House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Kramer
Introduction: Baroness Wheatcroft
Introduction: Lord Lexden
Deaths of Members: Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, I regret that I have to inform the House of the recent deaths of the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I pay tribute to Lord Windlesham, who died on Tuesday 21 December, aged 78. We remember him today principally in light of his role as Leader of your Lordships’ House from June 1973 until February 1974, but his was a career so much more than those turbulent and testing eight months. He was a man whose great qualities needed no titles to shine through. He achieved a great deal in public life, but he was admired more than anything else for his quiet, tactful and sympathetic understanding of the people and the issues that surrounded him. A liberal in character and a Conservative in party, he was not afraid to be independent minded, even if that at times set him against those of his party.
Lord Windlesham was educated at Ampleforth and Trinity College, Oxford, where he read law. He was commissioned in the Grenadier Guards—his father’s regiment—for national service, yet on graduation he soon found a passion for politics sitting side by side with a career in television. In the general election of 1959, he stood unsuccessfully as the Conservative candidate in the Tottenham seat. The tragic and unexpected death of his father—the second Lord Windlesham—in 1962 changed the trajectory of his political career and deprived the Commons of what clearly would have been one of its youngest and brightest stars. As has often been the case, their loss was our considerable gain.
Taking his seat as the third Baron Windlesham, and ever with an eye towards the topical and yet enduring questions of government, he made his maiden speech in this House on the subject of reform by supporting Tony Benn’s desire to renounce his peerage and remain in the Commons. It was not without irony, therefore, that after further reform in the 1990s and towards the end of his own career, Lord Windlesham was made a life Peer in order that he might continue to bring his considerable expertise to the service of the nation.
As Minister at the Home Office between 1970 and 1972, Lord Windlesham took responsibility for the penal system against the backdrop of a rising prison population. He handled both the Immigration Bill and the Industrial Relations Bill with calm efficiency and considerable charm, as it was then said. At the newly created Northern Ireland Office, from 1972 to 1973, his appointment as the first statutory Catholic to hold ministerial office for the Province at a time of rising tension was described as “inspired” and his way of business “even-handed”.
Thereafter, as Leader of this House and Lord Privy Seal, until the Conservative Government fell in February 1974, Lord Windlesham was the youngest Leader since Lord Grenville in 1790. Lord Windlesham brought a quiet, authoritative manner to the handling of important and often difficult business. A safe and steady pair of hands, courteous and precise, brave and yet never over-reaching, he stood by his Prime Minister, his party and his country during some of their toughest times.
Lord Windlesham continued to lead the Opposition in the Lords until the second election of 1974, whereafter he resigned the post and again turned his attention to television as managing director of ATV. In 1982, he was appointed chairman of the Parole Board, which meant more often than not defending a system that was under much criticism. In 1988, he found himself in a similarly criticised position, when he was caught between the political establishment and television documentary makers. His independent inquiry into the factual accuracy of Thames TV’s “This Week” investigation into the shooting of three members of the IRA in Gibraltar prompted disagreement with No. 10 but won the support of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
David Windlesham mixed in equal measure a keen sense of public service with an independent, liberal and fair mind. He was generous in spirit and firm in purpose. His political instincts and his media skill would not have looked out of place in a modern-day Administration. His understanding of many of the challenges that Governments of all ages continue to face was acute and will be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this sad time. They and we have lost a great man and a great friend.
My Lords, although precedent may not provide for this as such, it also seems right at this time to pay tribute to Lord Strabolgi, who died on 24 December, aged 96. He was the 11th Baron. He succeeded his father as long ago as 1953, and during Wilson’s first Government became a PPS at the Home Office and then, in 1969, PPS to Lord Shepherd as Leader of the House. After a spell as an opposition Whip in 1974 he became government Deputy Chief Whip, tasked with getting difficult and controversial business through the House. Back again in opposition, he became arts spokesman—a role that he relished—and, in 1986, Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman, positions that he held until 2001, having been elected a hereditary Peer in 1999.
Lord Strabolgi seemed in so many ways part of the fixtures and fittings of this House. It may have taken him a while to get from the top of the stairs to the Chamber, but it was at least in part to greet his many friends from all round the House. Lord Strabolgi was a Labour man through and through. He took his party politics seriously but that was always without rancour. He was a dedicated attender and was in the House two days before he died. We send our condolences to his family and pay tribute to the extraordinary example of service and humanity which the late Lord Strabolgi leaves us.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the House, and to the Leader of the House, for this opportunity to say a few words about Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi—two very fine servants of your Lordships’ House. David Windlesham had a remarkable number of distinguished careers: in the media, in both production and management; in academia in Oxford, especially at Brasenose College; and in government, particularly at the Home Office. But of course his period in this House was equally as distinguished. I have had the honour to do just one of the jobs that he undertook, as Leader of this House, and I pay tribute to the work that he did. To be Leader of your Lordships’ House is both an enormous privilege and an exacting task, and Lord Windlesham carried out his role in this Chamber in an exemplary way.
To be a Member of your Lordships’ House is a great privilege. To be a Member for any length of time extends that privilege enormously. To be a Member for 56 years, as David Strabolgi was—as an active and assiduous Member—is quite extraordinary. David served this House well. His long service as a Deputy Speaker in your Lordships’ House reflects that and it reflects the esteem, respect and popularity in which he was held by all sides of this House. He served these Benches well too. He held firm political convictions. He served in Labour Administrations in the 1960s and 1970s, and on the opposition Front Bench in the 1980s.
Entirely coincidentally, we held a little party in my room here for David just a few weeks before his death, to mark his 96th birthday, and in the words that he spoke to us on that occasion his commitment to these Benches and to our party’s values was as clear as his commitment to the House as a whole. David also contributed much to wider society, especially in relation to the arts. He was a painter and had a studio in Paris shortly before the war. He also contributed much to Franco-British relations.
This House has lost two very fine Members who were very fine servants of their own parties. Both will be missed on their respective Benches but it is a tribute to them both that they will also be much missed on all sides of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, we associate this side of the House with the tributes paid to Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi by the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. The deaths of both distinguished noble Lords will be a considerable loss to your Lordships’ House. Their contributions to political and public life have been unique.
In the case of Lord Strabolgi, we can dispel the suggestion of a retirement age. He had occupied many senior positions during the time that the Labour Party was in opposition and also when he was in the Government. On a more positive note, the noble Lord was born in a Liberal family and had flirted with the Liberals in his political career. The noble Lord died at the age of 96. It is a sad loss and we send our condolences to his family.
Lord Windlesham also had a unique career. He was a very resolute politician. Many of us remember his confrontation with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, at the time of the “Death on the Rock” controversy, but there was also a very gentle side to his character. I first came into contact with him when he was chairman of the Parole Board. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, the then Home Secretary, had set up a commission under Lord Carlisle of Bucklow to review the parole system. Our first witness was Lord Windlesham. He was proud of a system that provided early release of inmates under licence, and many of his suggestions were incorporated into the commission’s final report.
I was always impressed with his contribution in your Lordships’ House on criminal justice matters. The quiet but resolute way that he put his case to improve our prison system was a lesson for many of us. His book, Politics, Punishment and Populism, is a must for all reformers. We join others in sending our condolences to his family and friends.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, on behalf of the Cross Benches, I should like to add to the tributes that have already been paid to the noble Lords. Lord Strabolgi was 96 years old, and his almost 60 years in this House make for quite a record. We will all remember his familiar figure making its slow but determined way through the Corridors of the House. He was immensely kind, courteous and cheerful, and was always immaculately dressed. When he spoke, perhaps because he spoke so rarely, he was listened to with great respect. What shone through for me was his adherence to the principle of independence, his loyalty to the party that he eventually joined and his ability to hit the nail on the head, which was evidence of a very fine mind.
I have always felt somewhat connected to Lord Windlesham by a series of curious coincidences. He lived in the village next door to me; his cousin, who is a dear friend of mine, lives in the same village as I do; and his wife was the aunt of a close friend of mine. However, I never actually met him until I got to this House. We have heard that he had a distinguished career in various ministries and as principal of Brasenose College. Although he was a somewhat quiet and reserved man, he should also be remembered for having promoted modest reform of the House of Lords, for which the Cross-Benchers will certainly be quite fond of him and will miss him greatly.
The passing of both noble Lords means that this is a sad time for all of us, but I am sure that they will be remembered by parliamentary historians. They will be greatly missed by us.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, on behalf of the Lords Spiritual, I add my tribute to Lord Windlesham and my condolences to his family. I acknowledge his particular contribution as a Roman Catholic to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. As we have heard, his appointment as Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office was described as “inspired”. Without people like him, the tensions between Catholics and Protestants in that province might be unhappier now than they are. We give thanks for him and for his contribution to the House and to the nation.
I also add, on behalf of the Lords Spiritual, my condolences to those who mourn the death of Lord Strabolgi. Reference has been made to his humanity and his untiring service, and these are qualities that we all should want to emulate. I acknowledge with gratitude in particular his service on the Ecclesiastical Committee. We give thanks also for him.
EU: Budget
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Alloway
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that the expenditure on accounts for the budget signed off by the European Court of Auditors shall be excluded from the contribution imposed on member states.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the UK cannot withhold its contributions to the annual European Union budget as it is required to make those contributions under obligations imposed by the treaties. The European Communities Act 1972, particularly Section 2, gives effect within the UK to Community law.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
I ask the noble Lord in response: since the findings of the Council are subservient to the approval of the Parliament, will the Government now seek change to the Lisbon treaty to enable the European Court of Auditors to oppose expenditure on a reasoned assumption that has the support of the Council of Europe, and so then to sign off the accounts? In other words, will the Government take some step, if not that step?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to a clearly unsatisfactory situation. Year after year, the European accounts cannot get a clean audit opinion. However, it is the Government’s view that the way forward is not to press for treaty changes but to try to make sure that the whole system of accounting is made simpler and clarified. It should concentrate on what is important, and the capabilities of both the European Commission and other agencies—whether at the European level or, particularly, within member states—to manage the money should be enhanced so that we get out of an appalling situation that we do not want to see continue. However, treaty change is not the appropriate vehicle.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, can the Minister think of a better word than “grotesque” to describe the situation whereby the overall supervision of our priceless financial services has been passed to an organisation that, as he has mentioned, has been incapable of getting its own accounts signed off by its internal auditors for 16 years?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I said that the situation in which we find ourselves, with the European accounts not getting a clean audit opinion, is completely unacceptable. The connection between that and the regulation of financial services in Europe is somewhat tenuous. We should focus on ways of improving the budget situation. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already taken steps, both on this year’s budget and by talking about what we expect from the financial framework for the next seven years of the budget. Those are the ways in which we have to move forward determinedly.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, my noble friend says that we have a treaty obligation to pay our contribution to Brussels. Quite so, but surely there is also a treaty obligation to ensure that all EU money is properly spent. Secondly, if Brussels blames the nation states for these financial irregularities, why do we not put pressure on the Commission to name and shame, and then block future payments to, those countries responsible for the fraud and mismanagement?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, there are indeed things that we can do and will consider doing. The Council considers the budget issue in the early months of each year. It is rare—certainly it has not been done in recent years by a UK Government—to vote in Council against waving through the budget without a clean audit opinion. However, as my honourable friend the Economic Secretary has made clear in another place, the Government are ready to use our vote if we see accounts that fail to meet the standards that we think they should. She said in another place:
“If we see accounts that contain points made by the European auditors that we believe the Parliament is not taking on board, we will be ready to use our vote in future to challenge the Commission in a way that the last Government never were”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/10; col. 456.]
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I cannot tell the House that but I am very happy to write with the information. I think that it involves different auditing standards and a different structure but I shall be very happy to confirm that.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, those of us who have been privileged to serve at either end of this Building for the past 15 years have listened to Answers remarkably similar to the one which my noble friend has just given. Will he assure your Lordships’ House that progress is being made to the end which he desires, or are we going to listen to similar Answers for another 15 years?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I sincerely hope that we will not; anyway, I am sure that I will not be here giving those Answers for 15 years. We are making progress: the number of areas of qualification of the budget is going down and the level of fraud has been significantly reduced and is at a very low level, so there are certainly improvements in the detailed audits coming forward. However, that is occurring within a total picture which, I repeat, is not acceptable. We must work towards achieving more progress.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
My Lords, does the Minister agree that many important projects and finances come through our involvement with the European Union which are valuable in areas ranging from agriculture to manufacturing? He should be well aware that, if there is excessive interest in detailed financing and control, it will be very difficult for these projects to operate.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
You just have to listen to all the important manufacturers who find involvement in Europe extremely valuable. I hope the Government will ensure that this support is effective as well as valuable.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we are taking steps—for example, I think that we are one of only three or four countries which voluntarily publish audited statements on the way that co-managed funds are used in the UK. As a country we are doing everything to make the UK accounts as transparent and thoroughly audited as any, and the European Commission has noted that with approval. It is depressing that in agriculture, the largest area of spend, the error rate found by the auditors is going up.
UN Women
Baroness Prosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the launch of UN Women on 1 January, what plans they have to provide a financial contribution to the new agency and when an announcement will be made.
Baroness Northover
The Government welcome the establishment of UN Women and recognise that it has received strong cross-party support. UN Women should help to deliver the development commitments to which Governments signed up at last year’s MDG summit. A decision on all relevant DfID funding commitments will be made when the Government’s multilateral aid review concludes early this year. In the mean time, we have offered UN Women transitional support.
Baroness Prosser
I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree with the research that was conducted by the Department for International Development, which showed that families and communities gain better value from money spent directly on women and girls? Does she therefore agree with me that it would represent a sound investment towards global peace and security if the United Kingdom Government provided financial support to UN Women to at least the level of funding allocated to UNICEF?
Baroness Northover
I pay tribute to what the noble Baroness has done in this field. The Government very much agree with her point that supporting women and girls is central to development, as 70 per cent of those in dire poverty are women but only 30 per cent are men. Therefore, one can see that efforts to redress the balance have not yet worked. A lot more needs to be done, and supporting women and girls is central to that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Will the Minister clarify whether this body replaces the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, on which my noble friend Lady Trumpington and I served—I followed her—and whether it replaces UNIFEM or is an entirely different body? I do not think that many of us are very clear about exactly what this body is.
Baroness Northover
This body takes into itself both those organisations, and others. UNIFEM will operate within it. Because it is clear that the position of women has not been properly addressed, it was decided when reforming the United Nations that this umbrella organisation was required, and that the existing organisations overlapped; they were rather fragmented and needed to be brought together under UN Women—and they will be. That is why this new organisation was supported. There is cross-party support for its development and we very much support its future development.
Lord Chidgey
Does my noble friend agree with international agencies which say that the lessons learnt from conflicts as far away as the Congo and Haiti show that tackling violence against women has to start at the very earliest stages of the relief effort and must form part of an integrated international relief programme? What therefore is the Government’s position on providing this hard-won experience as a model for other agencies to use throughout the world when tackling these emergencies? Will the Government make sure that this new UN women’s agency takes this message forward as part of its programme?
Baroness Northover
UN Women has only just been established and is working out its strategy, but the United Kingdom is on the board of the executive and is therefore helping to develop that strategy. The organisation’s very existence is based upon the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, points to. It is extremely important that the position of women is addressed, particularly where there is conflict. That is increasingly recognised, and we have to make sure that the United Nations and the UK are as effective as possible in addressing those problems.
Lord Boston of Faversham
My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that today is the anniversary of the first sitting—in, I think, 1947—of the United Nations General Assembly? I should perhaps declare an interest as one of your Lordships’ former parliamentary representatives at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Would it be too much to ask whether the noble Baroness has any plans for the UN General Assembly to resume its sittings here in London?
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Lord for that. It would be an interesting development, but I cannot see that it would have universal support. However, I can always feed that suggestion through. It is clearly an extraordinary development that the United Nations exists at all. When one bears in mind the international problems that we face, we need to build on the strengths that the UN already has, make sure that in future it can do even more to resolve international conflict, and ensure that, where there is poverty, it is addressed.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
Does the noble Baroness accept that despite the enormous support that the UN has had, women still work two-thirds of the hours worked across the world, but actually receive only 10 per cent of the income, and that in those circumstances the new agency is very important? If we are to achieve the millennium development goals and see real development, we must have a strong women’s organisation at the UN to drive that. Can she assure us that the Government understand that and are determined that women take their rightful place in negotiations and in the money that is allocated at the UN?
Baroness Northover
I could not agree more. The Government are very seized of that and will certainly take that forward.
Equality: Act of Settlement
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government do not have any plans to amend the Act of Settlement.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as a country, we oppose discrimination on grounds of gender or religion? It is curious, to say the least, that we allow such discrimination to continue in the succession to the Throne. Does he also agree that, given that there is a bar on Roman Catholics, it is odd that there is no bar against Jews, Muslims, Hindus or even atheists? Does he further agree that the matter is of some urgency? If His Royal Highness Prince William and his bride have children, it would be invidious to change the arrangements then. The time to do it is surely now.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I might agree with many of the propositions that the noble Lord has put forward, but as the previous Administration recognised, we are dealing with Acts of Parliament that govern not only us but a number of countries where the Queen is Head of State. For that reason, we have been proceeding with extreme caution.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the central provision for the establishment of the Church of England is that the Sovereign, as Supreme Governor, should join in communion with that church? Does the Minister agree that, unless the Roman Catholic Church is prepared to soften its rules on its members’ involvement with the Church of England, whose orders it regards as null and void, it is hard to see how the Act of Settlement can be changed without paving the way for disestablishment, which, though it might be welcome to some, would be of great concern to many and not just to Anglicans or, indeed, to other Christians?
Lord McNally
My Lords, that intervention shows the wisdom of proceeding with extreme caution on these matters.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, shortly after joining this House more than 10 years ago, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill that was torpedoed very effectively by my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley and which sought to prevent the heir to the Throne marrying a Roman Catholic? The then Government used exactly the same argument, saying that it required countries in which the Queen is Head of State to pass legislation and that they would take the matter forward. It is more than 10 years since that commitment was made. What progress was made and what was done?
Lord McNally
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord down from his mountain in Antarctica. Messages from the mountain top are always welcome. We are talking about an Act that is 300 years old and that has served this country not too badly when one considers the 60 years of religious and communal strife that went before it. Therefore, although 10 years seems a long time, there have been consultations. I thought that, at least in this House, talking of progress in terms of centuries would be much appreciated. As is known, the previous Administration initiated discussions among Commonwealth countries. Those discussions are proceeding under the chairmanship of the New Zealand Government and we will continue to keep the matter under consideration.
Lord Richard
My Lords, I share almost totally the views of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, just told us: that there were apparently discussions with the various countries that recognise the Queen as their Monarch. Can he tell us when the last meeting of those countries was and when the next meeting is going to be, and perhaps give us a gentle glimpse of the agenda?
Lord McNally
I never cease to be amazed at the penetrating way in which the Opposition demand action this day on matters it sat on for 13 years. I have told the noble Lord that the discussions I referred to have not ended; they are ongoing. I shall consult the New Zealand Government, and if they are in a position to let me have that information I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord St John of Fawsley
Perhaps I may ask noble Lords whether they agree that in principle one must support what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, and that one must favour equality for women. As Disraeli said, “I owe everything to women”. I hope that they will remember that at the Garrick. Heaping a coal scuttle of fire on the head of the right reverend Prelate, I say that I hope that we can have an assurance from the Government that they have no intention of excluding or reducing the representation in this House of the Bishops of the Church of England, because it is the national church of the country and that would send entirely the wrong signal from this House.
Lord McNally
That is a matter for another day and another debate. I will settle on the statement made by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who said that the Act of Settlement was,
“discriminatory. I think it will disappear, but I don't want to cause a great fuss”.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, is it not the case that Section 1 of the Act of Settlement 1701 does not specifically proscribe any member of the Catholic faith from succeeding to the Crown? Rather, the wording is that the Crown shall devolve upon:
“The most excellent Princess Sophia Electress”—
who was the mother of George I—
“and the heirs of her body”.
The words “being Protestant” were then added.
Lord McNally
I will not start debating, discussing or challenging the noble Lord’s interpretation of Section 1 of the Act of Settlement 1701. I believe him.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as someone who was born and baptised a Roman Catholic. However, noble Lords will be gratified to know that I have no ambitions at present to succeed to the Throne. Does the Minister not recognise that it is not only an offensive but an anachronistic symbol of division, discrimination and inequality in an age when we are trying to inculcate the opposite in every other aspect of society? If it were sufficient grounds for retaining a law that it had been around for 300 years, we would still be hanging people for stealing sheep and jailing children for stealing bread. Will the Minister make his advice known privately through the Privy Council and government channels that this set of values is incompatible with modern Britain? Before he asks whether I did the same when I was in government, the answer is yes.
Lord McNally
In response to the noble Lord’s introductory remarks, I say that that makes two of us. I also appreciate that some of these matters perhaps cause greater problems in Scotland than elsewhere. I have said, and I think that it is accepted, that there are discussions with the Commonwealth countries. We are conscious that there are anachronisms in the Act, but we still advise the House of the wisdom of proceeding with caution.
Schools: League Tables
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Crosby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider omitting from school league tables children on free school meals or statemented as having special educational needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the Government are committed to giving parents more information rather than less. We want to raise the attainment of the most disadvantaged and lowest attaining pupils, and to report on how schools do in narrowing the attainment gap. We will also support such children through the introduction of the pupil premium, which will be targeted at those on free school meals, many of whom will also have special educational needs.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I thank the Minister for his reply and note that the Secretary of State for Education has recently decided that the judgments in league tables on the passage through GCSE for five subjects is to be tightened up, to ensure that schools choose not the softest subjects but rather the crucial subjects for their children to take. I commend him on that. However, given that schools will be judged on their work with not just the highest flyers but children with the greatest need, I wonder whether it would be wise in the league tables to exclude children with special educational needs from the attempt to measure schools comparatively, and to include a list or proportion of the number of specially educationally disadvantaged children at a school to ensure that head teachers and others do not attempt to escape from their responsibilities.
Lord Hill of Oareford
First, I think everyone in this House agrees on the need to try to narrow the attainment gap. The previous Government did quite a lot of work in that regard, which I am happy to recognise. I recognise the challenge that schools have with special educational needs but, by the same token, many who know far more than I do about the issue would not want to take the step of excluding children with special educational needs from measurement or being treated in the same way as other pupils in the school. More generally, it is important to publish more information about a school’s performance. My noble friend is absolutely right that we need to hold those schools to account for their performance and we think that that is best done by publishing more rather than less information.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Is the Minister aware, as I am sure he is, that when the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, produced her report, she referred to children who needed statements with special educational needs as being approximately 2 to 2.5 per cent of the 20 per cent of children who are not statemented, and should not be, but who have special needs? Is he also aware that many of those are concentrated in schools that have a welcoming atmosphere, and that take on board children with special needs at the risk of those special needs interfering with their attainment? Surely—this applies to all Governments—the ideal is to measure the value added by individual schools rather than merely looking at the attainment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I accept fully the force of that point, and one of the changes that we are keen to make with our new floor standards is to measure both attainment and progression. The previous floor standards had only an attainment measure and we are planning to introduce a progression measure. I accept the force of that entirely. To go back to the previous point, it is clear that children come in all shapes and sizes, and one needs to try to have measures that reflect what a school does to bring out the best in those children, regardless of where they start from.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
Is my noble friend aware that many years ago I worked for the Inner London Education Authority in Hackney, dealing only with children receiving free meals? There was by no means any link between the fact that they received free school meals and their educational ability, and it would be a great mistake to use that as a divining rod of what the results should be.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with that point. On the back of the Question I looked at precisely that area, to try to correlate schools with the number of free-school-meal pupils and the results. A quick look bore out the point made by my noble friend. Mossbourne Academy has 54 per cent of its pupils on free school meals and 72 per cent of those pupils get five A to Cs including English, maths and science.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, at a convenient point after 4 pm my noble friend Lord Howe will repeat a Statement on the review of support for those infected by blood and blood products.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered 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.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
“Committee of Inquiry on Parliamentary constituencies
(1) There shall be a Committee of Inquiry, chaired by a High Court judge, comprising members of both Houses of Parliament, including representatives of the principal political parties in the House of Commons, as well as individuals with no party attachment, and others.
(2) The Committee of Inquiry shall—
(a) review the current rules for conducting Parliamentary boundary reviews (contained in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986) considering in particular— (i) how to address the inequality of constituency sizes;(ii) how to stabilise the size of the House of Commons;(iii) the relative importance of electoral equality against the specific character of individual constituencies, including the rules relating to geographical considerations, local ties and ‘inconveniences’, and the rules on crossing borough and county boundaries; and(iv) make recommendations;(b) examine in this context the question of the optimum size of a constituency taking into account the need to maintain the Union, the proper role of MPs in their constituencies and in Parliament, and the implications for these roles of the responsibilities of other representative bodies including local authorities and the House of Lords, and make recommendations;(c) consider the implications of an optimum size for the House of Commons for an optimum size for the House of Lords, and make recommendations;(d) review the time taken to conduct boundary reviews, particularly in England, and make recommendations;(e) review the alignment between the timing of local and parliamentary boundary reviews to ensure that stable local government electoral boundaries can form the basis for each parliamentary review, and make recommendations;(f) examine the question of a role for keeping the operation of the rules under review and ensuring consistency of approach by the four Parliamentary Boundary Commissions, including monitoring their standards of performance, and make recommendations; and (g) examine the arguments surrounding the statistical basis on which electoral areas are currently constructed, in particular whether the eligible population rather than electoral statistics should be used, and make recommendations.(3) The Committee of Inquiry established under subsection (1) shall report to Parliament annually on its progress, and deliver a final report with recommendations to the Secretary of State within three years of the passing of this Act.
(4) Within 6 months of the Committee of Inquiry’s report the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament, for Parliament’s consideration, a scheme including draft Bills to implement the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry.”
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, perhaps noble Lords would leave as quietly and as quickly as possible, so that we can all hear the noble Lord introduce his amendment.
Lord Wills
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy.
Rather curiously for this House, I support the Bill’s objectives. I support a referendum on the alternative vote system and I support any attempt to make the process of boundary revisions fairer and more efficient. Who could possibly be against any reasonable attempt to cut the cost of politics? However, as I and many other noble Lords have already argued, there are profound flaws in how the Bill proposes to achieve those objectives. The amendment is designed to remedy some of the worst of those flaws in Part 2. It is lengthier than I would have wished, because it sets out to provide a comprehensive solution to those problems, but I would be happy to withdraw it if the Government could give an assurance today that they will find a better way to secure such a solution.
At the heart of Part 2 lie assumptions about the optimum size of the House of Commons, the optimum size of a parliamentary constituency and the process of altering constituency boundaries. Those issues are central to the machinery of our democracy, yet the Government have conceded that the assumptions that they have made are arbitrary. They are not subject to any governing principle and they have not been subject to adequate consultation and scrutiny by the people whom they are meant to serve. Those issues are all the subject of vigorous debate.
Our electoral arrangements should never become the subject of partisan dispute, as that corrodes public trust and undermines the foundations of our democracy. Therefore, for many years, all political parties have sought consensus on such issues and, for the most part, they have succeeded in finding it. The Bill is a deplorable exception to that good practice, to which the amendment attempts to return. The amendment would not substitute my judgment for that of the Government in addressing these issues. Instead, it sets up a process for an independent, fair and principled set of judgments to be made. In doing so, it is intended to restore faith in the impartiality of the process for changing our electoral arrangements by requiring the Government to set up a committee of inquiry, such as a royal commission, to investigate and make recommendations on all those key and contentious issues.
The royal commission is a tried and tested mechanism for addressing such important, complex and contentious issues. It has worked well in the past and is generally accepted as a fair mechanism for dealing with such contested issues. Its composition would be for the Government to decide, but it should include Members of both Houses of Parliament, including representatives of the principal parties in the House of Commons, as those with most direct experience of such issues, as well as individuals with no party attachment, and others.
It would be for the Government to decide the process of such a committee of inquiry, but I draw Ministers’ attention to the Liberal Democrat conference resolution of 2008, which pledged to set up a constitutional assembly or citizens’ summit as a deliberative mechanism for the people of this country to pronounce on precisely such important issues as this. I am profoundly sorry that the Government have not followed the recommendation of that Liberal Democrat conference of 2008. It may be that they will now seize on this amendment as an opportunity to do so. They could even vote with us on this.
The remit for the commission would include consideration of how best to equalise constituencies, particularly taking into account all those issues of local identity and character about which such widespread concerns were expressed at Second Reading, which I think all Members of this House have had expressed to them in correspondence since Second Reading. The amendment proposes that the commission examine the optimum size for a constituency. This is a crucial consideration in creating a principled approach to the equalisation of constituencies. I am not against equalising constituencies, but I want to see it being done according to a fair, impartial and principled process.
What is the appropriate relationship between a Member of Parliament and their constituency and what size of constituency best sustains that relationship? The United States, with a population approximately six times that of the United Kingdom, has 435 Members of the House of Representatives and 100 Members of the Senate. A proportionate adjustment for the United Kingdom would result in a House of Commons of around 90 MPs.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Would my noble friend not accept that the United States has a federal system so that every state has its own Senate, House of Representatives and governor and within each state there are county legislatures? Therefore, the system is very different from that in the United Kingdom.
Lord Wills
Of course I accept that. I was about to make very similar points in my remarks. What my noble friend has so accurately pointed out is that this is a subject for debate. He has made a very good point. This is precisely the sort of issue that should have been debated before the Government brought forward this legislation. What is the best size for a constituency in this country? I will come to the other constitutional changes that might affect this in a moment, but of course my noble friend is right.
If 90 is not an appropriate size for the membership of the House of Commons, why not? The Government have given us no clue. Surely, as I was saying, before embarking on such radical reform we need to seek agreement as far as possible between all political parties in this country on what principles should determine the size of the constituency and hence the size of the House of Commons.
In arriving at such principles, any review must take account of the other impending changes in our constitutional arrangements such as the increasing decentralisation of power to local authorities. All parties agree on the need for this. There are measures already coming forward from the Government. We need to look at the impact of those measures on the optimum size of a constituency, but the Government have not done so. We also need to look at the implications for the size of the constituency and the relationship between the Member of Parliament and their constituents of the impending reforms to this Chamber. Many Members will oppose such reforms, but the Government want to bring them forward and they owe it to the British people to have a proper discussion about the implications of such changes on the optimum size of a constituency. What will be the implications for the nature and role of the Member of Parliament? We have had no such discussion, and this amendment offers the opportunity to have it. I think that it would be very valuable for the health of our democracy for that to happen.
