundary review, the majority of constituencies remained unchanged, but significant changes in all areas and most likely to most seats will be made in this review. There could be changes in areas that have not seen any alterations for generations. We are setting a hard task for the boundary commissioners. The Bill also seeks to change the ground rules by which the commissioners will operate. For the first time, changes will go across constituency boundaries and, depending on the recommendations, we do not yet know how they will affect local government or the conduct of and arrangements for elections. The boundary commissioners are already tasked with seeking to maintain recognised communities, but this is now subordinate to ensuring that the electorate is no more than 5 per cent more or less than the new electoral quota, along with a limit on geographical size. So, for the first time, arithmetic—the physical size of a constituency and the number of electors—will be the dominant features. Those criteria undermine the conviction that constituencies should take into account communities and their histories. Given that this is to be overridden by the numbers game, it will be all the harder for the commissioners to draw up meaningful constituencies that residents can identify with. Furthermore, it must all be completed in time for the next election, so it will be a mammoth task.

It is interesting to note the views of the boundary commissioners themselves. I was struck by the comments of Robin Gray, a former boundary commissioner, in evidence to the Select Committee of the other place. He made the point that having the review system and the opportunity to hold public inquiries enhanced the legitimacy of the changes. He also said that even when representations were minor, that reassured the commissioners that they had got right the changes made. He made it clear that even when, as we have heard, the political parties played the major and sometimes the only role,

“they do actually provide some assurance for the public that the issues have been looked at, debated and an independent, barrister, solicitor, whatever, has come to a view about that”.

That is not to say that it is not possible to improve the system, but it is wrong to abolish the principle.

I have to ask this because I do not understand it at all: why the haste? This issue is huge and significant, and it deserves to be given the opportunity to be undertaken properly. For all the talk we hear from the Government about the big society, about engaging the public and about the public having their say, this Bill does exactly the opposite. Reducing the number of Members of Parliament takes democracy just that little bit further away from the public, and the Bill then denies the public the right to be heard at an independent public inquiry. So although the Government talk about giving power back to the people, on a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of our democracy—that of redrawing the entire constituency map of the country—the public are to be denied even the opportunity of a public inquiry.

It does not matter if people choose not to avail themselves of that right, but it does matter if they are not given the opportunity to do so. If they have concerns later and there is no legitimate route to address them, that undermines the legitimacy of the entire process. This legislation will mean that the legal process does not even allow for the legitimacy of the proposed changes to be tested in a public inquiry. That is fundamentally unfair to the commissioners themselves, who will see their work and their efforts undermined by a lack of belief in their independence through no fault of their own. It could also mean legal challenges against the proposals.

My final point concerns the implications for the Executive in reducing the number of Members of Parliament. It seems illogical, if the size of the House of Commons is reduced, not to reduce the number of Ministers. The Minister, Mark Harper, when asked about this by the Commons Select Committee, said that to reduce the number of Ministers in the Commons would increase the number of Ministers in the Lords. Some of us may not think that that is a terribly bad thing, but did he not understand what the committee was saying to him? In his article yesterday in the Observer, Professor King raised his concerns that, if the Bill was to go through, Ministers would be selected from a smaller gene pool of MPs. To reduce the number of MPs but maintain the number of Ministers would significantly rebalance the role of government and the Executive, which goes against everything the Government have said about enhancing parliamentary democracy. It will shift the balance of power further towards the Government and erode accountability.

Your Lordships’ Committee on the Constitution raised concerns on both of these issues. It felt that a proper assessment had not taken place and that,

“it is an unsatisfactory basis on which to embark on fundamental reform of the register”.

I endorse those comments. Once again, the Government have got it wrong in their haste to make changes without thinking about the implications or effectively marshalling decent arguments.

22:31

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, with the Division today I would not have wanted to see jeopardised that part of the Bill that I, with reservations, support. On the other hand, I have various concerns about the other part of the Bill. This is two Bills—or perhaps, more accurately, bits of two Bills. My approach is to take the point of view, for the first part, of the voter; and, for the second, of the constituent—two distinct political roles of the individual member of the public.

The first half of the Bill is like being taken to a wonderful expensive restaurant—possibly a once in a lifetime experience—and being offered a starter, the alternative vote system, but only one out of numerous main courses available, that dish being first past the post. It is ludicrous that proper proportional representation in any form is not on the menu. I realise, of course, that what we have before us is a political compromise, but it is nevertheless insulting to the public, given this extraordinary opportunity, that they are not allowed to make the important choice about precisely which voting system they would prefer.

Like other noble Lords, I voted in the general election this year. In past elections I have voted for larger parties and for smaller ones, but I have always maintained the belief that it is unfair that voters for a smaller party are so heavily discriminated against by our current system to the extent that one can consider some votes to be almost worthless before they are cast. It is because of this that, whatever would be the political consequences of the introduction of true proportional representation, I believe such a system to be inherently more democratic.

Under the first past the post system, the voter suffers a difficult internal conflict, often torn over the choice between personality, political party and pragmatism. A good voting system should take all three of these elements into account. The additional member system used all over the world, and now in the UK in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Assembly, is not an option within the Bill, although it should be, as indeed should be the single transferable vote. AMS is a system that would go a long way towards solving these problems as the voter can vote for both the political party of their choice and for their constituency MP. It also preserves the geographical link to a single constituency MP, to which the British public are attached.

It is true, of course, that we would not be having this referendum if the Liberal Democrats did not themselves want PR in the first place. AV is better, arguably, than first past the post on the basis that it is more proportional, although the fact that it is also more of a consensual system means that you would probably have fewer mavericks in Parliament, which is a shame.

I would support an amendment to this Bill so that the public can make their own choice from the alternative voting systems available. I am fully in favour of a referendum, but as it stands the public are forced to play political games. Does a voter who might prefer what is in my view the real alternative—a true PR system—therefore vote against AV or does he vote for it, hoping that AV will be a stepping stone towards that? We know, of course, that this is the political reality, but it is ultimately disrespectful to the public that they are put in this position of limited choice.

The second half of the Bill is also a part of another Bill. I believe in principle that it is a good aim to equalise the size of the electorate for every constituency, but the problem with decreasing the number of MPs at this stage is that we do not know what our end point is likely to be in the overall reform of the other place and, indeed, of Parliament as a whole. For example, if we kept first past the post or opted for AV in the long term, I would say that, no, I am not in favour of decreasing the number of MPs, simply because the larger the number of constituents, the less your MP is going to be your MP, and the larger the constituency, the larger the workload and the less the local work accomplished. That is as long as there are no other kinds of MPs, but if one believed that at some stage the MPs would be topped up and we would have stronger regional government across the whole of Britain, it would be a different matter.

If we had true PR, there would be no more political manoeuvring through boundary changes, which we seem to get with every change of government and whose administration no doubt costs the country unnecessary money. Neither would a Government see fit inflexibly to clamp down on appeals to such changes. This wrangling would simply stop, because it would become politically irrelevant. We might then concentrate our minds solely on how a constituency might be defined in ways other than by the thought of potential political advantage.

Finally, I share the concern of many others about whether the number of Ministers should not be reduced alongside a reduction in the number of MPs and whether there should not be an agreed formula for this. This Government have already shown in the Public Bodies Bill that they are not afraid to try to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of wider, properly democratic scrutiny and consultation.

22:37

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, for the second time in seven days I am speaking in your Lordships’ House as one of a long list of over 50 speakers to talk against a Bill with whose principles I more or less agree. In both cases, the Government face a very critical report from the Constitution Committee. I think that, as with the Public Bodies Bill, this is bad Bill because of process.

I favour a fairer voting system for the House of Commons, as I favour a voting system for your Lordships’ House. I am therefore very happy to support the principle of a referendum on moving from first past the post to the alternative vote. Similarly, I cannot disagree with the principle of equalisation, although, like my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, I would favour a figure of give or take 10 per cent rather than 5 per cent. Also like my noble and learned friend, I believe that these historic changes could be much more easily taken forward on the basis of consensus over process.

What has happened on process? Why this ridiculous rush, which is now causing such opposition? Why, yet again, so little consultation? Why no consultation with the devolved Administrations? Why not listen to them and avoid the problems attached to holding the referendum on the same day as elections to the devolved legislatures? Perhaps the Minister can tell us, when he winds up tomorrow, what estimate has been made of the differential turnout in different parts of the UK as a result of that, beyond the confusions that rightly the Scottish Parliament recently legislated to reduce by moving the local elections.

There are some who argue that this House should not concern itself with these matters of how the other place is elected. Indeed, the noble Lord the Leader of the House pretty much argued as such in his opening speech. I beg to differ. This Bill is part of a wider parliamentary reform to try to restore confidence in Parliament as a whole. In that endeavour, we should all work together, particularly given the events of the past couple of years. As a Member of your Lordships' House, I am after the bigger picture before we are asked to legislate on these elements, or bits of a Bill, as the noble Earl just said. We should not pluck out bits of wider parliamentary reform and have to consider them in isolation. To me, the logic would be first to define the role and working practices of both Chambers, including their relationship with the Executive. Then we can better determine their size, especially given that we bizarrely are currently considering reducing the size of the elected Commons while increasing hugely the size of the appointed Lords. We can then consider how each Chamber is elected or appointed. At that point, these principles should be put to the electorate, on a day without the distorting effect of other elections, in a referendum or series of referenda. Indeed, has the Minister considered a referendum on the same day as the one on the voting system, on the principle of whether the Lords should be wholly or substantially elected? Would that not make his job easier in pushing Lords reform through this House, if he had such a mandate?