The commission would also need to take account of the principle that has been followed by all parties that believe in the value of the union of differential protections for the minority nations of the United Kingdom. This is a crucial point for all those who believe in the value of maintaining the union. The nature of the union has changed dramatically since the Labour Government brought forward measures of devolution, and that relationship is continuing to evolve. There is no evidence whatsoever in the Bill that the Government have appreciated this or recognised its significance. This amendment gives them a chance to look at the implications of the changing nature of the devolved constitutional arrangements of this country on the proposals in this Bill.
The statistical basis on which the size of constituencies is equalised is also crucial. It is bad enough that the Government are seeking to conduct a wholesale boundary review on the basis of an electoral register that is neither comprehensive nor accurate. It is deplorable that they appear to be doing this in the pursuit of partisan advantage. It is perhaps even worse that this fundamental redrawing of the electoral map should be done in such an arbitrary way, leaving key questions not even raised, let alone answered. How far, for example, should the electoral register be the basis for such equalisation? How far should population be the basis? These are clearly issues that any committee would need to consider, so they are included in the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
This matter has taxed many of us over a long period. I understand that when my noble friend was the Minister responsible he did some work in the department on the use of population—
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry. Perhaps my noble friend would set out what work was carried out. It would help us, in moving our amendments, if we knew of his experiences.
Lord Wills
I am very grateful to my noble friend. As he said, the previous Government—I was the Minister responsible for this—did a lot of work on how we could more fairly ensure that everyone entitled to be on the electoral register was on it. We brought forward legislation putting a duty on the Electoral Commission to bring forward such measures. That is another reason why I am in such despair that the Government are rushing ahead on the basis of such a flawed electoral register. If only they had had a little patience and had waited just a few months longer. There was every chance that the Electoral Commission’s work would produce a significantly improved register, which might even have been comprehensive and accurate, as it should be.
These issues now need to be debated. They are issues not just for this House or for the other place; they are issues for the British people, who have had no say in this fundamental building block of their democracy. This amendment offers the opportunity to the Government to give the British people that say in these arrangements. I very much hope that they will take it. I have also included provision—I think that everyone will agree with this—for boundary reviews to be timely. I do not think that there should be any dispute about that.
Finally—I know that this will be of concern to the Government—there is the question of a timetable. I had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he said at Second Reading that the time had almost come for constitutional reformers just to get on with it. I hope that I am not quoting him inaccurately. Of course, anyone who wants to see constitutional reform must beware delay, which is always the enemy of truly radical reform. I recognise that cynical members of the Government—I am sure that noble Lords on the Front Bench are not so cynical—may regard this proposal for a committee as nothing more than a device to push all these issues into the long grass. That is not my intention. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I support the objectives of this Bill.
My amendment does not leave this process open-ended, but specifies a timescale. In my judgment—I did considerable work on these issues when I was the Minister responsible in the previous Government—three years is an appropriate timescale in which to explore all these issues with appropriate rigour, to hear evidence from all concerned parties, including members of the public, and to produce recommendations that can command popular support.
More generally, this is a typical timeframe for a royal commission. The average time to report for the past 10 royal commissions has been slightly less than three years. This is a reasonable amount of time to give the committee to report. But I have added further comfort in this amendment to those who might be concerned about undue delay. The amendment includes provision for the commission to report annually to Parliament on its progress, so that Parliament may have regular opportunities to contribute to the continuing deliberations of the commission. The Government will always have the option to take steps to ensure a speedier dispatch of this work should they think that that is necessary, which I very much hope that they will not.
This amendment is detailed and complex because the issues covered are detailed and complex. They are also vital to the health of our democracy. I hope that the Government may feel able to accept the amendment, if not in this exact formulation then at least in one perhaps better drafted to achieve the same objectives. Whatever view is taken of the merits of the objectives of Part 1 of the Bill, no independent observer could consider Part 2 to be anything other than at best botched legislation and at worst a partisan attack on fundamental constitutional proprieties. Such profoundly flawed legislation is unlikely to endure and I just say to Ministers opposite that history is not likely to look fondly on its perpetrators.
The amendment offers the Government a chance to find a way out of the swamp into which they have waded with little care or consideration. It gets them to the place that they say that they want to be with a delay of only a few months to allow for independent examination and the engagement of the public in issues of great importance to our democracy, which, after all, is meant to serve the public, not the interests of the Government of the day. It would enable this legislation to proceed on the basis of constitutional principle not on that of arbitrary and partisan calculation. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I had not planned to speak this early, but I may as well intervene to support my noble friend in his amendment. I begin by commenting on my reflections over the Christmas Recess on how I see the progress on this Bill. My comments stem from conversations with Members of the other place, some of whom spoke on the Bill during its transit through that House. The conclusion that we have all come to is that the way in which this legislation is being handled is a clear breach of any reasonable process. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, looks as if I am saying something that causes him some anguish, but the reality is that this is a constitutional Bill in its two principal components. AV, which is a huge change to the electoral system with massive constitutional implications, and the change to constituency boundaries are big constitutional issues that in both cases require, in my view, a proper inquiry before this legislation goes through Parliament.
The reality is that, because of our arrangements in the House of Lords, at least we are able to give the Bill some level of scrutiny, but I do not believe that the level of scrutiny that we can give it satisfies in any way the gravity, importance and significance of the legislation that the Government are seeking to introduce. I am saying all this as a strong supporter of a change to the electoral system. Indeed, I would probably go down the route of the Liberal Democrats on this matter if only they would be honest in the position that they took as against supporting this miserable little compromise. Also, the concept of a reduction in the number of seats is not altogether alien to me; indeed, it has never been a great problem for me. The question is the process by which we arrive at that.
I believe that my noble friend’s amendment is critical for securing proper consideration. As he said, it was the subject of a resolution carried at the Liberal Democrat conference. Both the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler, are in their places today and I hope and expect them to have the courage to argue on the back of this amendment the case that was argued forcefully at their annual conference basically in support of the principles that my noble friend is seeking to establish.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, with this clause, we reach Part 2, which is a more technical part of the Bill—
Lord Lipsey
I am sorry. I thought that the noble Lord had resumed his seat.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I thought that I was taking an intervention. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. The Government will not get off that lightly.
The Government should be reminded of the relevant sections in the very well written report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I understand that the report’s recommendations were carried unanimously by the membership of that committee. All parties subscribed to the principles set out in paragraph 11, which states:
“We regret the fact that this Bill has not been subject to either pre-legislative scrutiny, or to prior public consultation”.
That is to say, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Peers all support that statement.
The report continues:
“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”.
My noble friend’s proposed inquiry would do precisely that. It is fair to ask the question: why 600? Why not 590? Why not 500, as my noble friend Lord Rooker has suggested? Why not 550? Why not 700 or 800? All the coalition Government have done is pick figures out of the air and say, “Yes, the Liberal Democrats want 500; the Conservatives want 600. Let’s settle on that figure”. That is not the basis on which the size of what is perhaps the most important Parliament in the world should be decided.
We then have to consider the whole issue of Lords reform. Until we know what the arrangements for an elected House will be, how can we even begin to comprehend the nature of the relationship that will develop between individual constituents—because there may well be individual constituents—and Members of an elected House of Lords, and the extent to which that will impact on how many MPs there should be in the House of Commons? That matter has not even entered into the discussions that have taken place prior to the introduction of this legislation.
There is also the whole question of population, on which I intervened during my noble friend’s speech. I have pondered over the Christmas Recess on why population should not be taken into account when, particularly in the inner cities, many of the people who come to MPs’ surgeries would be excluded from the electoral register. I cannot see why those groups who are excluded should not be taken into account when one is deciding the workload of a Member of Parliament and the size of any constituency.
Lord Martin of Springburn
The noble Lord makes a valid point about people who are not on the electoral roll. I think of my previous constituency of Glasgow North East, to which the Home Office decided that a large number of asylum seekers would come. Not one of them, with the problems that they had, was turned away. Moreover, almost every asylum seeker had a lawyer who would also make representation to me as the local MP. It got to the stage where 90 per cent of the cases coming to surgeries were those of asylum seekers. Only those who were Commonwealth citizens as well as being asylum seekers were entitled to go on to the voters’ roll.
Lord Campbell-Savours
That intervention by my noble friend is extremely significant. That matter has not been taken into account by the Government. I know that there were problems in Glasgow, because I have been reading about them. There was a huge campaign that was referred to a few weeks ago by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock to deal with the whole issue of registration, which threw up the particular problem to which my noble friend referred. Indeed, the Democratic Audit paper on further findings on equalisation, which no doubt most Members of the House will either have read or will want to read prior to our debates in the future, deals precisely with this issue of population. Mr Lewis Baston says:
“Approximately half of the countries that delimit districts use ‘total population’ as the population base for determining equality across electoral districts. Another third of the countries employ registered voters as the population base”.
Several European countries use citizen population as the relevant base for determining population equality. Lesotho uses the voting age population as the base and Belarus uses the number of voters in the previous election, although that would not be particularly helpful here, would it?
The facts are that countries can use census material and population statistics as against registered electors, particularly when we know that the registered electorate, as far as the purposes of this Bill are concerned, are based on a register that is effectively out of date and which excludes, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton was saying only a few weeks ago, some 3.5 million people. Some 3.5 million people are excluded from the register. Why cannot the great proportion of those be included on a register by changing the basis on which the register is drawn by moving it over to a more population-based system?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Has my noble friend seen the Electoral Commission’s excellent report published in March this year entitled The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain? Not only are there that number missing from the electoral register, they are not missing in a proportionate way. There are areas where there are numbers missing disproportionately and Glasgow particularly comes to mind. With an average in Scotland of 92.1 per cent completeness, Glasgow is only 67.8 per cent complete.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have not read that report although it is on my reading list. There are a number of reports I have to read next weekend in preparation for the debates that will take place next week.
The point is that this is not the peg on which to argue the basis on which people register. My noble friend’s amendment simply says, “Let us have an inquiry that does precisely that”. He is saying, “Let someone, somewhere, do some homework on this whole area before Parliament is required to carry any particular piece of legislation”. That is my case.
Lord Wills
My noble friend has made an important point about the importance of considering population. But does he agree that this emphasises yet again the folly of rushing this? In a short space of time we will have the results of the 2011 census—probably around 2013 or 2014. It is absolutely crucial in deciding the validity of going forward on a population basis, but also in ascertaining just how under-registered the British people are. What is the degree of under-registration in different constituencies and different population groups throughout the country? Does this not prove the folly of rushing ahead like this?
Lord Campbell-Savours
I could not agree more with my noble friend. If we are going to have a five-year Parliament, why cannot those data be used? It would still leave the opportunity for legislation to be introduced to deal with this whole issue. Why, in other words, on the back of a whipped vote on the coalition Benches, is this measure being driven through this House when we all know it is an abuse of process and wrong in every possible way?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I, too, endorse the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wills and follow some lines of argument developed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. Lord Randolph Churchill described Gladstone—presumably still something of an inspiration to at least some noble Lords opposite—as an,
“old man in a hurry”.
This Bill and other pieces of legislation we are seeing are redolent of a Government of young men in a hurry. That hurry is palpable and inexcusable. I would not accuse the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, of being young men—in a hurry or in any other sense—but the hurry is certainly still there.
A reference has been made to the interesting report of the Select Committee on the Constitution—a most distinguished body, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours remarked. There are some additional matters on top of those to which he referred, but first, following the valid point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, about asylum seekers, another point has been overlooked. Within towns and cities, and across the country, EU citizens resident in this country and entitled to vote in the local elections—though not parliamentary elections—are also outside the compass of this proposal to determine the size of constituencies. They have a vote and are undoubtedly contributing to council tax and the rest in this country, which might be thought a material factor.
The report also concludes in paragraph 29 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”.
That matter was touched on by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. The committee concluded that the Government,
“have not made a proper assessment of the impact which the reduction in the size of the House of Commons may have on the relationship between the executive and Parliament”.
That is also a significant point. The committee was not persuaded that the reduction—essentially to be made among Back-Bench Members in another place— would necessarily be adverse to the balance but the matter does not seem to have been considered at all and it was,
“concerned that the Bill could possibly result in the Executive's dominance over Parliament being increased”.
On the timing of the boundary review, the committee observed that,
“additional resources will be required, particularly for the first such review”.
What estimate has been made of the additional resources required if and when this Bill goes through, in particular for that first review? The committee shared the concern of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that it was,
“not clear whether political parties have the necessary resources and resilience at a local level to adapt successfully within this timeframe to contesting new constituencies”.
The report goes on to say that,
“the Government should set out how they propose to meet the need for parties, candidates and electors to know the shape of their constituencies a sufficient length of time in advance of each general election”.
One of the Ministers giving evidence to the committee rather dismissed that issue but it is significant for those of us on the ground.
On the crucially important question of equalisation, the committee affirmed that,
“pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation would have enabled a better assessment of whether the new rules as to equalisation are overly rigid”.
What does the Minister make of that judgment?
On public participation, I mentioned in a previous debate that I had been engaged—on one occasion professionally and on another in a political capacity—in giving evidence at local public inquiries about both ward and parliamentary boundaries. The Bill in effect proposes to end the system of public inquiries of that kind and to rely on written evidence. The crucial difference between written evidence and a public inquiry is that the evidence cannot be tested by those with a contrary view—whether they be a different political party, an individual citizen or any other interest group. It is most important that, particularly when dealing with sensitive areas of locality, these issues are properly argued out in public. Written submissions will not, I believe, have that effect.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am slightly hesitant in rising to speak to the amendment because I had hoped that we might hear a contribution from the other side of the House. No one could argue—perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, could respond to this point—that the issues that we are discussing today are not of profound constitutional significance. The provisions in the Bill will alter the relationship between MPs and their constituents, the overall number of MPs and the ways in which the public can be involved in determining the electoral areas from which they will send their representatives to Westminster. If those issues are not of profound constitutional consequence, I do not know what issues are.
I must also say—if I may get my retaliation in first—that I really find it offensive to hear continual references to filibusters taking place when discussions of this significance are before the House. In fact, I would say that there is negligence on the part of groups, parties and individuals who do not make a full contribution to this debate. No one could possibly argue that there was a full debate in the House of Commons. I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace—it is convenient that he is in his place—that it was his leader who described these changes as the most profound since the Great Reform Bill of 1832. I have not had access to those debates, but if they really consisted of only one party having anything whatever to say about those proposals, and if those proposals were shovelled through both Houses in next to no time—this is a timetable that I have never seen before—then I would be very surprised indeed. It is our duty to examine these issues. They are of profound significance.
As for my noble friend’s amendment, although I would guess that he and I disagree on a huge range of issues connected with constitutional reform, I regard this as a masterly amendment. I defy anyone in this House to explain in detail why this is the wrong way to go about major constitutional reform. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, when he sums up, will not read out what I would guess his briefing notes suggest—that this legislation must be passed by 15 February in order for there to be enough time to hold the referendum on 5 May. That is not a reason for rushing through major constitutional reforms, so I hope that he does not say that.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord also does not say that there has already been excessive consideration of the Bill. This Bill—a huge Bill, a constitutional Bill—has so far had six days in Committee on the Floor of the House. I would ask him to look through the record of the previous Government, or of any other Government, to see the amount of time that was taken on Bills of far less significance. That is not to say that those Bills were not important—they were—but they had far less long-term, irreparable and unchangeable significance than this one. If you are changing the constitution, it is very difficult to change it back. The noble and learned Lord will find several Bills that took longer than this one has taken. We have got through roughly half the Bill—through Part 1—in six days in Committee. If the next period in Committee takes six days as well, it will still be impossible to meet the deadline of 15 February. That is not filibustering—that is the minimum required scrutiny. In fact, I would regard that as far too slight a scrutiny of a Bill of this importance to enable us to say that it has been considered properly by this House.
I must confess to being politically naïve. When I heard that the Conservative Party was suggesting that there should be a reduction in the number of MPs, I did not like it, but I was relatively relaxed about it because I knew that there would be plenty of time for discussion. I knew that you could not hurry Boundary Commissions. I knew that the last Boundary Commission for England took six years, so I thought, “Well, at least I will have plenty of time to discuss whether this is a good or a bad proposal”. It honestly did not occur to me for a moment that they would be scrapping the whole system of democratically accountable local inquiries—it just did not cross my mind that they would do that. Nor did it cross my mind that they would want to spend £12 million or so having a rushed Boundary Commission report—which is what the last Boundary Commission for England cost—when they keep telling us that every penny has to be saved.
As for the Liberal Democrats, it did not occur to me in my wildest dreams that they would say, “The thing we must do first in this new Parliament is to ensure that by 5 May we are asking the people whether they want the alternative vote system of proportional representation”. We know what the Liberal Democrats think about that system—I will not embarrass them by quoting their leader yet again; I think we all know the answer to that one—but for them it is a temporary, short-term arrangement so that they can move on in due course to full proportional representation.
I say to the Government that if they are wondering why the Bill is taking a long time, as they seem to suggest, they should look at the issues raised in my noble friend’s amendment. They should give us some sensible answers to the questions about why there cannot be a commission, and about the relationship between the two Houses. Here we have a Government who are reducing the number of Members of Parliament by 50 but, let us get this on the record, since the general election the number of new Members appointed to this House—many of whom I am delighted to see here; I am not complaining about them—is 117 so far. I remind the House that this is what the Deputy Prime Minister has described as a hugely important series of constitutional Bills that are all interrelated, and that great brains have been operating on them in order to show the nuance of the balance between the various pieces of legislation that are being brought forward. If there is any rational overview that allows simultaneously 50 fewer MPs and 117 additional appointed Members of the House of Lords, please could the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, explain to me what it is?
I have a final plea but it is one not made in hope, or indeed in expectation. Maybe just once, in response to one of the amendments from this side of the House, the Government could do what most Governments do from the Front Bench—many of us have been there—and say, “Look, we don’t really like the form of this amendment”, but at least acknowledge that there is some really powerful argument or justification for the points that we are making. At least they could say, “We’ll look at some of it, and we’ll bring some proposals back on Report”. I ask the Government not to regard this botched Bill as an impregnable piece of perfect legislation that should not be subject to any change.
It will be a test for the Government to see how they respond to a totally justified and well argued amendment, supported by people on very different sides regarding electoral reform and the future of the House of Lords; my noble friend Lord Wills and I are certainly on different sides. Let us hope for something better from the government Front Bench than we have had on any amendment so far.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Grocott’s earlier remarks about the debates that we have had so far on this enormous piece of legislation. For the same reasons as my noble friend, I feel strongly about much of its content. Like him—perhaps I could put this slightly stronger than he did—I deplore the lack of speeches from the Benches opposite. Indeed, having attended every day of the Committee so far, I have to say that this is the largest attendance that I have seen from the Conservative Party. The flesh might be present, though, but the spirit is pretty weak; we are still not seeing any contributions of either support or opposition from the Conservative Benches.
The Conservatives are slightly shamed by their coalition partners who are here in strength, although we are not hearing a great deal from them either, other than expressions of cynicism and impatience from one or two of them so far. It is regrettable that they cannot bring themselves to put some coherent arguments together in support of this enormous and extremely important piece of legislation.
My noble friend Lord Grocott mentioned the fact that there are accusations—this has not so far been said publicly, but there have been attempts to give this impression—that there is somehow some sort of filibuster taking place on the Labour Benches. I was contacted during the Christmas Recess by someone purporting to be from the Sunday Times, not a newspaper that I am overly fond of these days. I understand that investigations were taking place into the contents of some of the speeches on this legislation from this side of your Lordships’ House. Nothing has appeared in the Sunday Times yet because, I fear, when the reporter concerned put this story together, as reporters do, they managed to give the impression that what had been happening so far was that the Labour Benches had been doing the job for which they were appointed to this House and the Benches opposite had not. That would not for a moment satisfy the editorial tendencies of the Sunday Times, so it is no wonder that we have seen no more. However, the constitutional outrages in the Bill ought to be properly reported. If we had a press in this country that reported proceedings in this House and in the other place, rather than paying braying public schoolboys to pour buckets of verbal ordure on those they consider to be their social inferiors, the country at large might be alerted to the coalition Government’s outrageous behaviour and their attempts to rig both Houses of Parliament under these proceedings.
Baroness McDonagh
With regard to the newspaper article by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, does my noble friend agree with me that there are no significant size differences between Conservative and Labour seats in the other place?
Lord Snape
There are no great differences between them, as my noble friend says. However, to be honest, I would not be much concerned if there were. That is a red—or, rather, a blue—herring as far as this argument is concerned. It is surely a recognisable fact on both sides of your Lordships' House that voters are apt to be found in clusters, with Labour voters in inner-city areas and Conservative voters in more rural areas. Liberal voters are, however, diffused throughout the country.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
We must not continue with that misunderstanding and misapprehension. For many years I represented 800 square miles of rural Scotland, and in 1997 I had a Labour majority of 21,000. Constituencies throughout Scotland such as Eastwood, Edinburgh South and Dumfries, which were thought to be Tory constituencies in perpetuity, are now Labour seats. We can win these seats and we will win many more of them.
Lord Snape
I will do my—no doubt inadequate—best to do so. There are, of course, seats in England—we are not talking about Scotland now—where a Conservative voter is a lone voice indeed and where Conservative councillors are non-existent. Perhaps we should leave it there before I provoke any more reminiscences from my noble friend about what happens north of the border.
Before my noble friend Lady McDonagh intervened, I was talking about constituencies being based on numbers and nothing else. I looked up the origin of “gerrymandering” but with my customary forgetfulness—it must be old age—I have forgotten what my conclusions were. However, I understand that the word originated in the United States, so if gerrymandering takes place big time in the United States I do not see how a numerically even system of government is necessarily a fair one. I hope that I do not raise any further ire, or knock the scabs off any old sores, when I point out that for many years gerrymandering was said to be a way of life in Northern Ireland, although seats there were not based on numerical balance. I cannot for the life of me see how the coalition can claim that equalising constituencies numerically in the way proposed under the legislation will prevent at least the accusation of gerrymandering in the future.
My concluding remark on the widely read and circulated article of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is that this matter is all about political advantage, and the coalition Government ought to have the courage to say so. Conservative Back-Benchers who are silent but supportive ought to have the courage of their convictions and say, “We in your Lordships' House are not prepared to put up with legislation being rushed through in this way”. I do not feel any obligation not to participate in this debate in order to enable the Government to hold a referendum on a certain date in May to please their coalition partners. That is a matter for them, not for this House as a whole. I hope and believe that if my noble friend Lord Wills, who has so ably moved this amendment, is not satisfied with the response from the Front Bench—having participated in previous debates on the Bill, I think that it would be pretty unusual if he were—he will test the mood and will of the Committee. Let us see proper impartiality prevail before we wreck our unwritten constitution and rig the other place as well as your Lordships' House.
Lord Clinton-Davis
What I find extraordinary about this debate on the topic raised by my noble friend is the question of,
“the proper role of MPs in their constituencies and in Parliament”.
Is there any doubt about that? Should we be raising it at all? My noble friend is quite right to address this issue. There is a profound difference between the way in which Members of Parliament in urban and poor constituencies react and the way in which MPs in country districts react. They are quite different. Perhaps this issue is being addressed by my noble friend.
The amendment is rather convoluted and we should address the issue directly: is there a difference between the way in which urban and country Members react? I represented an inner London constituency for a long time, and I held six surgeries a month—which is quite a lot. There is no doubt that my constituents put numerous questions to me and I found that I could not satisfactorily react to them by holding only four surgeries a month. That was inadequate. That is why I held six a month. I found that that also was inadequate, but I could not do more.
It is essential that this issue is addressed. Perhaps my noble friend is doing that—I do not know. The issue ought to be addressed directly, which is where the amendment falls down. On the whole, I was impressed by what my noble friend had to say, but he has not directly addressed this point.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
In supporting the amendment, I will make two brief points on subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause on what the basis of how we set up representation in this country should be. I should be very hesitant to criticise one word of this excellent amendment, but reference to the European Parliament would also have been useful. MPs have to consider how they relate not only to local government—or, if they are in London, to the Greater London Authority—but to the European Parliament and what will become the elected House of Lords. If this amendment or something like it is supported, I fear that an enormous opportunity to look at how those different levels of elected politicians can relate to each other will be missed. That is important not simply for politicians, although it is important for any of us in this profession, but from the point of view of the electorate. To whom do they go with their problems, whether those relate to asylum or housing?
I am sure that any Members of your Lordships' House who have been Members of Parliament—I have not—will know that people will go from one to the other. They will start with a local councillor, and if they cannot get an answer there they will go to their MP. Occasionally they come here, but they certainly go to where I used to work in the European Parliament. It is not good for the consumer or the citizen if they cannot know easily which elected Member can help them with their problem. This amendment should have been an opportunity to look at how those various elected members work together. That would have been invaluable if this amendment were to be passed.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On that point, I put it to the noble Baroness that she is making the argument for proportional representation.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
That is quite a different argument. I am saying that I do not know whether it is better for a Member of Parliament to represent a much broader area of the country and our communities and therefore to unite and understand those, or whether it is better for them to be very specialised and to represent an area that feels very close together with a lot of shared interests. I see the merit of the amendment as enabling a committee of inquiry to think about how our communities can best be represented, whether at local government level, or, as it particularly addresses itself, within the House of Commons. Building on that, because I assume that it involves the same building blocks, would be an elected House of Lords, and indeed an elected European Parliament.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I want to make a point not about individual constituencies, because I have never been in another place, but about the importance of the amendment as making certain things statutory. Those of your Lordships who have read Richard Crossman’s diaries may remember the glee with which he said, “Oh, the Boundary Commission are our people and they will fix these boundaries in our favour”. For many years we have conducted affairs more or less according to the idea that the party in power has a licence to fix things in its own way. I think that we have now come to the stage at which it is very likely that we will have coalition Governments, and when you have coalition Governments you have to stop doing that sort of thing. You have to put things on a statutory basis. What I like about my noble friend’s amendment is that it very systematically establishes a committee of inquiry that will report year after year and will take a comprehensive look at a number of these issues, including the time to conduct boundary reviews, et cetera. What we are debating here is not so much whether one should equalise or not—maybe we should equalise—but how we equalise. It might be inevitable that diverse constituencies are put together. This is not so much about what we do but about how we do it and how we continue to do it on a permanent basis.
That is an important part of the amendment. By putting it in the way he has—and I hope that the Minister will take this very seriously—my noble friend is adding something to the constitutional reform process on which the Government are embarked. This will prove a very important brick to give greater legitimacy to the kind of reform the Government want than they have got so far. Therefore, when it comes to House of Lords reform and determining the size of the House, if this amendment is accepted it will be much easier for the Government to propose the new size of the House of Lords because they will be able to say that a committee of inquiry has been permanently established that can consider and report on the matter. This is why I commend my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I make no apology for speaking briefly from these Benches. I do not believe that it is proper to criticise the detailed approach to this question of many Members of this House. If we did not give the matter our deepest thought and most conscientious consideration, we would have no right to call ourselves a reviewing Chamber.
I follow very much the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in regarding the amendment as a breath of fresh air, sanity and common sense. I suppose that every Member of this Chamber would accept the proposition that the mother of Parliaments, when considering a totally new regime relating to so many aspects of its life, deserves the best and most assiduous efforts that we can imagine. In other words, we should not approach any one of these problems in a piecemeal way. Nor should we think of a final solution to any of these matters. These are immense problems and we should not think in terms of any ultimate solution save after carrying out the most detailed and assiduous scrutiny of all possibilities that are open.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Is it not extraordinary that not one word has been heard today from the coalition Benches on this vital issue?
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I am tempted to comment but, mustering all the neutrality that I can command as a Cross-Bencher, it would probably be better for me to remain silent. I invite noble Lords to consider the issue of determining that the number of Members of the House of Commons should be reduced from 650 to 600. I mention in passing that the effect on Wales would be utterly disproportionate. It would lose about a quarter of its Members of Parliament; the number would be cut from 40 to 30. The case that I put to the House with humility and sincerity is this. I can imagine that if one had a body of the wisest and most appropriate people to examine this question, one might find considerable support for the proposition that the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced from 650 to a lower figure. The argument in favour of that might have something to do with devolution, although we were told many months ago by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the reduction from 650 to 600 had nothing to do with devolution and that any reduction would be simply on account of the determination in general that the number should be reduced.
I can also imagine that that body would come to a totally different conclusion and state that, if one looks at all the duties that have been added to the working life of an ordinary Member of Parliament over the past 50 years, there is a strong case for having a number of MPs greater than 650. I can also imagine that a body, having looked at the matter conscientiously and competently, would come to the conclusion that while on the whole there was a case for an increase, there were good psychological and social reasons for leaving the number at 650. In other words, each of those conclusions can easily be imagined in the case of a body charged with that particular duty; yet the Government are deciding this matter in a wholly arbitrary and rushed way, without any evidence to support them.
In relation to the question of the size of constituencies, many of us in the House commented at Second Reading that the idea of equality based on a mathematical commonality is utterly chimerical, artificial and misleading. On the one hand it might seem attractive to say, “Let every constituency be more or less the same size—76,000 give or take a small percentage”. That does not give equality at all. If you live in an urban constituency which you can cycle across in 15 minutes, you can have access to your Member of Parliament’s office in a matter of minutes. Just imagine doing that in a vast rural constituency, such as Brecon and Radnorshire in Wales, or Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross in Scotland. The idea of equality turns on many different factors. Mathematical uniformity is only one and probably the most misleading and artificial, yet the coalition Government have worshipped at that altar on this matter.