With a mandate from a referendum on a voting system, we can then determine whether we have fixed-term Parliaments, how long the term should be and how regularly the constituency boundaries should be reviewed. Finally, we can then commission the review of new constituency boundaries, with public inquiries at least in the first instance given the scale of change. Given that we are talking about 600 brand new constituencies, I cannot see any argument for not holding proper public inquiries, at least in the first instance. I accept that that would take time, but with such huge constitutional change we should attempt consensus at least on process. The current rush seems to be driven by a political deadline that would allow the Liberal Democrats the iconic achievement of electoral reform within a year of forming the coalition, and give the Conservatives the prize of cutting the number of Members of Parliament in Labour cities and in Wales and Scotland.

The other substantive point I should like to make tonight is around reducing the number of MPs to 600. I was intrigued by the Leader's explanation that it was a “nice round figure”. While he is the embodiment of a nice round figure, that is not good enough to persuade me. Why reduce the number at all? I note that the number of MPs has increased by 25 since 1950. That is 3 per cent increase in 60 years. In the same time, the size of constituencies has increased by 25 per cent and the volume of correspondence, especially in this age of e-mails, has exploded exponentially for Members of Parliament. That is in part why the 3.5 million unregistered voters are important. When I was a Member of Parliament, until my contract was cut short by the electors of south Dorset earlier this year, I did not check the electoral roll to see whether a constituent was registered. I confess that one of my staff obsessively did, and would make sure she told me whether the person had a vote. If she is listening, I am sorry, Lena, that I completely ignored that information. I am absolutely certain that if any MP is approached by someone in housing crisis, with immigration problems, as a victim of bureaucratic incompetence in respect of tax credits or benefits, in any of the bread and butter pieces of casework, all MPs will try to help regardless of whether they are electors. The sense of public service is strong in Parliament and we should acknowledge that.

In my former constituency, I had pockets of significant deprivation in the west, in Weymouth and Portland, and in much more affluent areas in the east, in the Purbecks. There was a great difference in electoral registration and a great difference in workload between the more and less affluent areas. On that basis, we need the Government to do more on electoral registration than the Government that I was a part of managed to do, before we move to such a tight prescription on equalisation.

The Bill's current position of working off the electoral roll as of December this year is untenable, and I cannot support a review every Parliament. Like others, I believe in the importance of the community link with MPs, and as someone who lives 400 yards from the constituency boundary, I do not want to do the hokey-cokey—to use the phrase of my noble friend Lady Liddell—out of west Dorset.

Finally, why is there such a hurry? I can only think that it is for political gain. Your Lordships’ House adds value by being less political and by ensuring constitutional rigour and, on that basis, I urge that Part 1 be separated from Part 2 to make two Bills. I also urge proper time for boundary reviews, with public inquiries on these 600 new constituencies. Ideally, I urge a proper road map of parliamentary reform that defines the roles of both Chambers before legislating on their size and how their Members get there.

22:45

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, at this late hour I shall avoid the temptation to repeat many of the arguments that we have already heard, but I should perhaps declare one interest. When I was in the other place it was as Member of Parliament for Stirling, having been elected in 1983. Leaving aside the birth of my children, my marriage and other personal events, arriving at the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament was my proudest day. I think that I did so with about 35 per cent of the vote when we had four parties fighting that election, so getting 50 per cent of the vote would have been quite an achievement.

At subsequent elections, without the split in the Labour Party and the SDP, it became harder for me to hang on and my majority dropped to around 700 and then to 500. By then, I was Secretary of State and I had to sign the order produced by the Boundary Commission to take Bridge of Allan out of my constituency and put it into another; that was probably about 4,000 Conservative votes. I did so without any concern at all, other than for me, because it was a fair process with a proper adjudication and inquiry. By the way, it was not just the political parties which put forward their views: views were expressed by the local community and, in the end, the right decision was taken. The result was that I got kicked out of Parliament —there were one or two other factors in that as well—and I found myself in this place.

This place has a very important role to play. It is the backstop; that is our whole purpose. A Question was asked in the House the other day of my noble friend Lord McNally as to the purpose of the House of Lords. If nothing else, it is to protect the constitution. I feel that the Bill is not Parliament’s finest hour. There has always been an understanding and a convention that on constitutional matters we should try to proceed with consensus and by agreement and, if we cannot do that, we should go through a process where matters are properly discussed and evaluated, whether by a Speaker’s Conference or something of that kind.

I understand, of course, the deal that was done after the election but I wonder at the reasons being given for this Bill and for some other Bills which are yet to come before us that are being put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister in his new role. One of the things being said is that it is about restoring trust in Parliament. In my opinion, a number of the best speeches tonight have been made by former Members of the other place. I say “best”, because they convey that sense of relationship which Members of Parliament have with their constituents, whether they voted for them or not, and which they have with the area that they represent. Even when you have been out of Parliament for a long time—I live in my old constituency —you still go around and remember that that was the place where there was this or that problem, and you have that feeling of identity. You come to Parliament as the champion of your constituents. Yes, you are there as Labour, Conservative or whatever, but you are also there as the man or woman for your area.

That is a real and powerful identity, so if you depart from that principle and if Members of Parliament start to be seen as the representative of the party for this block of population in this part of the country, something disastrous will have gone wrong. Thinking back to 1983, one thing that was very sad was that I was a Tory; a third of my constituency had never had a Tory since the Twenties; a third had never had a Tory since before that; and a third had never had anything else. There were bits of my constituency where Tories, particularly with the miners’ strike and so on, were not very popular. Yet you were respected as the Member of Parliament; you had standing and status. The expenses scandal and other things have damaged that, and I find the extraordinary notion that we can repair that damage and restore the status of Members of Parliament with this kind of Bill and this kind of reform a little unnerving.

My experience, going around canvassing during the election, was that people said, “You’re all the same. You’re in it for yourselves. We only see you at the election. You say one thing at the election and then do another”. If we want to counter that kind of cynicism and distrust, one of the things that we might do is keep the promises that we put in our manifestos. The Bill fails miserably on that count. The manifestos made promises about the voting system and the size of Parliament. The Conservatives campaigned for first past the post and against AV. The Liberals campaigned against AV. The Labour Party campaigned in favour of AV. Now we have a Bill that puts forward AV, produced by the Conservatives and the Liberals in coalition, being opposed by the Labour Party, which campaigned on having AV.

[Lord Bach]

Having a referendum.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Sorry, they campaigned on having a referendum on AV. To be fair, it was a post-legislative referendum.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Pre-legislative.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

A pre-legislative referendum, rather than the post-legislative referendum that is proposed in the Bill. The ordinary voter being faced with the clips that will be shown during the referendum campaign of the Deputy Prime Minister describing AV as “a miserable little compromise”, while at the same time he is promoting the Bill, will do nothing to restore trust in Parliament.

If trust in Parliament is to mean anything, it must mean trusting the voters. The noble Earl spoke eloquently in favour of giving the voters a choice. I would prefer to have the status quo; first past the post seems to work perfectly well. If you are going to open up the issue of changing the voting system and consult the people, however, it seems strange to choose one system and not allow the voters to express a view on it. I look forward to amendments to the question in the referendum that will enable the inclusion of STV.

The Deputy Prime Minister, as part of this exercise in increasing trust and the accountability of the Executive, set up the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee. It was specifically set up to look at the work of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the constitutional reforms. Its first report repudiates the Bill and the process by which it is being carried out. How does that help to restore trust in Parliament?

The coalition Government have resolutely refused to reduce the size of the Executive in line with the proposed reductions in the size of the House of Commons. I have put down a Written Question, which I have not had an Answer to, asking how many people are now members of the Government or Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and what the size of the payroll is. I have the feeling that it has gone up substantially. That is not increasing the authority and standing of Parliament.

In a number of speeches today, people have made the point that it seems bizarre that we have Members of this House sitting in the Gallery that is meant for the public because there are not enough seats to accommodate us, but we are increasing the size of this House while at the same time justifying a reduction in the size of the House of Commons on the grounds of expenditure.

There is another thing: it was my party’s policy to reduce the size of the Scottish Parliament. That has 129 Members. It is hard to believe that you need 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament if you are proceeding on the basis of having 55 Members at Westminster. The public will find it difficult to understand why, having previously been in favour of reducing the size of the Scottish Parliament, we now want to keep the Scottish Parliament at its present size while reducing the size of Westminster.

I am conscious of the time. It has been suggested that this is all being done for political advantage. I have a cautionary tale. The Members opposite may not recognise this view of events. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who I am sorry is not in his place, telling me that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. I remember people believing that, if they had a Scottish Parliament, Labour would dominate Scotland’s politics for ever. It did not quite work out that way. Constitutional change to secure party advantage seldom does. The unexpected has a habit of happening.

On AV itself, I thought that the 1997 defeat for us was an absolutely catastrophic rout. However, the information I have seen suggests that if we had had AV it would have been even worse. AV tends to reinforce the big shifts of the kind that have taken place. We should be very careful about making huge changes to a system that works perfectly well. It is true that there are anomalies in the system. However, the Bill has not been properly discussed in the country. It is the product of a political deal and that is no basis on which to amend the constitution of our country.

22:56

[Baroness Adams of Craigielea]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Grocott, I am quite depressed about the Bill but I am also now very confused, as I find for the first time, sitting opposite the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that I completely agree with him. That certainly did not happen often in the other place. On the other hand, there were elements of my noble friend Lord Knight’s speech that I completely disagreed with. I do not support AV—I support first past the post—and I certainly do not support elections to this House. It would be ludicrous if, while we are reducing elected representation to the other place, we start to increase it in this House.

However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Knight that the Bill should be two Bills, not one. It seems that it has simply been cobbled together for convenience. The two parts of the Bill bear no relation to each other and were made not in a coalition but in an unholy alliance. The noble Lord the Leader of the House told us that this coalition was what the country wanted. How do we know this? We know that the country did not want the Government that were in place. It did not want the Conservative Party; it certainly did not want the Liberal party. What did we get? Everybody got what nobody wanted—not a consensus but a coalition. The electorate might have been telling us that they wanted some consensus but what they got was a cobbled- together coalition, rather like this cobbled-together Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, told us that he did not support AV but it was a price worth paying. I am sorry he is not in his place now because I would tell him about a price that the Labour Party thought was worth paying in relation to the Scottish Parliament. Before the legislation for the Scottish Parliament there was something called the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which the Labour Party, the Liberal party, several other parties and parts of civic Scotland—such as churches and trade unions—took part. We came to an agreement before the legislation that we, the Labour Party, would support a system of PR for the Scottish Parliament if the Liberal party supported a gender balance for the Scottish Parliament. Subsequent to the legislation, the Labour Party tried to deliver a gender balance within its own rules. I am sorry to say that the Liberal party at no time tried to deliver that gender balance. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, be careful what you wish for here as you might get something completely different from what you set out to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was right again; the Labour Party did go forward with AV in our manifesto, but we lost the election with that in our manifesto. I am astounded that the coalition is taking up what we lost. If there is genuinely to be a referendum on PR systems—

[Lord Rennard]

The noble Baroness has explained that some people in the Labour Party might now abandon their commitment to AV because they lost the election, but why did they abandon their commitment to a referendum on PR given that they won the elections in 1997, 2001 and 2005?

[Baroness Adams of Craigielea]

I personally was never committed to AV but we are not abandoning it. Many on this side still support it. I happen to be one of those who do not. The noble Lord did not support AV before the election. It was not in the Liberal manifesto. It certainly was not in the Conservative manifesto, so why is he supporting it now? He should explain that to me rather than the other way round.

First past the post appeals to me, as it does to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, because the electorate know where they are with it. They know that the first person past the post has won the race, like the horse that he told us about, and that we do not end up with the third horse wearing the rosette at the end of the night.

The first election for the other place in which I stood was a by-election. I got 42 per cent of the vote. In three subsequent elections, I got 61 per cent of the vote. I was very fortunate indeed, no doubt, but I was part of the community. What really concerns me about the second part of the Bill is the loss of community. I am surprised at the Conservatives going forward with this because they consistently tell us that the family is paramount to society. But where does the family fit, if not into a community? I came from a community where I can trace one side of my family back as far as records go. I was very much part of that community and was fortunate to represent it.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Baker, any time that I attended a boundaries inquiry the place was full, and not just with political parties. Given that the Conservative Party came fourth in my constituency and had only about 12 members, it would have taken a lot of them to fill the hall. The 1,500 or so people who were there were not just political parties, agents, sitting Members, candidates and councillors but came from all parts of the community. Community cohesion was very important to them—and so it should be. People do not want to become just another brick in the wall—a numbers game whereby we draw a square and say, “You 76,000 over here; you 76,000 over there”. Again unlike the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I never went to a Boundary Commission where there was not substantial change in the outcome of the original boundaries, and I gave evidence to three Boundary Commissions. Only recently as regards the Scottish parliamentary boundaries it was proposed that my former constituency should span the River Clyde with Renfrew on one side and Clydebank on the other. Those areas are only a river apart but are very different with very different local ties. The local communities gave evidence to that commission and their evidence was accepted but later rejected.

I agree that Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles should be excluded because of their geographical position but am astounded that Argyll is not included. I know that area very well as it is where the other half of my family come from. If I go from my home in the outskirts of Paisley to Argyll, I have to take a three or four-hour car journey, because there are few flights and I cannot rely on them, and then I have a two-hour ferry crossing. The Member for Argyll leaving here to go to a surgery in Port Ellen on Islay would take four hours to get to Glasgow Airport. He would then take another four hours to get to Kennacraig on West Loch Tarbert. The ferry crossing would be two hours before he got to Port Ellen—and that is provided it is all going well and the weather is okay. Argyll at the moment is half the size of Denmark. What size will it be when we have to put 76,000 electors into that constituency? It is not manageable and it would certainly miss the constituency link with the MP. If he wants to go on to Jura for another surgery, he has to cross Islay and take another ferry. There are only 120 people on Jura, but are not those 120 people just as entitled to their MP’s time and representation as the person who lives across the road from the House of Commons, here in the West End of London? I would contend that he was.

When we are drawing up these boundaries, we should ask ourselves: why are people disinterested in politics? If we tell them that they are just a number, just another brick in the wall, and we really do not want to go to inquiries, find out what their constituency links are and what their community ties are, then no wonder they say to us, “You are all the same”, because that is what we are doing. We are totally discarding the electorate when we tell them that their communities no longer matter—that it is just the number that matters.

23:06

[Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay]

My Lords, that was a very thoughtful and honest speech, which I am sure the House followed with interest. However, I found the beginning of it and the previous speech rather interesting examples of the cross-dressing that seems to be going on in this House. There have been some very powerful speeches against the Bill, but none more so than that of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I am sure that, with friends like him, my noble friend Lord McNally will feel when he winds up that he does not need enemies.

I, too, want to talk a little about islands. I cannot believe that the Isle of Wight has ever been mentioned so often in one day in this House before. I should start by admitting that I am not an islander but an overner—as they are called on the Isle of Wight—although I am Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay. However, we have happily had a holiday cottage on this beautiful bay for many years, and my wife’s family has had connections there for nearly a century. The Isle of Wight Liberal Democrats and many local people of all parties and none have asked me to help their campaign to keep the island as one seat.

If it is kept as one seat, the Isle of Wight’s electorate of 110,000 will be 34,000 more than the new quota of 76,000. That is much closer to the quota than either of the two constituencies preserved in the Bill as it stands. Orkney and Shetland, with 33,100 electors, is nearly 43,000 below the quota, while the Western Isles, with 22,200 electors, is no less than 53,800 short. To put it another way, the Isle of Wight would qualify for 1.45 seats, whereas Orkney and Shetland would be on 0.44 of a seat and the Western Isles would be on only 0.29 of a seat, which is barely a quarter of the quota.

I support the exceptions made for the two Scottish island seats, but there is an even stronger argument for adding the Isle of Wight as a third preserved seat. I intend to move an amendment to that effect in Committee. The island, as local people call it, has a strong sense of identity and is clearly divided from the mainland, physically and psychologically, by the Solent. If a third of the island had to be joined to a mainland constituency, those islanders would consider themselves to be second-class citizens. There are three main ferry crossings, so either Ryde would be joined to part of Portsmouth, the Cowes area would have to link up to Southampton Water, or West Wight would be linked to the New Forest. What would be the names of these seats? I suppose that you would probably have to name them after ferries. You might be the MP for Solent Hovercraft, Solent Red Funnel or Solent Wightlink, but those would be highly hybrid constituencies.

All the main political parties on the island support the “One Wight” campaign, led by our excellent weekly paper, the Isle of Wight County Press. The island’s MP, Andrew Turner, and the Liberal Democrat candidate at the general election, Jill Wareham, presented a petition to Downing Street with 17,000 names. People of no party feel equally strongly that they should keep a single MP. Last time I had a pint at the Pilot Boat in Bembridge, the customers were all signing the “One Wight” petition on the bar. That must be a first in popular participation in parliamentary redistribution.

The Isle of Wight is nearer the electoral quota than the two Scottish island seats. The other key reason why the Isle of Wight has an even stronger claim to preserve its status is that it is asking not for special treatment, through extra representation at the expense of other constituencies, but quite the reverse. The island wants fewer MPs, not more, than it is entitled to. Although the mood of most islanders is clear, that could raise a theoretical problem if some people were to argue that petitions do not prove what voters want and that they should not be deprived of extra representation by having just one MP serving 110,000 constituents.

However, there is a simple and cheap answer to that. The Bill provides for an AV referendum to be held everywhere on 5 May. Why not have a second, local referendum on the Isle of Wight on the same day to ask electors whether they want the island to stay as a single seat? The extra cost of printing and counting the second set of ballot papers would be very modest as the polling stations would all be open anyway. I have no doubt that the vote would be overwhelmingly for one Wight, but it would be only fair to let that be confirmed if electors were being asked to give up some theoretical representation. Island people feel different. They want one clear island voice in Parliament, not mixed messages from an MP with divided loyalties across the Solent. I hope that the anomaly of the Isle of Wight will be sorted out sensibly.

This is a fair Bill that is long overdue for our democracy. For many years past, Britain's electoral system has been skewed in Labour's favour. First past the post on out-of-date boundaries is simply a fix. Labour's two worst performances at general elections since the First World War were in 1983—as has been referred to already—and 2010. Each time, it got less than 30 per cent of the vote. I remember the 1983 election well, as I came close to winning Cambridge on first past the post and certainly would have won on AV. However, in the national election Labour beat us by a whisker—8.5 million votes to 7.75 million—but it got 209 seats to our 23, or 34 per cent of the seats to our 4 per cent. This year, Labour received only 25 per cent more votes than we did, but it still got 4.5 times as many seats, or 40 per cent of the seats to our 9 per cent.