My only criticism of the proposed new clause is that it should have preceded Clause 1. Everything I have said applies to Part 1 of the Bill. I ask the House to bear in mind conscientiously and sincerely that as a Parliament we may well be rushing into decisions that we will greatly regret in years to come.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, as he made a powerful speech from a point of view that I share, in that he referred to the amendment as a breath of fresh air. I would go as far as to say that my noble friend, in tabling the amendment, has offered a lifeline to the coalition. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in his place. He is someone for whom I have the greatest respect, and he must be uncomfortable with the process that brought this legislation to the House. There has been no consultation or prelegislative scrutiny and there is a rumour going round, which I hope is not true, that on the coalition Benches a timetable is being kept on how long Members on this side of the House take to speak. Frankly, I regard that as bullying. Anyone who attempts to bully me usually comes slightly unstuck. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, agrees with me. The fact that we have this amendment gives us an opportunity to get the Bill back on to a proper track.
One of the areas that I found most difficult on Second Reading was the figure of 600. I am not absolutely wedded to the idea that there must be 650 Members of the other place; changes come about and we should be prepared to look in detail at the construction of areas. In my former constituency, one village, Chapelhall, went from being a sleepy village to an agglomeration of a number of very attractive housing estates. The very place from which I take my title, Coatdyke, has been linked with one town or another on about half a dozen different occasions. I do not feel too strongly about that, but I should like to know where the mandate is behind the figure of 600. One coalition party in its manifesto wanted 500; another coalition party wanted 575. I did not go to a very posh school—my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan and I went to the same school—but normally, when we worked out a compromise, it came in the middle. How do you go from 500 to 575 and come away with 600?
I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is in his place. Perhaps he and his noble and learned friend Lord Wallace could collude and come up with an answer as to why that figure is 600. I heard another rumour that some work has been done proving that the figure of 600 disadvantages the Labour Party more than any other party. I am with my noble friend Lord Foulkes in that I do not care what gerrymandering goes on with the constituency boundaries. It is the arguments that will sway people and we have seen that in other parts of the country.
Lord Wills
I, too, am perplexed by how the figure was arrived at. My noble friend may wish to know that I made a freedom of information request some time ago for any deliberations made on the electoral consequences of different figures for the size of the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, promised on Second Reading to let me have such deliberations, if in fact they had taken place. I am still waiting to know from him whether such calculations were made and, if they were, to see them. I am still waiting for the freedom of information request to be responded to. I think that it is already out of time; I hope that I will not have to wait too much longer. I will of course share the results with the House.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that interesting piece of information. This is a subject to which I shall return—as, I am sure, will my noble friend—again and again. I will not be bullied into shutting up about it.
My noble friend Lady Hayter also made a valid point when she referred to subsection (2)(b) in my noble friend's amendment and the European Parliament. The issue of where someone with a problem goes becomes even greater in areas such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If I, as a constituent, wish to get some advice, I can go to my local councillor, or should I be going to my Member of the Scottish Parliament, my Member of Parliament, or my Member of the European Parliament—or should I even be bothering a Member of your Lordships' House? One complexity that has not been addressed in the legislation—one that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, knows well—is that constituency boundaries for the Scottish Parliament are shaped and based on the former Westminster model, because a decision was taken to retain the membership at 129. Therefore, there is a disjunction between the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament and what is proposed.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
On that point, I advise Members of the House to listen very carefully to what my noble friend is saying, not because of any reputation that she may have but because—I hope that I am not giving away a secret; I know that she will tell me off if I am—contrary to what my noble friend Lord Desai said, when she was Secretary of State for Scotland and had a decision to make which could have advantaged the Labour Party in relation to boundaries for Westminster seats in Scotland, she took the very principled decision to accept the view of the independent Boundary Commission, and the redistribution went ahead. That is why she should be listened to with great care, because of the great integrity with which she took that decision.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I am very grateful to my noble friend. Since he has given up the chairmanship of Hearts Football Club, he has become secretary of my fan club. I do not know whether that is more auspicious or inauspicious than being chairman of Hearts Football Club.
The issue of the shape and construction is very important. I say to the Liberal Democrat members of the coalition, who have, over the years, made a very convincing argument for localism in politics—that all politics is local—that what is proposed is an aberration. It completely denies the local input into the shape and size of constituencies.
I made reference on Second Reading to the fact that the very last speech that the late John Smith made in Scotland, the day before he died, was to the Boundary Commission, because there was a proposal to split the constituency that I went on to represent right down the main street. People assume that if you come from a mining community or a working-class community—if you do not come from a 12th-century mansion house and can trace your ancestors back to 1066—you do not care about the history of the place that you come from. My experience is that you care passionately about the nature of the place that you come from. People become grossly offended when bureaucrats—as they see it—simply pluck a figure out of the air and construct an artificial community as a consequence. That becomes enshrined in this legislation, and this adoration of localism is why my noble friend’s amendment is so important. It is critical to stand back, take time and do this properly. I urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, when he replies, to give us an answer on the figure of 600 and to recognise that these are not partisan points, but are about the nature of the communities that make up this country. He should properly take into account that the passion that people feel for their own communities requires that there be a proper consideration of the nature of their democratic representation.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, this legislation has been constructed in haste and is being pushed through Parliament in haste. It was constructed in haste during the hasty negotiation of the coalition agreement; it is being introduced in the first Session of a new Parliament—so there was no Green Paper, no consultative process, nor, indeed, as has been noted, was there any pre-legislative scrutiny within Parliament; and it was very hastily proceeded with in the other place before it reached us. For all these reasons, it is right and proper that it should be carefully scrutinised not only by us here in this House now, but also on the basis that my noble friend Lord Wills has put forward.
Under my noble friend’s proposal for a committee of inquiry, the great advantage would be that people of enormous experience and wisdom would be brought into the process, and it would be conducted in a context that would ensure impartiality. I am sure that noble Lords want to produce the right outcome in the broader interests of our constitution and our country, but it is in the nature of the adversarial processes that characterise our Parliament that it is very difficult to achieve a consensus in parliamentary proceedings. However, under the process that my noble friend has advocated there would be a real prospect of being able to reach a large measure of agreement, proposals could be recommended not only to us but to the people of this country, and there would be a wider public debate on the interim recommendations of my noble friend’s committee and then, of course, on its final conclusions. That would be a better way to approach these enormously important issues and responsibilities than the way that the coalition Government have adopted.
Frankly, the way that the Government have introduced this Bill, and the way they are proceeding with it, is not a good way to govern. These are major issues that need to be treated with proper deliberation, bipartisanship and responsibility—issues such as the appropriate size of constituencies, the number of Members of Parliament who should serve in the House of Commons, the make-up of a House of Commons that very possibly will be elected under the alternative votes system instead of first past the post, the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents, and the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. One recites the issues that fall to be resolved in this process and it is self-evident that they are of major importance to the health of our democratic culture and to the good functioning of our Parliament. So my noble friend’s recommendation is one that we ought to welcome and embrace.
Among the particular issues that he has itemised and drawn attention to in his complex amendment is the relative importance of electoral equality. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, spoke very well on that issue. Coming—as he also does—from Wales, I am particularly conscious of the devastating impact on the structure of political life in Wales that a dogmatic insistence on numerical equality in the size of constituencies would bring about. We have a responsibility not to proceed as recklessly as that. Of course it is desirable, other things being equal, that constituencies should be more or less of equal size, but I think that the very narrow margin of fluctuation of 5 per cent either side of the norm of 76,000 electors that the Government propose is simply inadequate.
So the committee of inquiry ought to examine the options for a 5 per cent toleration, a 10 per cent variation and, indeed, other margins of flexibility, so that the desirability of constituencies being of equal size should be weighed against what is also, surely we must all agree, highly desirable—that the integrity and character of particular communities should be recognised and respected and, of course, that the relationship between parliamentary constituencies and the boundaries of local authorities should also be so designed as to make sense.
The Deputy Prime Minister compares this legislation in its significance to the Great Reform Act of 1832. But the difference between his approach in this measure and the approach which was enacted in the 1832 legislation is that it was the 1832 legislation that, for the first time, established in our parliamentary culture and our practical parliamentary arrangements the representation of communities. It was because people in the newly urbanising and industrialising communities, particularly in the north, objected to being represented in Parliament by county MPs, and because people in the counties themselves found that unacceptable, that the pressure grew to look again at how parliamentary representation was constructed. It was in consequence of the 1832 measure that the great industrial cities and the new industrial communities—Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bury, Rochdale, Bradford; these very significant and very important places—got proper parliamentary representation and that, for the first time, the people who lived in those places had the chance to elect their own Members of Parliament and to hold their own Members of Parliament to account. Of course the accountability was imperfect on the limited franchise, but we saw a development from that point which led to a state of affairs in which—even though the pressure for reform rightly persisted for more than 100 years after that, and there is still pressure for reform—there was a pride in the British constitution and an ownership of the British constitution.
We all are concerned that that pride in our constitution has diminished. However, hastily spatchcocked reforming measures which are perceived, fairly or unfairly, to be tainted by a bias in terms of party interest—for example, whether the number of 600 constituencies, a figure apparently arbitrarily chosen, has been calculated to be to the disadvantage of the Labour Party—give rise to doubts and questionings about the process that we are engaged in at the moment, not only for noble Lords on this side of the House but for many people in the country. Many people are very uncertain whether this is the right way to be going.
If we could take the suspicion of partisan politics out of the process through the establishment of the committee of inquiry proposed in this amendment then we would help to build the public’s confidence in this important reforming process. We shall of course have opportunities to debate specific amendments about numerical equality and what exceptions should be allowed for that, but let us recognise now that there are protests coming from Cornwall, from the Isle of Wight and Ynys Mon which have to be taken seriously. There is a danger that places which regard themselves as authentic communities will be split and that others will be yoked together with places with which the residents of both feel that they have nothing in common. That will not be at all good for confidence let alone for pride in our parliamentary democracy.
My noble friend Lord Wills also rightly makes the point in subsection 2(b) of his amendment that the House of Commons is part of a much larger system. You cannot simply take a chunk of the constitution and push it, pull it around, mould it and remake it as if it was a piece of plasticine while ignoring the impact that a change in one part of the constitution has on other parts. If you alter the size of the House of Commons, if you alter the relationship between Members of Parliament and the Executive, and if you alter the capacity of Members of the House of Commons to scrutinise legislation, from all of these things there necessarily follow major implications for the work of this House.
It has been noted by a number of speakers that we ought also to consider the relationship between the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the devolved representative institutions of government. I think that that point is not included in my noble friend’s amendment, but perhaps we can reconsider his amendment on Report, and perhaps amendments can be made to his amendment so as to perfect the excellent scheme that he has put forward for our consideration. Additionally, the relationship between Members of the House of Commons and elected members in local government has always to be considered when you are considering making changes to the House of Commons. You cannot change the House of Commons in isolation without there being very important implications. It is not of course just the interests of MPs and elected councillors that count, although their capacity to do their job is in itself important, but we have to consider above all the interests and views of members of the public.
My noble friend and indeed all of us agree that the present system of boundary reviews is imperfect and needs to be reformed because clearly it takes too long to achieve changes in boundaries. But how long the Boundary Commission ought to take in its processes is not something that we are going to be able to resolve in the course of debates in this House or back in another place. As a number of noble Lords have already argued today, it is again of the greatest importance to ensure that boundaries are appropriately determined, and particularly that the people who are to be represented by Members of the House of Commons have themselves had an opportunity to contribute to the formation of the judgment and decision as to what the revised boundaries ought to be. This is a complex matter that needs impartial, expert and thorough consideration which again a committee of inquiry would be well placed to undertake. For this and a considerable number of other reasons, what my noble friend has suggested is a helpful and excellent idea.
My noble friend did suggest the committee of inquiry should be a Royal Commission, but hearts are slightly liable to sink at that suggestion because Royal Commissions have a reputation for taking minutes and going on for years, or whatever the saying is. But he has written in to his amendment that an interim report should be made each year and that there should be a final report within three years of the passing of this Bill. Although I think it would be a tight squeeze, it would then be possible for all the key decisions to be taken within the life of this Parliament. Perhaps not all the consequential legislation could be enacted, but the decisions would be taken so that this would indeed have proved to be a great reforming Parliament. The coalition could claim with better justification that it was a great reforming Government, but the reform should have been designed on the basis of impartial, expert and thorough deliberation instead of hasty legislation subject to the force majeure of the Whips. That is not a good basis for ensuring lasting and well-judged reform.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton
My Lords, I speak as an independent who usually supports the coalition Government, but I must say that I am very much influenced by the speeches in favour of a committee of inquiry and of delay on this matter. Again, I speak as a completely independent Member, and there is one thing that should be considered. If there is a committee of inquiry, there is the fact that the other place made one major change during the course of the 20th century which was not legislated for and was not really discussed either in this House or in the other place. It is the very large increase in the number of governmental supporters who receive some kind of emolument or support from the Government of the day. In the case of the last Government the figure went up to about 100 Members as a matter of course. There has been no parliamentary approval of that, it has just happened. Perhaps we should not allow such a monumental change to happen again without discussion.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, with this amendment, we move from Part 1 to Part 2. I shall make one important observation relevant to the case that my noble friend Lord Wills has made. In the case of Part 1, there was an inquiry—I know, because I sat on it. It was the Jenkins inquiry. It is perfectly true that the referendum will be not on the recommendation of Jenkins but on half of it; namely, the alternative vote. That inquiry did not completely crack the problem, but it moved the debate forward. As we found when we debated Part 1, all the speeches made were informed by the famously articulate report of Lord Jenkins and the analysis that it contained. Some agreed with it and some did not, but it shaped the analysis and therefore enabled us to have a much better debate.
The second advantage to flow from having a prior report is that, between the setting up of Jenkins and the introduction of this Bill, many people, whether mostly or wholly, changed their minds. There are many people, particularly in my own party, who are adamant first-past-the-posters and can still see the arguments for it today, but they are prepared to contemplate the argument set out in Jenkins for moving a little way in the other direction by having the alternative vote, which is an improvement on first past the post in the view of many of them.
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving way. He was a very distinguished member of the commission that was set up and chaired by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Why does he think that, 10 years afterwards, we have had no action on its report? Does he not share our cynicism that the proposal of his noble friend is simply a way of privatising, pushing out and delegating responsibility for these important decisions so that nothing should happen? The experience that he and I have had of the complete failure of the Government whom he supported to do anything on the basis of that commission’s recommendation, makes us very cynical about asking somebody other than Parliament to take decisions on this matter.
Lord Lipsey
The noble Lord was very grateful that I gave way, but I am even more grateful to see him popping up to speak. The silence is broken—omertà is finished with. I am sure that we will have many contributions from him in the future.
There is no intention among anyone, I think, to stop this legislation, as considered properly, going through. Let us be clear that what will destroy the legislation is not the danger of delay but the danger of haste. The danger is that this ramshackle legislation, half considered, will be forced into law and that a subsequent Government, seeing that it is half baked, will force it out of law and we will have achieved nothing. That is the plan that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is urging on the Committee. I beg this House, which is a great example of the benefit of the rational consideration, to reject that way forward.
I was saying before I gave way to the noble Lord that many first-past-the-posters have been converted to the alternative vote, but I take more pleasure in another form of conversion that has taken place. There were many people, and the Electoral Reform Society was in their hands, who believed in wholesale, immediate electoral reform and full-scale proportional representation. I have never been persuaded of the case made for proportional representation; I do not believe in it and I do not agree with it—nor did Jenkins. However, during those years since Jenkins, and in months and years of debate, those people have moved their position so that now the Electoral Reform Society is a very strong backer of the yes campaign in this referendum. I think that it sensibly sees that a consensus reform that goes half way is better than a wholesale reform that later gets reversed, and that it is more likely to get reform by settling for a halfway house than by holding out for ever for the whole cake.
Through the post-Jenkins process has emerged a greater level of consensus on where we are going. It is not a wholesale consensus—that would require the verdict of the people in a referendum—but there is a greater level of consensus and a greater clarity on the arguments. That makes a hugely strong and powerful case for proceeding by reflection.
Lord Desai
Is my noble friend suggesting that the first part of this Bill is all right and the second part is causing problems, and that therefore we should hive the two things off and think more about Part 2?
Lord Lipsey
I made my criticisms of Part 1 during its passage. We have another chance to consider it on Report. I think it can be improved but I am broadly in favour of everything about it except the referendum date. That is my broad position. It is also my position that Part 2 needs much more improvement than Part 1. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the chance to make that point.
Without absorbing too much of the Committee’s time with interventions, perhaps I may be forgiven if I take one example of the kind of issue drawn from the long and comprehensive list in my noble friend’s amendment on which really considered inquiry and judgment is needed. That is the number of MPs. The figure was snatched out of the air. Half the time Ministers admit that. It should not have been snatched out of the air. There are lots of facts that are relevant. It is true that since 1950 the number of MPs has grown by 3 per cent. It is also true that the electorate have grown in the same period by 25 per cent. That is to say that every MP has 22 per cent more constituents to service. On the servicing of constituents, I have never been in another place but I did work for a Member of another place, Anthony Crosland, in 1972, and if we received 30 constituency letters per week we were astonished. They were dealt with by his constituency secretary and his local party without difficulty. Now I am told that 300 letters is the average and there is much more communication in other ways.
The research think tank, Democratic Audit, has produced some other facts that should be weighed. For example, it turns out not to be true, as the Government have argued, that we have vastly more representatives than other countries. We have barely more than France and practically the same as Italy. But other countries benefit from having far more local elected representatives to deal with a great many other things that our Members of Parliament have to deal with themselves. Whether we should go down that road is another matter but that is what was concluded. Then there is the question that has been raised briefly in this debate about the danger of cutting the number of MPs but keeping the number of Ministers precisely as it is. The Executive become even more dominant in our politics and in our political culture and even more able to get their way with the minimum amount of criticism and fuss.
I do not say that these arguments are conclusive and that the number of MPs should stay as it is, be reduced or increased. I understand the populist wave of emotion that causes people to think that the number of MPs should be decreased. It may be that an objective inquiry concludes that that is right. I do not express any opinion on those matters at this stage. All I say to the Committee is that it is surely reasonable that arguments and facts such as these should be independently weighed and considered before a final verdict is reached and before legislation making it the law of the land is forced through Parliament.
Lord Touhig
The Committee should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Wills for his amendment because it gives it and the coalition partners the chance to take stock and reflect on this seventh day in Committee on the Bill. If they were to adopt the proposals in the amendment that my noble friend has moved perhaps we would start to move towards some consensus on major constitutional change. That would be the common-sense approach, although I well remember as a teenager, my mother used to say to me, “Son, in life you’ll find that sense isn’t that common”.
My brief remarks all relate to subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause, which says that this inquiry would take,
“into account the need to maintain the Union”.
This is a matter I referred to at Second Reading because I believe that the Bill as constructed is a threat to this precious thing we have: the union of the nations in these islands. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, briefly referred to the Bill’s impact on Wales, where it would reduce the number of Members of Parliament by 25 per cent. If the Parliament of the United Kingdom treats Wales in this way, it will have an adverse effect on the view, Wales takes of the Union.
Welsh is the first language of the majority of people in five parliamentary seats in Wales—Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Ceredigion, and Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. Wales is the only part of the Union where a substantial number of people—some 20 per cent of the population—speak two languages. If my noble friend’s amendment were accepted, it would at least give an opportunity to look at the impact that this legislation has on the representation of people whose first language is Welsh in this Parliament of the United Kingdom. Only Wales has a big linguistic issue so far as the rest of the union is concerned.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Does the noble Lord recollect that this matter has been carefully considered before, in 1992 when the Boundary Commissions Act was passing through both Houses? In the House of Commons, the invitation was held out to Kenneth Clarke, the then Home Secretary, to considerably reduce the number of constituencies in Wales. He said that he would do no such thing because it had long been accepted that the national, cultural and many other considerations in relation to Wales were of such nature to demand that the same number be maintained.
Lord Touhig
I endorse the point made by the noble Lord. As part of the structure of our unwritten constitution—thank God we do not have a written constitution—it is important that we recognise that elements of the Union have to be taken into account. I made the point at Second Reading that in California, tens of millions of people send two senators to the United States’ Senate as does a state like Wyoming which has fewer than half a million people. That needs to be taken into account. If my noble friend’s proposals were accepted, the Government would then have a chance to reflect more sensibly on how we should proceed with these major reforms.
Welsh representation in Parliament goes back to the 16th century, although there is evidence that in 1322 and 1327—700 years ago—Wales was invited to send 24 Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. The Bill as proposed would give Wales just 30 MPs. The regular reviews of parliamentary constituencies have their origins in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944. The Act instructed the Boundary Commission for Wales to look initially at abnormally large constituencies but also to conduct a review of all seats with a view to keeping them under constant review. The rules for redistribution for the initial review stated that Wales should have not fewer than 35 seats and that rule remained in place for the first periodical review published in 1954. The second periodical review in 1958 stated that Wales should have not fewer than 35 seats. The fourth and fifth periodical reviews did much the same.
We shall perhaps get into this wider debate as we progress this Bill through Committee. I believe strongly that to treat Wales in this way is a threat to the Union. We will have a referendum in the spring on more powers for the Welsh Assembly. Whatever people’s views—they are entitled to them and I am sure they will express them—it is putting the cart before the horse to say that Wales will have fewer seats whether or not the people of Wales decide to transfer more powers to the Assembly in Cardiff. It is also offensive to people in Wales whose first language is Welsh to say that it does not matter if the Welsh language is well represented in the House of Commons. The point was made in evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place that this would adversely impact upon Welsh-speaking areas.
I urge the Government to take great consideration of my noble friend’s amendment. It would give us a chance to reflect and gain some consensus. I say to the Government that I think that the people of Wales will take offence at being treated in a way in which no other part of the union is being treated. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, one in four Members of Parliament from Wales would cease to go to the other place. That is disgraceful and, I believe, would be injurious to the Union.
Both the Conservative and Unionist Party, which once prided itself on being the party of the union, and the Liberal Democrats, which is the party of Lloyd George—Lloyd George would be turning in his grave at what is being proposed—need time to reflect on the issue. If they would take on board those points in the way that my noble friend’s amendment would allow, we could perhaps reach some consensus. I say to the Government: “Do not be so offensive to the Welsh people”.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I support Amendment 54ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wills, because it would give us an opportunity to put together the bigger picture of constitutional reform, in the absence of such a picture from the Government. The amendment would help the Government greatly if it offered us an insight into their thinking across the range of constitutional reform proposals and how all the measures that we are debating might fit together. Indeed, the amendment would allow that picture to be put together in such a way that no one would even voice a suspicion that the measures were being put together in any kind of partisan political interest.
For such significant constitutional reforms, I believe that it would be in the interests of the country for us to start by setting out the roles and responsibilities—as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause that Amendment 54ZA would insert—of all our representative bodies, starting with Parliament. Starting with the relationship between the legislative and executive functions in both Chambers and taking into account the representative function of the other place, we could then go on to examine, in the language of subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause,
“the proper role of MPs in their constituencies and in Parliament”.
Having established that point and having had some consultation and agreement on those very basic issues around how Parliament and our democracy should work, we could then work through the issue of Parliament’s relationship with other Parliaments and Assemblies, including the European Parliament, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hayter, and the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Touhig and others. The role of local authorities could also be considered, as my noble friend Lord Beecham set out.
Once we had established those sorts of relationships, we could then discuss what a sensible fixed term for Parliament might be. Instead, we are to consider in due course the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill in isolation. Such a piecemeal approach to legislation does not enable us to see the bigger picture.
Once we had established all those matters, we might then be able to think about what the appropriate size of each Chamber in Parliament should be. Having established the appropriate size of each Chamber, as referred to in subsection (2)(c) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 54ZA—indeed, we will discuss later tonight if we are lucky, or on Wednesday otherwise, my Amendment 63YA that also deals with the relationship between the size of the membership of this place and that of the other place—we could then discuss, in the context of the committee of inquiry that my noble friend Lord Wills proposes, the size and composition of each House and how each House would get there. Unfortunately, Part 1 of the Bill, which we have already debated, anticipates the need to ask the question about the alternative vote through a referendum, but that is a piecemeal approach. We should be doing this as part of a much wider picture that we could all understand, so that we can all make judgments accordingly.
Of course, in thinking about the composition of both Chambers, we could then get into some of the more interesting and thorny issues, such as that which came up in Questions today on whether a reformed Second Chamber should include a place for the Lords spiritual and what value is provided by having the voice of independent expertise of the Cross-Benchers, whom we all know and respect. In a radio programme that was broadcast last night, I was fortunate enough to be able to discuss these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and all three of us agreed that there is an absence of that bigger picture at the moment. We are having to discuss and debate—at great length, I am afraid—these issues in isolation. If we had a more coherent vision of where things are going on constitutional reform, perhaps that would save time. The phrase “more haste, less speed” comes to mind in the context of the Government’s approach to these matters.
I have one or two things to say about the phrase,
“the proper role of MPs in their constituencies”,
in subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause, because there has been some debate from some on this side—they would be on this side, as there has not been much debate from anywhere else, except for an important pair of contributions from the Cross Benches—about the characteristics of different constituencies for Members of Parliament. For two Parliaments, I was fortunate enough to represent the constituency of South Dorset, which has both very urban areas, some of which were quite deprived, and very rural areas. It was notable to me that the characteristics of the caseload that I had in the different parts of my constituency were profoundly different.
When I was holding surgeries in the borough of Weymouth and Portland, I predominantly had housing cases. I also had a fair amount of immigration cases and a fair amount relating to problems with the tax credit system and the child support system. I had far fewer of those sorts of cases over in the Purbeck end of my constituency, where things such as planning would come up much more regularly along with fundamental issues about the rurality and isolation of that part of the country, including the islands that I represented. Brownsea and one or two others were a real struggle for me to get to because I had to go through several constituencies to catch the ferry to visit my constituents.
That leads me to make some final comments about subsection (2)(g) of this proposed new clause, on examining,
“the arguments surrounding the statistical basis on which electoral areas are … constructed”.
I could seek to detain the Committee by talking through some of the excellent arguments in the Electoral Commission document that I referred to earlier when I intervened on my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, but I will save that. Suffice it to say that in my own experience, having represented that seat of South Dorset for two Parliaments, drawing boundaries in such a way that they do not take account of such basic things as the ability of people to get around creates problems.
For me to visit Brownsea, which I was able to do on only a few occasions during the time I represented that constituency given that it had only about six electors on it, I had to travel about an hour and a half from my home at one end of the constituency to get a ferry. The ferry would go every now and then and ultimately I would get there. It took all day to meet one or two constituents who might have issues that they wanted me to address. Thank goodness for the telephone, and in this case for e-mail, although some of the comments that we have had about the amount of correspondence that Members of Parliament have show how much is generated by e-mail now. It is quite astonishing.
Equally, the main industrial estate where the vast majority of my constituents in Weymouth worked was not in my constituency but in the neighbouring constituency of West Dorset, because it sat just the wrong side of the local authority boundary. I certainly welcome some of the freedom that the Bill might offer the Boundary Commission to cut across local authority boundaries. Brownsea Island is in Dorset and Poole is in Poole. That is why Brownsea Island was lumped into South Dorset. Making some sense of all of that would certainly be welcome, but to have some kind of very crude system that is based only on numbers and not on constituencies of interest would be very retrograde.
That is why the Government are being offered a fantastic opportunity to accept this amendment from my noble friend Lord Wills, which has clearly been thought through in some detail, as demonstrated by its length. It gives them the opportunity to allow us, as a country, to think about these constitutional reforms in their entirety and not to see individual measures rushed through which I am sure we would all live to regret.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wills has done the Committee an enormous service by presenting this amendment today, because it has enabled those of us who have engaged with the debate at least to consider the conspiracy not to talk about certain matters that really needed to be resolved in advance of taking final decisions on this legislation. I know there has been a lot of comment about an apparent conspiracy among Labour Members of the Committee to spin the discussion out. I have to say to your Lordships that I am not part of that conspiracy. I have not previously intervened in Committee on the Bill to speak on any of the amendments.
Lord Rennard
Has the noble Lord just confirmed that there is a conspiracy and that he is not a part of it?
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am merely saying that some people—the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is clearly one of them—believe that there is such a conspiracy. I can assert that I am not part of any such conspiracy, if one even exists. I wanted to speak today specifically because of the importance of considering the nature and character of representation. This is the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred, and on which I intervened previously, not in Committee but when we debated in the Chamber the Bill’s potential hybridity and what it is about a locality that underpins the nature of representation.
While we may have had the silence of the lambs on the Benches opposite, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Lord who has just intervened on me, what has been most notable about the discussion is the dogs that did not bark—the specific issues. The amendment provides an opportunity for those points to be considered in depth. The dogs that have not barked are serious debates about the nature of representation and of Parliament, and about what we want the House of Commons and Members of Parliament to do and how we want them to operate.
The issue of optimum size is critical, but we have not debated or discussed it in any real detail; the number appears to have been offered down from on high without any consideration. I have not had the privilege of being an elected Member of the House of Commons, but I was an elected public representative in London for 26 years. For part of that time I was the directly elected representative of 5,000 people in the Hornsey central ward of the London Borough of Haringey. For part of that time I was the directly elected representative of the people of Brent and Harrow, a constituency with an electorate of something like 400,000. I have therefore had experience of two extremes of the nature of representation, and the 400,000 figure is probably more consistent with the size of the constituencies of the United States Congress.
My point is not that I am advocating one or other as being the norm for the House of Commons; I am simply saying that there is a world of difference between the type of representation at the lower end of that scale and the type at the higher end. To pretend, therefore, that there will be no difference whether Members of the House of Commons represent 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 or 90,000 people is ludicrous. There has to be recognition of the nature of the relationship between constituents and their Member of Parliament, and that seems to be lacking in the Bill.
Lord Mawhinney
I have had the privilege of serving in the other place. I started immediately after a boundary redistribution with 60,000 to 65,000 constituents, and finished up with 95,000. I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that in the latter years my constituents got a worse service.
Lord Harris of Haringey
No, my Lords, I am suggesting that the noble Lord no doubt had to work 50 per cent harder to deliver the service that he regarded was appropriate at the beginning of his time in the other place. That is fine, but we ought to—
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is making a very powerful case for equalising the numerical strength of each constituency.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The case that I am making is that we have to define the appropriate numerical relationship between the electorate and the Member of Parliament. If you want to go down the route of equalisation, you should first define what the appropriate ratio is. If you do not know that, the argument is, frankly, pointless and otiose.
However, I do not necessarily believe that equalisation is the sole point that we should be looking at. One of the dogs that have not barked in this debate has been the question of what other factors are important, and the amendment provides the opportunity to consider the character of localities and their different natures. When I was the elected Member of the London Assembly for Brent and Harrow, I had the privilege of representing the most ethnically diverse local authority area in the country and, separately, the most religiously diverse. To suggest that the characters of those areas did not influence the nature of the work that I did as a public representative is, again, ludicrous. The characteristics of local constituencies matter. You will find that nearly every other jurisdiction recognises that as part of the factors that need to be taken into account when it comes to deciding where to draw boundaries.
The other dog that has not barked has been the size of the House of Commons. The issue has been brought up today but we have not had that debate. What will be the most effective size of the House of Commons to do the work that we believe it should carry out? What is the effective size for both representing constituents and scrutinising legislation? Where is that debate? We are sidestepping it because of the desire to push ahead without proper consideration of these issues.
My noble friend Lord Beecham talked earlier about the relationship with local authorities. My noble friend Lord Knight, who has just spoken, said that he was in favour of this. I have to say that I am against it. The Bill encourages, or at least would make it far easier for, constituency boundaries to cross local government boundaries. I do not believe that that is in the interests of good and effective representation. It will make it more difficult for MPs to cover the ground, and for them to have a relationship with local authorities so that in partnership they can achieve things for their constituents both at local government level and in working with central government in Parliament. Those are the issues that make talking about crossing local government boundaries in this way so inappropriate.
The final issue that I want to refer to, in terms of dogs that have not barked in this debate but that should have been allowed to be considered in detail, is the nature of the electoral data on which all this is based and the frequency with which they change. I have spent all my political life in London. London is an area in which, historically, there has often been underrepresentation because of the number of people who are registered to vote. That underrepresentation was at a particular peak when the community charge—the poll tax—was introduced, and all that went with that. A large number of residents in London chose to drop off the electoral register, as they did in many other urban areas and no doubt elsewhere. That legacy of underrepresentation remains.
We should also consider the turnover in big inner-city populations and the number who come in. At one point when I was leader of my local authority, the collection register for the community charge turned over by one-third each year, indicating a great flow of population dropping into and out of the area. That was partly a consequence of migration and partly because of the mobility of populations at that time, but it also involves the recognition of particular areas. Because the Bill is constructed around drawing up these boundaries and quotas on the basis of an already flawed electoral register, we are building into the system an inappropriate bias against areas with historic underregistration and areas with an historically very high turnover.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Does my noble friend agree that the factor he has just been speaking of will be exacerbated in consequence of the coalition Government’s housing benefit changes?
Lord Harris of Haringey
My noble friend is absolutely right. The projections that people have talked about—of the flows of people having to move because they will be displaced by changes to housing benefit—necessarily means that he will be right. I also suspect that we will see more people dropping out of the system and being difficult to pick up. They will be trying to avoid various obligations as a consequence of that. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was moved to intervene again but he has not done so, which is fine.
My point is that these are fundamental issues which should be considered before we make a final judgment as to the direction we are taking in this legislation. It may be that, after proper consideration, a simply numerical allocation would be the most appropriate way forward. It is not one that I would favour but I can see how we could get to that. First, let us debate these issues properly. This legislation is not giving us the opportunity, whereas my noble friend’s amendment would enable that to take place, for the public to be engaged in it and for this to be as transparent a process as possible. If I remember correctly, transparency is one of the objectives of this Conservative-led coalition Government; they believe it is so important. Let us see that importance reflected in this legislation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I make just two brief points, which arise from the debate so far. The first follows what my noble friend described as the dogs that did not bark. I ask Members of this House to imagine a Labour Government proposing an arbitrary number in the House of Commons, without any consultation or a Green Paper, and without any hearing arrangements whatever. What squeals we would hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We would have heard lectures from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about how it breached human rights. We would have heard squeals of high dudgeon and moral outrage from the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, about its being disgraceful and undemocratic. What have we heard in this debate of now two hours and 16 minutes? There have been three interventions from the opposite side, which is not prepared to engage in the argument.
I understood that the House of Lords gave us an opportunity to revise legislation—to debate it, which means to look at both sides of the argument. The situation now appears to be that the coalition is prepared just to sit there on its Benches, waiting for the debate to finish and prepared to use a built-in majority to push the Bill through without any debate. That is a negation of democracy. I do not understand how Liberal Democrats who sat through the Labour Government, attacking and criticising us for such things, can sit there and accept it. My noble friend Lord Grocott will recall that in the Labour Government there were certainly people on the Back Benches of the Labour Party arguing the case, questioning, challenging and making sure that the issues were properly discussed. It is quite astonishing that, apart from Labour Members and two distinguished, excellent contributions from the Cross Benches, no one has entered this debate.
My second and last point is for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who will reply to this debate and who I know very well and have great respect for. I hope he will reply properly to the debate and deal with the issues that have been raised. I want him to deal specifically with this one. The Scottish Constitutional Convention preceded the setting up of the Scottish Parliament. It involved all the parties, civil society in Scotland, the universities, the trade unions and everyone in Scotland. It discussed what the powers of the Scottish Parliament should be, what should be devolved, how many Members there should be and what the electoral system should be. Before legislation was introduced, the Labour Government allowed that debate to take place. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will not agree to this for a major constitutional change to the House of Commons, he needs to search his conscience very strongly. Those are the only points that I want to make.
Lord Boateng
My Lords, we are privileged in this House to serve in a Parliament that is widely perceived the world over as the mother of parliaments. That is a privilege we enjoy and one that several of us have now enjoyed in both Houses. I had a period of almost five years’ absence from the Palace of Westminster, living and working in a country that was a new democracy. It valued its written constitution, which encapsulates some of the highest possible ideals of democratic participation and values. However, it was located in a continent—Africa—where, frankly, democracy has, over the years, been stretched and at times broken, albeit a continent that is now beginning to demonstrate a degree of movement towards a better and more truly representative democracy. Therefore, along with many other Members on all sides of this House and in another place, I have spent time—through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other institutions—working with parliamentarians and groups of citizens globally. They have seen in the Westminster system of democracy something that they seek to emulate and aspire to.
I have had an opportunity, over the past four years while I have been absent from this place, to see at first hand how parliamentarians and civic groups throughout Africa look to this place for examples of how they can better conduct themselves and how they should embark on constitutional reform. It is worth this House’s while to reflect, just for a moment, on how this measure is perceived outside Westminster—not just in our own country but abroad and, in particular, in those places that have traditionally looked to Westminster as the best example of how to conduct constitutional reform and embed democracy in governance.
When we pause for a moment to think about how we are perceived externally, we might see something of value. I certainly see something of value in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wills. It gives us time to pause and reflect; it seeks to proceed on a firm basis of evidence; it seeks to arrive at a consensus on the way forward in crucial matters, as many noble Members of this House have articulated in this afternoon’s debate and earlier on Part 1; and it seeks for that to take place under the auspices of a High Court judge. That is important. Members from all sides of this House have been out and about globally, talking to and sharing with colleagues in other Parliaments on issues of governance, sometimes in very fraught situations. In the past we have always been able to reply in the affirmative to one of the questions that they have asked us: in the United Kingdom we proceed with constitutional reform on the basis of consensus. Speaker’s Conferences and other devices have brought about a degree of consensus, and only when that consensus has been achieved are we prepared to go forward, even when it has meant delay or perhaps taking longer than many would have liked.
What I find so disturbing about Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is that they are clearly being driven through without consensus; for us to pretend otherwise is just spurious. It will weaken our hand in the world as we argue for better governance globally, as we will no longer be able to say, “In our country we proceed by way of consensus”. We will no longer be able to say that in our country—this applies particularly in relation to how constituency boundaries are drawn—we proceed only on the basis of an inquiry presided over by a legal figure in which people on all sides are able to give evidence and in which their views are heard.
Lord Soley
I am grateful to my noble friend for touching on an important issue that I want to raise when we discuss Amendment 59: namely, that when we act as international observers at elections overseas, most notably in some of the former Communist countries, one of the things we always look at is who decides the size and structure of a parliament in the context of whether that is done with all-party agreement or on an independent assessment. That is one of the ways in which we can flag up warning signs.
Lord Boateng
I am grateful to my noble friend for reflecting on that. Many Members on all sides of the Committee, some of whom are sadly silent this afternoon, know that what my noble friend says is true and that we will be weakened by the measures that we are debating and which some seek to push through the House. I ask us to pause and give serious consideration to the proposal in the amendment, as it would at least enable us to say that we have sought consensus and respected the role that the judiciary can, and ought to, play in this area of constitutional reform. A number of us have visited countries in the immediate aftermath of hotly contested and inconclusive elections, just as our election was hotly contested and inconclusive. We have said to them, “The last thing you as a Government should be doing now is pushing through a measure which could be perceived as enshrining your own power for longer than the electorate have given you a right to expect”. Noble Lords on all sides of this House have given that message to others; it is a lesson that we ought to take on board ourselves.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, I have no mandate to speak on this matter for the coalition but I have listened to the debate for two and a half hours and I have heard assertions being made which certainly ought to be rebutted, not necessarily by the Minister but by those who have taken a strong interest in constitutional reform in this House and in another place. I have served in Westminster for 44 years and I am bound to say that the view that constitutional reform should be based on consensus is so unhistorical that I cannot recognise it as having even a scintilla of truth. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, suggested that we should react to the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference. I served on the Speaker’s Conference when it considered the voting age of members of the public. If that is not a fundamental question, I do not know what is. The Speaker’s Conference recommended that people should have the vote at 20. The Labour Government of the time did not consider that that was right. The late Lord Gardiner, for whom I had the greatest respect, summoned me to his chambers to ask why the Labour Party’s policy on having the vote at 18 had not been reflected in the Speaker’s Conference recommendations. Did that Government respect the recommendation of the Speaker’s Conference? No, they did not. They went ahead with the vote at 18.
Time and again we have had references to the 1832 Act. What sort of a royal commission was called before that 1832 Act was passed by Parliament? What kind of consensus was there in the country? There was nothing. There was political leadership from Earl Grey, who had strongly advocated these matters for some time.
Lord Wills
I have great respect for, and pay tribute to, the noble Lord’s very distinguished history as a constitutional reformer and he was right to remind the Committee of that. I know that it was a long time ago and he may have forgotten exactly what I said in my opening remarks but I do not think that he was listening quite as carefully as he should to those remarks which informed the rest of this debate. I specifically mentioned practice over the past 100 years or so. I am not talking about the 19th century but of relatively modern times. I am not talking about the broad constitutional issues about which there will always be debate. My noble friends Lord Grocott and Lord Snape talked about the broad constitutional issues of the alternative vote system and I fundamentally disagree with them on that. I am talking about achieving consensus on a process that is, as far as is possible, independent and fair minded. Does the noble Lord not recognise that?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
What I do recognise is that in my lifetime the entitlement to vote has changed considerably. There was, for example, a multiple vote. My father cast two votes for parliamentary elections in different constituencies and that was perfectly legal. I am conscious that that change in the law did not come about as a result of a high-powered discussion led by a judge. We know the opinion of judges. We have heard from former judges in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, gave us his view. What is there to suggest that a judge sitting on a committee comprising partisan people drawn from both Chambers will come up with any different view from that of the elected House of Commons, backed or not backed by this Chamber? It is a chimerical view that we could have a consensus on this set of propositions. It is a method of delaying decision, and constitutional reform requires decision.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does my noble friend—I still think of the noble Lord as my noble friend—not agree that the Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which he was part, provided us with an excellent model whereby we had a White Paper, then an all-party discussion and discussion with people from the community—indeed, I think there were some lawyers on it as well—and that that is exactly the right kind of model that we should be encouraging in this instance?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I, alas, disagree with the noble Lord on that. As he said, I served on the Scottish Constitutional Convention but I am bound to say that it was a device to fill a gap in time when it was not possible to extract from Parliament the decisions that reformers such as the noble Lord were in favour of. It was a method of trying to cover up political delay. I am sorry but I do not think that it was ideal. I think it was he who suggested that all parties had participated. That is not the case. The Conservative Party did not participate.
I also sat on another convention which was attempting to draw up a constitution for Europe and, again, was filled with representatives of national Parliaments from all around Europe. I am bound to say that it came to nothing. What has come to something has been the treaty of Lisbon, which came about as a result of executive government in a number of different countries plucking from that convention the best that they could to give us a framework for our European constitution.
I am sorry, but I profoundly disagree with the thread of argument that has been built upon the amendment that we heard eloquently defended and advocated at the beginning of this debate. We have seen this process of setting up commissions. We had a commission—a royal commission—set up on the reform of this place, sitting under the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. How many of its recommendations, consensual as they were, have been implemented here? Virtually nothing has happened.
The most notable reforms of the Government which preceded the present one did not all come about as a result of commissions of inquiry or looking for consensus. One of the most remarkable reforms was that which resulted in the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to the Cabinet and concerned taking out of this Chamber active judges—active Members of the House of Lords, sitting in its judicial capacity—and the creation of a Supreme Court. That was done by the decision of the Prime Minister, backed by some influential members of his Cabinet. It was certainly not accepted generally or widely. There was no consensus about it. It was torn apart in this House and was considered for months in a committee of this House, but it was certainly not produced as a result of seeking consensus. After the event, it seems to have been a very wise move, which was backed by the then great Lord Bingham, who was the senior Law Lord.
Lord Sewel
I wonder whether the noble Lord will now try and square the argument he is putting forward with the argument for participatory democracy that his party advocates?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Yes, I will. We have a very imperfect system of participatory democracy, because we have a rotten electoral system. The first past the post system does not reflect in Parliament anything like the aspirational end of participatory democracy, and although I do not regard the alternative vote as the ideal system—again I speak for myself and not the coalition—it is none the less a step towards a better representation and a more participative end point in our constitution. It will, I believe, make people feel in their constituencies generally that their vote does count.
Lord Sewel
In that case, is the noble Lord saying that the individual citizen is limited to being just the individual elector and not an active citizen in the legislative process?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
There are many ways in which one can be an active citizen, and I enumerated some of them when introducing a debate on that very subject in this House shortly before Christmas.
I do not wish to detain the House, and I am conscious that the hour is late and that many will wish to reach a decision on this. However, I want to say that I am distressed by the fact that so many noble Lords for whom I have a high regard should imply that this deliberative process would bring about a better end point than the deliberations of our Parliament, which the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, referred to as the mother of Parliaments. It is so highly regarded largely because it is thought to act, usually, in a deliberate and wise way. On this occasion, the silence on these Benches indicates consent to what the Bill is putting forward, and an awareness that those opposing it are seeking to stop it from making progress and to stymie the efforts to achieve the constitutional reform that is long overdue.
Lord Gilbert
My Lords, in the 27 years that I was in another place I represented all that time the good people of Dudley. The extraordinary thing is that I represented no fewer than three distinct and different constituencies, and was chosen to stand as a candidate for a fourth constituency, within the boundaries of Dudley. That was not so much an inconvenience to me, but an infuriating irritant to the good people of Dudley.
I have also seen the consequences—as, no doubt, many other noble Lords have—of constituencies that cross local authority boundaries. That is not only an inconvenience to the Member of Parliament but an enormous inconvenience to elected councillors and paid officials of the different local authorities. It is beyond an irritant; it drives ordinary citizens berserk because they do not know who to go to. It is not a question of parliamentary convenience.
Long ago I came to the view that this manic idea that we have to have precise mathematical equivalence in constituency numbers is a hobgoblin of very small minds indeed. We should be big enough to accept certain anomalies in our constitutional system without recoiling with shrieks of “unfair, unfair”. There is no such thing as a fair system, because what is unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, whose speech I largely agreed with, is fair to me; and vice versa. There is no such thing as an ideal fair system which is just to be grasped and which ordinary reasonable people would sit down and agree with. Ça n’existe pas, it never will, and we should accept anomalies.
Earlier in this debate, one noble Lord talked about his difficulties in visiting a part of his constituency which was an island. When I first represented Dudley, it was an island.
Lord Gilbert
Oh yes it was. The centre of Dudley was a part of Worcestershire that was wholly surrounded by Staffordshire. I represented a constituency called Dudley, but which was actually and simultaneously Dudley and Stourbridge. The country got by quite well with that, except rather inconveniently at electioneering time when my wife and I swapped ends. In the mornings, I was in Dudley while she was in Stourbridge, and vice versa in the afternoons and evenings. However, the principle was exactly the same as that adumbrated by my noble friend. Surely to god this country is big enough to accept a few minor anomalies and have something like the Isle of Wight with a much bigger electorate, if it wants that. The idea that we should try to produce equivalence in numbers of constituents—with all the consequences that it produces—is quite absurd.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is a very important amendment and is the inevitable consequence of doing what the constitutional committees in both Houses of this Parliament have complained about.
The chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in the Commons issued a report on 2 August which stated:
“Your legislative timetable has put me and my committee in an extremely difficult position. When the House agreed to establish the committee, it did so, in the words of the Deputy Leader of the House, ‘to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise the work of the Deputy Prime Minister’. In the case of these two bills”—
one of them is this Bill—
“you have denied us any adequate opportunity to”,
scrutinise. Our own Constitution Committee said:
“In general we regard it as a matter of principle that proposals for major constitutional reform should be subject to prior public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. We recognise that there may exceptionally be good reasons for departing from this principle, but the perils of doing so are well illustrated in the present Bill. The case for proceeding rapidly with one Part of this Bill is far stronger than for the other”.
It is possible that the effect of Part 1 of the Bill as drafted will have no effect on our constitution. There is no doubt that if Part 2 in its current form goes through, it will have a substantial effect on our constitution. I very strongly empathise with the very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Boateng. What would we say to a country that said, “We are going to reduce the number of Members of Parliament in our country by 50 by using our majority to do so”? We would say, “It may well be sensible to reduce or increase the number of Members of Parliament in your country, but presumably there is some sort of independent process by which the number is to be assessed”.
The number of Members of Parliament in this country has fluctuated over a period of 60 or 70 years. That fluctuation has always been as a result of recommendations of the Boundary Commission. It is a very dangerous precedent for a majority in the House of Commons, and then a practical political majority in this House, to push forward a change in the number of Members of the House of Commons.
Even if there was not some independent justification for the reduction from 650 to 600, is there some intellectual justification for the reduction from 650 to 600? How many of your Lordships were present when the Leader of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave as the justification that it was a nice, round number? There is no intellectual justification and no independent justification of any sort whatsoever. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, whom I respect for the work he did in pioneering the way for constitutional change, says sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and go for it; it is leadership that matters. We have never done that in this country since 1944 in relation to how our democracy is based.
In 1944 a Speaker’s Conference set up the current method for determining constituencies and the number of Members of Parliament. That was given effect in an Act of 1949. There was a further Act in 1954 which gave effect to a consensus that there should not be too radical changes in the number of Members of Parliament. There were further changes in 1986 by a Government led by Mrs Thatcher—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—which we, the Labour Party, broadly supported. Further changes were introduced in 1992 by a Government led by Mr John Major, which we broadly supported. There was one occasion in which jiggery-pokery was attempted by a Government and that was in 1969 by a Government led by Harold Wilson and the Labour Party. What happened was that this House rejected the Bill that sought to tamper with a boundary revision.
So do not tell us that Parliament has not proceeded by way of consensus; Parliament has behaved exceptionally well. I think that it is a disgrace that there is absolute silence from the other side, as without independent justification and without intellectual justification a Leader of this House treats this House and the parliamentary system with contempt by saying it is a nice, round number. I see Back-Benchers nodding that it is a perfectly respectable argument, but it is not; it is a disgraceful argument.
Lord Mawhinney
Just for the record, I made no such implication as the noble and learned Lord has attributed to me. The point that I was seeking to make was that, whether the number of constituents is 65,000 or 90,000, it is perfectly possible for a Member of Parliament to handle that level of workload.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I apologise. I misunderstood what the noble Lord said. Obviously, further work would need to be done. I am happy to say that when I said further work was required, the noble Lord nodded—that is the point that I am making. First, what is the workload on a Member of Parliament and what is the right size for Parliament in relation to that consideration?
Secondly, what should be the basis of determining the constituencies? Of course, I think that it should be the electoral register, though there is an issue about population. There is a respectable view that says, where you have constituencies which have very significant populations which are much higher than the electoral register, those constituencies should, in some way, reflect that increase in the size of the population. For example, just as we have a geographical limit because we think it is too far for an MP to travel all around the constituency, is there a population limit above the electoral register which should have some effect on the size of constituencies?
Thirdly, the purpose of the deviation figure of 5 per cent from the electoral quota is to ensure that constituencies are broadly the same size. That would lead to a difference in the size of constituencies of about 7,000 if 76,000 is the average size of a constituency. The purpose is to get rid of what is described as the malproportion factor. Published work, in particular by Thrasher and Rallings, and by Lewis Baston, suggests that a deviation figure of 10 rather than 5 per cent would have the same effect in reducing the malproportion figure yet at the same time allow one, in determining constituencies, to keep communities together and not have the radical effect that the government proposals would have. What work have the Government done on whether 5 or 10 per cent would make a substantial difference to malproportion? Has any research been done on that? What effect on, for example, crossing county boundaries would a 10 per cent as opposed to a 5 per cent deviation have? The Government will not be able to answer all these questions; I am asking about the research that is being done on them.
Thirdly, what effect will this have on the Executive? Reducing the size of the House of Commons from 650 to 600 will increase the size of the Executive and reduce the number of Back-Benchers. Is it the intention of the Government to stick with that? If so, what effect will that have on Parliament as a place to hold the Executive to account?
Fourthly, what will be the effect of removing local boundary reviews that can be conducted in person? These reviews have had a 64 per cent effect on changing constituency boundaries. What work has been done to determine the effect on the reliability and acceptance of the boundaries that removal of the reviews will have?
If the Government will not answer those questions or have not done the work, the questions should be answered by somebody. This is not a great reform like the 1832 Act, as the Prime Minister said; it needs work doing on it. The effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wills is that that work can be done. As my noble friend Lord Boateng said, our democracy is something that we rightly prize. The idea of rushing into this change, which has the support only of one side of the Houses of Parliament—let alone of either the country or the rest of the world—is wrong. It is not an acceptable justification to say that the Tory party agreed it with the Liberal Democrats between Friday and Tuesday after the latest general election. That looks like the worst sort of political gerrymandering. I ask the Government to reconsider and to give ground in relation to an independent look at the changes that they are making.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for introducing a debate that has given rise to a considerable number of important contributions. I am not sure that I can address all of them, but I will do my best to pick up most of the salient points. It is clear that the debate on this amendment has touched on many issues that will inevitably come up as we go through the Bill. Future amendments have already been tabled that deal with some of them. I hope to explain the principles that underlie the proposals that we will debate further. I hope also to explain why the proposals are reasonable and why a committee of inquiry is unnecessary.
It is clear that the amendment would slow down the proposed reform of our political process and system. It is highly unlikely that the proposals in this amendment would be in place in time for the next election. There would be a three-year deadline to report, six months to draft measures giving effect to the recommendations, and then time to legislate. That would be only for the legislation that set new rules for conducting boundary reviews. The reviews themselves would then need to be carried out. Therefore, even if the rules were in place before the next election, the new boundaries could come into effect only at the election after that.
I do not want to suggest that the political purpose of this has been to kick the Government's proposals into touch, although my noble friend Lord Tyler referred to previous committees of inquiry that delayed and postponed for many years what were seen by many as desirable reforms, and there was a general groundswell of support for his point on this side of the House. I also want to knock on the head the idea that I have accused noble Lords opposite of filibustering. The only complaint I would make is about the time taken up by them complaining that I might accuse them of filibustering. I also take great exception to the suggestion that the proposal is partisan. I do not believe that the opposition case stacks up. The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, pointed out that the issue of the size of constituencies applied as much to Conservative constituencies as to Labour ones. One cannot on the one hand say that reform will have the same impact on Labour and Conservative constituencies and on the other say that what we are trying to do is partisan.
I will pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, about his freedom of information application. I apologise that the noble Lord has not yet received a reply to his request. I will seek to ensure that he receives one as soon as possible. However, my noble friend Lord McNally, who is sitting with me, has indicated that as far as we are aware no work has been done on any kind of partisan measurement of what a new size of 600 for the House of Commons would bring about. No modelling has been done on that basis. I also say at the outset that amid all the outrage that we have heard from the other side, one would think that it was a constitutional outrage to support the principle of one vote, one value. That is what is enshrined in this part of the Bill; one vote should have one value in all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that to be a constitutional outrage, except in Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. I am happy to argue that, as the noble Lord's party did in the Scotland Act in the case of Orkney and Shetland.
My second point is that there would not only be a delay. If the 2015 election is to be fought in England on boundaries that took as their electoral registration base the year 2000—15 years previously—can anyone suggest that that is a constitutional principle that we should seek to uphold in this House? We wish to make progress with this so that we can have a boundary review that will deliver its report and be in effect by the 2015 election.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, albeit slightly after the point that he was making. He said, on behalf of himself and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that no political modelling had been done on the implications of this reform. I would have been very surprised had he told us that the Civil Service had done an exercise on behalf of Ministers that had demonstrated what the political consequences of these changes would be. However, is he also giving us an assurance that such an exercise was not prepared either by a special adviser—a political adviser in the relevant government department—or by the political parties concerned?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely right about the Civil Service. It would be improper for it to do this, and it has not done it. Nor are the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I aware of any special adviser who has done it. I cannot speak for the Conservative Party, and while I may be able to speak for the Liberal Democrats, I honestly do not know what the answer is. I simply reaffirm the point that the principle here is one vote, one value. It would be a rash person who would predict the political fallout from this reform.
Lord Lipsey
How does the noble and learned Lord square what he is saying about this part of the Bill being about one vote with one value, with the argument that he and his Lib Dem colleagues have put forward for years that the only votes in our system that have value are those in marginal seats, because in all other seats the votes do not count at all because of the huge majorities?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
We are debating the earlier part of the Bill and are not going to debate electoral systems. That would be beyond the scope of this amendment. What we have done in Part 1 of the Bill will lead to a better system. That is my personal view, and the view of my party. The Government as a whole will not take a view in the referendum. I have a number of important points to make and would like to do justice to them.
Lord Soley
I understand the noble and learned Lord’s problem in that he is a member of the Liberal Democrat party but is speaking for a coalition Government. The idea of reducing the size of the House of Commons to the suggested figure is not new. It was first put by the Conservative Party in 2004 and reiterated in 2009 and 2010. The two reasons given were, first, that the Tories did not get sufficient seats from the system with the current number, and, secondly, the cost. Those are the only two reasons that were given until the general election. They are in writing in a number of Conservative Party documents.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord rightly reminds me that I am speaking on behalf of the coalition Government, and I reiterate that we have not done any political modelling on the possible political outcome of a House of Commons of 600.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am not sure that I will ever be able to answer all the points.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The noble and learned Lord has dismissed suggestions as to why the Government might have alighted on the figure of 600 parliamentary constituencies. He has explained why they did not make that choice, but what is the rationale for that figure?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I thank the noble Lord for that question, because he has illustrated that if he had not intervened I might have reached that point by now. I hope noble Lords will allow me to answer that important point, which was made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I hope to respond to these points as we proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, has made an ambitious attempt to balance the effect of almost every electoral procedure against every other one. His amendment asks us to wait longer to turn the Bill from a Bill that is workable and achievable into a deeply analysed but almost impossible one that would then have to be taken forward. As I have said, our objectives are clear and we believe that they are attainable. We want one elector to have one vote throughout the United Kingdom. By contrast, the amendment promises a comprehensive overhaul of the whole system that we are considering, including the maintenance of the union and the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament that might produce a magic number of electors and the optimum constituency size.
The current rules by which the Boundary Commission carries out its work have not been considered by a committee since the 1940s. They have been changed on a number of occasions since then by the decision of Parliament through legislation. There is a clear precedent for adjusting boundary rules in the light of experience. The changes have included important elements, such as a longer period of reviews of 10 to 15 years rather than three to seven years. It was right for a Speaker’s Conference to determine the basis for boundary reviews when that happened for the first time back in the 1940s. When the Boundary Commission has asked in its reports for the rules to be made more coherent, Parliament has not asked a conference, a committee or an inquiry to consider what an independent—I stress independent—Boundary Commission has asked for. It is right for the debate to take place in Parliament. Even the 1944 Speaker’s Conference recommended that electoral equality across the constituencies of the United Kingdom should be an overriding principle. We should allow the Boundary Commission to commence that work without delay.
On Second Reading my noble friend noted the dangers of a perfectionist approach, which perhaps is the approach summed up in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, when he said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 15/11/10; col. 594.].
Again I say to noble Lords opposite that it is a great pity they did not start the process when they were given such a long opportunity to do so. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that there is no perfection of fairness; one person’s fairness may be seen as another’s unfairness. I believe that the Bill, by establishing one vote of equal value across the country, goes a long way to getting a better perception and reality of fairness. I would add that the British Academy report found that the new rules set out in the Bill,
“are a very substantial improvement on those currently implemented”,
and that,
“they have a clear hierarchy and are not contradictory”.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked how the figure of 600 was reached. We have never suggested that there was anything magical or ideal about a House of Commons of 600 any more than the current size of 650 is ideal. It is flawed legislation that has allowed the size of the House of Commons to creep up over time.
Lord Bach
The noble and learned Lord says that in the past Parliament has directed certain matters regarding the redistribution of boundaries, and he is right about that, but does he agree that no Parliament has ever set an exact number, such as the 600 in this Bill? No Government have ever done that. In the 1986 legislation and other previous legislation, Governments have left the Boundary Commission to set the exact number as a result of its inquiry. This Government in this Bill are trying to set a number of 600. That is unique, is it not?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I will give way to the noble Baroness in a moment. The noble Lord is factually correct but as I was about to say when he intervened, the legislation in place has allowed the number to creep up and up. The only occasion on which it has come down since 1945 has been post devolution to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated that the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, brought forward the order, quite properly, to reduce the number of Scottish constituencies from 72 to 59. Under this proposal, we are going even further. That is the only occasion when the number has come down. The fact that no number has been set has allowed the numbers to creep up and up over the years.