Our hopelessly slow system of boundary reviews also has the effect of loading the dice in Labour's favour. As Balinski, Johnston, McLean and Young point out in their very useful report for the Royal Academy, Drawing a New Constituency Map for the United Kingdom, if Labour and the Conservatives had received the same number of votes nationally, Labour would have had 185 more seats than the Tories in 1997, 142 more in 2001, 111 more in 2005 and 54 more in 2010, even on the new boundaries. That cannot be right.

We must move now to a fairer voting system. As my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out, to be fair to Labour, it did at the end of its term at least open up to that—and thank goodness for that. We must now move both to a fairer voting system and to fair and much more frequently updated parliamentary boundaries.

23:14

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I recall a veteran US Congressman stating that we have reached the stage of the debate where everything that can be said has been said, but not everyone has said it and I propose to make what I hope are one or two new points.

I start with a confession. I have a considerable degree of sympathy for the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I am sorry for them because I feel that they have reached, with the Conservatives and the coalition, a sort of Faustian pact, but in my judgment the result will be a tragedy for them of Greek proportions and one of their own making.

AV is an orphan concept—it is unloved by all and cherished by none. No one wants it, and the Conservatives, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said very well, prefer first past the post. They do not want any change. Many of my Labour colleagues, like me, were rather unwillingly led to accept it as part of a pre-election matter, but after the general election defeat they no longer feel any obligation to support it. The Liberal Democrats do not want it; they prefer a full multi-member system. For them, therefore, AV is second best and of course ultimately the electorate will reject it.

The debate is, in part, about the Liberal Democrats’ towering obsession with constitutional reform. It is, for them, an all-pervading priority and they are willing to dump long-held principles for it, whether it be tuition fees, where their leader was going to die in a ditch, or welfare reform and housing benefit. If one were asked to say which policy has been most distinctive for the Liberals over the past decades, it has surely been a devotion to the European Union, yet the Liberal Democrats appear willing to abandon even that, as they have tamely accepted the EU sovereignty Bill, which is populist and against all their instincts. It is designed to block possible changes in the European Union—even those, such as matters relating to QMV, which are manifestly in the UK’s national interests. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats appear willing to yield most of the field to the Conservatives to achieve their aim of constitutional reform, which for some, I suppose, is the enduring legacy of Lloyd George.

However, now we come to the Greek tragedy element of this—that the Liberal Democrats will not achieve their aim. They will be left with nothing because, in my judgment, the public will vote against AV. Therefore, all these concessions and the dropping of long-held principles will be in vain, and equally the public will punish them because of the unpopular policies and cuts that they have accepted. That is bound to lead to conflict within their ranks: those in government will wish to keep the trappings of office; the rank and file will feel betrayed. I think there is an old US saying that a platform is something to run on, not to stand on. That is perhaps what has happened with many of the promises made prior to the election.

I have one further thought on AV. There is a real danger that there will be a low turnout in the referendum. The public do not share the obsession with constitutional reform; it is very difficult to motivate people in such areas, as former Members of the other place will confirm; and the Electoral Commission found very low levels of public understanding about voting systems. This does therefore back the argument for at least a threshold in the referendum.

So far as concerns the reduction in the number of constituencies, the Government are determined to press ahead. No amendments were made to the Bill in the other place and there is a whiff of gerrymandering. The number of 600 has clearly been chosen deliberately as the most disadvantageous to the Labour Party. What is the aim if not party advantage? In one sense, the Government have sold the pass in terms of community by recognising the special nature of the two island constituencies. As has just been said very well, what about the Isle of Wight, what about Ynys Mon, and what about other areas with clear community identification? The boundary commissioners will, inevitably, have to divide communities and the disparity should be 10 per cent and not 5 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there will be only one central Boundary Commission. The joy of these local inquiries, as I have witnessed, is that the views of the boundary commissioners can be tested and challenged by local opinion because a central body will not understand the intricacies of local identity. All will be sacrificed on the altar of mathematical correctness and precision. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said, there is a danger of in-and-out communities.

I wish to make two brief points on Wales and they were made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. My old constituency, Swansea East, I know very well. I like to think that I share the prejudices of my community. I was born there, went to school there and went to university there and I am the only member of my family ever to leave there. I know very well all parts of that constituency. Currently, the area is divided into three seats, Swansea East, Swansea West and Gower, each with an electorate of about 60,000. If the electoral quota is to be 76,000, we will have two and a half seats, and how one divides a proud city, composed of a series of villages held together by gossip, into two and a half constituencies I do not know.

On broader Welsh issues, I adopt the concerns of the Select Committee which I quoted earlier and which I shall not quote again, but England will lose about 5 per cent of its seats; Scotland about 16 per cent; and Wales 25 per cent, probably falling from 40 seats to 30. In the past there has been a compact—even in 1832—which meant that Wales was somewhat over represented with 35 Members, but that compact has now been broken. Welsh weight at Westminster will be reduced and very possibly encouragement will be given to separatists by the so-called unionist party.

Finally, the government juggernaut has moved on from the other place to the House of Lords. There has been no amendment. When I lecture to schools about this place, I talk about the traditional role of this Chamber as being a chamber for second thoughts and for thinking again, based on the fact that no one party holds a majority. The fact of the coalition has overturned that presumption—a safe majority now, as we saw in last week’s debate, which is to be increased within a few weeks by the new coalition appointments. In my judgment, this is a bad day for democracy.

23:24

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, this Bill is a serious disappointment to me too. I think there is a need for constitutional reform and I have campaigned for such reform over many years. It needs more careful consideration than that which has produced this Bill. I have always believed that the public should play an active part in choosing the kind of reform they want when dealing with the architecture of the political system. This Bill does not trust the general public.

If you believe in representative democracy, it follows that you believe that Parliament should be representative. Yet it is remarkable how efficient our political system has been in placing individuals in key positions of power who simply do not accept that argument or come up with convoluted arguments for how, magically, first past the post delivers representative democracy.

You can look at any election over the past 30 years and see the distortions at work. With only a third of the votes, a political party can win an overwhelming majority in this country. To make it clear that I am not being partisan, I shall use an example where it was my party that was the beneficiary, but it can work in different directions. In 2005, six voters in 10 supported parties other than Labour, yet Labour won six in 10 of the seats in the House of Commons. My party was the beneficiary on that occasion, but was it fair? Only 35 per cent of those who voted cast their ballot for Labour. More people abstained than voted for the party that came to govern with a majority of 60. A system which can deliver such a result cannot be described as rational or fair.

What shocks me is that members of the Conservative Party still refuse to see the urgency of changing the voting system, because they hope that, next time, the unfairness of the system will work in their favour. I say to the Liberal Democrats across the way that they may at the moment be enjoying their period in the sun, but the reforms in the Bill will not work to their advantage in the long run.

When research was conducted into why people are not voting in the numbers that they once did—we should not be happy that only 60 per cent, and sometimes less, of the people who could vote do vote—the reasons were not about apathy, or about people feeling contented with their lot, as some people will tell you. Those explanations are wide of the mark. The explanations are much more complex. When you are gathering evidence on this, people say that they do not feel that there is any point in voting because, in their constituency, the same party always wins, so what is the point of voting? That is a constant refrain. They also feel that they are not being listened to; they have little choice; and they distrust a political system where politicians say one thing but do the opposite. I urge that on the Liberal Democrats at this moment, where people are feeling strongly about student fees and other things. People are becoming increasingly aware of the unfairness of the system. It is not, as one of my noble friends has suggested, that people know where they are with the system as it is. They do not, and that is one of the reasons why many are not voting.

The membership of our House of Commons should in some way reflect the way that votes are cast, so that people feel that there is a purpose in voting, even in a safe seat. Indeed, the very idea of a safe seat should be rattled. In the 21st century, we should be moving from majoritarian to pluralist democracy. It has been mentioned already that we get only one chance for certain kinds of reform in a generation, and we could easily be missing a very important opportunity here. The alternative vote system is not proportionate, as so many people have said. Indeed, the reason why it is being promoted is because it is the least voting reform possible. I support a much more radical change and would like to see a proportionate system. I strongly support the position presented by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Alton, that AV+ or STV would be a far better reform.

I also believe that we are incredibly patronising about the general public, believing that they are incapable of making sensible decisions. They make sensible decisions when they are given good evidence and information. I would be happy for a number of choices to be presented in a referendum, but I would like deliberative processes enriching the discussion, consultation and debate before any such referendum took place.

I recommend that the House look at the work of Helen Margetts, Stuart Weir and Patrick Dunleavy, a group of political scientists already mentioned, who have examined the workings of AV over a long period. They conducted simulations, one in 1992 and another in 1997. In the 1992 simulation, the outcome is changed in 28 constituencies, creating improved proportionality of only 3 per cent, so it will not improve proportionality. In 1992, though, it would have denied John Major his majority. In 1997, Labour would have had an even greater victory, as the Conservatives would have lost a further 55 seats if AV had been in place. Labour would have won 17 more seats and the Liberal Democrats would have doubled their number of seats in the 1997 election. In 2005, Labour's majority would have been even greater than it was despite the low turnout and despite the fact that it got only 34 or 35 per cent of the vote. So the research shows that AV can exaggerate outcomes, particularly where comparatively few people go to the polls. When you have a low turnout, you get these exaggerated results, so we should not regard AV as a satisfactory way to move forward with reform.

However, it is still better than first past the post, and if push comes to shove I will end up voting for it. I think that it might concentrate political minds on the importance of getting the vote out, and I think it will stop many candidates falling into complacency and overconfidence about winning, which is no bad thing. But I am not sure that we can say that this is the start of a journey towards a better system. I hope it will be.

Constitutional change has to be holistic. Consideration of any reform of the electoral system of the House of Commons has to be part of a bigger picture. If the House of Commons is being looked at with regard to constituency boundaries, should we not have considered reducing the size much more considerably than is being done here, down to 600? If we had gone down to a lower figure, we might have found that it did not have that whiff of the numbers being chosen to advantage particular parties.

The other factor which has been raised by many other speakers is the concern about holding the Executive to account. This is one of the concerns expressed generally about recent failures in our political system. The payroll vote is now far too large, and it will be even more disproportionate when the size of the House is reduced as recommended here. We should be concerned about that. It is an important element that we should have in mind in any period of reform.

I also think that we should be concerned about this business of reforming the constituencies without communities having the opportunity to argue their case for keeping things as they are. It is an issue of principle that people should be involved in that. People in an area may well feel that they value their community of interest more than they do having a greater voice. It is important that we should have that in mind. A failure to give people the opportunity to be heard on this would disappoint many across the country. I also think that we are risking the disfranchising of large numbers of poor people in our inner cities. I hope that there will be some rethinking in the weeks to come.

This reform has all the hallmarks of a reform that consolidates old inequities and could add new unfairness. Constitutional reform is important. It is too important to be gone at in a way that will ultimately undermine trust. That is the risk that we are currently taking.

23:33

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Kennedy about the importance of being deliberate in approaching constitutional reform and not rushing at it pell-mell. I think that we are making a lot of mistakes. I do not disagree on some of these issues, such as equalisation; but because of the way in which it is being done, it has all the hallmarks of being a first-class mess.

I think there is widespread agreement on the importance of the constituency link, which is fundamental. One of the key challenges in our politics is to improve the relationship between MPs and the people they represent. I judge this Bill, at least partly, in terms of whether it succeeds in improving that position, and I contend that it does not.

I do not want to spend my time talking about the merits or demerits of AV except to say that AV does keep the constituency link. In assessing the effect of AV or any other change, it is no good looking at it statically; one has to look at the dynamic effects of a change in our voting system as well. I believe that some of the issues to do with AV are a result of the fact that there will be a dynamic effect which is harder to calculate, but which I am sure will be there.

However, to go back to the heart of the Bill, as other noble Lords have said, it is very difficult to reconcile reducing the number of MPs in the Commons with increasing the membership in this place. We will have other chances to debate that, but it seems to me that it is an indication of how badly things have been thought out.

Let me turn to the referendum in particular. I am concerned, as are other noble Lords, that the referendum is to be held on the same day as local or devolved elections. It is difficult to see how the campaigns will go. If all the attention in, say, Scotland, is on getting a majority in the Scottish Parliament, the arguments in favour of the referendum taking place at all and its content will be swept aside. However, there is another difficulty that has not been mentioned which is that it is likely that where there is a hotly contested election—I think it will be in Scotland—turnout will be higher, which will pull up the turnout in the referendum, even if people have no particular interest in it. Contrast that with what will happen in areas where there are no local elections—I believe London is one of them—where the turnout will be lower. We will have a very skewed result for the referendum. There will be a high turnout in some parts of the country and a low turnout in others, which will make a nonsense of trying to evaluate the result. It is not right as an approach.

I agree that the timing is far too tight. The Electoral Commission has said that it is just about okay, but if there is any slippage, it will spell doom for having a properly conducted referendum. I therefore agree with those who have suggested splitting the Bill in two and dealing with one part first and then the other. I fear that it has not been thought through very well and all the signs are that we are going to get ourselves into some difficulties.

I am very concerned that there has been no consultation on these proposals, especially with the devolved Administrations. Nobody has mentioned Northern Ireland yet. If the devolved Administrations are all unhappy about the referendum being on the same day, they should be listened to. It is important because they are the people who know what is going on on the ground.

There is something anomalous in the fact that Members of this House can vote in a referendum that will determine how the next general election is to be conducted, even though we do not have a vote in that general election. It is ridiculous. I think there is a way of moving an amendment to the Bill that will sort that out, and I trust it will have widespread support. However, people have died for the right to vote. The suffragettes campaigned for years for the right to vote. Some Members of this House say, “Oh, it’s not important whether we have the right to vote or not”. Since I have been in this House—and it is a privilege to be here—every time there has been a general election, I have felt a real twinge of unhappiness that I could not vote, even though I was shepherding voters to the polling stations in the constituencies where I was helping. I think there is something wrong in principle. If we are going to give prisoners a vote, it will leave us even more out on a limb. The people of this country are not going to demonstrate in Parliament Square to give us the right to vote, but I think it matters and represents an important point of principle.

I move on to the plans to reduce the number of MPs to 600. I made a gesture earlier on that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, thought was a comment but, frankly, there has been no argument at all about why it is 600, except the view that looking at it, it will damage the Labour Party and the Conservatives will gain. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is shaking his head, but the fact is that if one took an average between the Conservative plans to reduce the Commons and the Lib Dem plans, we would have had an even lower figure. There is no logic to this, except that 600 is a figure that somebody thought of. It is too arbitrary for us to be happy about it, and unless there is a reduction in the size of the Executive, it will simply mean that an even larger proportion of the Commons will be on the payroll.

The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, mentioned the Isle of Wight. My mother lived there for a time, so I know it fairly well. However, it is not just the Isle of Wight; there are also serious concerns in Cornwall, Cumbria and many other parts of the country that the sense of local community will be damaged. I think that that is absolutely crucial. Anyone who has represented people, whether at a parliamentary level or at local government level, will know that the local community is crucial. It is the bedrock of our political system, and the bedrock of the relationship between elected politicians and local people. I contend that under the Government’s timetable, there would be very little time at a local level for the parties to prepare for boundary changes. Anyone who has been a constituency MP and has gone through the agony of boundary changes will know how everything gets upset. The local parties have to be reorganised. One’s whole political sense of who one represents is altered if there are significant boundary changes. In 1983, I went through it in Battersea and I had to contest the seat against a candidate from the other part of the constituency. There is a lot of turmoil and difficulty.

Eighteen months is barely time for the local parties to sort out any changes. If by some chance there were to be an earlier general election, say one year earlier, there would be only six months in which to sort things out, which is patently ridiculous. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has fought elections—no doubt, he probably has—but I am sure that some members of the Government have not. I say to those people that it is not workable. The local constituency party associations need time to sort out the effects of boundary changes, which will be much more dramatic and widespread. Because they will bear little relationship to existing communities, they will be even harder to manage. It will be hard to ask local parties to do it and to ask local communities to accept it.

The Government have not thought this through. The Bill has all the hallmarks of a Bill which was rushed in because they said, “We have got some deadlines. Anyway, there is no legislation, so we have to find something to fill this long time”. After all, we have had no legislation in this House pretty well since the election, except for the Public Bodies Bill, which has been an equally botched effort. I just wish that the Government would say, “Let’s slow down on this. Let’s think this through. Let’s consult on it”. We would end up with a better system than we will get now.

23:41

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, it is not my wish to block legislation that has come out of the House which I served for more than 30 years. But I think that I am entitled to make some constructive criticism, perhaps in the form of amendments. I was interested when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who brought back memories. It was very commendable of him when he had to sign the Boundary Commission report and get it put down on the Floor of the House for debate knowing that it would cause great difficulty for his local constituency. I remember a Conservative MP, Phil Gallie, who always fought his corner for the Conservative Party. The boys, like myself, and the girls who sat under the Gangway used to have some banter with him.

Doonfoot is a community I know well. I think it would be safe to say that it was a traditionally Conservative area. It was put into South Ayrshire, which was at that time the constituency held by George Foulkes, now my noble friend Lord Foulkes. That meant that Phil was fighting a seat that would go from Conservative to Labour. No words of bitterness or rancour came from Phil Gallie. He took it with dignity when he lost the seat, and everyone admired and respected him.

My noble friend Lord Dubs touched on the problems of boundary changes. We should forget about reviews every five years. I would like to see an amendment to make it eight years. We have done a great deal in this House to educate young people. I do not know a noble Lord who would refuse to go along to a school or college to talk to children and young people about the value of serving their country in politics. That goes for the other place.

I was asked whether I would go to Northern Ireland to speak and I said, “Of course I will. We are talking to young people”. I remember my noble friend Lord Healey saying, “You know Michael, our generation neglected our young people. We had to spend six years in the war and those of us who were lucky enough to get back wanted to get on with our own careers. We forgot about going into colleges and universities and schools because we wanted to get on with our lives”. It meant that people felt then that politicians were too far apart from them.

When I was asked to try for the nomination for my old seat of Glasgow Springburn, the first thing I did was sit down with my wife Mary and talk about it. I remember her saying, “Michael, your father was a merchant seaman and your mother told all her boys and her daughter never to take a job away from home”. I said, “Mary, I am not going to win the nomination”. I won by one vote, and to this day Mary says that I knew I was going to win, but I did not know, and that is the way it turned out. But Mary and I did not need to up sticks and get our children into another school or move to another part of the country. The culture I am so proud of and wanted my children to be brought up in would be different.