Baroness McDonagh
I want to add that not only has the number crept up but the electorate has increased from 33 million to 42 million in this period.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Indeed, but the point I was about to make about the present size of the House of Commons is that it is the largest directly elected national chamber in the European Union, and at 600 it would still be relatively big. It would have fewer than the chambers of some comparable countries. The Bundestag, for example, has 622 members and the Italian Chamber of Deputies has a similar number. As indicated in an exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Wills, each country has its own internal arrangements, be it some federal situation as in Germany or the United States, or devolution in our own country.
Lord Bach
The noble and learned Lord said that the numbers have gone up. I am sure that he knows that the number of Members of Parliament who were elected in 1945 was 640, with a population, as my noble friend just said, of 33 million. The number elected in 2010 was 650, with a population that is much higher than that. Will the noble and learned Lord admit that those figures are correct?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I have no reason to doubt the noble Lord, Lord Bach, but will he accept that, with the exception of the reduction of Scottish Members post the 1945 election, the numbers have gone up on every occasion?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
In fairness, it is the noble Lord’s amendment, but I want to address the points that have been raised.
Lord Wills
I do not want to delay progress unduly, but the noble and learned Lord misrepresented, or misunderstood, the exchange between me and my noble friend Lord Foulkes. The point was not that one country has a better system than another. Those other countries—Germany and the United States—all had a profound, rigorous public debate on the right arrangements for their constitution. They have written constitutions. We are not having that debate now about this Bill, and we should. That was the point of the exchange and what we are asking the Minister to consider. We want a proper public debate on these crucial issues.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The point that I was making about the exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Foulkes, was that a point was made about the Senate having 100 members and the US House of Representatives having approximately 434. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out that there are also state legislatures in 50 states. We are not comparing like with like. I took the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that international comparisons take you only so far. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, made the point about the word “gerrymandering” coming from the United States and seemed to suggest, although I am sure he did not mean to, that the Boundary Commission would somehow be heavied by the Government of the day. In the United States, as the commentaries following the elections in November made clear, the new boundaries will be set by the state legislatures, not by an independent boundary commission. That is the fundamental difference. I hope that noble Lords will accept that.
To elaborate further, under our proposals, the 1 December 2009 register suggests that the electoral quota for the United Kingdom would be about 76,000. More than one-third of existing constituencies are already within 5 per cent either side of that illustrative quota, so the impact of our proposals will see constituencies of a size well within existing norms. However, if the House were to have, for example, 500 Members, that would push the size of the average UK seat above 90,000, and only three existing seats would be within 5 per cent of that quota. For that size to become commonplace would perhaps be too great a departure from what Members and the public are accustomed to. We therefore thought that 600 would seem to strike the right balance without reducing by too much and having regard to the fact that one-third of existing seats would be within 5 per cent either way of the existing norm. In addition, a slightly smaller House will mean that savings can be made without, in the Government's view, losing the capacity of individual Members or the Chamber as a whole to perform their functions.
Other points have been raised: for example, the fact that that should be linked to reform of your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that there will be ample opportunity to work out the implications for the reform of your Lordships' House when the draft Bill is brought forward. An important point was made first by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and picked up by several other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. That is the relationship between the Executive and the elected House, the other place, if the number of MPs is reduced but not the number of Ministers.
The Government indicated in the other place that we agree that that is indeed an issue to be considered, but we do not believe that it is one that needs to be resolved in the context of the Bill. Reduction in the size of the House will not take effect until 2015, and we should therefore consider that issue in the light of decisions on, among other things, the size and composition of a reformed second Chamber. Historically, there has not been a consistent relationship between the size of the House and the number of Ministers within it. The number of Ministers in the Commons will be determined by what is needed to carry out the Government’s parliamentary business, and will not be affected by the change in the size of the Chamber. It is not clear that legislation is the answer. If the issue is the size of the Government’s payroll vote, there are ways to address that without legislation—for example, a reduction in the number of PPSs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That was an absolutely riveting piece of information that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, dropped into the conversation—which is that, as I understand it, the size of this House will determine whether the Government are to reduce the number of Ministers. Have I misunderstood what the noble and learned Lord said? If I have, can he please explain it? Is it better if this House is bigger or smaller for the size of the Executive?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I indicated that an important factor would be the size of the reformed House, because if the overall number of Ministers is to be retained, it may be considered preferable to draw them from the elected House, with tested accountability mechanisms, rather than increasing the ministerial numbers elsewhere, including in this House.
The noble and learned Lord raised that issue, although the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised it first. It is an important issue. It is an issue which the Government have indicated needs to be addressed, but not in the Bill. There are other implications. For example, if Ministers were not to be in the other place, would they automatically be in this place? Would they have voting rights in this place? There are a whole host of issues which are perhaps more relevant to the debate about the constitution of the second Chamber in the context of a reduced House of Commons than to be dealt with in this debate.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord will get an opportunity to reply.
That does not mean to say that that is not an important issue. We have debated it in the context of Part 1. As the Committee will know, the Government are committed to taking forward the proposals already set in train—by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, himself—on individual registration. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also indicated that there will be a pilot scheme to allow local authorities to data match with other sets of data to try to get a better understanding and a better way to identify those who are not on the electoral roll.
To think that to fight an election in 2015 on an electoral roll that has as its basis the electorate in the year 2000 is in some way better defies rational consideration. What the Bill proposes—a rolling review every five years and efforts which we are making which, I think, will be widely supported across the Committee, to encourage individual registration and to identify where there are people who ought to be on the electoral roll but who are not—is far more likely to have an effect for the general election of 2020 than setting up a committee of inquiry that might take ages to report and then to have legislation following on the back of that. We are more likely to achieve what is a perfectly laudable and proper aim of ensuring that as many people who are entitled to vote as can be are on the electoral roll by the way that we are going about it. That is more likely to lead to success.
The noble Lord’s amendment also questions whether equally weighted votes should be given priority over other factors. We are aware of and sensitive to other reasons—the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and others mentioned the importance of local ties and communities—for proposing exceptions to the principle. An identity with or affiliation to certain areas of community is something that many people feel to be of considerable importance. Those of us in this House who have been Members of the other place feel that in particular. We acknowledge that there is a strength of feeling, and we would certainly want those with a local interest to make representations to the Boundary Commission in relation to local ties and for the Boundary Commission to be able to take them into consideration. The Bill will allow for constituencies to vary in the number of electors by as much as 10 per cent—that is, 5 per cent either way—of the UK electoral quota. That will allow the commission to take local factors into account. We will no doubt debate possible exceptions: I am sure that amendments have already been tabled to allow us that debate.
Another issue raised was workload. It is not the case that workload is a factor taken into account by the Boundary Commission at the moment. One speech suggested that somehow the Government excluding that was another manifestation of evil. It would be a judgment of Solomon for any independent inquiry to work out what is a relevant workload for a particular Member of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, mentioned the high asylum-seeker numbers in the constituency which he formerly represented with great distinction. I remember as a Scottish Minister once visiting his constituency on an asylum-seeker issue; I know precisely what he means. However, as a representative of a landlocked constituency, he never had to deal with an oil tanker carrying 84,000 tonnes of crude oil crashing and spilling its oil in the middle of his constituency. There are different things which different Members of Parliament have, by the very nature of their constituencies, to deal with. It would be more than a judgment of Solomon to try to weigh up what the different workload was for different Members of Parliament.
Lord Martin of Springburn
I did have the Forth and Clyde Canal to worry about.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
And the mind boggles as to what kind of issues that may have given rise to. That probably just proves the point that every person who has been a Member of the other place can say why their constituency was that bit different.
I turn to the specific point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Elystan-Morgan, about their concern about the union. I am as passionately concerned about the union as they are. The important point to remember is that the reform means that a vote in Cardiff will have an equal value to a vote in Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh or London. To me, that does not undermine the union; giving an equal value to a vote in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and London will, we hope, bring the union closer together. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, indicated that she brought forward an order that was of significant cost to the Labour Party in terms of the number of seats in Scotland following devolution. Indeed, if this Bill goes through, there will be a further decrease, but I have to be honest and say that I do not really remember the rafters falling in in Scotland. Indeed, people thought that it was important. My party argued within the Scottish Constitutional Convention that there ought to be a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster if we got a Scottish Parliament dealing with a whole range of domestic issues. When it comes to workload, how are we going to evaluate the workload of an English MP vis-à-vis a Welsh MP or a Scottish MP? Is there going to be a differential? I do not think that anyone has suggested that we should have different MPs in terms of their quality.
The question of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked me to address was partly addressed by my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart. The noble Lord’s mind is perhaps playing tricks. It was not facilitated by a Labour Government prior to legislating for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Constitutional Convention was established under a Conservative Government. It not only did not include the Conservative Party; it did not include the Scottish National Party either. That was through no fault of the convention, I hasten to add, but because those parties chose not to join it.
There is no way in which I can say that the number of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament was a consensus arrived at by all the parties. One day, I will perhaps tell the House how the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and I reached the number of 129 but if I do—“Not now” says the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—it probably means that the number of 600 will hit the heights of scientific measurement compared to how that was done.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
One day, I will be very interested to know how the figure of 129 was arrived at. There are many different versions of the story. The point I would make to the noble and learned Lord is that when we came to the point of laying the order that reduced the number of MPs coming to Westminster, it was done with broad agreement across the House. This is the very point that I and others are trying to make to the coalition: if you proceed with consensus, or even seek to achieve consensus, you end up with a much more robust constitutional settlement at the end of the day.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I sincerely hope that when the Boundary Commission produces its review, if this Bill goes on to the statute book and the Boundary Commission review takes place, whoever is the Minister responsible for bringing forward the order will do so with the same determination and integrity as the noble Baroness. An acknowledgement that it had been done by an independent Boundary Commission would command support right across both Houses of Parliament.
A number of noble Lords made the point about how we bring this together. I conclude by indicating that the Government have an ambitious programme for political and constitutional reform. We are keen that Parliament has adequate time to debate all the proposals, and I have not complained that this debate has taken so long. Important issues have been aired. The committee is interested in how the Bill makes the political system more transparent and accountable, but our proposals will give the people a say in determining the method of electing Members of Parliament under Part 1, which they have never had the chance to express a view on before. It is with the people in mind that we want to equalise the size of constituencies to give their votes more equal weight. With these thoughts and reflections, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wills
My Lords, this has been a significant debate. Everyone who has sat through the past three and a half hours would agree that everyone who has spoken has made an important contribution to public discourse on these important constitutional issues. However, in many ways the most significant speeches are those that were not made. As has already been pointed out, apart from a handful of brief interventions and one speech which seemed not to have been premeditated but to have been motivated by the rather noble intention to fill the great silence echoing across the Chamber from the other Benches, there was nothing from the Liberal Democrat or Conservative Back Benches. I wonder just how it is that all those distinguished Peers sitting on the government Benches have nothing to say about these crucial constitutional issues. As many noble friends have pointed out, that is revealing.
Then there was the speech that the Minister did not make. I would have hoped that he would have shown some recognition of the potential risks of rushing through this legislation in the way that the Government are doing. There are risks. These are very technical issues. They are complex and relate together, and the consequences are potentially profound. They have not been considered. Over and over again we have heard it admitted by Ministers. These issues have not been thoroughly considered. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer asked for evidence of the deliberations and discussions. It could not have been deliberated upon or researched with any seriousness in the timescale available to the Government. That is what is needed. These signal a profound change in our constitutional arrangements, yet the Minister has avoided any recognition that there are risks involved in proceeding in the way that he has.
Nor did he produce any serious argument against this amendment. The only argument that he produced is that there is a need for speed, but what is this need for speed? This amendment does not kick it in to the long grass. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. It is not inevitable that a commission of inquiry will mean that it is going to get bogged down and will never happen. It is simply a question of political will. If the Government have the political will to drive this forward now, surely in just three years, within the lifetime of this Parliament, they can muster the same political will again. It is entirely a matter for them. There is nothing inevitable or inexorable about this getting bogged down if this amendment were accepted. The Minister produced no good arguments.
I would have hoped that at the very least he might have done what my noble friend Lord Grocott urged him to do, which is what Ministers since time immemorial have done, which is to nod wisely and sagely and say that they will at least consider the issues raised by this amendment and perhaps return to it on Report. But he did not even do that, and I am surprised. I had not expected to push this to a vote because I had thought that I would have a more encouraging response from the Minister. But I did not get it, so I am now in two minds. On the one hand, I think that the frailty of the Government’s position has been so exposed in this debate that it should perhaps be tested in the Lobby. But I am not without hope, so the other part of me still hopes that even now the Government may reconsider their position. I hope that they will recognise that their current position is so bereft of principle and so damaging to their credibility, not just in this Chamber or the other place, but among the people of this country who deserve and demand a say in the arrangements by which they will choose the people to represent them in Parliament. I hope that that will give them pause and that between now and Report they will reconsider and see whether there is a way that they can engage seriously with these issues.
Finally, I remind the Minister that I am not seeking to substitute my judgment for that of the Government on all these important issues. I am simply asking for an impartial, fair and independent process to resolve these issues within a timescale that most people would recognise as reasonable. In the end, I have decided that I will withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Government will reconsider. If they do not, I am afraid that we will have to return to all these issues on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Blood and Blood Products
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I should now like to repeat a Statement made earlier by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, I should like to make a Statement on hepatitis C and HIV infected blood.
Mr Speaker, what happened during the 1970s and 1980s when thousands of patients contracted hepatitis C and HIV from NHS blood and blood products is one of the great tragedies in modern healthcare. It is desperately sad to recall that during this period the best efforts of the NHS to restore people to health actually consigned so many to a life of illness and hardship. As the current Health Secretary, and on behalf of Governments extending back to the 1970s, I begin by saying how sorry I am that this happened and express my deep regret for the pain and misery that many have suffered as a result.
It is now almost two decades since the full extent of the infection was established and two years since the independent inquiry led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, reported. The majority of the noble and learned Lord’s recommendations are in place, as are programmes of ex gratia payments, administered by the Macfarlane Trust and the Eileen Trust for the HIV infected and by the Skipton Fund for those with hepatitis C. But significant anomalies remain and I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to other noble Lords, and to honourable Members from all parties for highlighting them.
In October, my honourable friend the Member for Guildford announced a review into the current support arrangements to look at reducing the differences between the hepatitis C and HIV financial support schemes and to explore other issues raised by Members during the recent Back-Bench debate, including prescription charges and wider support for those affected. We also asked clinical experts to advise on the impact of hepatitis C infection on a person’s health and quality of life and to consider whether an increase in financial support was needed.
My honourable friend the Member for Guildford met with representative groups to understand the impact that these infections were having on people’s lives. She also met many right honourable and honourable Members and noble Lords who have been strong advocates on behalf of those affected.
We have now considered the findings of the clinical expert group and accept that the needs of those with advanced liver disease from hepatitis C merit higher levels of support. At present, the amount of money paid to this group depends on the seriousness of the infection.
There are two stages at which the Skipton Fund will make a payment. The first is when the person develops chronic hepatitis C infection. At this point, a person is eligible for a stage 1 relief payment—currently a lump sum payment of £20,000. Some may reach a second stage of developing advanced liver disease, such as cirrhosis or cancer, or require a liver transplant. They then become eligible for a stage 2 payment, which is currently another lump sum payment, of £25,000. Under the new arrangements that we will introduce, this second-stage payment will increase from £25,000 to £50,000. This will apply retrospectively. So if a person has already received an initial stage 2 payment of £25,000, they will now get another £25,000 lump sum, bringing the total to £50,000. In addition to this, we will also introduce a new, annual payment of £12,800 for those with hepatitis C reaching the second stage. This is the same amount that those who were infected with HIV receive.
Those infected with both HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood will now receive two annual payments of £12,800 if they meet the stage 2 criteria—one payment for each infection—along with the respective lump sums. All annual payments made to both those so infected with HIV and those with hepatitis C will now be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index to keep pace with living costs.
We know that some of those infected with HIV or hepatitis C from NHS blood and blood products face particular hardship and poverty. Those infected with HIV can already apply for additional discretionary payments from the Eileen Trust and the Macfarlane Trust, but no equivalent arrangements are in place for those infected with hepatitis C. Therefore, we will now establish a new charitable trust to make similar payments to those with hepatitis C who are in serious financial need. These payments will be available for those at all stages of their illness, based on individual circumstances. Discretionary payments will also be available to support dependants of those infected with hepatitis C, including dependants of those who have since died. Again, this will echo the arrangements in place for those infected with HIV and enable us to give more to those in greatest need.
We must also ensure that those infected through NHS blood and blood products get the right medical and psychological support. I can therefore announce two further measures. First, those infected with hepatitis C or HIV will no longer pay for their prescriptions. They will now receive the cost of an annual prescription prepayment certificate if they are currently charged for prescriptions. Secondly, the representative groups raised the issue of counselling support for those infected through blood and blood products. We fully recognise the emotional distress that they experience. As a result, we will provide £300,000 over the next three years, allowing for around 6,000 hours of counselling to help these groups.
While we focus on those still living with infections, we must also recognise the bereaved families of those who have died. At present, no payment can be made to those infected with hepatitis C who passed away before the Skipton Fund was established. This is a source of understandable distress for those who survive them and it is something that we now want to put right. I can therefore announce that, until the end of March 2011, there will be a window of opportunity where a posthumous claim of up to £70,000 can be made on behalf of those infected with hepatitis C who died before 29 August 2003.
A single payment of £20,000 will be available if the individual had reached the first stage of chronic infection and another single payment of £50,000 will be made if their condition had deteriorated to the second stage where they suffered serious liver disease or required a liver transplant. We will work with the Skipton Fund and various patient groups to publicise this new payment to those who may benefit. These new payments, which will go to the individual’s estate, should help more families to get the support that they deserve.
Taken together, these announcements represent a significant rise in the support available to those affected by this tragedy. Putting an exact figure on the package is difficult, as there is some uncertainty about how many will be eligible and how their illnesses may progress. However, we believe that these new arrangements could provide from £100 million to £130 million-worth of additional support over the course of this Parliament.
All payments will be disregarded for calculating income tax and eligibility for other state benefits, including social care, and while these changes apply only to those infected in England I will be speaking to the devolved Administrations to see if we can extend this across the UK.
Today’s announcements cannot remove the pain and distress that these individuals and families have suffered over the years, but I hope that these measures can at least bring some comfort, some consolation and perhaps some closure for those affected. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, perhaps I may start by wishing the Minister and other noble Lords a very happy new year and by commending the Minister for his patience: he finally got to make the Statement. I welcome the Statement and congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on making progress in building on the work that the noble Lord knows we were trying to do on this important and tragic matter, to which I had a personal commitment. Of the haemophiliac community, almost 2,000 of the 5,000 infected people have died in the intervening period. For those with hepatitis C, it has become more urgent that the ex gratia payments should be reviewed.
This is a campaign about which we know people feel strongly. One of the saddest documents that I have read recently was a letter to the Prime Minister, written in October on behalf of the campaign for all those infected. It described how about 100 people travelled to London to listen to a debate and to lobby for the day. A number of them were very sick, including a double liver transplantee. There were widows, young people who had lost their fathers and another person whose son had died only weeks before. They felt very aggrieved by the business in the other place, which did not produce the results that they had expected. A shocked and saddened group of people struggled down the stairs from the Public Gallery to leave Parliament. The letter concluded by saying:
“It is not an Act of Parliament that is needed, but an act of political will”.
To an extent, that is what has happened today. Indeed, their disappointment was added to before Christmas when they were expecting the announcement that we now have before us. I particularly welcome the extra amounts of money available and the fact that these will not be taken into account for the purposes of taxation and means-tested residential social care support, but I have some questions for clarification.
The first question concerns how the money will be distributed. The Statement says that a new trust is going to be established. Will the Minister expand on how the money is to be distributed through that trust? Will the trust be like the ones that exist at the moment or do the Government envisage something new and different? I should like some information about how the money will be made available and how it will be distributed. I would also like some clarification on prescription charges, because the Government’s decision to abandon free prescription charges for people with long-term conditions has obviously impacted on the groups that we are referring to. I know that the Minister suggested that the prescription charges will be mitigated, but can he clarify whether that will cover, for example, those in the early stage of hepatitis C, not only stage 2? Will it cover everyone encompassed by the different stages of these conditions?
The areas that I feel are less welcoming concern the issues that have been discussed in this House on many occasions to do with considerations about mortgages, life insurance and travel insurance for people affected by these conditions. I cannot see anything in the review that suggests that consideration has been given to these matters. They form part of the completion and closure that is needed. I would also like an assurance from the Minister about support for the Haemophilia Society, particularly as I understand that the Government will be working with the society to help to deliver the information programme that is going to be necessary to ensure that people in this community take advantage of the benefit that the Government are offering.
My final questions concern where the money to fund this is coming from. If the Government are successful in persuading Scotland and Wales to expand this scheme, which I hope sincerely they will be, how is that to be funded? That is the question that those Administrations will be addressing. However, I very much welcome this Statement and I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the progress that they have made.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am heartened by and grateful for the welcome given by the noble Baroness to this Statement and the package of support that was announced in it. We think that it represents a fair and reasonable recognition of the suffering that many of these victims endure. We wanted to recognise that and I hope, as I said in the Statement, that it will be of some comfort to them and their families that they will receive better support.
The noble Baroness asked me some specific questions. She asked me first about the new trust and in what respects it will be different from the trusts that currently exist. I can say to her that we intend to set up the new charitable trust as quickly as possible. Its primary task will be to administer the discretionary elements of the payments that we have announced. In the mean time, the payments will begin immediately; in other words, there will be an in-year pro rata payment for the current financial year where people are due for an annual payment, and we can proceed with that speedily. As she will see in the paper that we have published, our advice is that those who feel that they have a claim should contact the Skipton Fund. There will also be a notice on the department’s website to direct them appropriately. The new trust will be essentially a charitable trust with the kind of mandate that we have seen with the Macfarlane and Eileen trusts and the Skipton Fund, but for a different cohort of people.
The noble Baroness also asked me about prescription charges. What we concluded was that, while many of the victims of this tragedy are already in receipt of free prescriptions, there are some who are not. We have received vociferous representations from them and their representatives. Therefore, we will make arrangements through one of the charitable trusts, probably the new one, to pay those who are eligible a sum equivalent to the cost of an annual prepayment certificate, so that in practice all their prescriptions will be free of charge.
The noble Baroness asked about insurance and what consideration we had given to the requests made by campaigning groups on that score. The review highlighted to us that making provision for access to insurance was, first, unlikely to represent value for money because the administrative costs would be enormous in comparison with the benefits obtained. Also, and crucially, it would have been fraught with difficulty, including administrative complexity. There is no need to remind the noble Baroness that the current fiscal context makes it even more imperative that we achieve value for money in everything that we do. We judged that it was more important to set up a discretionary fund where, if necessary, people who were in particular hardship could look for additional support and perhaps fund insurance premiums from that support. However, an across-the-board arrangement for insurance premiums, as will be apparent from the report that we have published—I should also tell her that we took advice on this from the Association of British Insurers and various specialist insurers—ruled itself out for a number of reasons.
We intend support for the Haemophilia Society to continue. The noble Baroness also asked where the money is coming from. There will be a significant immediate cost to the departmental budget during this current year. I am pleased to say that we have found savings in our current expenditure for this year, which enables us to make room for these payments. We have had this in mind for some considerable time and I am pleased that it has come to fruition. In future years, we have found room in our central budgets for the ongoing annual payments.
As regards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, obviously it would have been preferable if there could have been a UK-wide announcement, but clearly it is not for us to prescribe to the devolved Administrations what they should do. However, as I indicated, we are talking to them actively and it is up to them to consider whether this is something that they wish to do for those infected in hospitals in the various devolved regions.
Lord Morris of Manchester
My Lords, I have two interests to declare, both non-pecuniary: as president of the Haemophilia Society, and as the architect of the independent public inquiry into the contaminated blood disaster headed by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.
Is the Minister aware that, of the 1,241 haemophilia patients infected with HIV, only 361—29 per cent—are still alive, and that the number of deaths in the hepatitis C-infected community is much higher and continues to rise? Is he further aware that, as of now, an estimated 2,007 people have died from being treated with contaminated NHS blood and blood products? I congratulate the Minister on the progress that he has made, but will he now meet the haemophilia community and listen again to its plea for a response that is more in keeping with the scale of the disaster?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, to whose efforts I pay particular tribute in the context of this debate, as in many other contexts, has reminded us of the devastating effect of this tragedy on individuals and families. The previous Government recognised this and significantly improved the payments that were available to the victims of this disaster. We felt that there was still further to go, hence today’s Statement. We have arrived at this point following a brief but nevertheless thorough review of the arrangements, informed by a scientific report which is also published today—noble Lords can read the advice that we received—to enable us to understand rather better the suffering that these victims endure in clinical terms as well as in human terms. On the basis of that, we have arrived at the arrangements whose details I have repeated.
We believe that this is a fair and reasonable package of support for these poor victims. We do not intend to revisit it in the future. I acknowledge that some people might have different views on the appropriate level of payments for this patient group, but the package needs to be considered in the context of the whole range of support that is available for the group, especially Department for Work and Pensions benefits, the care available under the NHS and the care available from social services. Having consulted widely, we consider that the sums announced in this package, taken in the round with the other support available to this patient group, are both appropriate and reasonable. So, while I understand the noble Lord’s request, I am not in a position to accede to it at this point.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the package announced in the Statement today. We very much welcome both it and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, the huge progress that has been made. Given that the commitment to review the current arrangements was made just last October, the Minister is to be congratulated on the swiftness with which this matter has been brought back to your Lordships' House. I hope that it serves to bring some comfort to those who have for so many years campaigned for justice, and particularly to the relatives of the deceased and the many other victims of this tragic episode.
The Minister announced that there would be a window for posthumous claims until the end of March 2011. There is concern that that is not a very big window and that it does not offer a lot of time to locate people and, for the many who may need assistance, to put a claim together. Perhaps the Minister can say why it is such a small window. Is he satisfied that it is sufficient time in which to track down as many people as possible who may have lost out?
It is not quite clear from the Statement who will receive posthumous payments. Will widows, partners and children be included in the arrangements? I would appreciate clarification on those points.
Earl Howe
I am very grateful to my noble friend. The window of opportunity referred to in the Statement—until the end of March, which is the best part of three months—should be sufficient to enable those with a valid claim to come forward. On the whole, we believe that, in the haemophiliac community, the victims’ families know who they are. I acknowledge that there is more difficulty with those who were in receipt of whole blood, but, again, we believe that the victims’ families know who those individuals were as well. Our job now is to publicise these arrangements so that the families are aware of the support that is currently available to them. We think that the window is sufficient.
My noble friend asked who is to be included in posthumous claims. One claim per deceased estate will be considered. The deceased person may have left his or her estate to a spouse or, indeed, to charity, but whoever it is, the beneficiary of that estate is the person entitled to come forward to claim the money. We will deal with claims on the basis that the validity of the claim is proven in relation to the estate of the deceased person. That is a matter of public record.
Lord Archer of Sandwell
I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement and recognise his readiness to listen to and act on representations, but will he also recognise the efforts of a vast number of people of all political parties and none who have worked assiduously for a very long time to ensure that financial relief of a proper order is made available to those who have suffered from the tragedy and to their dependants? If it is in order, I would also like to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Thornton, who throughout this has shown a ready ear and sympathy for those who are affected. Of course I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris, who has worked tirelessly throughout so many years.
I congratulate the Government on addressing one very important anomaly that is suffered by the dependants of deceased recipients of the Skipton Fund. Do I take it that that is the only anomaly that the Government are proposing to address, or will their ears be open throughout the discussions to some of the other anomalies that have been uncovered? I am grateful for the increased benefits, but will the Minister explain why they are paid through charitable trusts and not directly from government offices as a direct entitlement of the beneficiary? There may be good reasons for that, but, so far as I am aware, they have never been given.
Finally, since this announcement was in the form of a Statement, does that foreclose further discussion on what is to be done, or will there continue to be discussions about the proposals during their progress through Parliament and into the future?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, is himself to be thanked and congratulated on the immense amount of work he did to inform the thinking of the previous Government and the current Government in these matters. I immediately echo his tribute to the work of so many people—people, as he said, of all political parties and none—who enabled us to gain a proper understanding of these issues. I am also well aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was working very hard up to the time of the last general election to see whether a better package could be delivered. I was particularly pleased to hear her support for this series of announcements.
The noble and learned Lord asked me about the benefits for deceased victims and whether these were the only anomaly that we sought to correct. We identified two principal anomalies in the situation that has pertained hitherto: the first was the one to which he referred in relation to those who died prior to 29 August 2003, which was an arbitrary cut-off date; and the second was the clear imbalance of benefits for those who suffer hepatitis C as a result of receipt of contaminated blood. There was a gap to be filled there, and we were even clearer on that having read the scientific report that we received. We therefore sought to redress that particular imbalance. There are a number of other new elements in the package, but I have identified the two main ones that stood out to us.
The noble and learned Lord asked why we were choosing to use charitable trusts as the mechanism for payment. We feel that the arrangements have worked well so far through charitable trusts and we do not think it appropriate for these benefits to be paid through the Department for Work and Pensions. It is not really in the department’s remit to do that; it is there to pay benefits and certainly not to decide on discretionary payments. We hope and believe that the victims who are currently in receipt of the benefits have good relationships with the trustees of all the funds.
As for the practical arrangements for paying these new sums, if there are queries we will endeavour to answer them. As I have indicated, we are directing people towards the Skipton Fund as the point of information on this, but the package that my right honourable friend announced today should be regarded as the final one because we believe that it settles the outstanding issues that we needed to address.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome the Statement today. As a former Health Secretary, I took some interest in this matter, but, like the Minister, I would like to congratulate my colleagues who have been involved in the issue in recent years. The one thing that I came to understand was that this was not only an intractable problem but an increasingly intractable problem. There are two reasons for that: first, as time passed, the human tragedy of the people afflicted became more and more obvious; and secondly, the scientific evidence became more and more complicated and difficult for the Government to avoid.
I have two quick questions. First, we have finally reached a stage which may not be completely the end and may not be completely satisfactory, but which is much fairer than the previous one. But does he accept that if there is a disparity between Scotland, England and Wales in terms of the treatment of victims and there is seen to be inequality and unfairness, it will detract greatly from any value that this has created? Secondly, as my noble friend and colleague Lord Morris said, although this goes a long way, there may still be outstanding issues. Will he not close the door completely to further discussions that could arise in the light of further scientific evidence?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who comes to this with considerable knowledge and experience as a former Secretary of State for Health. He is right: it has been a difficult if not an intractable problem for successive Secretaries of State. He is also right to say that the human tragedy has become more obvious as the years have passed. For one thing, it was not so obvious in the early days that there would be so many victims of hepatitis C, because that condition only tends to emerge after a considerable lapse of time. The HIV infection was more immediate and more obvious.