Some of the many Members of Parliament who came in with me in 1979 came from Edinburgh and had been fortunate enough to win English seats. The whole family would move and change jobs because they had to bed themselves into the new communities they were representing. With five-year Parliaments and five-year boundary reviews, if a young couple in the same position that Mary and I were in 35 years ago were asking whether to go for a nomination, they might say no, especially women being encouraged to come in to Parliament. They would see that they were doing well in their careers, but would have to leave to serve for one term. It is one thing to take a chance with the electorate, but you will have to take your chances with the boundary commissioners as well.

I know what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was talking about when he mentioned the difficult situation where two seats are merged and two Members of Parliament have to go to selection conferences. Frank Dobson is still down at the other end, but Jock Stallard came into this House and served it well. It was a great pity that those two parliamentarians had to fight it out for one seat. We are going to get that every five years. If you go for eight years, at least people will say, “The chances are that we will get 10 years out of this Parliament, so why not try for it?”. But let me say that when the Boundary Commission has finished, the fun starts because the new boundary has been taken up.

An MP might have two wards that he has his eye on, but his adjoining neighbour might think they belong to him. When I was Speaker in the other place, I had to hold the jackets over a dispute about sending out leaflets. Someone would say, “Those two wards are going to be mine under the new boundary review, so I want to put leaflets out”. I will have to check Hansard, but I recall making a Statement from the Chair to say, “Look, Members of Parliament in this House represent their old boundaries, not the new ones that the boundary commissioners have produced”. That kind of fighting is going to get worse because if a Member of Parliament takes on a ministerial job in those circumstances, they will have to be in their department on a Friday. But the adjoining neighbour has none of those responsibilities. I know who is going to turn up at the Women’s Institute, the Union of Catholic Mothers and the bowling club. They will ask, “Where’s Michael?”, and the answer will be, “Oh, he’s awful busy. He’s a Minister and he can’t make it”. There will not be a word said against the colleague, but a hint will be put out that if you get me under the new boundaries, I will be your man. I do not want to know about being a Minister.

I have many friends in the Liberal Party, but maybe the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, could pass the word along. Sound bites fall off the tongue, and the sound bite is this: no one should have a job for life. The implication is that no one should have a safe Labour seat. It has been said a few times tonight that nobody should have such a thing as a safe Labour, Conservative or Liberal seat.

When I represented Glasgow Springburn, I always cringed when someone said, “You’re all right, Michael, you’ve got a safe Labour seat”. I worked just as hard to ensure that my electorate were well looked after as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his marginal constituency. The worst thing that anyone can do is take their electorate for granted. The only branch of Marks & Spencer that could beat the store in Argyle Street was the one at Marble Arch. I can remember the manager, Aubrey Green, saying, “If a customer says to one of my assistants that he or she is displeased about the service or the product, I want that customer to come in for a coffee and a chat about why they are displeased”. This was a very successful company and yet he had it in mind that that one customer fitted the parable of the lost sheep. That was the view I took about my constituents regardless of the majority that I had.

I know that the night is getting on and that other noble Lords wish to speak. All I can say about public inquiries is that they are very fair. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that I went to a public inquiry which was held in Glasgow in about 1981 in preparation for the 1983 election. The people who turned up there came from every walk of life, some of them with no political axe to grind. Scotland would have lost a seat had we not put our argument—which was accepted—to the Boundary Commission. It was not a case of QCs arguing in front of another QC, the inquiry chairman, but of men and women coming from their communities and saying, “This should not happen and this is why we wish to give evidence”. So inquiries are worthwhile. Sometimes when inquiries were lost and the person or the party did not win their case, they always went away feeling that they had had a good hearing. That is very important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Adams, mentioned Argyll and the islands of Jura and Islay. I advise noble Lords to visit the area, particularly Islay. I am a teetotaller but it has some lovely distilleries there if anyone likes a whisky. It is a widely spread out area. However, on the mainland, if the Member of Parliament representing Galloway arrives at Glasgow airport, he will have to travel further south than Carlisle in order to get to the Mull of Galloway; and to get from the Mull of Galloway to Carlisle is a job and a half because in some of these isolated places there are only one-track roads. Consideration should be given to these communities.

23:54

[Lord Plant of Highfield]

My Lords, I want to concentrate my remarks on the proposals for voting reform. I agree with the criticisms of the rest of the Bill as set out by many noble Lords, particularly by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and put crisply by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. However, I shall leave that on one side and concentrate on the issue of the referendum and electoral reform.

If there is going to be a referendum there obviously needs to be a case for reconsidering the voting system, and that case has to be set out in terms of looking at wider social and political change. Usually, the considerations adduced by reformers cover some of the following issues. First, they claim that we live in a more diverse society but that that diversity is not properly reflected in Parliament. This argument is used mainly by those in favour of a form of proportional representation. There is also—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke powerfully on this from his experience in Liverpool—a sense of alienation from politics. It is not entirely clear to me that the voting system is necessarily the best solvent of that alienation, but I am pretty sure that that sense exists and we need to be alert to it—perhaps the voting system can play some part in ameliorating it.

The third point that is often made is that people have lost a lot of confidence in the effectiveness of political processes and perhaps look to civil society organisations in particular as an alternative to political involvement and even voting. It is certainly true that many civil society organisations have much larger memberships than political parties. I think that I am right in saying, although I would not want to go to the stake over it, that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more members than all the political parties in Great Britain and Northern Ireland put together.

There has also been a sharp decline over the years in party identification and party loyalty. People vote far more instrumentally now. First past the post in a largely two-party system was a good vehicle for mobilising party identification and party loyalty. However, if people vote more instrumentally and in a multiparty system, that feature of first past the post seems far less salient. In addition, it is argued that first past the post has worked well enough in a two-and-a-half-party system, but we no longer have such a system. The Lib Dems no longer fit in a telephone box or a taxi—the party is larger than that—and we have the growth of the nationalist parties as well. We no longer have that kind of two-and-a-half-party system in which first past the post worked effectively.

It is argued that first past the post has often been supported by the doctrine of the mandate: a single party would be elected under first past the post and would have the right to carry out its mandate. However, this idea of the mandate and the right to carry it out in full has been eroded by the declining percentage of people supporting the successful party at an election, which was a point made very effectively by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. The doctrine of the mandate is less secure if a governing party gets a substantial majority of seats from a very low percentage of the vote.

Some people have said that first past the post was good at preserving a sense of political identity and differentiation. There would be a Conservative Party, a socialist or social democratic party and a Liberal Party and this sort of differentiation between parties, which fitted in with first-past-the-post politics rather well, mobilised party members and offered clear-cut alternatives to the voters. However, the criticism is—there is a lot of academic evidence on this—that the winner-takes-all system, which first past the post is, gives parties a strong incentive to move towards the position of the median voter or, to put it more colloquially, the centre ground. This has clearly happened. It has happened since 1982 with the Labour Party and the invention of new Labour as a vehicle for getting to the centre ground. It has also happened with the Conservative Party since 1997. The idea has been attributed to the Prime Minister, although I do not know whether he used the exact phrase, about detoxifying the Conservative brand. That is because of the pressure to move towards the centre ground for which the winner-takes-all system provides the incentive.

The struggle is now over the middle ground and not ideological purity, whereas first past the post was a kind of defence of ideological identity. The expenses scandal in the House of Commons has weakened the authority of that House, which is not helped by the fact that many MPs, as critics say, are elected on much less than 50 per cent of the vote. Perhaps the final point in favour of some kind of consideration of the electoral system is one not often put, but is quite a powerful one. In a position where we are likely to be devolving more power to the devolved Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales, it is very important to increase the authority of the House of Commons and of Members of Parliament within it, as the national Parliament. If people elected in the devolved bodies are seen to have greater legitimacy compared with MPs in the national Parliament, we are in for some problems.

Let us assume for a moment that these are good reasons to re-examine the electoral system and consult people, should the choice be between first past the post and AV. There is a case for saying that it should be a broader choice, because both first past the post and AV are majoritarian systems, whereas many criticisms of first past the post embody the idea that representation should be more proportional. Yet there is no guarantee at all, and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, that AV would produce more proportional outcomes. There is a case for saying that the choice should be between a majoritarian principle and a proportional one or between two majoritarian systems like first past the post and AV, with the option of a proportional system. But of course that makes any referendum far more complex and the results of it much more difficult to determine.

AV is more pluralistic than first past the post, which allows the elector to choose more widely, should he or she wish to do so. While being pluralistic, it is also more consensual, which I suppose is an advantage to it, and it preserves the constituency link, which in the light of the expenses scandal is a very effective form of political accountability, to the electorate and not just to the party. Of course, it makes coalition government much more likely, but the pressures from the media in particular at an election run on those lines would be such as to require political parties to indicate before the election what their preferred coalition partners would be. That would make the whole process of forming coalitions, if they were indicated by the results, much more transparent and open.

It is sometimes said that one great advantage of first past the post is that it creates strong government, and no doubt it does. We can all think of examples over the years where governments have acted in a very strong and decisive way, but it is not necessarily the same thing as effective government, whereby a decision sticks and has wide consent behind it. There is nothing particularly partisan about this; the Suez invasion, the poll tax and the Iraq war were examples of strong government, but I am not sure that they were clear examples of effective government. It would be absurd to say that Germany, which has a coalition, has not had effective government over the whole time of its existence as a federal republic. So we need to be wary of assuming that single-party government is the same thing as effective government. If we have this referendum and it goes in favour of the alternative vote or if there is a proportional option on the agenda, we have to accept that coalition will become the norm and not the exception. We would therefore need to think much more clearly about the processes of coalition formation, rather than the protracted and not very edifying experience that we had earlier this year.