The noble Lord is right that in making this announcement for England, we are creating an immediate disparity with the devolved Administrations. As I indicated, I hope that in our discussions with the devolved Administrations—who are, after all, autonomous—we can arrive at a more equitable package for all victims across the United Kingdom. I am sure, without wishing to appear to interfere in the affairs of the devolved Administrations, that that is something that, as human beings, we would like to see. But I cannot pre-empt the decisions that will be taken in those Administrations.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Haemophilia Society. I am very pleased that the Government have recognised the plight of so many people and families who have suffered this disaster. But what safeguards are in place to prevent any infections from blood transfusions or blood products happening in the future? Prevention is so important and one never knows what is on the horizon.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness is, as always, absolutely on the mark. This has been an important issue not just for the current Government but for the previous one.
The measures in place to ensure the safety and quality of human blood, blood components and the blood products manufactured from them have developed significantly since the mid-1980s. We test for viral markers. Donations contribute to a plasma pool which is also tested for viral markers. In 1985, the introduction of heat treatment in the UK removed the risk of both HIV and hepatitis from blood products. Testing of all donations for HIV was also introduced in 1985. Testing for hepatitis C was introduced in 1991 when tests became available. The European directive is now in force. As of 2002, it sets standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing and storage and distribution of human blood and blood components. We have a Community code for medicinal products which affects blood products such as clotting factors. On completion of manufacture, blood products are tested for compliance with specification by the manufacturer. All batches of blood products undergo independent testing by an EU official medicines control laboratory. We are in a different world entirely now from that of the 1970s and 80s.
Health: Parkinson’s Disease
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recommendations of the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parkinson’s Disease, Please Mind the Gap: Parkinson’s Disease Services Today.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Group for Parkinson’s Disease and as a member of the charity, Parkinson’s UK. Parkinson’s is a long-term neurological condition and can be hugely debilitating. The fluctuating yet progressive nature of the condition means that symptoms can vary from day to day and even from hour to hour. Access to the right health and social care can make a huge difference to people with Parkinson’s. It can enable them to live a more independent life for longer and preserve dignity and quality of life. With the right support, people can hold down a job and continue to lead a full life. When the necessary complicated medicines regime is carefully managed, symptoms can often be minimised.
In 2009, the All-Party Group for Parkinson’s Disease conducted an inquiry into access to health and social care for people with Parkinson’s, with the support of Parkinson’s UK. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for his excellent contribution to the inquiry panel. It brought to light stark inequalities in Parkinson’s services across the UK. We found that a postcode lottery dictated people’s chances of receiving the support they need. This included seeing a specialist Parkinson’s nurse, access to professionals such as physiotherapists and speech and language therapists, and ongoing review and rehabilitation. For instance, at that time more than one in four people with Parkinson’s had never seen a Parkinson’s specialist nurse, yet they can cut hospital admissions by 50 per cent. Although the number of nurses has substantially increased since then, mainly due to sustained investment by Parkinson’s UK, it is vital that we do not see numbers fall back to the unacceptable low level. The inquiry found that half of people with Parkinson’s had never seen a physiotherapist, whose treatment can avoid falls and injuries.
Worryingly, new threats to physiotherapy are emerging across the country. Some posts left vacant by retirement are not filled, leaving local people with Parkinson’s without one of their most valued services. The previous Government put in place the national service framework for long-term neurological conditions, which set out key requirements for health and social care. The Department of Health is sending conflicting messages about the future of this framework. When will a decision be made? Can the Minister assure me that, if it goes, it will be replaced by something sufficiently robust?
This brings me to the likely impact of the Government’s health White Paper. Some of the language used by the Government suggests that “localism”, “choice” and “innovation” are more important than equal access to best treatment. Regional difference, we are told, is a good thing, driving up standards through competition. Consider that from the point of view of someone with Parkinson’s, living in an area with no Parkinson’s nurse, little access to a neurologist and no available physiotherapist or speech and language therapist, where people have to argue their case to receive NICE-approved treatments. Meanwhile, in the PCT next door, or perhaps a neighbouring GP consortium, services are much better. This approach simply seems unfair; will it drive up standards?
One area of concern is the decision to give GPs more power over commissioning. Most GPs have limited knowledge and experience of Parkinson’s disease. They typically have just one or two patients with Parkinson’s on their books. With a highly complex condition such as Parkinson’s it is clearly necessary for decisions to be taken at a wider strategic level. Within the new structures outlined in the White Paper, the only way to ensure a comprehensive approach to commissioning high quality Parkinson’s services is for the NHS commissioning board to have responsibility for this and to provide clear and specific commissioning guidance and outcomes for Parkinson’s services. To ensure we have high quality Parkinson’s services, we need specific, evidence-based quality guidelines and outcome measures. In other words, the Government must provide a standard against which patients can measure their service and, if services fall short, there should be robust mechanisms to hold providers and commissioners to account.
What assurances can the Minister offer that patients, including those with disabilities or conditions such as Parkinson’s, will be supported to seek redress in a meaningful way? One idea is that people with long-term conditions should be represented on the proposed health and well-being boards. Can the Minister say something about that?
The provision of moneys for social care is another area of concern. Local authorities say that the £2 billion for social care will fail to plug the hole left by the 28 per cent cuts they are facing over four years, compounded by the pressures of an ageing population. Further, freed from ring-fencing and national audit, there is no guarantee that moneys will be spent as intended. Councils are already cutting back by changing eligibility criteria so that only those with the most critical needs receive support. Many people with Parkinson’s and other conditions already find services inadequate. A resident of Cumbria told our inquiry:
“My only involvement with Social Services was [with] regards to a seat for the bath and I had to wait 16 weeks for this”.
Another strong message from our inquiry was that more needs to be done to support carers. One carer told us:
“It is difficult to put into words the feeling of abandonment and loneliness I feel ... Carers have enough to cope with without the constant battle to get some attention for their loved ones”.
I welcome the Government’s refreshed set of priorities for carers. In particular, PCTs are being given £400 million for carers’ breaks over the next four years, which I hope will benefit some of those who care for people with Parkinson’s and other conditions, often with very little support or respite. Who will ensure that this money is spent as intended? Another concern is that the removal of ring-fencing will make the allocation of carers’ funding to local authorities much more opaque. To ensure transparency, the Government should at least publish the nominal amount each council has received through the carers grants.
Given the current necessity to spend limited funds wisely, in the case of Parkinson’s, quality care is proven to be cost effective. Will the coming changes mean that some areas will lose their Parkinson’s nurses? Research has shown that such nurses can reduce hospital admissions by 66 per cent, which could be saving the NHS in England approximately £7.5 million.
If the Government are committed to reducing health inequalities, I urge the Minister to consider the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parkinson’s Disease, whose findings are drawn from expert evidence from more than 360 people with Parkinson’s as well as from their carers, health and social care professionals and key organisations. The report finds that huge inequalities exist in access to the care and support that are needed by people with Parkinson’s and by their families and carers. I hope that the Minister will agree that access to the right services should not depend on where people live.
On behalf of everyone affected by the condition, I urge the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that there is a strategic, comprehensive approach to commissioning Parkinson’s services that is underpinned by robust quality standards and by an effective, accessible system that will allow local people to hold services to account. I understand that the NHS commissioning board and GP consortia will have a statutory duty to reduce inequalities in healthcare provision.
My final question to the Minister is how he envisages reducing geographical inequalities in service provision, including for those with Parkinson’s. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in this important debate tonight.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on securing the debate. I also pay tribute to the tireless work that she has done in chairing the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parkinson’s Disease, which is a disease that, like other long-term conditions, can have a devastating impact on patients and their families. As we have heard, one person in every 500 has Parkinson’s, which equates to about 120,000 people in the UK.
Like those who suffer from other progressive neurological conditions, Parkinson’s sufferers and their families are entitled to a standard of care and treatment no matter where they live in the UK. When the national service framework for long-term neurological conditions was published in 2005 after considerable consultation with patients and groups, the framework was very much welcomed because it set out 11 quality standards with the aim of reducing differences in the treatment, care and support for people with long-term conditions—including Parkinson’s disease—to ensure that their care is more accessible and better co-ordinated.
The national service framework applies to health and social care services that work with local agencies involved in supporting people to live independently. Such services include providers of transport, housing, employment, education, benefits and pensions. When the framework was first published, a main target was to reduce emergency bed days by 5 per cent by 2008 through improved care in primary and community settings for people with long-term conditions. As we have heard, there are places in the country where the target has been met successfully—for example, in north Devon, the provision of a Parkinson’s nurse has helped to reduce emergency admissions by 66 per cent—but that has not happened in other places. Will the Minister perhaps comment on the accessibility of such specialist nurses around the country?
Patients with Parkinson’s disease continue to suffer delays in diagnosis and in access to specialist treatment because of appalling gaps in NHS care, as the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parkinson’s Disease report mentions. The report also found severe inequalities in access to services across the country. At the time, there was a chronic shortage of specialist nurses. The report blames Ministers and health service managers for a lack of leadership on neurological services at national and local level.
Another concern is about access to appropriate services for people living in care homes and for black and minority ethnic groups. Does the Minister have any evidence to suggest that the situation for such people has improved?
In June 2006, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence issued implementation advice to accompany clinical guidelines on diagnosis and management in primary and secondary care settings, in particular for primary care trusts and acute trusts. The advice also set out what support is available to help people with a condition to cope and how to plan for the future, with aims such as establishing individual care packages, establishing lines of communication, building support for the patients and looking out for any complications.
On care plans, which I think are very important, my previous experience from working in the NHS was that many patients were not really aware that the care plan belongs to them—they own it—and that they should have a copy of it. They should be able to take it home and share it with their families and relatives, but that is not always the case. Given that people are now living much longer with these long-term neurological conditions—indeed, people are living longer generally and are therefore more prone to developing such conditions—are care plans being reviewed to take that into account? Are care plans updated regularly? A patient’s needs and conditions will change and vary quite radically over the years, but the care plan might not always be updated to reflect that. That is one of my concerns.
Other problems cited by the all-party group’s report include poor access to therapy services, which has already been mentioned, and a lack of information for patients about what services are available. The limited provision of respite care is also an issue.
The NICE guidelines set out the importance of access to occupational health services and other allied health professionals. The key principle must be that it is important to treat the patient rather than just the condition because everyone is different and everyone has different circumstances. By doing that, we could prevent unnecessary deterioration and thereby reduce the burden on the health and social care system. Is the Minister satisfied that, in line with the NICE guidelines, patients have access to the full range of services, regardless of their postcode?
Finally, I pay tribute to Parkinson’s UK, which has been at the forefront of campaigning for greater research and information on the disease and on treatment and therapies for patients living with Parkinson’s disease.
People with Parkinson’s disease deserve the right to access the essential services that they need, notwithstanding the inevitable budget cuts and other restraints on local authority budgets. There are concerns that the eligibility criteria will be tightened in some councils, as has already happened over the years, and that the criteria will differ from council to council. Does the Minister agree that standards should be set for such eligibility criteria, given that it does not seem fair that the criteria for people living in one borough might be tightened to a greater extent than in another borough next door with the result that people might not be entitled to the level of support in social care services on which they rely?
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for bringing this report on Parkinson’s disease to the notice of your Lordships. The noble Baroness is a dedicated chairperson of the All-Party Group for Parkinson’s Disease.
My late husband was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, along with other complicated conditions. He was diagnosed in London but, as we live in North Yorkshire, I found there was a lack of interest in that specialty when I tried to find a consultant in the north. We found one consultant in Leeds, which was a long distance from home, and a very helpful Parkinson’s specialist nurse. That perhaps illustrates from first-hand experience how the specialist care that is needed by people with Parkinson’s is patchy throughout the country, as is stated in the report.
Two years ago, a friend living in the North Yorkshire dales needed the expertise of a consultant with a special interest in Parkinson’s. I was pleased to find such a consultant in Leeds who visited a private hospital in Harrogate. I passed on this information and received a letter from the friend who said that he was very pleased with the consultant, whom he liked and found very helpful. When one has to have complex drugs, it is important that one can have trust and confidence in the consultant who is prescribing the drugs. When I read in the report that there are many people with Parkinson’s who never see a consultant it causes concern, as having expert advice makes all the difference to the patients and their partners or carers.
As I read my Christmas cards this year, I had one which said: “Maureen cannot write this card as she has Parkinson’s”. People with Parkinson’s need the help of expert doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists as well as social care. All have a part to play in the patient’s journey while living with Parkinson’s. There is concern among many people involved in patient care and groups of people living with long-term conditions that things may not get better when GP consortia are in charge. Can the Minister say what the terms and conditions of commissioning will be, and what will be the safeguards?
I congratulate Parkinson’s UK on pump-priming nurses for the first two years. I wonder how many trusts take on the services of these specially trained nurses and how many, after two years, do not. The report states that the role played by Parkinson’s disease special nurses in the care of people with Parkinson’s disease was strongly endorsed by submissions from people living with the condition, from carers and from those medical specialists working alongside nurse specialists. Many people with Parkinson’s disease and their carers outlined how Parkinson’s disease nurse specialists provided them with a regular point of contact for advice on all aspects of the condition and for adjusting their complex medication regimes. This service was particularly valued by the group. When individuals did not have access to a nurse specialist, it tended to be identified as the most significant service inadequacy. I should be grateful for the Minister’s views on nurse specialists.
A person with Parkinson’s said in the report:
“The biggest help has been specialist Nurses, bit of a life saver really, could not imagine coping without them”.
There is a great deal to do to make services better for all people living with Parkinson's disease: for those in care homes who are often neglected and for those who find help is not forthcoming or that there is a lack of joined-up working between health and social care. I hope this report will be read and used by many people. I have already sent it to someone in Yorkshire. I hope it will be used by health professionals, many of whom need educating about the needs of people with Parkinson’s disease. I hope that the Minister will help to make services better for these people who really need them.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Gale and all her colleagues on Minding the Gap and on producing a groundbreaking contribution to the understanding of Parkinson’s and its effects on people affected by it and on carers. I hope that the noble Earl will spare some of his time to talk about the carers, who have a particularly difficult time in caring for people with such a difficult disease as Parkinson’s. I look forward to the Government’s response and I hope that the fate that befell the multiple sclerosis review will not befall the NICE guidelines for Parkinson’s this year, when the review is taking place. It would be very helpful to have an assurance that will not happen.
The 2011 review, indeed, offers a real opportunity not only to examine the recent evidence on the new drugs and treatments for managing symptoms but to scan the full multidisciplinary range of services provided to Parkinson's people for their present effectiveness. It would be helpful if NICE could include Parkinson's in the list of conditions for which it develops quality standards, because that will help avoid any postcode lottery approach to Parkinson's which undermines the proper national and comprehensive service which my noble friend Lady Gale has already mentioned. Again, I ask: is that possible?
Also, at a time of impending NHS reorganisation, it is imperative that GP consortia, which will be at the centre of change, should also commission services once they have sought expert advice and support from Parkinson’s experts. Third sector organisations such as the Neurological Commissioning Support service, or NCS, should also be fully consulted, especially as they represent a joint initiative of the Mind, the MS Society and Parkinson’s UK. The NCS is best placed to advise GP consortia about people with long-term neurological conditions. I wonder whether we can have an assurance there.
I should, perhaps, mention a local initiative in Chester and North Wales that may qualify as a contribution to the big society espoused by the Government. Last year, with the noble Lords, Lord Wade of Chorlton and Lord Jones, I was present at the launch of a co-operative arrangement between the local MS support centre and the local Parkinson’s branch, of which I am very honoured to be the president. Indeed, we are having our Parkinson’s branch AGM in the MS support centre later on in January. Such collaboration between natural allies should be encouraged as providing added value and not just as a cover for cost-cutting.
However, the more that I have come to understand Parkinson's, the more I have come to understand the central role of the Parkinson’s specialist nurses, on which the two previous speakers commented. Those nurses stand as advisers, advocates and allies of Parkinson’s people between the GP, who seldom has the detailed knowledge, and the consultant, who seldom has sufficient time within the very busy days that occupy them. The importance of the specialist nurse is that Parkinson’s is a shape-shifter of a disease, which requires the prompt attention of expert nurses to match its every deleterious move. Some years ago in Chester our specialist nurse was axed by the local PCT, which was then experiencing financial difficulties. We fear that the new NHS commissioning changes will again imperil our specialist nurse post, which was re-established after the community worked long and hard to finance its future. Indeed, I fear for all 300 of the national team of specialist nurses for Parkinson’s, who are in place and funded by local groups, Parkinson’s UK and local PCTs. Can the noble Earl give us an assurance on maintaining the efficacy of that team?
For people with Parkinson's, maintaining personal mobility is key to leading a normal lifestyle. My local branch, for instance, has just supplied its specialist physiotherapy team with the latest laser-enhanced walking aids for their diagnostic programmes. They cost £150 but work wonders. Any move from specialist nursing to a more generalised provision of nursing will turn off the tap of such innovative approaches. Nurses are crucial advisers when it comes to mobility and passing on best practice. Indeed, one such best practice is the use of Nintendo Wii programmes that now help those who want to maintain their balance by, for instance, using a ski programme that allows you to go down ski slopes. That helps people with Parkinson’s to maintain balance. We should be encouraging all these items.
I shall end on a more amusing note. It is good that Michael J Fox, who is himself a sufferer, continues to pour money into research into Parkinson’s, but I was struck the other day that there is a new romantic comedy doing the rounds called “Love and Other Drugs”. The feature of the film is that Anne Hathaway plays the part of an early Parkinson’s sufferer. She tells us that she has enormous respect for Parkinson’s, which she has learnt about as a result of doing this romantic comedy, and she says that in the throes of a passionate embrace on one occasion she had to simulate a Parkinson’s tremor at the same time. It is interesting that something that is a reality for so many people outside is now beginning to filter in and be represented in films like this romantic comedy.
I commend again the work of the all-party group headed by my noble friend Lady Gale, and I hope that the Minister, who has always had a strong interest in all these issues, is able to give us some promising responses today.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, in speaking in this important debate I must first declare an interest as a vice-president of Parkinson’s UK, and as a neurologist who has looked after a great many people with Parkinson’s disease in the course of my professional career.
It was in 1817 that James Parkinson, a general practitioner in Hoxton in London, published an essay on the shaking palsy, describing a disease that had previously been known as “paralysis agitans”. As a result of that important essay, the disease eventually became known across the world as “Parkinson’s disease”. The pathology of the disease was well recognised many years ago, largely dependent upon the failure of nerve cells in a part of the brain stem called the substantia nigra. It was in the middle of the previous century that two Viennese pharmacologists discovered that the normal substantia nigra produced an important neurotransmitter called dopamine, and that when these cells degenerated, the dopamine declined. That ultimately resulted in the introduction of a drug, a precursor of dopamine called L-Dopa, or levodopa, which was of course a major development in the treatment of this condition. I had the privilege in the 1960s of conducting and supervising the first controlled trials of treatment in Parkinson’s disease conducted by the Medical Research Council in the UK.
Many new drugs have been developed since that time. Some of them are new precursors; some of them are what are known as dopamine agonists, trying to persuade the cell to produce more endogenous dopamine; and there are many others. The treatment has improved immensely. The side effects of the treatment, however, are substantial. One of the lessons that everyone looking after patients with Parkinson’s disease has learnt is that it is crucial to develop expertise in knowing how to handle that drug therapy—to adjust it according to the on-off periods that occur. This is a matter of great expertise, which is why Parkinson’s patients require the expertise of a well trained neurologist or, at the very least, a well trained geriatrician with neurological training. That is crucial.
There have been crucial developments in research. We now learn of the importance of the alpha-synuclein gene and we note that free radical scavengers play a part in the etiology of this disease. There has even been exciting work done in which foetal nigral neurones have been implanted into the brains of some patients, producing dopamine. The benefits have been substantial but the side effects are great, and more work will have to be done before these forms of treatment become a most effective part of the management of these patients.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, because it was a privilege to serve on this inquiry, which she expertly chaired, dealing with the management of patients with Parkinson’s disease and the range of services available across the country. I repeat the first point: neurological assessment and the proper handling of treatment and drug therapy are crucial. However, so too are the services provided by carers, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and others. There is no doubt whatever that to have a team of people looking after those with Parkinson’s disease, with a range of expertise, reduces the number of patients who are admitted to hospital for emergency care. That in turn is of great benefit to the National Health Service.
Sadly, though, as the report has demonstrated, the postcode lottery continues; it is alive and well. The range of services across the country is still desperately uneven. We have heard about the 2005 national service framework and the NICE guidelines that were published in 2006 to try to persuade health authorities across the country to provide a standardised range of services for people with Parkinson’s disease, but they have not been universally adhered to.
I have serious concerns about the proposed GP commissioning consortia. I talked to the Secretary of State who said that the specialised commissioning services for this and other neurological problems will be handled by the specialised health commissioning board. I cannot see that a single national board is going to be capable of dealing with all the complexities of the specialised neurological services that Parkinson’s and others require, and I do not see how it will work without some kind of continuing regional services for the commissioning of these services. Whatever the excellence of the general practitioners and the commissioning services of consortia that they produce, I do not believe that this will be adequate to meet the needs of patients with Parkinson’s disease.
It is right that the Government must take action to do what they can to produce uniform national standards of care. Under the health Bill, have the individual care packages and accounts that were proposed by the previous Government made any contribution in the care of patients with Parkinson’s disease? Are the Government taking account of the work of the neurological commissioning support service established by three major charities—the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Parkinson’s UK and the Multiple Sclerosis Society? This body has made several important and far-seeing proposals. It is very important that the Government should take account of its views.
These developments are things that people with Parkinson’s disease and their families deserve. I hope the Government will take full note of what has been said today. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for so expertly chairing this inquiry.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on initiating this debate, and thank her for her commitment to Parkinson’s disease and for chairing the important all-party group’s report. I doubt I shall address a question to the Minister that someone else has not already asked. None the less, as is traditional in your Lordships’ House, I shall continue to speak.
As noble Lords will know, Parkinson’s is a long-term degenerative neurological condition. Symptoms can include stiffness of movement, pain, incontinence and dementia, which fluctuate from day to day, as noble Lords have mentioned, and worsen over time. It has a profound impact on people who have it, their families and their carers. I might be the first person in this debate to mention that one of the key problems with Parkinson’s disease is the stigma that goes with it. People may not recognise that people have Parkinson’s. They might think that they are drunk or that there is something else wrong with them. That is an additional burden that people with Parkinson’s disease have to carry with them.
The background to this debate is the brilliant report Please Mind the Gap, which took evidence from 360 people with Parkinson’s, their carers, health and social care professionals and representatives of public bodies, royal colleges and the Government. It brought to light many of the geographical inequalities in availability of services across the UK.
We know that the timely intervention of a specialist nurse or a physiotherapist and proper access to services can reduce hospital admissions and greatly improve quality of life. We have discussed this. We could substitute many conditions for Parkinson’s disease. We know that is the case. We know, therefore, that getting the provision of services for people with Parkinson’s disease right is not only right but cost effective.
Take, for example, Parkinson’s nurses. As a result of the investment from Parkinson’s UK, which pump-primes nurses for two-year periods and to which I pay the highest tribute, there are more than 300 Parkinson’s nurses. I have to say that I agree with other noble Lords: there must be a question mark over their future. I ask the Minister whether there can be some monitoring of what happens to these nurses. As pressures increase on primary care trusts and reform moves forward, what happens when you lose a Parkinson’s nurse? How many more people are admitted to hospital? The Government need to look at what evidence there is.
The same applies to allied health professionals, such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, psychologists and specialists in neurology. They are all vital in treating Parkinson’s and other neurological conditions. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask how such coherent and co-ordinated provision will be made available under the proposed changes to the NHS commissioning structures. Parkinson’s UK is extremely worried that it will mean a worsening of access to Parkinson’s nurses, as well as all the other allied health professionals that are needed. Indeed, Parkinson’s UK reports that it is hearing of posts remaining empty following retirement.
It is clear that proposals to transfer commissioning powers from PCTs to GPs are of great concern, not only to Parkinson’s UK but to many organisations that deal with long-term and complex conditions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, that there must be a question mark over the ability of an NHS commissioning board to make sure that these services are delivered adequately by GP commissioning when we are not even sure how many GP commissioning boards there will be. One needs to ask: how will those consortia be able to commission the expertise to supply the support for this and the other neurological conditions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant?
How will the Government ensure that the GP consortia involve the third sector in the delivery of these services? This question is being asked not just by Parkinson’s UK. I happened to be at a meeting attended by the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Motor Neurone Disease Association and they expressed the same concern about the ability of the consortia to commission the right services at the right level at the right time for patients when a doctor may only ever see two patients with Parkinson’s disease as it is such an uncommon disease. We know that you effect change in the NHS through leadership. How can the Government ensure that the leadership for this condition will continue and develop? The NICE guidelines are to be reviewed this year. If the Government do not go ahead with that review and do not come forward with robust guidelines, how will they ensure that the leadership for this condition will be maintained?
The Minister cannot have failed to notice that the same questions have been asked with regard to stroke, diabetes, MS and epilepsy. With all those conditions the same level of anxiety is evident about what the future holds under the proposed changes to the NHS. I am merely amplifying what has already been said but we are getting to the point where we need answers about how these conditions will be managed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. I very much recognise the considerable personal insight that she brings to this subject, not least as chair of the all-party parliamentary group.
Noble Lords have spoken eloquently this evening about Parkinson’s and the devastating impact that it can have. The all-party group’s report paints a compelling picture of the many failings of the health and social care system: limited information for patients and poor access to expert nursing and therapy services, underpinned by a failure to deliver joined-up services. The previous Government produced a number of policy documents designed to improve services and support people with Parkinson’s disease. The National Service Framework for Long-Term Conditions, to which noble Lords have referred, and the NICE clinical guideline are both strong statements, which this Government support. The problem, made clear in this evening’s debate, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is that all too often the vision of these documents is not put into practice and areas such as Parkinson’s services find themselves at a disadvantage when competing for attention and resources. We want to put that right. Our reforms to the NHS will ensure that patients have far more information about services, more choice about their treatments and more influence over how healthcare is shaped in their community.
Local Health Watch organisations, building on local involvement networks, will ensure that the views and feedback of patients and carers feed into decisions about local health and social care services. Devolving responsibility for commissioning to GP consortia will mean that decision-making is closer to patients and more responsive to their individual needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, is right: we will have to ensure that GP commissioners are ready and have the skills and awareness that they need to take these decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to that matter, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
As noble Lords are aware, poor commissioning is one of the main reasons for the low quality of some Parkinson’s services and the patchwork quilt of standards about which we have heard. I know that some patient groups have expressed concerns about the skills and knowledge of GP commissioners. The key to this will be creating better care pathways. That is my main answer to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who expressed his scepticism on this score. We will expect consortia to involve relevant health and social care professionals in helping to design care pathways or care packages for those with Parkinson’s that achieve more integrated delivery of care, higher quality and more efficient use of resources. They should also talk with their local authorities, which will play an increasingly important role in co-ordinating care as we move toward joint commissioning and planning through health and well-being boards. There are certainly opportunities for patient groups to contribute to developing GPs’ understanding of the condition and how to commission for it effectively. Regional neurological alliances, to which a number of noble Lords referred, have an important role to play, working with the NHS and councils, to make sure that patient needs are being met locally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, referred to outcomes. The new NHS outcomes framework will help to deliver care that is safer and more effective and provides a better experience for patients. The outcomes and indicators in the NHS outcomes framework have been chosen specifically to capture the full range of NHS responsibilities. Where appropriate, they are not condition specific, but rather seek to capture those outcomes that an individual with any condition would consider important.
In these financially challenging times, it is important that we make the most of the resources available. Parkinson’s services are a good example of where much more can be done and where inadequate services waste resources. With an ageing population, the number of people with Parkinson’s is increasing and, as the Fair Care campaign highlights, the best way to save money is to deliver good-quality Parkinson’s services when and where people need them.
Better, more effective care does not necessarily mean more resources. Doing things differently, good multidisciplinary teamwork, specialist support, early interventions and care planning can all make a significant difference. High-quality information, combined with the right support, is the key to achieving better care, better outcomes and reduced costs. We have been consulting on a new information strategy to improve the range and quality of information available to patients, professionals and the public, to increase transparency and strengthen accountability in the system.
Good social care is vital for people living with Parkinson’s. It enables them and their carers to live the independent life that most of us take for granted. We want to build a social care system that is fair and sustainable—one that reflects individual autonomy and ensures that everybody is treated with dignity and respect. In November, we published our vision for social care, setting the future direction for adult social care in England. The vision looks at the role of social care in contributing to the development of the big society and includes a new leadership role for local councils to improve preventive services and develop community capacity, which is in part an answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—in other words, inspiring and supporting communities to look after themselves. The vision encourages care and support to be delivered in a partnership between individuals, communities, the voluntary sector, the NHS and councils, including wider support services, such as housing.
Carers exemplify the big society. They provide care and support entirely from their own time and resources. In government, we need to reciprocate this commitment with measures that support carers. Last year, we published an update to the National Carers Strategy—Next Steps for the Carers Strategy. It provides a clear plan of action for the next four years, focusing on what will have the biggest impact on carers’ lives.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred enthusiastically to the role of specialist Parkinson’s nurses. Specialist nurses provide a very important source of support and advice to patients with Parkinson’s disease and enable many patients to manage their condition effectively. It is of course the responsibility of local health bodies to make decisions on the funding of Parkinson’s nursing posts. The Long-Term Conditions Delivery Support Team has, however, developed a guide to writing a business case for epilepsy specialist nurses for commissioners to use in making the case for improving those services. This guide could be adapted to make the case for specialist nurses for other long-term neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s. The new commissioning arrangements will take all the evidence into account in deciding to what extent specialist nursing will be commissioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked whether all areas will retain their levels of Parkinson’s nurses. We think that localism is the best way of holding local organisations to account. These decisions should in the end be made locally and will be influenced by the important inquiry that she has chaired.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and others referred to the national service framework. While the vision of the NSF reflects that of the White Paper, the new NHS architecture, and particularly the arrangements for commissioning, will render somewhat outdated any lessons learnt from the review. Better outcomes for people with long-term neurological conditions will in future be achieved through the NHS outcomes framework. The framework will enable patients to judge the overall performance of the NHS and to hold the Government to account for progress. Through the Long-Term Neurological Conditions Research Initiative, the department has funded the development of Quality Neurology, a comprehensive audit tool for local health and social care economies to use in assessing their current status in meeting the quality requirements of the NSF for long-term conditions.
The noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to GP consortia needing to involve the third sector. I have already referred to this issue. The onus is on regional neurological alliances and patient groups to engage with GP consortia in the first instance. Through the then Section 64 scheme, the department funded the Neurological Alliance to establish a network of RNAs across England. The case for developing a quality standard for Parkinson’s disease will be considered as part of the development of the comprehensive library of standards, in line with the plan set out in the White Paper. The longer-term aim is to develop a broad library of quality standards covering the majority of NHS activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece asked about the status of the NSF for long-term conditions. The Government’s health reforms place outcomes at its heart, as I mentioned. That fits very well with the aspirations of the NSF for long-term conditions. The issue is not the delivery mechanism—in other words, the NSF versus the Government’s health reforms—but, rather, ensuring that services for people with a long-term neurological condition achieve the best possible outcomes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked how we can ensure that money for carers would be spent as intended. It is for PCTs and, after them, GP consortia to manage their budgets and make decisions about how best to meet the health needs of their local populations, but we are looking at how we can make decision-making more transparent. That includes using the NHS operating framework, which sets out the priorities for the year ahead and makes it clear that breaks for carers are important. The NHS outcomes framework and the outcomes framework for adult social care will also push for clear and unambiguous accountability in this area.
As so often happens, the clock is moving against me. I have much material here to answer every question posed by noble Lords. I apologise that I will not have time to do that in my allocated slot and I will write to all noble Lords with answers. Suffice it to say that, while tonight’s debate has highlighted variations in the quality of care, the fact is that there are some very good examples of Parkinson’s services. In Barnsley, for example, there is an holistic, multidisciplinary service in a range of locations tailored to meet the needs of patients. We need to replicate such models, ensuring that everybody has access to comprehensive services and expert multidisciplinary care. Through our health reforms, we are determined to continue to transform standards and to achieve better outcomes for people with Parkinson’s disease.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“(a) initially by a date to be specified by the Boundary Commission, once the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible; and(b) no later than every six years after that.””
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, Amendment 54A stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Bach and Lady Thornton. It would leave out lines 14 and 15 of Clause 10 on page 8 of the Bill. Clause 10(3) states:
“For subsection (2)”—
of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986—
“there is substituted … ‘A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically … before 1st October 2013, and … before 1st October of every fifth year after that’”.
We propose that the two dates should be deleted and the following inserted:
“initially by a date to be specified by the Boundary Commission, once the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible; and … no later than every six years after that”.
We propose the change because in practice—this is their timetable—it has taken Boundary Commissions six to seven years to complete the past five reviews of parliamentary constituencies. The Bill proposes that the first review be completed before 1 October 2013. If the Bill were passed tomorrow—which seems unlikely—the work would have to be completed in two years and nine months. That is less than half the time that ordinary reviews have taken so far. While everyone would want the process to be quicker than it has been before, the Bill proposes that one should do it in less than half the time that it has taken before, even when one has to redraw every single boundary in the country. I say that because the chair men and women of Boundary Commissions came before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons and said that it was probable that every constituency in the country would be affected by the proposals that were being made.
Lord Tyler
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I am finding it difficult to follow him. I think that this is the most important part of his amendment: the trigger to start the process. I should say that I sit on an informal all-party advisory group which the Electoral Commission consults occasionally. I really do think that his amendment imposes on the Electoral Commission a responsibility that it is not ready to take and would not wish to take. How can he suggest that there are criteria by which the Electoral Commission could certify that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible? I cannot see how it can do that. The work done by his Government previously may have helped, but it certainly has not enabled the Electoral Commission to take the very subjective view that he suggests.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not think that it is a subjective view. The commission would not be asked to guarantee that everyone, or 95 per cent of people, was on the electoral roll; it would be asked to check that the local authorities had taken all reasonable steps. I envisage that it would set out what it would expect a reasonable local authority to do—for example, house-to-house inquiries if there were very high levels of underregistration; or getting the figure up to 95 per cent in certain sorts of area. It would not be difficult to identify the criteria that had to be satisfied before the commission could be satisfied. There are so many other areas in which public bodies certify that reasonable steps had been taken. I do not regard it as beyond the wit of man for the commission to do the same in relation to local authorities.
Lord Tyler
The noble Lord’s amendment says that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps, so presumably no Boundary Commission operation could start or any review be initiated until every local authority had been able to satisfy the Electoral Commission that it had taken reasonable steps. That is an impossible target. I am sure that, from his ministerial experience, he would agree.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
This new review could not start before every local authority had done that, but what would the excuses be? Why should one, two, three or four constituencies be prejudiced?
Lord McAvoy
I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. Is he aware that the City of Glasgow Council recently conducted an exercise and, I am reliably informed, got an extra 30,000-odd voters on to the register? Does that not show that each council area can vary so much that it is not right or proper that we can have such variation in the country? Therefore, the measure of compulsion, if you like, on all local authorities to do what Glasgow has achieved should be in the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am absolutely clear that the Electoral Commission would be perfectly capable of setting out what it would regard as the criteria that had to be satisfied. If you impose a provision like this, I have no doubt—and I have experience of this having been the Minister involved in ensuring good electoral practice—that that would have the effect, as far as the local authorities are concerned—they are, in practice, responsible for registration—of lifting all the votes up. I cannot envisage a local authority that would want to be one of two or three in the country that were incapable of meeting the standard. I cannot envisage that anybody in this House does not want the standard that I have described to be met. If the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks I am imposing too high a standard, I am sure that he wants some standard imposed, and I would welcome his contribution about the margin of error that he would regard as acceptable as far as the Electoral Commission is concerned. I have detected no one in this House who has not supported the proposition that we should try to do all that we can to get the 3.5 million people—a broadly accepted figure—who are not on the electoral register on to it. The effect of my amendment is not that everybody has to get on; it is that the local authorities have to make a reasonable effort to get them on. If they do, and if the Electoral Commission certifies that they have done all that they can, then, and only then, can this process start.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey, who I am delighted to see in his place, made a speech before dinner in which he made the point that if we proceed with this very significant change in relation to the drawing of the constituency boundaries on the basis of the December 2010 register, which is what the Government are proposing, we are going to build in the bias. Who is the bias against? It is against young people, those in private rented accommodation and members of the black and minority ethnic groups. It might be said that that group would tend to favour Labour or even the Liberal Democrats, but that is not the point. You do not want to start with a great section of our population—the young people—being disenfranchised because they do not want to vote.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The sentiments that the noble and learned Lord expresses are wholly admirable. One wants to get every single person on to the register, but as I apprehend it, the problem is not a technical one; it is that there is a mass of disaffected younger people in our country who simply cannot be bothered to vote. They are not galvanised to take part in the democratic process. How does he propose to overcome that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I know from my experience as the Minister responsible that if, for example, you do door-to-door inquiries, check who lives there, hand over a form to get on to the register, rather than sticking it in an envelope, and then go back and pick it up, you dramatically increase the number registered. My noble friend Lord McAvoy referred to the effort by the city of Glasgow. In my speech, I referred to the way that Manchester and Birmingham have 95 per cent registration because they are making the effort whereas London and Nottingham have 91 per cent, which is much lower. Picking up the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, work has been done to identify the practical steps that can be taken. That is why I am submitting that it is not unreasonable and does not impose an unreasonable burden on local authorities for the Electoral Commission to say that it expects good practice from everybody. Our democracy is crucial to the well-being of our society and only when all the local authorities have got to that standard, measured not by an absolute number but by doing the right thing, do we then move on to this particular approach in relation to registration. We then avoid the bias against young people, particularly in the BME communities and in the private rented sector.
Lord Desai
Does my noble and learned friend agree that, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said, whether people want to take part in voting is a secondary issue? The first issue is that we should never put any obstacles in the way of a person’s right to vote. A judgment, such as, “Oh, these guys are never going to vote so let us not register them”, would be much more damaging to democracy than allowing as many people as possible on the register and then leaving it to them to vote or not vote.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I certainly agree that we should not put any obstacles in their way, but I would go further perhaps than my noble friend Lord Desai. I do not know whether it will be the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who replies but I hope that they will perhaps give us some examples—I know that there are examples—of where registration efforts have had an effect. It is those efforts that I am trying to build into the system.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I was encouraged by him saying that he supports the sentiments of the amendment. If he supports the sentiments, perhaps I can persuade him that you can make a difference by what you do. If the Electoral Commission is set up to judge that everyone has done what they should, would not that, I ask rhetorically, have the effect of improving registration, which is what everyone in this House wants to achieve?
Our amendment addresses this problem. It sets a standard for the electoral register of the UK to be certified by the body in charge of such matters, the Electoral Commission, before the redrawing of the boundaries begins. The status of the electoral register matters. Correct counting of the numbers of those living in different parts of the country matters. The Christmas adjournment debate in another place on miscounting in certain London borough constituencies during the 2001 census shows the impact that can be wrought on local communities in terms of allocation of local services and resources.
We have heard throughout this debate that what this Government aim for is fair votes and fair representation. That has been the headline into which the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have resorted when seeking to justify this Bill. Basically, this amendment proposes that you have a starting point that means you have got as many people as you reasonably can on the register. It reflects the fact that these boundary reviews take time and that you should have reasonable time between the reviews so that the up-to-date process can be given effect to.
I respectfully believe that those are sensible and realistic proposals.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I wonder whether my noble and learned friend will press the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on something he said at the beginning of this debate. He referred to the informal party advisory group of which he is a member. Do we have an informal party advisory group for the Labour Party which meets with the Electoral Commission?
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord talked about a group. I am presuming that all parties belong to this group and not just the Liberal Party. It was the way the noble Lord phrased it. Forgive me: I will not press my noble and learned friend.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I can possibly help. I have said on the Floor of this House that it was the case when I was Speaker that the Electoral Commission had to report. There was a weakness in the Electoral Commission in that it would not allow former party agents in its membership. As a result, although there were former chief executives of local authorities, you never got someone like Jimmy Allison—God rest his soul—who used to be the wily agent of the Labour Party in Scotland. As a result, it was agreed that there would be an informal committee to give the type of advice that was needed when there were proposals for delivering leaflets and meeting the electorate. We all know that when you meet the electorate, sometimes you have to face an Alsatian dog, and when you get by the Alsatian, you get a Rottweiler. The chief executives did not really know about that, but Labour Party agents did.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I sat on the committee with the Speaker in which we discussed those matters, and I remember the setting up of the informal committee. Since then a Bill has been passed which allows former politicians to sit on it. Happily, your Lordships have answered all the questions so I have not been put in the embarrassing position of doing that which I am not allowed to do, which is to press the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because he is supposed to be pressing me in the course of this debate.
I have set out the reasons for this amendment. It is a very important amendment because it requires a justification as to why it is two and a half years, why we should not wait for an up-to-date register, and why gaps of five years are suggested. Those are the questions that this amendment raises. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble and learned friend is absolutely right that this is a very important amendment. It is double-barrelled in that it deals with two things. It deals with the redistribution to make sure that it is based on the real number as near as possible of people eligible to vote in a constituency, and it encourages people to register and to vote. It is important from the point of view of the redistribution of boundaries, but it also has a wider and more beneficial effect.
For the first aspect of this, I have an amendment, Amendment 89C, which I hope we will come to later this evening. I hesitate to say that it is better than my noble and learned friend’s amendment, but it is simpler because it just says that,
“for the purpose of this Act”,
the electorate will be taken as the number of people eligible to vote, not registered to vote. We can always find out the number of people who are eligible to vote through the census or whatever. I hope, in anticipation of that—which is why I am giving the Minister a bit of extra notice—he will look at his briefing. It is a simpler amendment and I hope it is one that the Government might accept.
However, my noble and learned friend’s amendment has the double advantage of getting people on to the register and, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, encouraging people to vote. There are lots of ways of doing that which we have discussed previously. One of those is compulsory voting. A number of colleagues were a bit doubtful and unsure about that, and with good reason. I say that because I have just been reading about the compulsory vote in Belgium, but because that country has a daft proportional representation system, which my noble friend Lord Grocott will particularly appreciate, it has not been able to form a Government for seven months, and the guy who was appointed to mediate between the various parties in order to try to get a government has just resigned. That is the sort of thing that happens when you have daft systems of proportional representation. Someone asked me who is running the Government in Belgium, and I said that I supposed it was the civil servants. They answered, “What’s different? Doesn’t that always happen?”. I hope that is not the case, but it is worrying that you can get to that position even with proportional representation and compulsory voting. You would think that that might improve the situation.
Lord Grocott
My noble friend referred to it as a “daft” system of proportional representation. For the benefit of the Committee, I wonder if he could list for us the good systems of proportional representation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
No, I cannot; there are not any. It is an even dafter system than the one included in the Bill.
What is proposed in the amendment has a very important aspect to it; that is, getting people on to the register. We should do everything that we can to achieve that. I am a little worried about the current situation, because, with public expenditure cuts, local authorities will spend less money on canvassing people to get on to the register. They will take the cheapest option of sending out letters once and hoping that they will be returned, instead of going round, knocking on doors, returning if they do not get a reply and really making sure that everyone in a household is on the register, which is vital.
It is not being party political or fighting the class war to say that it is much easier to get people to register when they are living in detached houses or houses that are easy to access. It is much more difficult to get to houses in multiple occupation; for example, tenements in Glasgow. Sometimes, you cannot get in through the main door to get up to the front door of the flat concerned to get people to register. It is therefore vital that we put in place a system or series of systems that encourage people to get their name on to the register and local authorities to get out and make sure that they reach as many people as possible. That is why the amendment needs our support.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that it is not a responsibility of the Electoral Commission. Well, if it is not the Electoral Commission’s responsibility, who is charged with it? It seems obvious that it should be the Electoral Commission, which has extended its responsibilities during the past few years. As my noble friend said, the commission now has on it political party representatives, including my noble friend Lord Kennedy, who understand what they are talking about in relation to these matters. The Electoral Commission should therefore be able to take on this extra responsibility.
The amendment would put a constraint on the Electoral Commission to certify that all reasonable steps had been taken and on government not to be able to progress until such certification was obtained. I hope that the Minister will understand the importance of getting as many people on the register as possible.
We are going now through a series of issues which ought not to be party political and on which we all ought to find common ground. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, are very old friends of mine—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has been for many years, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used to be one of my constituents—but I somehow get the impression that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, listens more to the arguments that are being put forward, picks them up and responds to them. I hope that that is a presage for his feeling able, on some of these issues which are not really party political, to say, “I’ll have a look at that. I’ll pick it up. I’ll go back and talk with my colleagues about it and then come back at Report stage”. The coalition Government would find the passage of this Bill, which has been difficult for them, a lot easier if they were to do that. I know that that is difficult for two reasons: first, because there is a coalition, with differences of opinion between the two parties, I am led to believe, on certain aspects of the Bill. I have no inside information—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is shaking his head—but I still think that there might be some differences of opinion. I know that that takes some time. I know also that Ministers in the other place have principal responsibility for this; Ministers in the Lords do not necessarily have ministerial and departmental responsibility and they therefore have to consult with Ministers in another place.
The third thing that will make it difficult for them is that there are two departments dealing with the Bill. There is the Ministry of Justice in which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is a Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister within the Cabinet Office also has responsibility. There are some differences of accountability there. Notwithstanding that—I am using this amendment but it will come up a lot in others and I hope I can be excused special pleading in relation to Amendment 89C—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not just come up with an argument against everything that we put forward. I hope that as time goes on and we go through the Bill this week, next week and the week after that, on issue after issue, he will look at this carefully. If he gives it that kind of positive response, he will find a lot more sympathy on this side of the House.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, can a local authority or the Electoral Commission speak with accuracy regarding steps being taken by a local authority? The amendment says that,
“every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”.
That does not mean that it has to be so exact that, as in the days when I was in engineering, you have to be half a thou within your measurement. The amendment says “all reasonable steps”.
I know through experience that the Electoral Commission is a well resourced body. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, had this experience, but it even said that it wanted copyright for a teaching pack to teach returning officers how to carry out their duties. That is the extent to which the Electoral Commission goes into these matters.
Talking about accuracy, my thoughts go back to the days when Strathclyde region was on the go and the famous poll tax was a big worry for every Member of Parliament in the west of Scotland. Strathclyde region took in the whole of the west of Scotland. People were deliberately staying off the electoral register. It was not a case of the man or woman of the house coming to the door and forgetting to say that one of the sons was working offshore but was resident in the household and therefore the canvass could be inaccurate to one person in a family because of the wrong information. This was particularly single people making sure that they stayed off the register to avoid the poll tax. It used to be called the community charge. That was a nice phrase. We called it the poll tax because that was what it was.
Mr James Woods was put in charge of electoral registration for the whole of Strathclyde. All the Members of Parliament for Strathclyde met him and said that the voters roll would be inaccurate. When it came to appeals and the Boundary Commission, a big matter would be the number of people on the electoral roll. He told us all, “Here is what I’ve done. Come and visit my department. I do a canvass and then I do a second canvass and if we suspect that there are people who are taking their names off the electoral roll, we make inquiries”.
There was also the question of people having two homes. Sometimes a wife would register in one home and a husband in the other to avoid a double poll tax. Mr Woods assured us that he was putting a high and accurate return on to the electoral register. It would be reasonable for the Electoral Commission to interview someone such as Mr Woods and ask, “What are you doing? What facilities have you got? We want to visit your premises and see what you are doing”. That would be good enough to give a certificate.
It must be remembered that people used to speak with fondness about a local authority called Saltcoats down on the Ayrshire coast which had the cheapest rents in Scotland—the reason being that it had no direct works department and was a small local authority. The local authority was so small it would even meet if it had to hire a foreman gardener. Local authorities such as that are no longer with us. Local government has been streamlined. There is often a criticism that some chief executives in local government get paid more than the Prime Minister of the day because of their large responsibilities. I do not wish to go into that as I would stray from the amendment but all local authorities that I know of in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland would be well able to hire a highly competent electoral registration officer who could easily convince the Electoral Commission to give the local authority a certificate to say that it is working to ensure an accurate register. If the Government had a worry about the Electoral Commission, it need not be the Electoral Commission but someone else. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned certification; certification is given to shipping, factories and other bodies.
Baroness Thornton
This is my first intervention in the Bill. I am pleased to join my happy band of colleagues to, I hope, help with the discussions. I want to get involved in the issue of voter registration in this part of the Bill because of my work with young people, particularly excluded ones, in a variety of charities and also because I am from Bradford. My title is Baroness Thornton, of Manningham. I suspect that Manningham in Bradford probably has one of the lowest records of voter registration in the whole of our city, for reasons that we will discuss in the next series of amendments.
We know that those who are absent from the registers are likely to be drawn from the same social groups as under-registered voters in previous decades. This is not a new issue. Variations in registration levels by age, social class and ethnicity have long been recognised and it is predominately densely populated urban areas with significant concentrations of mobile young people that have the highest levels of under-registration. That is why I, along with other noble Lords, support amendments pressing our concerns for different groups of our fellow citizens.
The Electoral Commission’s March 2010 report The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain highlights that matter. The report states that,
“there are some grounds to suggest that geographical variations in registration levels may have widened since the late 1990s. Available data sources suggest that registration rates in London appear to have stabilised, and may even have improved slightly, since the late 1990s. By contrast, English metropolitan districts appear to have experienced a clear fall in registration levels. Canvass response rates show a similar pattern. In 1996, the average canvass response rates for metropolitan districts were 93%, significantly higher than the 87% achieved by the average London borough. However, by 2004 the average response rate among London boroughs had risen slightly to 89%, while it had fallen to 84% in the English metropolitan districts. Despite improved response rates among metropolitan districts in 2008, the 90% average remained just below the 91% figure achieved by London boroughs”.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said, if the electoral roll is to be frozen as at 2010, how much more inaccurate will it be in those areas of the greatest vulnerability by 2015? We know that more than 3 million people are not on the electoral roll. How many more voters would the coalition Government find it acceptable not to appear on the electoral roll by 2015? I think that the Minister needs to answer those questions, given that millions of people—young people, ethnic minorities and people who live in rented accommodation in areas of high density—will in effect be disfranchised by the Government’s proposals.
Our amendment suggests, quite reasonably I think, that the Electoral Commission should ensure that the local authorities that have responsibility for the canvasses that produce the electoral roll should do their job as effectively and as efficiently as possible. I cannot see what is unreasonable about that. Indeed, our suggestion seems entirely proper, so I am surprised to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has a problem with it, as I cannot think what that problem would be. We need to get those 3.5 million people back on our electoral rolls and then—although, as my noble friend said, this is a different matter—to consider voting. I support Amendment 54A and I hope that the Government will do so as well.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I rise to speak on the role of the Electoral Commission, in which I, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others are involved. I apologise first to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for missing the opening phrases of his speech, but I know very well what his amendment is about and have considerable sympathy for it—indeed, I fully support it—as it deals with an important issue.
Of the two things that I want to say, the first relates to the Electoral Commission. When I have spoken on previous occasions when we have considered the Bill, I have not mentioned that I am a representative on the Electoral Commission’s parliamentary advisory group, which includes Members of both Houses and all parties. The parliamentary advisory group offers advice on the Electoral Commission’s proposals and the Electoral Commission listens to our comments.
Given that a number of problems with registration need to be looked at, there is certainly a case for having a debate—although perhaps not at this stage—on the role and powers of the Electoral Commission. The commission performs an important job, for which, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, pointed out, it is also well resourced. However, I think that the noble Lord would agree with me that one problem is the lack of real clarity on the commission’s powers to investigate and to make strong recommendations on the effectiveness of local authority registration processes. Various members of the Electoral Commission frequently mention—and the Members from the political parties who attend the parliamentary advisory group recognise—that, although the commission can try to persuade local authorities to drive up registration levels, it does not have the power to say, “This is not good enough, so we will not certify you”. Without that power, as I think was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, the local authorities ultimately do not need to try that hard.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and others have pointed out, we should all be able to agree that registration levels in this country could and should be far better. The current levels are not good enough. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Thornton quoted the Electoral Commission’s March 2010 report, which makes the point—this is true—that registration levels in London went up and then stabilised but appear to have gone down in other areas.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Given that the Electoral Commission does not have this power, was it not highly irresponsible of it to push individual registration on local authorities when it knew that it could not enforce it?
Lord Soley
There are two views about individual registration. I understand the argument, but this is not the time to have it. I accept my noble friend’s underlying point: if we are going to give the Electoral Commission the power to enforce in some way or to put heavy pressure on the local authority, we will need to think through some of these underlying issues, because there is a legitimate argument on both sides of the point that he has just raised—even though I have one particular view, which I suspect is the same as his.
Let me go back to my main point. If we are going to make sure that local authorities maximise registration, we really need to ensure not only that they have the time to do it but that we, as a Parliament, put the pressure on them to do it. Given that there is some acceptance that the Electoral Commission cannot enforce this as fully as one would like, the Government need to say that each local authority will be asked to demonstrate that it has maximised the registration on the voters roll in its area and that it will be asked for evidence of that, where there is a track record of its having a lower registration than other, similar authorities. That could be done in part by accepting these amendments, but there really needs to be some leadership from the Government on this issue.
The debate before the dinner break was on the crucial issue—it is a central issue for me—of the constitutional factor. We will return to that when my amendment comes up, which I suspect will not now be tonight. I hope that it will be on Wednesday. All of this is in the context of a Bill that is doing the very thing that I have said before that the Government are doing: presenting us with the image of a Government who do not care too much about the quality of our democracy and are determined to drive through the changes. In that sense, they have become an overpowerful Government. You can see that in the Public Bodies Bill or in this Bill, where they are determining the size of the House of Commons at the same time as they are increasing the numbers in the House of Lords to a position where they almost have a majority. All these things are deeply worrying. There is a massive increase in the use of Henry VIII powers, about which all the members of the Regulatory Reform Committee, including me, expressed their acute concern in their report on the Public Bodies Bill. All these things are coming together. The Government, simply in terms of their own image, need to demonstrate that they are taking these matters more seriously than they seem to be at the moment.
It troubles me, as it troubles other Members, that, particularly in the previous debate, which was so clearly on a matter of acute constitutional importance, virtually no one took part—except one Liberal Democrat Member—from the government Back Benches. I know, and I challenge the Government to deny this, that all the Back-Benchers from the political parties in the coalition have been instructed not to speak on that issue because it would take up time. I challenge them to deny that the Back-Benchers have been whipped not to take part in debates that add to the time on this Bill. That was particularly true in the previous debate.
Lord Soley
I will give way. I want to hear a clear indication that that did not happen, because I have been told that it did.
Viscount Eccles
I have received no such instruction. I would not expect to receive one, and if I did I would pay no attention to it.
Lord Soley
I am very encouraged by that. I have to say, though, that I would rather hear it from the Front Bench, because I am sure that this did not come round in the form of a letter or even an e-mail.
Lord Soley
I will give way in a moment, if I can take one intervention at a time. I know, as does everyone who has dealt with party politics, that you advise your group not to do something in meetings and by word of mouth. That is how it happens.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble Lord threw down the gauntlet and someone has to pick it up. Exactly as my noble friend has just said, no one has said any such thing, and if they did—I must not use unparliamentary language—I would not be impressed.
Lord Soley
I am delighted to hear that. I am sure that Members did not receive e-mails or letters of that type. However, I challenge the Front-Benchers again to give a clear indication that they did not tell Members on their Back Benches not to take part in the debate in a way that would add to the time taken on the Bill. I want to hear that.
Lord Soley
All I know is what I have been told. I respect people’s privacy, and I respect individuals who say that it has not happened; I am sure that people on this side would say the same. But I also know, from all my experience in Parliament and in this House, that it happens in all parties—I am talking not just about my party but about all parties, including mine; I have seen and heard it happen in all of them—that a recommendation goes out that you do not take part because that will use up time when a Government are worried about time on their Bill. We all know that that is what this Government are worried about. I would be less concerned about that if this were a conventional Bill, but on a constitutional Bill this is profoundly serious.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I am surprised to hear these suggestions. I have been here for some little time now and, needless to say, I have never had advice from anyone not to speak. I am assuming that no such advice has gone out from the opposition Front Bench to its Back Benches.
Lord Soley
With respect, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is one of those Members to whom no one would say that—just as they also would not say it to me, actually. But I know the way in which it works in all political parties: when a Government are worried about time on a Bill, they try to get their Back-Benchers to stay quiet and then they accuse the other side of filibustering. That is what we had today; the evidence is before people. In that major constitutional debate, only one Member from the Liberal Democrats, who suddenly got very angry about one aspect, spoke. Not one other Member spoke on the issue.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I cannot resist it when he is casting these aspersions across the Chamber. Can he assure the House that he has not received any instructions to waffle on ad nauseam on this issue?
Lord Soley
I most certainly can. What is more, I can go a bit further. At our meetings to discuss how to handle the Bill, there was a clear view that we should not filibuster. I say that categorically and give my word of honour. There was not one occasion when anybody supported the idea of filibustering. What we have seen this afternoon, sadly, is the reverse of a filibuster. A government party—or two parties—refused to take part in a serious debate about the constitutional matter of a Government taking on themselves the power to change the size of Parliament. That is a major issue. I do not want to make it directly relevant to this debate, which is becoming slightly off-side. I will simply say—and I will leave it on this point—that in a situation where a Government are allowed to change the size of a Parliament, you cannot deny that it is a major constitutional issue. The voting system is not. The voting system and even registration are not major constitutional issues. They are very important but they are not constitutional issues in the sense that changing the size of Parliament is.
Lord Martin of Springburn
Compared to the noble Lord, I am still an apprentice in the procedures of this House, but should we not be talking about the amendment before us? That might be the best thing to do.
Lord Soley
My noble friend still thinks that he is in his previous role. If he was in that role here, he would have ruled me out of order, which would be quite right. However, we do not have that system.
Lord Martin of Springburn
The noble Lord was the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He would never have allowed any Minister in the Labour Party to tell Members not to speak. That would have been an invitation for them to speak.
Lord Soley
I am not sure that I wholly agree with that. I certainly would not encourage people to speak, but let us be clear. Whips at all times have said, “If you speak on this from the other side, you will be here very late tonight. Alternatively, we won’t get the Bill passed in time”. What matters to the Government, on this Bill more than any other, is time. That is what this is about. We need to be very clear about it, which is why I say that what happened earlier was a filibuster in reverse. It was a silent filibuster, if you like. That does not alter the fact that, on this issue, my reason for arguing and the reason why we diverted is precisely that the registration of citizens is important in the voting process. In the context of a Bill that is incredibly important constitutionally because of the power to alter the size of Parliament, you cannot argue that this is irrelevant. It is an important part of it.