12:05

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, in a few hours I am catching a train back to Hull because I am teaching in the morning before returning tomorrow afternoon. I mention that because I have just worked out that I will have a bigger audience in my seminar in the morning than I have here this evening.

As various speakers have noted, this measure is two Bills in one. I deprecated the practice of the previous Government of bringing forward omnibus Bills and I do not endorse its continuation under the present one. I shall address the two parts of the Bill. I start with two overarching concerns, the first of which has been variously mentioned this evening. Unrelated to the merits of the particular proposals, it is the speed with which the Bill has been brought forward. As the Constitution Committee has noted in its report on the Bill, and I declare an interest as a member of that committee, it is to be regretted that there was not time for consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny. I know there are reasons why Bills cannot always be subject to such scrutiny, not least in the first Session of a new Parliament under a new Government, but Bills in such a situation have usually been contemplated and worked on prior to the general election. In this case, because the government manifesto or programme was a post-election product, there is a somewhat greater case for rigorous scrutiny.

The second concern is the relationship of the Bill, primarily Part 1, to the stated aims of the Government. I am uncertain about how a referendum confined to the alternative vote relates to the principles enunciated by Ministers as underpinning proposals for constitutional change. Voters are to be offered a referendum but on a restricted choice, which derives from a compromise; I understand the politics. My concern is how electors will feel about being offered such a choice. It does not necessarily deliver on the Government’s stated aims, and I have problems with the premise that underpins the proposals for change. Like my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick, I do not accept that our political system is broken. There has been a crisis of confidence, but it has been in politicians rather than the political system. Electing the same people by somewhat different means will not restore confidence. The answer lies in behaviour and not in institutional change. I regard what we are engaged in here as a form of displacement activity.

On Part 1, I have a principled objection to referendums. However, the Government, like their predecessor, do not. As the Constitution Committee notes, if there are to be referendums then reform of the voting system is a constitutional issue that merits being subject to one. However, the proposal raises two basic problems. Reform of or, as is proposed, abolition of the House of Lords is also a major constitutional issue. Why a referendum on one but not the other? The other problem is the provision to give effect to change if more electors vote yes than no. If there is a turnout of only 20 per cent of electors and they split 51 per cent to 49 per cent in favour of change, to what extent can one claim that the change enjoys legitimacy through endorsement by the people? I appreciate that there are problems with thresholds. One has a choice between having some form of threshold, be it in terms of turnout or the proportion of those voting yes, or omitting or amending Clause 8 so that the implementation of a yes vote is not automatic but instead is left to Parliament to determine what to do in the light of the turnout and outcome.

On the second part of the Bill, I shall focus on the reduction in the number of MPs rather than on constituency boundaries. On the provisions for boundary changes, I confine myself to endorsing some of the proposals embodied in the report by the British Academy Policy Centre entitled Drawing a New Constituency Map for the United Kingdom. In particular, I see the case for providing for an extra period of consultation, following publication of representations received in the initial 12-week period, in order for counterobjections to be made, thus following the practice of New Zealand and Australia. I also endorse the proposal for more assistant commissioners to be appointed, not least for dealing with the representations made on boundary proposals.

I turn to Clause 11 and the provision that the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600. I support a reduction in the size of the House of Commons. I chaired the Conservative Party's Commission to Strengthen Parliament, which reported in 2000; my noble friend Lord Forsyth was a member. We were more radical than what is proposed here in terms of numbers, though less ambitious in terms of timing. We favoured a staggered reduction in the number of constituencies. That would give time for not only the Boundary Commission to prepare, but also the parties and the Members themselves.

My noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury introduced a Parliamentary Government Bill in 1999 providing for a staggered reduction over a 20-year period. At the end of that period there would be a House of 400 members. We recommended a staggered reduction resulting in a House of 500. In our view, that would leave us with constituencies that were still quite viable—some MPs already serve their constituents well in seats with electorates in excess of 90,000—and not damage the capacity of the House of Commons to fulfil its functions effectively. Indeed, we believed it could enhance the efficiency of the House, given that we identified the current number as contributing to the strain on the House’s resources. Better resources for fewer Members would, in our view, aid rather than hinder the efficiency of the House. We also took the view, though it may seem counterintuitive, that larger constituencies may facilitate a closer, longer-term relationship between Member and constituents, in that less radical changes would be required to constituency boundaries to take effect of demographic changes.

I accept that there is no magic number. As I say, our view was that a House of 500 could deliver efficiently what is expected of the House of Commons, but one could make a case for a smaller or even a greater reduction. The principal point is that there is a case for reducing the size of the House. However, there is a necessary corollary to such a reduction—that there must be a corresponding reduction in the number of Ministers. Indeed, in our report we argued that there was a case for having fewer Ministers, even if the size of the House of Commons remained unchanged. Various people who gave evidence to our commission, including former Ministers, argued that there were too many Ministers. We recognised that Ministers were seen to be busy people but, as Frank Field put it to us, the amount of work increased to occupy the time made available by Ministers. The case for a reduction in numbers was well put to us by my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, who told us that,

“a decision by an incoming Prime Minister to abolish twenty ministerial posts at different levels would not only be popular but would be followed immediately by an adjustment of workload. The Whips and those who enjoy exercising or receiving patronage would be dismayed, but the benefits would be great”.

A reduction is not only desirable but also essential if the number of MPs is reduced. So far, the Government have resisted attempts to amend the Bill to provide for a reduction proportionate to the reduction in the size of the House. The Minister in the other place, David Heath, argued that the demands of government necessitated the number of Ministers. If my noble friend wishes to argue that when the debate finishes, I will be interested to see what empirical support he is able to provide.

The other argument advanced is that the issue could be considered later and does not need to be addressed in the Bill. I do not accept that argument. I do not regard reducing the size of the House of Commons by almost 10 per cent to be a matter of greater importance than the fundamental relationship between Parliament and the Executive—in this case, between the House of Commons and the part of it that forms the Government. I do not wish to see the Government strengthened through a reduction in the number of MPs. The so-called payroll vote—or rather the jobsworth vote, as it includes unpaid PPSs—is already too large. It will be even more so if the Bill is enacted. I know that providing for a reduction in the number of Ministers in the other place does not then deal with the number of Ministers in this House or with PPSs but that is not an argument for not amending the Bill. There is a compelling case for reducing the number of Ministers and for doing so now, and then for addressing the other elements of patronage. There are too many PPSs, for example, and their independence has been eroded over time, but that fact is not a reason not to move now in respect of the number of Ministers.

When we published our report, the then party leader, William Hague, described it as a route map for a future Conservative Government. I hope the Government will now revisit this issue with some urgency. It is a matter of constitutional significance.

00:15

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, at one point I felt that I would give up on this debate and go home, but I am glad that I stayed. The last two speeches, by the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Norton, bear serious assessment by the Government and by this House. It is regrettable that the Bill before us is very partisan, but it purports to address big issues: the nature of our democracy and the standing of Parliament. We all know that neither of those can be entirely resolved simply by fiddling with the system, but we also know that the system at present neither achieves a democratic result nor improves the standing of our elected representatives.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not have a firm view on what the correct size of the House of Commons should be, and I am a supporter of some form of electoral reform on the grounds that my noble friend Lady Kennedy outlined earlier. However, the Bill is not suitable to address either matter. For example, surely the size of the House of Commons must take account of what other elected representatives exist, both here—when we have reformed this House—and in the devolved Administrations, and the number of councillors that we have. If we look at international comparisons, it is clear that we have roughly the same number of MPs as France and Italy and rather more per head of population than Germany. However, if you take the total number of elected representatives, we have far fewer. Unless you take this big picture into account, there is no answer to the question of how many MPs there should be.

On voting systems, I said that I am in favour of reform, but AV is not my favourite form of reform and I do not believe that it will achieve the objectives that the Liberal Democrats have been pressing on us for many years. AV reinforces swings and, by and large, region by region, reinforces the position of the top two parties. The Liberal Democrats might gain a few seats in the south-west, but in most places they would not gain. If the Bill is being put forward to keep the coalition together or to provide some advantage to the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid that that party’s Members will be seriously disappointed.

One central flaw in the Bill on which I want to concentrate is the way in which its approach to deciding the boundaries and number of MPs will, in effect, sacrifice the concept of community and replace that with one of statistical mean. Ever since the late Earl of Leicester, otherwise known as Simon de Montfort, proposed the model for Parliament that we have followed for most of the past few centuries, Parliament’s representation—or that of its lower House—has been based on the boroughs and shires of this country. They were definable communities that knew where they were. The nation is an aggregation of those communities, and Parliament should be the aggregation of the representatives of those communities.

In one sense, this issue is irrespective of the nature of the voting system. You can have one, two and three-member constituencies—or even subregional constituencies—but the members must come from a definable area where people understand what that community is—as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, and others have underlined in the course of this debate. If we move away from that principle and provide as the overriding principle for setting constituency boundaries a given figure plus or minus 5 per cent, that will override not only the sense of community but other layers of government—in particular local government—and the way in which people approach the political process. Noble Lords have talked about the way in which people became involved in inquiries. That is true in some cases but not so true in others, but people become involved on the basis of the communities in which they operate, whether they belong to voluntary organisations, political parties or churches. All sorts of people turn up to those inquiries because they wish to know who their representative is and how well the community will be represented as a constituency.

Of course the total number of voters in a constituency is important and of course we should not depart dramatically from that except in a few exceptional circumstances, but allowing a variation of 5 per cent is far too tight a definition. A figure of 20 per cent would be closer. The number of voters is not the most important factor either, because the total population of constituencies can differ dramatically from those that are on the register, as other noble Lords have pointed out. Therefore, as well as the numbers on the electoral roll, the boundary commissions should take into account other considerations such as the total population, community identities, local authority boundaries, the views of local individuals and institutions and the whole question of sparsity and accessibility for constituents. Many such issues need to be balanced out. To present this House with a system that has one overriding concept does not serve democracy well and certainly does not serve representative democracy well.

I wish to make two points from a party point of view. First, if you base this issue simply on communities, you may get a distorted aggregate picture but you adjust that by having a proportionate element built in as well, as happens in Scotland and Wales and in the post-war’s most successful democracy in Germany. If we do not do that but base constituencies simply on electoral size, which can change significantly over five years, we will have a situation where—to end up on a slightly cynical note—all parties will have Members of Parliament looking over their shoulder at how their constituency may change. A chicken run will develop and colleagues will fight each other over the nature of boundaries and over seats. In those circumstances, good government will suffer and I suspect that good coalition government will suffer even more.

I plead with the Government to look at the provisions again, both in terms of the principles of democracy and localism that the Government have enunciated and from the point of view of good governance. This Bill matches none of those objectives. I am sure that the House of Lords will give it detailed consideration, but the Government should think again.

00:23

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill]

My Lords, I wish to focus my remarks on Part 2 of the Bill as I am concerned about the proposals to change constituency boundaries and reduce the size of the Commons from 650 to 600 Members. I want to make clear at the outset that I am not against the principle of equality and therefore can see the need for more equal numbers of voters per constituency, but I am worried that the Bill pursues that objective in a partisan and inflexible way, which may do as yet unforeseen damage to our parliamentary system. I also believe that its proposals to cut the number of MPs are not based on a true understanding of the nature of how constituencies work and the way the public engage with their representatives.

I should be interested to hear why the figure of 600 has been chosen as the right number adequately to represent the United Kingdom—it was not a figure suggested in either of the two parties’ manifestos that now form the coalition, nor was it included in the coalition’s programme for government. That is a serious omission because the proposed reduction of 50 seats is the most dramatic shake-up of Parliament since Irish Members were removed from Westminster following the partition of Ireland in 1921.

I believe that this drive to cut the number of MPs somehow diminishes their work. The Commons has not in fact grown disproportionately in recent years. It has increased by only 25 Members—just over 3 per cent—since 1950, but the electorate has increased by 25 per cent over that time. This has dramatically increased the caseload of MPs and I do not believe that fewer MPs will reduce the demand for their services.

This Bill fails to recognise the real work of MPs—not only in Parliament but in their constituencies. MPs are vital to the communities they represent, often as the last port of call for those in severe difficulties in regard to their housing, health, education, anti-social behaviour harassment, immigration status and every other issue where people find themselves up against the brick walls of inflexible bureaucracy. I know of offices that receive an average of 200 e-mails a day on top of the letters, phone calls and face-to-face surgery cases, all asking for their MP’s help.

MPs are often the focal point of community activities, too—the pensioners groups, the school prize giving and the veterans’ fundraising. This surely is the big society at local level. The 7th report of the Select Committee on the Constitution on this Bill, published just last week, shares my concern about the proposals to cut the size of the Commons. In paragraph 29, the committee states:

“We conclude that the Government have not calculated the proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on the basis of any considered assessment of the role and functions of MPs”.

I would urge the Government to think again about reducing the number of MPs.

I would also suggest that more thought be given to the very rigid new rules which the Bill proposes for drawing constituency boundaries. As I said, I am not against the idea of a more equal distribution of voters per constituency; indeed the principle has long been written into the law. However, the inflexible rule that no constituency can be more than 5 per cent above or below the arbitrary figure of 75,800 does not make allowances for natural boundaries, local authority areas or regional and community identities. As a Londoner, I may have difficulties recognising the important differences between Devon and Cornwall, but I am absolutely sure that those living there do not, as my noble friend Lord Myners so eloquently confirmed earlier.

Mention has already been made that more than 3.5 million eligible voters are likely to be missing from the 2010 electoral register. The Electoral Commission says that the missing millions are largely younger, poorer people, ethnic minorities, people living in private rented accommodation, and predominantly located in urban areas. The commission also reported in March that there were 100,000 unregistered voters in Glasgow alone. If they were all counted, the city would warrant at least one extra seat, but that will not happen under this rushed timetable. If these missing millions are ignored in the redrawing of boundaries, it will have a distorting effect on the electoral map and unforeseen social consequences whereby government bodies do not recognise the true nature of the communities they should be supporting with grants per head, and so on. Where these people are not missing is in MPs’ surgeries up and down the country, seeking help, advice and advocacy. Just because they are not on the electoral register does not mean that these people do not exist—they do.

In conclusion, this Bill needs to be revised to make it fairer and more practical. It needs to be more responsive to the level of parliamentary representation that citizens want. It needs to strike a better balance between the speed of a boundary review, the strictness of an adherence to electoral equality, and the strong tradition of public involvement in boundary reviews that underpins the legitimacy of our widely admired system.

12:28

[Lord Jones]

My Lords, if the lecture of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is half as good as his shrewd speech, his lecture room will be full to overcrowded later today. There have been many twists and turns in this debate, and one thing that remains in my mind is the rather elegant point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who said that we are legislating to denude membership of the other place, the House of Commons, while here we are facilitating ever-more overcrowding by receiving and introducing more Barons and Baronesses. I do not think that you should have two Bills in one. This is an error and it may become more obviously an error as the stages of the Bill proceed here in your Lordships' House.

In his wise speech, my noble friend Lord Plant referred to the advance of the nationalist parties. I find it astounding that they are in office in Belfast, in Cardiff and in Edinburgh—and rather speedily so. Perhaps that reflects discontent with some processes, but I will not argue strongly on that point at this hour of the day.

To debit 10 seats from Wales's parliamentary account is unjust. Wales's MPs do a sound job of propelling Wales's needs to the forefront of proceedings in the mother of Parliaments. We are talking of Wales's parliamentary birthright. Our people in the constituencies look to their MPs for help. They get it—and they get it in the constituencies. The modern MP of whatever party gives constant service to the underprivileged, to the poor and to local groups and bodies who make their often bewildered and exasperated way to advice bureaux and MPs’ surgeries. This is not the time to denude Wales of Westminster champions. Throughout the debate, the sense of community has been heavily emphasised. I would be dismayed to see the two Flintshire parliamentary seats hacked about: that would not be a good thing.

Westminster too often legislates first and later picks up the unintended consequences of careless, hasty legislation. Our contemporary parliamentary history is littered with depressing examples of legislative mistakes. I suggest a pause for thought and a rethink—in this instance, to Wales's advantage. To the coalition, perhaps, the concepts of the Bill are beguiling, but in the cold light of day, despite this miserable hour, it is clear that Wales needs every Member of Parliament that it has. The economy of Wales is under major pressure. The society of Wales is undergoing rapid change. We should draw back from striking out 10 Members. Now is not the time to shrink the Welsh parliamentary forces.

12:32

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have stayed here for so long to enjoy my two and a half minutes of fame in this debate. The bad news is that, having already missed my last train, I might as well stay here and speak until at least three o’clock in the morning, or until whenever the café downstairs opens for breakfast.

I have enjoyed much of the debate so far. In terms of the Bill generally, I agree absolutely with the idea of reducing the size of the House of Commons. I have never been a Member of that particular House of Parliament, although I have been a Member of another Parliament. However, it seems to me that, as has been said, a reduction to 600 MPs may be rather modest. I should have thought that reducing the number to 500, staged in the manner suggested by my noble friend Lord Norton, would be a good approach to the issue, although that is not really the matter on which I wanted to speak.

One thing that comes out of the Bill is that there are a number of electoral commissions in the United Kingdom and, because of that, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will not have the problem of parliamentary constituencies crossing those boundaries.

I want to come back to the issue of natural communities, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Myners, and the opposition Front Bench. Although I believe that constituencies should be roughly the same size, as that is important for electoral democracy and equity, I do not think that the notion should be so firmly adhered to that it destroys or breaks away from natural communities. That is why, as someone who lives in Cornwall, I would also support a limited change to the second part of the Bill so as to allow some of those natural communities to be represented properly. I agree with my noble friend Lord Oakeshott about the Isle of Wight—that seems to be a sensible proposition—and it seems that a proper case can also be put with regard to Ynys Mon in Wales, as well as some additional ones in Scotland.

I thought it was a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, brought a very party-political angle to the Cornish issue. If he were here—unfortunately, he is not in his place at the moment—I would say to him, as someone who co-ordinated the Keep Cornwall Whole campaign in Cornwall, that that campaign goes across all political parties, including the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party, Mebyon Kernow and the Greens. We are united in trying to protect the boundary of the Tamar and therefore its historical, cultural and community regions. That is something that I would like to bring forward in amendments to the Bill as it progresses through Committee.

With regard to referenda and electoral change, I say “Bring it on”. It is time that we changed the way that the country votes for its Members of Parliament. How can I as a democrat argue against giving the people that choice rather than just parliamentarians? Let us reduce the number of parliamentarians and spread power down through national Assemblies and national Parliaments and to principal local authorities. I speak as a member of the unitary authority of Cornwall.

I shall finish there. It is time that we all had our cocoa, headed for the trains and went to bed before resuming this stimulating debate tomorrow. I rest my case.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.

House adjourned at 12.37 am.