The Government need to show some willingness to move on these issues. If we agree that registration is not as good as it ought to be in this country and accept that at the moment the Electoral Commission does not have as much power and authority as one would like it to have to instruct local authorities, there is a duty on the Government to do more to make sure that representation on the electoral roll is as good as it can be. I would expect leadership from the Government on that. I would expect them to stand up and say, “Yes, we will do this and we will discuss with other political parties how to deliver it”. That is the sort of statement on which we need to get some cross-party agreement for a very important Bill.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, “more haste, less speed” is a maxim that every Lib Dem Minister in the coalition—and, perhaps, other Ministers—should pin up above their desks in large Day-Glo letters. We can see that the dynamic behind the Bill—and the reason why the coalition seeks to thrust it through as fast as it can—is the ambition of the Deputy Prime Minister to establish himself as an effective constitutional reformer and his anxiety that he does not have much time in which to do it. How very much more important it is to get it right than to do it hastily. That is why my noble friends were quite right to table this amendment which would place some restraint on the Boundary Commission process.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, talked about the Electoral Commission and the art of the possible. We ought also to consider what it is reasonable and realistic to expect the Boundary Commission to do. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in his opening remarks, the proposition in the Bill that the Boundary Commission will submit reports for the redrawing of effectively every constituency in the United Kingdom in a short period of some two and a half years before 1 October 2013 is not a sensible thing to undertake to do, and I do not think that it is a proper thing to undertake to do. While there are all sorts of reasons why it would be very difficult for the Boundary Commission to do that satisfactorily, not least because it would be impossible for the citizens of this country to have the opportunity to make their representations on the process in this abbreviated timescale, there is also the factor of electoral registration. This amendment, which focuses particularly on the indispensability of having a decent level of electoral registration before we draw the boundaries of the new constituencies, is absolutely right. You can reform electoral systems and constituency boundaries as much as you want but it will be a hollow process if you fail to ensure that those who should be the beneficiaries of these reforms—the citizens of this country—are in a position to benefit from them. If you merely reform without ensuring that people will be able to exercise their vote under your reformed system, it is effectively a case of “Hamlet” without the prince.
The reasons for declining turnout at successive elections over a considerable period of our modern history are mysterious and it is a very difficult phenomenon to understand. There are a number of proximate causes that we can see. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, drew the House’s attention to the decision by a significant number of people to drop off the electoral register when they saw the poll tax heading towards the statute book. Certainly, more of them did so after it had become law. That is one reason why, since the late 1980s, the electoral register has not had the respect and integrity that it had before then. There are other factors. We will see some new factors that will cause imperfections in the electoral register in our own time. One of them will, I fear, be the effect of housing benefit changes because more and more people, particularly tenants of private rented accommodation, will be on the move because they cannot afford to continue to live in the same place in which they were living. That will impair the electoral register; so will rising unemployment, particularly among people who have been employees in the public sector. They will also be on their bikes and on the road, trying to find work in new places. All that makes it more difficult to ensure that we will have an adequately up- to-date and comprehensive electoral register. Therefore, the pressure that this amendment would introduce into the system is extremely valuable.
I refer to another reason why we should be worried about what may happen to registration. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, as I am not confident that, as he said, local authorities will necessarily have the resources to employ more electoral registration officers. We are going to see very draconian reductions in local authority budgets and they will find it very difficult to do anything that is not mandatory. Anything that is discretionary expenditure will be difficult for them to take on board.
Lord Martin of Springburn
Given the size of local authorities, it is not a question of having more electoral officers but of having a specific official to look after electoral registration. That person in turn would give an account of his or her stewardship to the Electoral Commission. That is different from employing more people, and it is not the point. It will be a sad day, given the size of local authorities in the United Kingdom, when there is no official in charge of electoral registration.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I certainly share the noble Lord’s hope that that will indeed be the case, and it is important that it should be, because it will be more difficult for the regime which this amendment envisages to operate if local authorities do not have registration officers in place doing their work energetically and with adequate resources. It is something on which we will need to keep a careful eye. I do not have quite the confidence that he does that that will necessarily be the case.
I should like to make just one observation on paragraph (b) in Amendment 54A, in which my noble friends have proposed that the Boundary Commission should submit reports every sixth year, rather than every fifth year, after 2013. That is wise for a number of reasons, but at this time of the evening I shall mention only one of the reasons. If constituencies are to be redrawn—and perhaps quite radically redrawn—at pretty frequent intervals, it creates problems for political parties. If political parties have to be re-formed election by election—and we know that they will all have to be re-formed in the period between 2013 and 2015, if the election is postponed for that long, and at quite frequent intervals thereafter—that creates a lot of difficulties for political parties.
We know the problem—I suspect that all political parties share this problem—of securing an adequate membership. We need a degree of stability to ensure that political parties can perform their role. Healthy, thriving political parties are a precondition for healthy, thriving local government and for healthy, thriving parliamentary democracy. So I do not think that we want to cause upheaval in political parties any more frequently than is really necessary. Of course the Boundary Commission reviews need to be of sufficient frequency and of a regularity to ensure that they adequately reflect the changing composition of the population of this country. That is essential and we all acknowledge that. It is a question of judgment and of striking a balance between that imperative and what I think is also very desirable, which is not to keep on throwing the system up in the air and destabilising political parties. For that reason, the modest change that my noble friends have proposed—having reviews every six years rather than every five years—makes good, practical sense.
Lord Lipsey
The nearest that any noble Lord comes to being economical with the truth is when they stand up and say they are going to be brief. Let me try, for once, to ignore that rule and be brief.
First, we all agree that we need a better electoral register—that is common ground. Secondly, and slightly less obviously, the accuracy of the electoral register matters far more under the system that the Government are proposing for constituency boundary drawing than it does at the moment. The Boundary Commission now has reasonably wide discretion. If there is an extra elector here, the commission can make an adjustment there. It cannot do that under the Bill. If there is one voter more than the 5 per cent threshold, all the boundaries of that seat, and in consequence the boundaries of all the surrounding seats, need to be redrawn. An upheaval can rest on whether a single voter is registered.
I have a third point, and given that we are at Committee stage, perhaps we are allowed to inject new ideas into the debate. I can see why the Government are reluctant to go along with the excellent amendment moved by my noble and learned friend, because they think that it will delay the process. However, there is an alternative. Instead of the Boundary Commission trying to equalise the actual number of registered electors, it should try to equalise something different: notional registered electors—that is, the electorate as it would be if there was 100 per cent registration everywhere. That is perfectly achievable.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is exactly what my Amendment 89C proposes. The easiest solution would be for the three wise men on the Front Bench opposite to agree now to accept that amendment later when I move it.
Lord Lipsey
The noble Lord has led me to be even briefer, because I was about to refer to his Amendment 89C and to a similar amendment that I myself proposed. It is quite easy statistically to equalise notional electorates. It depends on, for example, the proportion of rented tenure in the given constituency. Perfectly good equations can be developed that pretty accurately project the notional electorate from the actual electorate. Equalise those within whatever limit the House may decide and you have a much more sensible approach than that which is in the current draft of the Bill.
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he accept, even if some of his colleagues would not, that one of the disincentives to registration is that people—perhaps particularly if they are transient through the area—think that if it is a very safe seat, their vote simply will not matter? It is the correlation between safe seats under the first past the post system and the disincentive not just to register but to bother to vote even if they do register. I think that at least he will accept that that is one other reason. How does he propose to tackle that problem if, as seems to be his colleagues’ wont, they want to resist any improvement to the electoral system?
Lord Lipsey
I am proposing to tackle it in the very same way as I hope he is proposing to tackle it—by voting yes to AV whenever we get round to the referendum, whether on 5 May or, as I hope, a later date.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I know that it is a shock to see somebody rise from this side but perhaps I, too, may make a speculative intervention following what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has said. I have not thought this through, but it seems to me that if it were possible to take the number of potential electors—let us call them that—as the governing yardstick for the size of constituencies, then Amendment 54A becomes unnecessary because one would then be in the position that all one needed to be satisfied about is that the local authorities had done their work properly in time for the election concerned. If, however, you take the system as it currently prevails, then the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is the way to go. But, as I say, it would take away one of the time constraints if one was to go down the Lipsey-Foulkes line, if I can call it that.
The other thing that is worth not forgetting—because a lot has been said about the difficulty, or more than difficulty, of having everything sorted out by 1 October 2013; a number of noble Lords opposite have made that point—is that paragraph 37 of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, states:
“The Boundary Commissions have confirmed that this timetable is achievable”.
That is to say, things will be sorted out by 1 October 2013. It, after all, should know what it is talking about. With that assurance, and with a new method of calculating the mean, it seems to me that Amendment 54A may not be necessary.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
First, I welcome greatly the fact that someone on the other side is actually participating properly in the debate—genuinely debating and listening to the debate. I can reassure him. Just in case the Government are preparing to say, “We cannot work out, or we do not know, what the notional figure, or the actual electorate, is”, how can they say that 91 per cent are registered here, or 85 per cent are registered there? There is no way of calculating the percentage unless they know the number of people eligible to vote.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has just quoted from a Boundary Commission document, which states that this is achievable.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I hesitate to interrupt, but the quotation was from a report not of the Boundary Commission but of our own Select Committee on the Constitution, which is rather more important in this respect.
Lord Campbell-Savours
It may well be achievable but on the basis of a deficient register. That is at the core of our complaint. We do not accept that the review should take place on the back of a deficient register.
I do not challenge my noble friend Lord Soley, but I do put it to him that when the Electoral Commission tells him that registration rates in London have gone up, that is at variance with the statistics that have been published by the Office for National Statistics in Wales. The director-general wrote to Chris Ruane, a Member in the other House who has led the charge on this issue over recent years. He has tabled hundreds if not thousands of Questions, and has a library of statistics that is of great interest to those of us who take an interest in these matters. In June of last year, the director-general of the Office for National Statistics in Wales wrote to him:
“I have been asked to reply to your question asking what the electorate was in each year since 1997 in the 100 parliamentary seats which have had the largest decrease in the number of electors on the register since that date … This is the latest year for which comparable data are available”.
One can look at where the London boroughs stand in this table of the bottom 100. I will start from the bottom of the table. Kensington and Chelsea, the Cities of London and Westminster, Regent’s Park and North Kensington, Holborn and St Pancras, Hampstead and Highgate, Hammersmith and Fulham, North Southwark and Bermondsey, Islington South and Finsbury, Brent East—I intervene at this stage to suggest that they are not doing well in London, despite what the Electoral Commission might say—Wimbledon, Vauxhall, Tottenham, Lewisham, Deptford, Islington, Hackney. There are more that I could reel off.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, tells us that the problem does not necessarily arise in the way that we suggest because many of these are safe seats where people do not think that it is worth voting. I argue that most of the seats in London that I referred to are highly marginal.
Lord Soley
The figures that my noble friend gives are very important. I will look at them and draw them to the attention of the Electoral Commission to get its response. Without being sure what we are comparing here, it is difficult to be confident. The statement about the London boroughs was, to the best of my memory, that registration had gone up and stabilised. That was in the last report of the Electoral Commission. I do not know what date the statement related to, but I am happy to take on board the figures and ask for an explanation of them.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I may tell my noble friend exactly what the figures relate to. The percentages were calculated using the mid-2007 population estimates for parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom of those aged 18 and above and the number of people registered to vote in parliamentary elections on 1 December 2007. We have a clear description of what we are talking about. No doubt the Electoral Commission will pore over our contributions to this debate and respond to us accordingly.
I turn to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. He knows that I have huge respect for him. We have worked on many issues over the years. However, I found his intervention extraordinary. It was almost like the intervention of a government Back-Bencher in the House of Commons desperately defending the position taken by the Government when clearly there is a deficiency in that position. What he is arguing essentially is that it would be acceptable for the Boundary Commission of England and Wales to set boundaries and to change those boundaries on the basis of every local authority having not taken,
“reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”.
That proposition is ludicrous.
I suspect that the Government will resist this amendment because they know that local authorities will not have the resources available. The issue has been raised by my noble friends, and I have discussed the Bill with a number of electoral registration officers in the past month, to which I have referred on previous occasions. They make it absolutely clear when I speak to them discreetly that they are very concerned about what might happen to their budgets in conditions of declining local authority expenditure. I cannot see how the Government can assure us that we will gain the high levels of registration that are required when they know that they are subject to these cuts. They know equally that local authority budgets are not ring-fenced, and I hold our own Labour Government responsible for that. We allowed local authorities to proceed on the basis that those budgets would not be ring-fenced. If we had decided to ring-fence them at the time, we might not be arguing as we are arguing today. We are arguing in fear of the fact that we know that electoral registration levels will not be as high as they should be.
I have another reason. I think that the Government are not prepared to secure the high levels of registration in the inner cities that are essential to make registration work. When we dealt with the Bill on electoral registration, I talked to electoral registration officers the first time the Labour Government tried to push through individual registration in the teeth of opposition from some of us. This was about 2006 when my noble friend Lord Bach was in Committee. He will remember the amendments that I moved to try to block individual registration. The fact is that parts of Britain’s inner cities are completely inaccessible to electoral registration officers. There are no-go areas in Britain’s inner cities. There are places where you cannot send canvassers. You cannot pay them to go into those areas because they are frightened of violence.
When I raised that problem on a previous occasion, people said that it did not arise. Why do they not go into the inner cities and talk to the people who have to knock on doors, ask the questions and hand over the forms? There is a real problem here. I had a number of conversations with electoral registration officers and I felt so angry that I wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, when it was inquiring into the Electoral Commission a few years back, to complain that the commission had failed to consider that matter when it was pushing electoral registration on Members of Parliament in the hope that they would get Parliament to approve individual registration. It got it in the end because the Government backed the recommendation.
Lord Tyler
If the situation is as dire as the noble Lord suggests in a minority but nevertheless presumably in a number of local authorities, I do not understand how the requirements of his noble friend’s amendment could possibly be met.
Lord Campbell-Savours
That is precisely the point. The amendment says that,
“all reasonable steps to ensure”,
must be taken. We might well have to invest additional resources in the inner cities for canvassing teams to go around with forms to ensure that people are being properly registered. Unless there is an enforcement regime to deal with that problem, you will not get the electoral registration levels that are required.
Furthermore, the problem is escalating. I intervened on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, last week on when the subsequent boundary review—not the next one—will take place. It will take place on the basis of a register that he has drawn up on individual registration. I see a much larger problem arising in the long term, in perhaps seven or eight years’ time—not at the next election, but at the election after—which Parliament has not even begun to consider. When we dealt with this matter during the course of the Bill on electoral registration, we did not consider it because we did not realise that we would be faced with the nonsense that we are being faced with today.
As I said, I do not believe that the resources are there. They must be made available to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible before the Boundary Commission can complete its work.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, bearing in mind the late time of the evening, I will also try to be relatively brief. First, I apologise to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton for missing the first moments of his moving the amendment. I am inspired to speak by an encounter with my friend with a small ‘f’, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who earlier this evening urged me to speak in the debate because he had missed my dulcet tones, as he put it. I am always at the disposal of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, referred to Strathclyde Regional Council’s electoral registration duties. I was for five years a councillor on Strathclyde Regional Council, and I can testify to the noble Lord’s account of how it took its duties seriously. We were severely affected in Scotland and—my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport has referred to this—are still affected by the poll tax. The integrity, the aura, if you like, of the electoral register has been damaged. It is no longer an article of faith to make sure that you are registered. Lasting damage has been done to democracy by the imposition of the poll tax.
In discussing the Bill, I keep thinking that something is ajar or unbalanced. This is a constitutional Bill. One combination of votes in a House of Parliament can force through constitutional change, especially in a House where, previously, no single combination had the majority to deliver such legislation. I know that some people will jump up and say, “We are a coalition; we are still Conservatives and Liberals”. In this place, the Government are a combined operation and have a majority. That is unhealthy. This is a constitutional Bill, so that is entirely wrong. The rush to get it through is causing problems. It is causing problems for the Government, because I can read people's faces to a certain extent, and although the noble Lords on the Front Bench try very hard, they are not convincing all their Members. At this stage, most of them are voting for it—I think that the occasional Peer may vanish—but they are not winning the intellectual argument, because those on our Front Bench are putting the case.
The rush through this House is causing strains. It is causing noble Lords on the government Front Bench to act in a manner which, with two exceptions, is foreign to their character. I do not know about the third one, but certainly for two of them it is foreign to their character. Surely the electoral register has to be right before we start drawing boundaries on the basis of it.
The amendment would ensure that the Boundary Commission had to do everything “reasonable”—that is the key word—to ensure that people were registered to vote. Earlier, a noble Lord mentioned that we cannot make folk vote. As a noble friend of mine said, that is a different argument. It is our job as parliamentarians—Government and loyal Opposition—to ensure that people want to register and have that choice. It would be outrageous if they did not have that choice. If they do not vote, that is a condemnation of us all. We all have a duty to try to get there, but no one party or combination of parties should have the power to legislate, especially when it is changing the constitution of the country.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I promise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that I will genuinely be brief. I had not intended intervening in this debate, but it occurred to me as I was listening that if, for some bizarre reason, BBC Parliament and Radio 1 got confused and Radio 1 listeners had to listen to the nature of the debate we have had tonight, they would assume that this House had been overtaken by Martians because we are talking geek language. We are geeks, and we live the language of electoral registers and the necessity to get people involved in the democratic process.
But if we take it right back to basics, we have to be honest on all sides of this House that the craft of politics is held in very low regard in this country at the present time. We have an opportunity with this amendment to go some little way towards trying to restore that. This should not be a partisan point. Those of us interested in democracy and in the constitution of this country do so from the best possible motives. The way in which the Bill is crafted reads as if the lowest common denominator would be acceptable; that is, to get a register regardless of how accurate that register is.
If we are to make a breakthrough particularly with young people, disadvantaged people and those who feel that they are outside the system, if they turn up at a polling place and find that they are not on that register, we will have undone all the work that all of us in this House want to see done to re-engage people with the craft of politics. I urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—I know that his freedom of manoeuvre is limited—at least to say that he will look at these issues and the very important points that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made in his introductory remarks. The fact that a complete review has to be made of every constituency in this country is a measure of the scale of what is involved here. If the coalition Government were prepared to look at that, I am sure that we could together work to find a way that would help to reassure people that at least the lowest common denominator is not acceptable.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for this amendment, which has given us an opportunity to raise the two issues—the double barrels, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, referred to it—of the timetable for the boundary review and the very important issue of trying to ensure that the electoral register is as accurate as it can be. In the spirit of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes, I want to make it clear that this should not be a partisan issue with regard to trying to ensure that as many people who are eligible to register do register.
Perhaps I should also say at the outset, if it keeps the noble Lord, Lord Soley, happy, that I have not asked any of my colleagues not to speak. I know full well what their reaction would be if I tried to do so. Maybe he will interpret my not asking them not to speak as being to encourage them—I hope noble Lords follow me.
Lord Soley
I want it to be clear that no one on the government payroll has asked Members not to speak because of the time that it takes.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think that I have made it clear that I have not asked any of my colleagues not to speak. I am not quite sure that I could make it any clearer than that.
With regard to the timetable, the indication we have given is that we wish the changes in Part 2 to be in effect for the election due to take place in May 2015. One could say that that is dependent on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, but in any event, even under our present constitutional arrangements for the timing of elections, the latest date would be May 2015. It is the wish of the Government that constituency sizes should be of an equal size in time for that election. That is why we are asking the Boundary Commissions to bring forward their reports by October 2013. That would give time between the reports—one for each constituent nation of the United Kingdom—being published and an opportunity for the parties, the importance of which I think someone mentioned, to gear up, as it were, to what will be different boundaries.
With regard to the issue that I think was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about whether this is feasible, my noble friend Lord Phillips quoted from the Constitution Committee report where the Boundary Commission had indicated that it would be feasible. In giving evidence to the committee in another place, the secretary of the Boundary Commission for Wales said:
“I don’t think the timescales for Wales are going to be too challenging”.
The question was then directed to the secretary of the Boundary Commission for England, which is obviously much larger. He said:
“Taking a potential worst case scenario, based upon what is in the Bill in front of us, the initial view of myself and the Commission is that the timetable is achievable”.
The noble and learned Lord went on to ask why not do this in two and a half years every time, and why institute five-yearly reviews after that? The reason is that a five-yearly review would mean that there would be a boundary review in each Parliament. If he thinks about it, with a two and a half year or three-year review, you could have two reviews within one Parliament and a boundary review producing constituencies for an election that would not take place. I am sure he agrees that that would be farcical. That is the reason for the five-yearly review, and later we will debate other amendments regarding seven and eight year reviews. As was noted by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, the second part of the amendment has a six-yearly review. We believe that a review every five years would mean that in each Parliament, if the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill goes through, there is less likely to be disruption. The more frequent the reviews, the less the opportunity for wide divergence and therefore the less would be the likelihood of disruption.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I wish to intervene very briefly on the quotations used by the noble and learned Lord from the secretaries of the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, when they gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place. The note I have confirms that the secretary of the Boundary Commission for England said that the timetable was “achievable but tight” and that,
“extra resources would certainly be needed”.
I do not know what date it is assumed that the process would start and what extra resources would be provided.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am not making any presumption about the date it will start because it would depend on Royal Assent, and therefore I am not going to speculate on when that might be. I know that the noble and learned Lord has a later amendment regarding resources, tabled for the avoidance of doubt. When we come to it, he will see that it is not necessary because as the Bill stands, the resources ought to be there to be drawn on for the purposes of this review. If he thinks about it, given all the comments made by noble Lords opposite about the Government wishing to get this piece of legislation through, they are hardly likely to wish then to frustrate it through lack of resources. That is perhaps self-evident. We will have a better opportunity to discuss the level of resources when we come to that particular amendment, but I would assure him that we do not anticipate that the issue of resources will be a barrier to the timetable being delivered.
Perhaps we may move on to the other barrel of the amendment, which would have the effect of delaying the boundary reviews until such time as,
“the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”.
That is quite a steep requirement. My noble friend Lord Tyler questioned whether it would be appropriate for the Electoral Commission to make subjective judgments in cases that could have major consequences for a boundary review, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised some of the practical difficulties that again were picked up in an exchange with my noble friend Lord Tyler. I would simply observe that if the Electoral Commission decided that, in its judgment, one local authority in the whole of the United Kingdom had not done this, a boundary review could be put off indefinitely. It certainly would not be in time for the 2015 election, it might not be in time for the 2020 election, and it might not even be in time for the 2025 election. That is the possible logical consequence of the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord.
If there was a problem with a boundary review where the baseline for the review would be 1 December 2010, if we held elections in 2020 or 2025 where the boundaries for England were based on a baseline of data from the year 2000, that really does not address the very legitimate issues he has raised with regard to people who might be eligible to vote but might not be on the electoral roll.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the Minister really think that it is fair to draw boundaries in the inner cities on the basis of electoral registration figures that have been damaged by the fact that a whole canvass was not possible? Surely that full canvass has to be completed and maximum registration achieved before we can even begin to consider redrawing the boundaries. By not agreeing with me, the Minister is conceding, in the case of the argument about violence, that violence in many ways pays.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am only indicating that it could be a circumstance in which the Electoral Commission may take that view. All the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, identified may well have been addressed, but there may be a recalcitrant council somewhere in the country which, for one reason or another, has not done that.
I remind the Committee that electoral registration officers are under a statutory duty to compile and maintain comprehensive and accurate electoral registers. It is not as if it is a voluntary activity; there is an obligation on local authorities to compile as best they can comprehensive and accurate electoral registers. As was commented on earlier, the Electoral Commission’s report on performance standards for electoral registration officers in Great Britain, published in March, showed that just under 96 per cent of electoral registration officers met the completeness and accuracy of electoral registration records standard this year.
I salute what Glasgow has done—the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, mentioned this—and that should be the model. It is important that we have as accurate and comprehensive registers as possible. It is worth reminding the Committee that another report of the Electoral Commission, The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain, also published in March, stated that the UK’s registration rate of 91 to 92 per cent compared well with other countries. I am sure that that touches on the question of notional registration, which I am sure we will debate further when we come to Amendment 89C—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for advance notice of it. The 91 to 92 per cent figure for completeness is derived from the 2000 census, but it is an approximate measure. It could not form the basis of a boundary review as it does not provide sufficiently robust data to give confidence for something such as a boundary review. However, I take the noble Lord’s point and I shall carefully look at his amendment before we come to debate it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Is the noble and learned Lord saying that this reforming Government are really satisfied that the present condition of electoral registers will do, that they are as complete and accurate as they need to be, and that it is therefore perfectly acceptable to go ahead with the boundary reforms on the timescale that is written into the Bill? Is he really saying that we can be complacent and be satisfied with the state of affairs that we have at the moment, particularly in the light of what my noble friend said about Bradford?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am rather disappointed because I have tried my best to listen to what noble Lords have said, and I rather regret that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, did not listen to me at the very outset when I said that I hoped that there was common ground in our not being satisfied that people who are eligible to be on the electoral roll are not. That should concern noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber. I apologise if I did not make that clear enough to the noble Lord.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Is the Minister saying that he is happy for the legislation to proceed on the basis of the present condition of electoral registers?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am saying that I do not believe that it is an either/or. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, mentioned the previous Labour Government. I think it is fair to say that 3.5 million people have not suddenly disappeared from the electoral register since 5 May 2010. Indeed, the figures which the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, gave related to mid-2008. It is a problem that occurred under the previous Administration; it is a problem which we must address. It is not as if we are sitting back; we are being far from complacent. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, said that there should be some leadership. I indicate to him and to the Committee that a pilot will be launched for local authorities to compare the electoral register against public databases to identify people who are not currently on the register.
There are other things, such as the door-to-door canvass, which has been referred to, and the importance of going back to contact people who have not responded, which there is an obligation to do. It is important that councils use their own data, such as council tax data. Some do and I understand that some do not, but it is important that they use that data. There ought to be other data. We are looking at using public databases to identify people not currently on the register—for example, the national insurance and DVLA databases. Those are the pilots that we want to set up.
Lord Maxton
I am delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord say that, because we have to use all the public databases available to us to ensure that we have an accurate register. We should start with a register and then check off its accuracy rather than the other way around. Could school records be included? That is one source where you know that someone leaves school at the age of 16 and you know where they live. Would it be possible to use those data for the electoral register?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I hesitate because I do not want to say anything definite if there are data protection problems, but that is a positive suggestion and one that I will no doubt look at to see if it can be done. The noble Lord is absolutely right. It is one possible way and if it can legitimately be done I am sure that it will help. The pilots will be tried later this year. The precise locations have yet to be confirmed, but a report will be published by the Electoral Commission towards the end of the year. When pilots have been run, it will be possible to broaden the scope.
This is not an either/or. It is important that we do this. However, if we were to proceed with the amendment, not only is it possible that one or two councils would not be certified by the Electoral Commission before the 2025 election, but even on the basis of the 2015 election we would still be using data for England that would be 15 years old. If there are 3.5 million people missing, I suspect that the data for 2000 are even more damaging. There is a difference between the data that are used for calculating the numbers for the constituencies and the important objective year in, year out to make sure that the electoral roll is as up to date as possible and that people are on it who ought to be on it.
Baroness McDonagh
I thank the Minister for his comments. I certainly appreciate some of the things that he is looking at. However, to return to the point about evaluation of the registration system used by the Government, is he aware that this is self-assessment and that there is no independent validation of the system that the Electoral Commission uses? Will he look at an independent validation of the system?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I hesitate because I am not entirely sure that I fully understand what the noble Baroness is asking me to do. I am sure that it is one of the things that I can look at in the record.
Baroness McDonagh
My point is that the figure that the noble and learned Lord is using of 96 per cent validation that the register has been compiled to the best of the person’s ability is completed by the person operating the system. They are the ones who sign a form to say that the work has been done adequately. There is no independent validation of the electoral registration system in this country. As part of the process that he is looking at in terms of data and so on, will he look at whether it is possible to have an independent validation of the system that is operated, as happens in most other government agencies?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
There are two points there. The first is that the figure that we have been using of 96 per cent comes from a report published by the Electoral Commission. It was not published by the Government. That is a matter that will need to be taken up with the Electoral Commission. The point that the noble Baroness has made will be drawn to the Electoral Commission’s attention. The second point underlines that it is not necessarily the wisest move to say that the Electoral Commission then has to make a subjective judgment as to whether the terms and conditions of the certification that is inherent in this amendment are met.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Following what my noble friend said, why can there not be a random selection, a pilot project, to check whether the statistics to which my noble friend referred are accurate? It might well be that local authorities are not submitting particularly accurate returns. I presume that these figures from local authorities come from electoral registration departments. They could maybe take a dozen local authorities in various parts of this country and check whether that is the case. Secondly, when the Minister referred to the pilot projects before, is it true that the pilots, and the registration levels that arise as a result, will not influence the statistics that are to be used by the Boundary Commission in its review?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The first point is, as I have indicated, a matter for the Electoral Commission. At least two noble Lords in this debate—the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and my noble friend Lord Tyler—have identified themselves as advisers to the Electoral Commission. These points will have been noted.
As I confirmed in a debate before the Christmas Recess, the base for this boundary review was this 1 December past and the next one will be 1 December 2015, if this Bill goes through in full. That is more likely to be able to take account of the information from these pilots, and, I hope, broaden that out. I understand that there are issues on the Benches opposite about individual registration. It is more likely that these will be taken into account quicker than were we to wait for the day when certification comes from the Electoral Commission, as is proposed in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am grateful for the trouble that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has taken here. As he rightly says, there are two bits to this. The first part of my amendment questions the proposition that you could effectively complete a review of every constituency in this country by October 2013, which is what the Bill proposes, when there is agreement across the House that hitherto it has taken between six and seven years to complete such a review. I was looking for the reasons why that which hitherto has taken six to seven years can be dealt with between the date upon which this Bill gets Royal Assent—a date we know not but assume is some time in the next few months—and October 2013.
The evidence that the noble and learned Lord relied on was that the secretaries of the Boundary Commissions had said to the Political and Constitutional Committee that they think it can be done but—he might have disputed this—that the timetable would be tight. How will it be done? I do not know and it strikes me, from my knowledge of the way that such bodies operate, that to manage a much more complicated and difficult review than they have ever done before—it will touch every single constituency in the country—sounds unrealistic. I do not in any way criticise the noble and learned Lord for his answer but it did not really offer an explanation to me that provided any consistency on how this marvellous process could be done so much more quickly.
The second point is that we should really make efforts to ensure that people who are not registered are registered. The noble and learned Lord made the quite valid point that surely not every single local authority has to comply. Maybe we should have some rule or process that says “substantially all” local authorities should comply, but that was his only point. I am willing to be guided by him: he might produce some proposal if he thinks mine is too draconian. Let us give more room for manoeuvre. Every single person who has spoken in the debate has said that we should do something about under-registration. If our idea was too draconian, I would have expected the noble and learned Lord to have come forward with some idea about how we would achieve that which appears to be an aim shared by all Members of the Committee.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for taking the trouble to respond in the way that he did, but I have to say that his reply was disappointing. Of course I will not ask the Committee to divide at this time of night, but I will certainly come back on Report with an amendment to deal with the unrealistic timetable for the first review and to propose how one might deal with the issue of under-registration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.